Courageous

Nope. I have never sworn, even throughout highschool.university. I say "hell" sometimes, sometimes in the "hella"-suffix context for fun which some religious consider a swear word but since they also consider it a geographical place I find that funny. Or is it like Beetlejuice where if you say it 3 times it appears?!

I have never been in a situation where I felt the need to sacrifice my vernacular was worth risking eternal damnation. Or is it just that perhaps I am moral without the need of persuasion-by-fear? Maher on the other hand... Well he has his show on HBO for a reason lol.

Maher is not Canadian. But I would patriate him if I was supreme ruler.

 

Bill Maher - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Says he was born in NY and American, and I trust wikipedia more than a journal somewhere

Movie for movie, I can do that.

 

It is an annoyance to me that if someone insists that there is a purple unicorn in his back yard, society will tell him he's crazy; but if I tell people they are crazy for insisting that there's a magical man in the sky, society tells me I'm being rude.

As for swearing, I do it less than I used to, but I still do it when I feel the need. Language is an organic system, which changes constantly, and where words often have disparate and even contradictory meanings, and phrases often do not mean what a literal interpretation would sugest. The phrase "to take a pee" actually means to expell pee. The phrase "yeah, right" can mean agreement or disagreement, depending on the intonation.

So I sometimes use the GD word, or the GD-to-H phrase when in fact I intend no reference to the make-believe man in the sky, and I sometimes use the F word when I actually mean no reference to the sex act. The OMG phrase, which in extreme cases sometimes becomes OM(F-ing)G can be an expression of wonder and awe, again without reference to the aforementioned supposed man in the sky.

However, I do not say "I swear to god" when I want to convince someone I'm telling the truth about something. I say instead "I give you my word." When I took the stand at my own trial, the bailiff asked "Do you swear to tell the truth [...] so help you god?" and I replied "There is no god. But I will tell the truth." (Which I did.) It wasn't really an issue, though, as the facts were not in dispute. My testimony consisted of an explanation of WHY I had been digging a hole in the ground next to a missile silo. (The "why" being that nuclear weapons are terrorist weapons of indiscriminate mass destruction that inevitably kill civilians when detonated, and therefore violate the Geneva conventions, as well as violating the principles of every religion and every non-theological humanist philosophy, and that using them can only be described as cold-blooded mass murder. I've never understood why "Christians" do not rise up in protest against such an un-Christian atrocity.)

Oops. Sorry for the digression.

:focus:

 

Maybe I should have left the stale bait alone, instead of throwing it back. I don't understand why those who cry 'persecution!' keep bringing up religion.

 

Actually, you would have been on firmer legal ground if you would have cited the Law of Armed Conflict (LOAC...or "Laws of War")
The four Geneva Convention treaties deal more with the people than the weapons systems.
Source Wiki:
"the Geneva Conventions are about people in [ame="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/War"]war[/ame], the articles do not address [ame="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Warfare"]warfare[/ame] proper — the use of [ame="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Weapon"]weapons[/ame] of war — which is the subject of the [ame="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hague_Conventions_of_1899_and_1907"]Hague Conventions[/ame] (First Hague Conference, 1899; Second Hague Conference 1907), and the [ame="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Biological_warfare"]bio[/ame]–[ame="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chemical_warfare"]chemical[/ame] warfare [ame="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Geneva_Protocol"]Geneva Protocol[/ame] ..."

You'll have to share that story sometime. Sounds interesting, but please! Be very careful when tinkering around Nuclear Weapons Storage facilities!!!!
We never really had any problems with protesters since we were usually under water (hard to dig down there), and when we were tied up pierside, we had Marines to help guard our boat.
The Air Force uses dogs. We use Marines....they're easier to train.

If you see a sign that looks something like this:


Please! Go dig somewhere else!!!

 

(The following is meant to be pure humor)---

If there actually is a purple unicorn in the back yard, the result you describe is unchanged, but the situation is rather different.

 

Saw this Marines bumper sticker once:

USMC: When it positively absolutely has to be destroyed overnight

 

Yeah…..
You have to LOVE the Green Machine!!!
I’m not sure that I would want to use them for a border patrol, since their idea of force escalation goes from M-16 to F-16----but they’re really great to have around when you want to sleep good at night!

Sorry for the digression from Daniel’s digression.

We now return to our regularly scheduled religious (*cough!*)…discussion…already in progress.

 

No better friend, no worse enemy.

 

I believe that Daniel walks the walk, actually doing time in the big house to support his core beliefs, not something most of us can claim. I will let him tell the tale if he wishes.

Icarus

 

Concur.
Although he and I would probably differ on the issue, I'm all about listening to differing points of view.
Well....unless the exchange gets childish or abusive.

The movie (Courageous) is worth a look. That's my opinion. Unlike some, I've actually seen it.
YMMV.
Like I said earlier, if you're looking for violence, skin, or gee-wizz special effects, or if you're an anti-theist, you might want to give it a pass. Movies aren't getting any cheaper, even with discounted tickets.
If you tend to tear up at movies, bring some tissues.

