The Right Spin

As of late many a Congressman (usually with a "D" at the end of their name) and certian activists have been howling for the closing of the terrorist prison in Guantanamo Bay, Cuba. The usual reason given is: "It gives the terrorists recruitment material!" If one were to take a smidge more than two-seconds looking at that statement they would realize how tremendously stupid it is. The plain and simple fact is that as long as America is what she is terrorists will have all the recuitment incentive it needs. A prison in Cuba gives them nothing more than they already had. Additionally, would these same Congressmen suggest we close prisons in the U.S. because criminals tend not to like them either? Indeed, in many urban communities, spending a term in prison is a badge of honor. So, from a twisted point-of-view, prisons encourage crime. Well, by golly, lets do away with the whole system!

Even if it were proven that Gitmo caused a spike in terrorist numbers, which it never will be, I'd still keep it open. Why? Well, where would you keep them? I certianly don't want them on American soil. Additionally, we need facilities to process terrorist prisoners. The War on Terror isn't a fishing expidetion. There's no catch-and-release here. And if prisoners are released they are done so because they are no longer deemed useful to hold. We got all the intel we could out of them. Will some return to their bomb strapping ways? Perhaps. But, surely, you're not suggesting we keep them indefinately? That would be cruel. Here at home we release prisoners after their term is spent. Even when we know many of them will be repeat offenders. Why the additional warm-fuzziness to terrorists that we do not even afford our own?

Also, why are the policies of this nation being dictated on what our enemies might do? Shouldn't it be the other way around? Should they be afraid of what we might do? Well, they do get CNN and there are plenty of politicians giving them the feeling that the former is more likely to happen. We know Al Qaeda is telling their memebers, should they get captured, to lie about what's happening to them while in captivity. We know they're telling terrorists, who are released, to spread these lies to any news outlet they can. They know the useful idiots in the U.S. government will take this and run. Nevermind the fact that should things go arwy in Gitmo (or even Abu Grabe for that matter) it's the U.S. government that comes forward about it first! Since people like throwing the word "gulag" about I ask this: How times did the Soviet Union come forward about its human rights abuses during the Cold War? I only ask because they actually had gulags. What's the worst that has been done to terrorists while in U.S. custody? Sexual humilation. That's it and frankly I don't really care. These people target civilians and the innocent simply because they don't like they way they live. I'll start getting upset about the way these cowards are treated after they start dying in forced labor camps - what gulags really were. And I'll also start caring about the "recruitment power" of the prisons once the world realizes that there is no where else to put them short of the wrong end of a firing squad. And even then I won't care all that much.

But to show I'm not completely unreasonable I submit this: When Al Qaeda starts to prosecute terrorists who behead non-cambatants (or combatants for that matter but they tend to be harder to nab what with them being actually armed and all) I'll give Gitmo the once over it deserves. And then I'll promptly throw my support behind the American men and women on the ground killing those terrorist SOBs wherever they hide.

Semper Fi!

Anyone who knows me knows I'm a fan of J. Michael Strazynski's. He created Babylon 5, possibly the greatest sci-fi series ever after the original Star Trek, wrote Rising Stars, probably one of the most original takes on the superhero concept ever (X-Men should have been this), and numberious other things. Now, I haven't liked everything he's written (Midnight Nation and Babylon 5: Crusade I could have done without) but even those I find somewhat entertaining. However, the political and religious JMS I have issues with. First, he's liberal to the point on some issues I cannot even see where he's coming from on some issues. That's fine - nothing wrong with disagreement. I just wanted to let people know we disagree politically on most things. He's also an athiest. But he's quite fair with all religions Christianity in particular. The B5 episode, "And The Rock Cried Out, No Hiding Place" makes this quite clear. That said, he has gripes with the Bible I find most athiests do. I'm not talking purely scientific gripes (though I'm sure he has them) but theological grips. It's these I've come to address one at a time. I know he'll never read this but I feel like talking anyway. Note: He also takes the Church to task but most of his barbs are saved for the Great Bearded One.

