Saying that God might exist is not the same at all as believing that Jesus is the son of god because your parents told you he was. For sure there are philosophical questions we don't have the answers to, no doubt about that. So I never say that a god or many gods or whatever cannot exist to explain that.. I DON'T KNOW. That's the point. I DON'T KNOW. What I say that you can't believe anything you're told, that's different.. I can invent you a dozen religions in one day.. but they will be all bull.. how are you gonna know if it's true or not if I'm a good liar?? And of course religions have declined during this century. I know almost nobody who goes to the church.. Why that? because people are more educated, and they're beginning to wonder if it's not all bs. What I find funy is people who say that religion have to evolve because the world changes. It is so stupid!! AHAH.. they realize it's getting harder to bull people so they're trying to "update" their bull. LOL..

Where did I prove myself wrong? Of course humans have a psychological need to believe. Otherwise, why would they beleive in the first place? Why wouldn't they say.. ok, I don't have the answer to this and that, and that's it? Why do they preach, go to the church and stuff like that? They wouldn't do that if they didn't like it.. When the conquistadores arrived in central america and took over the aztecs, the aztecs changed their religion. They became evey bit as convinced about Jesus and stuff than what they beleived before. So it's not what people believe in which is important. It's just the fact to have answers to some answers to feel better. Why isn't it 5% of the population who have a religion, instead of 90%? many religions, all different, doesn't matter.. it's because it is a NEED. It comforts them to believe. It makes life easier, it gives a meaning to their life, etc.. Scientists have even identified a part of the brain which is related to religion.. that's crazy isn't it? the God spot it's called or something like that. Why do soldiers pray before going to combat? they are in the most critical situation in their life and they pray?? Why do they waste time praying if it's not a NEED? And the guy they're gonna fight also prays.. something different but it doesn't matter.. everybody prays.. People need to believe, they can't accept the fact that when they die it's over, that their life makes no sense, that they are just animals, etc.. if they were to believe that their life would be harder and it simply would reduce their chances of survival. The need to believe has been acquired in our species by natural selection.. Finaly, the current large religion are extremely effective at bullting people. It is really impressive.. I look at the christian religion, and gee.. it's phenomenal.. I couldn't have done better!!

Oh because there are great religions and silly religions.. lol.. the different is that the great religions are better at bullting people and have spread more for whatever reasons, that's all. And of course religions have cause a lot of wars. And in fact if those religions had not fought each other like that, or defended themselves by KILLING people - which is theoretically prohibited -, they would HAVE DISAPPEARED, just like MANY, even MOST, have disappeared. The fact that the christian religion is so widespread is because of all the colonizations that have been done by the spanish, the french, and the british. It was not a nice colonization.. they arrived there and IMPOSED their religion. But it was never any more true than before those colonizations took place. And of course the people who were colonized took it all for granted.. but they could have invaded by another country with another religion.. huh...

Not that that they are right, but that living among such people - as students do - undoubtedly distorts ones perceptions. I see not reason to doubt Uchiita is who she says she is - and I have some private indicators others at Strategy page may take her seriously as well. I have invited her to participate in a real academic discussion group - and if she does we will know soon enough if she is serious>>>>> Thanks for the vote of confidence Cid, and for the decoding of some of the more abusive terminology being bandied about this board. I am European, so forgive my lack of knowledge. Can I ask where you posted your invitation for the discussion group because I can't find it...? I'll give you some more background so you have more of an idea where I'm coming from. I have nothing to hide. Cid is right when he says that I am part of the academic liberal left. I am preparing to start my masters, which starts next August, in Defense and Strategy. Up until now I have been working in the field of corporate ethics and industrial conflict resolution in India, and have also been involved in research and human rights observation work. My academic background is in moral philosophy and sociology. I have family members currently serving in Iraq. I have spent extensive periods of time in South-East Asia and Latin America, but I do not, as yet, claim to be a specialist in any region. Aside from my interest in ethics and geopolitics, I have an interest in the impact of the arms trade, the relationship between it and narco-terrorism. I also have an interest in the stockpiling, sales and use of chemical, biological, and nuclear technology in Asia. I could have chosen to do the Masters in Peace Studies, or some other related sociology discipline, but have chosen another path for two reasons. Firstly, it is much easier to protest against war than it is to build peace, and secondly, as Cid rightly points out, universities around the world, but especially in my native Europe tend to present a rather one-sided view of the world. Regardless of whether or not that view is one that I agree with, I don't think this situation that persists in academia is very healthy, and leads to all sorts of mental laziness. My hope is that I will develop sorely-needed habits of 'seeking first to understand, then to be understood'. This is why I have chosen to take my masters back in South Asia where the majority of the students and lecturers are in the military. This is a harder path as, quite obviously, my views will be in the minority. At the moment I am in South Korea extending my knowledge of Asia, and of course, preparing for my future studies. I am for real - I am here to learn, with respect, and not to flame, although I'm prepared, naturally for some differences in opinion. All I ask is that those who are obviously passionate about what they believe to respect the right to open discussion. If you take issue with anything I say, please list the points and counter arguments in a logical fashion. In particular, please don't hesitate to correct any factual inaccuracies. I would also be really grateful if you could list sources of statistical information when you quote them. This will enable me to cross-reference discussions with my reading material. I have stomach for differing opinions- I am a heart a pluralist, internationalist and am passionate about the right to free expression -but I have no stomach for abuse. I would ask particularly OW and GRUM to allow me to learn from them. With respect, Uchiita

