Translate

Friday, July 29, 2011

'If You Love Jesus, Launch A Nuke.'


Stanley Kubrick's movie/film Dr Strangelove was thought to be a comedy, but like all good comedy, there has to be an element of reality for it to be funny.  The question the film addresses is how do the people whose job it is to maintain and launch nuclear weapons cope psychologically with the awful responsibility they have, to potentially or actually kill hundreds of thousands of their fellow human beings?  Kubrick saw the need for the characters in his movie to go progressively mad.  That, of course is not good enough for the modern day USAF.  Instead they are encouraging their nuclear missile launch crews to go religious.  Personnel are put through 'Jesus Loves Nukes' classes.  I just wonder how The Prince Of Peace would see this latest interpretation of his teachings.  



Extract of article below - Bosetti, who is represented by MRFF, said he believes the intent of quoting Bible passages was to make officers feel "comfortable" about launching nuclear weapons and signing a legal document stating they had "no moral qualms" about "turning the key" if ordered to do so.








GLOBAL RESEARCH

The Air Force has been mired in numerous religious scandals [12] over the past decade and has been sued for allowing widespread proselytization at the Air Force Academy in Colorado Springs. It has been citing Christian teachings in its missile officer training materials for at least a decade.
One Air Force officer currently on active duty, who spoke to Truthout on condition of anonymity because he was not authorized to speak with the media, said he was trained as a missile officer in 2001 and vividly recalls how the chaplain leading the training session on the ethics of launching nuclear weapons said, "the American Catholic Church and their leadership says it's ok in their eyes to launch nukes."

Last year, however, Archbishop Celestino Migliore, the Vatican representative to the United Nations, said [13] in speeches in Washington and New York City that "nuclear weapons are no longer just for deterrence but have become entrenched in the military doctrines of the major powers."

"The conditions that prevailed during the Cold War, which gave a basis for the [Catholic] Church's limited toleration of nuclear deterrence, no longer apply in a consistent and effective manner," the Archbishop said.

The 381st Training Group and 392nd Training Squadron are responsible for training every Air Force Space and Missile Officer. Several emails and phone calls left for spokespeople at Vandenberg Air Force Base, where the squadron is based, were not returned. The PowerPoint identifies Chaplain Capt. Shin Soh as leading the nuclear ethics presentation.

One of the ethical questions contained in the PowerPoint presented to missile officers asks: "Can you imagine a set of circumstances that would warrant a nuclear launch from the US, knowing that it would kill thousands of non-combatants?

Another question trainees are confronted with asks: "Can we train physically, emotionally and spiritually for a job we hope we never have to do?"

To help officers answer these ethical queries, the PowerPoint presentation cites numerous examples of characters from the New and Old Testament fighting "just" wars. For example, "Abraham organized an army to rescue Lot," God motivated "judges (Samson, Deborah, Barak) to fight and deliver Israel from foreign oppressors," and "David is a warrior who is also a 'man after God's own heart.'"

Also included in the PowerPoint presentation is a slide containing a passage from the Book of Revelation that attempts to explain how Jesus Christ, as the "mighty warrior," believed war to be "just."

It goes on to say that there are "many examples of believers [who] engaged in wars in Old Testament" in a "righteous way" and notes there is "no pacifistic sentiment in mainstream Jewish history."

The PowerPoint documents' blatant use of religious imagery and its numerous citations of the Bible would appear to be a violation of the First Amendment establishing a wall of separation between church and state and Clause 3, Article 6 of the Constitution, which specifically prohibits a "religious test."

Weinstein, a graduate of the Air Force Academy and a former Air Force Judge Advocate General (JAG), said a section of the PowerPoint presentation that has been cited by MRFF clients as being at the top of the list of "unconstitutional outrages" is the one "which wretchedly asserts that war is both ethical and part of 'the natural order' of man's existence on earth."

"Astonishingly, the training presentation grotesquely attempts to justify that unconscionable concept of 'war is good because Jesus says it is' by specifically textually referencing allegedly supportive bible passages from the New Testament Books of Luke, Acts, Hebrews, Timothy and, finally even Revelation," said Weinstein, a former White House counsel during the Reagan administration. "If this repugnant nuclear missile training is not Constitutionally violative of both the 'no religious test' mandate of the Constitution and the First Amendment's No Establishment Clause then those bedrock legal principles simply do not exist."