And personally, I think that the Divine should be at least as moral and upright as the average human being, don't you?

It should not deliberately and falsely punish people like Galileo for the crime of being right.

He's quite right. It was Church dogma that Galileo sinned against not God. I think that's obvious to anyone.

It should not be a jealous god, a trait we find petty and embarrassing in ourselves when we detect it.

We find that trait petty and embarrassing in our fellow man because they have no right to feel they way they do toward the object of their jealousy. The same simply cannot be said of God. God is the Creator of existance and as such He has the right to get angry when not reconized as such or when such reconition is given to someone (or something) else. Quite simply, God is the only being in existance who has the right to be jealous.

It should not be capricious and prejudicial, should be accessible to the gentle strains of wisdom and discussion.

Ah, this reminds me of the Greeks. They were quite fond of their mental prowess but the problem is this: God's ways run counter to man's ways. Our natures are quite different and therefore what may seem reasonable to us might well be completely ludicrious to God. Yes, flexing our mental muscles can get us a long way to finding God (look at C.S. Lewis) but it cannot get us all the way there. At some point our mental facilities will fail us and we must go on faith.

It should not have created the fly, or plague bacilli.

It's quite possible that The Fall corrupted the original form of these things into what we know them to be today. There's a common misconception that The Fall was limited to destroying man's relationship with God. This isn't so. It also turned the natural order on it's head. It corrupted not just our spirit but our very physical being. Indeed, I daresay, when sin entered into the world so too did entropy.

It should have warned Adam about the snake at the same time it mentioned the Apple.

The Serpent, Satan, was not a threat at this point. It had no power over Adam or Eve directly. As Christians know, the only power Satan has over the Saved is that which we give him. That's it. He, in all senses, is a toothless, declawed, frail, weak lion. He's still got his roar but that's it. So, Adam didn't need to know who Satan was or what he was trying to do. Adam already knew God and knew what God commanded - that was enough. Adam knew all he needed to know. Eat the apple and die. Why would knowing about Satan make this any clearer? Adam knew the truth yet decided to ignore it anyway. You can't blame the salesman for selling you a lemon when you knew it was a lemon before even going to the lot.

It should be powerful enough that it would not allow its name to be used to bolster the engines of war, for the greater destruction of lives, innocence and the future.

Freewill's a bitch.

It should have been willing to hire a good editor, because the poetry of Job and the lyricism of Psalms is much diminished by the banality of Deuteronomy and the pounding relentlessness of Numbers.

So the fact the the entire Bible isn't lytically pleasing is a black mark on God? Each of the books he lists perform specific tasks and have differing goals in mind. Numbers and Deuteronomy are about laws and rituals. The foundations of a nation. What, is the fact that every law out of Congress isn't written in haiku a blemish on the whole system? I'm sorry but Congress, and God, had better things to do just then. Additionally, I find the fact that there are such stark differences in the writing styles amongst the books of the Bible to be comforting. Even with these differences the narrative and theology of the Bible flows harmoniously.

And finally, it should understand, as any decent human parent does, that the apple (a different one) does not fall far from the tree, that the child often resembles and reflects the parent...and that if the parent is jealous, and vindictive, and judgemental, and violent, then so too will the child reflect those things...and that perhaps some of the blame for the child's behavior can, in some tiny way, be laid at the feet of its architect.

Because if we were made in god's image, and god is perfect, then the advertising is incorrect, and we were made deliberately imperfect. And that would be a terrible indictment for any parent.

Again, he misses that whole "The Fall" bit. For someone who claims to have read the Bible cover-to-cover twice I'm not quite sure how he missed that bit. When man was first created by God he was indeed created in God's image. But when man sinned man destroyed that image. That image is partially restored when we allow Jesus into our heart. That restores the connection with God Adam and Eve had before they rebelled. I believe that it will not be until the Second Coming that this image will be fully restored when we are given our new bodies - not this rotting meat sack we have now. For a preview of this new body check our the keen stuff Jesus did after the Ressurection.

Anyway, that's it. Hope it was entertaining.