Peace.

 

I've told the story before. I'm not averse to telling it again, but I'll try to stay closer to my original digression here.

In court it was not my intention to make a detailed legal argument. Others have done that. I mentioned that nukes violate both international law and U.S. code of conduct in war by indiscriminately killing non-combatants, but my principal argument was the moral one, that killing unarmed civilians is indefensible and is cold-blooded murder. I wanted the jury to think of the real human beings, hundreds of thousands of them, that would be killed by that one missile I was digging at, rather than the abstract legal issues.

As for any chance I had of actually reaching or setting off the missile (a few uninformed people have asked me "What if you set it off?") if one person with a pick and a shovel could set off one of these missiles, then they are far more dangerous than even I say they are!

As for deadly force, it's always a risk when protesting, but to their credit, the airmen who guard the Minuteman missiles generally use no more force than needed when arresting protesters. I did not embark on this lightly. I knew I would most likely go to prison for it, and I thought the six months I actually got was the most likely length of time. I knew there was a small (really very small) chance that I'd come to harm, but I viewed the missile, with its three thermonuclear warheads, poised to incinerate several hundred thousand people, was an evil far too great for me to stand idle merely because of the trespass laws or the warning signs. In keeping with the principles of nonviolence, as set out by Gandhi and M.L. King, Jr., I made no effort to avoid arrest, and I acted respectfully toward the guards who arrested me, as well as the guards and my fellow inmates in prison.

Nobody should enter into something like this lightly, and those deadly force signs should be taken seriously. But if you feel something is wrong, and you are willing to accept the consequences, and you act in a peaceful and respectful manner towards everyone, then I applaud those who engage in nonviolent civil disobedience.

And to make at least a token reference to the thread topic: I have never understood how Christians could accept the deaths of innocents in war. My reading of the Bible is that Jesus condemns all violence, even against people who have hurt you. But even if you reject that reading, how can a Christian possibly accept modern warfare methods that inevitably kill children and other innocent people?

 

America has a long and very proud tradition of 'civil disobedience' going back even further than Thoreau's work on the subject, which inspired future civil leaders like Gandhi and King, and countless others---most of which were thoughtful and courageous (there's the thread tie-in, folks!)
I'm not going to try to defend SIOP.
It's pointless. Putting the cat back into the bag has always beel a LOT tougher than letting it out.

I can only say that I view them much as I view my personal carry weapons.
There is NOTHING on my property that is worth a human life. Period!
However (comma!) if you smash down my door and come into my house at zero-dark-thirty, there is a very good chance that somebody is going to the hospital with a gunshot wound.
No...it's not the "Christian" thing to do.
My home defense weapon of choice is a shotgun...loaded with birdshot. In addition to not having to worry about sending jacketed rounds zinging through several layers of sheetrock, there's a very good chance that my target will survive the encounter, and while that's not my overarching concern (it holds 8 shells! ) I would be happier if the trespasser just wet his pants and beat a hasty retreat, than I would having to put about a zillion little pellets into his (or her) torso.
My personal carry weapon is a 5-shot, snub-nosed, magnum revolver, with a bird load in the first hole. Same deal.
I always get derided for this choice by "range experts" for it's short range and limited capacity.
My answer: If the target is more than 50' away, I'm not going to stick around to fight him (or her.) My job is slinging wire, NOT taking and holding ground, or fighting crime.
You see.....a pistol can be a defensive weapon, or an offensive one. It really just depends on who is behind the trigger.

National defense is much more complicated of course, but I've thought long and very hard about this subject during the several years I've actually spent underwater aboard a "nuclear capable" platform.
Personally? I do not think that Christianity is incompatible with a strong nuclear deterrence. That's my take.
YMMV.
I applaud Daniel's actions for their respect and non-violence. Like us Christians, the anti-nuke protesters have their "ambassadors" that do not live up to their high moral standards.
The Navy (and Marines) have three core values: Honor, Courage, Commitment.
The film that launched this thread explores all three of these values, and takes its name from the second. It's really no different (religion notwithstanding) than Daniels actions in protesting nuclear weapons.
Whether you're raising a kid, protesting for civil rights, or just fixing phones for a living, you have to live by a code of conduct.....sometimes "courageously!"

....and sometimes not.

 

Just an update, I have yet to find a time to see Courageous in the theatre. It is only playing in 2 theatres in town and each of them are only showing it during the day, or about 6pm... I guess they use the screens for better grossing movies during peak times (i.e. when I am available).

I have resorted to trying to find a CAM taping or a dvd screener leak. I will fulfill my promise and apologize for it taking longer than anticipated.

Also, if you want a more comedic movie that isn't anti-religion but just pokes fun at the notion, I recommend "The Invention of Lying". Of course you can take it as just a funny romantic comedy too. Big stars in it, I laughed quite a bit.