The abuse at the prison--unacceptable. But removing women from our military...you talk about respect but must not understand or respect our views on the freedom of our citizens. Want me to respect your views, respect ours.

>>I don't think this situation that persists in academia is very healthy, and leads to all sorts of mental laziness.--newgirl<< Well here's hoping you can overcome that handicap. >>I would ask particularly OW and GRUM to allow me to learn from them. With respect,Uchiita<< Speaking for me, No problem, just stay a respectful 1/2 step behind, and don't get in my face, unless you've got something more than leftist EuroTrash to offer from your kit! Now to correct the faulty impression that elFib conveyed viz the "Blanket Party". Long before there was the cancer of Political Correctness(PC) in the military ranks, the Troops used to have a 'Within the Company' system of policing their own. Such a system for instance, allowed a young officer who misplaced his sidearm through carelessness to avoid what would now be, a court martial offence -- leading to a ruined career -- before it even got started. Blanket parties too, were part of the that in house(Barracks or Boats) system, and was rarely, if ever, used to punish homosexuals! As it would've been much more desirable to the Unit to rid the service of such undesirable behavioral problems via official channels. NO! Blanket parties were reserved by the enlisted ranks as a means to get the attention of salvagable troops. For instance a Blanket Party might have been used to transport a lil stinker to the showers for a lesson on Personal hygiene. Or a thief to the power of penitence! Yes, if some 'sadsack' had damaged the reputation, performace of, or endangered his Military Unit, he may well have earned some anonymous lumps in his blanket. More likely though, his Top-Kick or Petty Officer would have him scrubbing the deck with his tooth brush Or pushing a piece out on the grinder all weekend! Now as for your thin skin and abuse! Remember, it was you who trotted in here with a 'EuroTude' and flamed the US Government for ignoring RAPE and TOASTED children in Iraq! You rightly, caught some flak from Grum, and then from me for that smarmy entrance! If you want to seriously participate here, state your case seriously, and back it up with referenced citations! And don't cry the blues when you get burned by some of your own flames! On Watch -- Let's Roll

If you want in on cids invitation contact me at [email protected]. Oh, and as a matter of courtesy could I have a reply to my post, could be short or detailed, as to with regard to the Just War Theory question you posed?.

Of course you can - but it is precisely because of courtesy that I don't want to blurt out the first stuff that come into my (extremely tired) head. I'm drafting a response, but it will take another 12-16 hours, and there are a couple of things in your post which I want to check out before I answer them. I working split shifts, and I'm across the dateline from where you are (most likely), and I had aproximately two hours sleep last night. Take care Uchiita Uchi

It is not so much that you are perfectly 100% wrong, but your overbroad statements are perfectly 100% false because you do not use the necessary qualifiers which would allow them to be true. There are indeed people who engage in religious debate - in fact a great number of people. There are indeed religions that encourage thinking, and even require it. But even for people who just believe what their parents, teachers and friends believe, and never think critically about it, religion is usually a force encouraging moral behavior, not a force favoring aggressive behaviors, individually or nationally. To the degree people just accept what is taught, they are taught things generally worth teaching. In my city, after Promise Keepers met with at risk students in one Junior High, the school district asked for volunteers in every school. There are secular leaders calling for more religion in our culture, because they see tangible benefits. I submit you do not see them only due to prejudice. Get out in the world of real counseling, and be open minded, and you will apologize for your past statements (I bet).

I bet you are not a community leader. If you associate with organizations filled with politicians, owners and administrators of companies, or major institutions (say educational), you will find the proportion who are active in church is very disproportionately represented. In my city, the ratio is about 4:1. Only President Clinton was not a mamber of the Shriners - and they require belief in God for membership. And even he claimed to be a Baptist (athough I have yet to meet a Baptist who is not embarassed by that claim).