A senior Air Force Space and Missile officer who reviewed the materials, said the teachings are "an outrage of the highest order."

"No way in hell should this have been presented as a mandatory briefing to ALL in the basic missiles class," the officer, who requested anonymity, said in an email. "It presumes ALL missile officers are religious and specifically in need of CHRISTIAN justification for their service.
"If they wanted to help people with their spiritual/religious/secular justification for serving as missile officers, then they should've said something like 'for those of you with religious concerns about missile duty, we've arranged the following times to chat with chaplains from your particular faith group.' For those with secular concerns about the morality of missile duty, we'll have a discussion moderated by a professor [and/or] counselor, a noted ethicist, too. If you're already good with your role and duty as a missile officer, then you're welcome to hit the golf course or gym."

The senior Air Force officer added that the commander of the training squadron "that approved this, along with the Training Group Commander at Vandenberg, should be fired instantly for allowing it."

"Jesus Loves Nukes"

Former Air Force Capt. Damon Bosetti, 27, who attended missile officer training in 2006 and was stationed at Malmstrom Air Force Base in Great Falls, Montana, said he and his colleagues used to call the religious section of the ethics training the "Jesus loves nukes speech."

"What I went through in 2006 didn't have that level of inappropriateness in it, but it was still strongly religious," he said of the PowerPoint presentation the Air Force now uses for training missile officers.

Bosetti, who is represented by MRFF, said he believes the intent of quoting Bible passages was to make officers feel "comfortable" about launching nuclear weapons and signing a legal document stating they had "no moral qualms" about "turning the key" if ordered to do so.

The legal document from the Department of the Air Force, Air Education and Training Command, which was also released under the FOIA, states, in part, "I will perform duties involving the operation of nuclear-armed ICBMs and will launch them if lawfully ordered to do so by the President of the United States or his lawful successor." [emphasis in document]

Bosetti, an officer who left active duty in the Air Force last year, said officers were immediately presented with the three-page document to sign after the end of the training session on nuclear ethics.

"I think the average American would be and should be very disturbed to know that people go through training where the Air Force quotes the Bible," Bosetti said. "This type of teaching sets a dangerous precedent because no one above you is objecting. It shifts the group definition of acceptable behavior more and more off track.
"
Weinstein said the combination of citing fundamentalist Christianity and a Nazi scientist as a way of explaining to missile officers why launching nuclear weapons is ethical is a new low for the Air Force.

"Leave it to the United States Air Force to find a way to dictate the 'ethical' value of nuclear war and it's inevitable role in the 'natural order' of humanity's existence, to it's missile launch officer trainees by merging unadulterated, fundamentalist Christian end times Armageddon doctrines with the tortured 'people who are guided by the bible' endorsements of a former, leading Nazi SS official," said Weinstein.




FULL ARTICLE 

AND THEN WATCH THIS....


ZEITGEIST THE MOVIE.

'I don't know what God is but I know what it isn't.  There are lies everywhere.  You have to seek the truth and know the truth.  Then the truth will set you free.'

Thanks to Robert Ceuppens for the link to Zeitgeist ftom Facebook.

It is most appropriate.  The first 30 minutes is really interesting and restful (mostly) to watch, although it is a touch soulless.  The next hour is gruelling to watch, but it tells the true story of   the current situation in the world.  The comments show that readers find the film is working their minds.

12 comments:

Derek said...

Thanks for posting the Zeitgeist link. I had watched it before, but the link made me watch again. Something every one should do. Two hours of, at times excessive editing, but not without the effect of revealing much that most people do not, will not, and fear to accept. Vital knowledge reconstructing all that has been fed us through the media, politicians, and established history books.

Some won't like it. But it's not to be liked - it's to inform.

Me said...

That film pokes fun at religion, which does the globalist psy-op for them. They want to break down religious belief so they can remould you to worship them.

Jesus was not a myth and there is a God. That is a rational statement. Non-religious people, if they are not unbelievers because they are ignorant, are ritualistic and simply worship the four syllable "there is no God" rather than the one syllable one. If they are humanists they are monotheistic and hold ceremonies grafted from Christianity, and if they are something else they are polytheistic.

But of course the story of Jesus would was influenced by pre-existing ideas. It's like someone learning Christmas isn't on the date Jesus was actually born. Jesus died on cross for our salvation, was resurrected and ascended to heaven. That's what makes Jesus Jesus and this had no historical precedent in the world of ideas before Him - not that if it was it would invalidate either.

Tapestry said...

Religious belief is very personal. I find it reassuring that religion hasn't changed as much as all that over thousands of years. I like Irsigler's view's on Christ's teachings, and how his love of peace and hatred of war and slavery, were later watered down by the Roman state before Christianity could become the state's religion.

Jesus' teachings were in direct contravention of the needs of the Roman State which is why he became such an enemy, and they rubbed him out.

States like slavery and warfare. People don't, including me. I guess that makes me a Christian fundamentalist!!!

Zeigeist was unnecessarily strong in denial of Christ's life, teachings and existence, I would agree. But I loved the historical aspect, nonetheless.

It is interesting that the USAF is just like the Romans, needing to justify slavery and war. They had to get into the Old Testament though to find their references. There's not much that's pro-war in the New.

Me said...

This is the level of rigour in Zeitgeist.

At 35 minutes in, tries to claim Jesus was Joseph.


Joseph
"Of twelve Brothers"
= 12

Jesus
"Had twelve disciples"
= 13

That's wrong. The coincidence exists only in the way it's phrased by the author.

Joseph had a "miracle birth." That's not true. His mother was not a virgin, either. She was married. Joseph was a surprise birth and they credited God.

Joseph was sold for 20 pieces of silver. He was sold into slavery. That was common at that time, and silver was the currency of the classical world, so it was not unusual to be sold for silver.

Jesus was betrayed, not "sold" for 30 pieces of silver, not 20.

Furthermore Jesus was predicted in the Old Testament. He fulfilled Old Testament prophecy.

What I've seen of Zeitgeist cheap, cartoonish junk. It even has a cartoon God jiggling about in a cartoon cloud.

Derek said...

I think the 'cartoon God' jiggling about in the clouds was a poke at those who believe such is the image so often referred to as God - as he may actually exist. You may see such images in many places, the Sistine Chapel for one.

The religion that bedecks itself with pomp and robery is but a cabal of man made priests pontificating their 'splendour' and putting 'mere mortals' in awe. Every religion has its stories and myths, its calendars of ceremonies and some bloodthirsty ones at that. You cannot prove these events happened as they are told in text - which has many double, triple, and quadruple entendres such as the translator chooses, and you cannot prove they did not happen - hence they become myths. Myths rely on a belief system. George Carlin put it on the nail.

Something I see all religious believers, is the desire to label and pigeon-hole those who do not share their particular and specific belief - to the point of ridicule and even death. 'Peace be with you, but you may go to War and kill in the name of God, for he is not like us'.

Categorise me as you wish, but note - I don't wear a label, I have a name but even that was given without my consent, so please do not pigeon-hole this person. I am by a given name - a derek. That is all I am.

Religion I see as a control tool, and one that sets man against man on the basis of a belief, that when examined makes all the believers subservient to a common deity – an unknown, unseen, unheard, but believed-in deity - often in opposing positions, yet the deity is of a common belief - that ‘a’ God really does exist. Is this not absurd? If it were not the cause of such bloodshed, would it not be laughable?

Instead of believing, try loving instead. Not material things, not deities, not even people you do not know, but life itself, the very energy we are made up from.

The 'Church' in local communities has done much to improve the lot of many. But was it the religion, or the simple coming together of people wishing to help one another? No religion is required to accomplish such a feat - none at all. It is people that matter, it is for the people to decide. You could decide right now - it's as simple as a thought.

Religion is not the batteries in the new toy which will not function without their emplacement, it is a device to herd and control the toys, it creates ‘sides’. It is the basis of much evil. It is the great fraud that sets one against another.

I would recommend watching Zeitgeist Addendum, it concentrates on the financial aspects (and far less over editing), and has John Perkins speaking of the roles of economic hit-men, listing the regimes and countries taken and raped of their resources through first economic bribes, and if that fails, Jackals, and if that fails, military invasion.

Jacque Frescoe's Venus project I have difficulty with though he has much to speak of with which I empathise, and the narrators understanding of a Globe powered by 'renewables' as we currently understand them is very questionable, but he does pay lip service to systems yet to be discovered.

http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=7065205277695921912&hl=en

Me said...

Derek, all moral belief is based on ritual and can be called "religion". Humanism is a great example. It's a religion. It has ministers, baptism rituals, marriage rites and sacred texts. It worships the four syllable "there is no God".

Okay, atheism is a religion. The globalist's slandering of religion is for political purpose, to change your morals from good to bad. That's not to say institutions can't be corrupted, of course they can. There's a difference between religious people, religious text (data that codes the religious beliefs and behaviours) and religious institutions. Geniuses spout off "religion" is bad without unpacking what this term means. It basically becomes an ad homenim design to make people appear cleverer (than religious people who have morals), which benefits the globalists.

Derek said...

You have just proven my point, that all 'believers' cannot understand those who have no religion - everyone must be labelled as 'something'.

I have no religion, I just am. I have no other ritual than waking, sleeping, and eating. No globalisation, nothing to worship, and I live each day without such psychological fences created by indoctrinated moralists. I have morals, and do consider that anyone with none must equate to some sort of criminality, and I am no criminal in the Common Law sense.

churchmousec said...

A bit more information about Zeitgeist which is worthwhile reading:

http://thezeitgeistmovements.wordpress.com/links/

Derek said...

Thanks for the link Churchmouse.

The 'movement', as opposd to the 'film' are in my mind two different entities. I have little interest in 'movements' as most are fuelled by some power struggler of profiteer. Nothing wrong with making profit, but not from scams. I am not a member of the zeitgeist movement, and won't be.

The Venus project gives me the chills as do the two interviewees. A pretty battery farm for selected humans. But with every brave idea there comes the antedote or slap down. The clever bit is in discovering who is doing the slapping.

There has to be balance. What we have is wrong. What is proposed may equally be as wrong - for many. But the essence of the monetary scam and its history is widely known. Money holds the power, and without it in the present scenario, we might as well be battery chickens.

It is vital peoples knowledge horizons are widened and such films are able to do just that - they are dramatic and catch the attention. The alternative is to wade through reams of internet links that would keep you from living any kind of life beyond the screen.

An analogy might be to choose reading the script for a new high adventure film, or just watching the film. Personally I would rather read a book of the story, but given the choice of script or film - I'd take the film.

Sheitgeist - Zeitgeist - which is which?

Derek said...

Perhaps this flavour is more acceptable. (Same message though).

The New World Order, the Final Solution:

Three parts:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1qwB6yeHWaQ&feature=mfu_in_order&list=UL

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SrZZYiezniU&feature=related

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jjU2aKITy4g&feature=related

Tapestry said...

USAF is trying to run with an updated version of 'Praise The Lord And Pass The Ammunition.'

In reality, it should be 'Raise Our Profits. Keep firing lots of missiles.'

Toad Hall said...

Derek, I really relate to your first post (and subsequent ones).

My parents are very religious, but from a young child I resisted it whilst my siblings embraced it. It just didn't make sense. I used to ask questions in bible studies on Sunday that would be mocked but never answered.

During my teens I used to mock my parents beliefs, I've stopped that now. Because as an adult I respect and honour them for the unconditional love, support and parenting they have given me. Not always perfect, but the best they could offer. So I do not with to upset or offend them by insulting or attacking their belief systems, however absurd they may seem to me.

For my parents at last, in the twilight years of their life, I don't think they are mentally able to live a life without the life long belief and faith they have had. It would be like removing the spine from the body and expecting it to still stand up straight.

Despite the fact that I don't belief or have faith in religion, it doesn't bother me that others do. I don't feel the need to attack them, nor do I feel the need to make them see my point of view.

Regardless of what you do or do not believe in, what is clear, is that the hidden hands of power that are clearly at work, do not live by any of the moral codes of any religions.

Because there is no justification for their behaviour, which is repugnant.