The Death of Sigfried "The Gotterdamerung"

[jeffbert]

Originally posted by cybotron+Jul 21 2004, 03:22 AM--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>QUOTE (cybotron @ Jul 21 2004, 03:22 AM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'>

Originally posted by -jeffbert@Jul 21 2004, 02:31 PM
<!--QuoteBegin--cybotron@Jul 20 2004, 08:03 PM
[b] We were talking about France britain and US and Gandalf? The witness on the stand is not agreeing to be shot for derelection of duty.... Falling asleep, fleeing in the face of certain death, etc. Who cares about stupid murderous atheistic states?  A boy offended by an oath to god would not last ten minutes at west point. Such a fool does not exist. :wacko: <_< 

Is that so? If he would not last ten minutes @ West Point, how long would he last at the USSR's elite (Spetnaz?) program? I heard these guys would finish off their own guys rather than allow them to be captured or god forbid, actually evacuated by medics. Your assertions are hollow. It has been said that there are no atheists in fox holes. However, I do not think anyone ever tried to prove it true. While this is a negative assertion, it can be expressed positively: All men in fox holes believe in god. Again, this is a universal statement; to disprove it, one need only find a single exception. Furthermore, the burden of proof lies upon the one who asserts; thus proving this false is unnecessary, for nobody has proven it true.

You rarely if ever respond in a reasonable way. Here again, you attack my anology rather than the refutation of your statement. You said that soldiers' loyalty was to god first, then to the state. I effectively refuted your assertion by showing three states whose official policy is that there is no god, and that the state is therefore the highest authority. As I stated elsewhere, you are a coward. You are afraid to admit you are wrong, even when you cannot defend your statements, and your error is plain for all to see. B) [/b]

it does not matter. Common sense would hold sway. Even if the cadet was an arheist he would pretend to believe for his own advancement. The reasonable and intelligent officer knows that atheists are not worth anything in time of war to anybody. Even the Chi-com reopened the temples that the Red Guard had destroyed. What are you talking about? The atheist cannot command troops in time of war...

By atheist i mean a state where religion is banned.
And whats wrong? Are you scared of the question?
What happens when the Christian soldiers with an expectation of performance under the ancient christian rules of conduct in war, are faced with the sudden shift of the head of state into an atheistic or overtly Antichristian political mindset? Suppose the politically appointed supreme court rules that all Chaplains be disbanded, all crosses as military decorations be removed, all crosses on graves in goverment cemetaries be removed, because of separation of church and state. Would the soldiers be justified in an uprising against that Head of State and court? :wahah: coward. That's what you called me.
And I have a Vietnamese Cross of galantry and a USMC Combat action ribbon. on my wall. You lack common sense... You are nutssssszzzzz. B)
Read my lips....

NUTZZZZZZ [/b][/quote]
I called you a coward becuase rather than either defend your statements (using logically correct arguments) or admit that you were wrong, you change the subject. In case you forgot, your statement tthat I challenged was this:

"A soldier owes his first loyalty to God."

To which I responded with:

"I would say that this is anything but universally true. As you have stated it, it is a universal statement; for you include no modifiers. Thus, to prove your statement untrue, one need only provide a single exception: Here are three USSR, Red China, & Cuba. Soldiers in these countries were loyal only to the State."
In that same posting,

"Ancient oaths in the military are based on traditions of chivalry, knight heraldry. These oaths are higher than the oaths to the state. God comes first."

"we are talking about military oaths. The oath is allways 'So help me God.'" Regardless of this, the same oath is likewise taken by witnesses in courts of law. However, the fact that the witness is asked, "Do you swear to tell the truth...So help you God?" does not imply that he or the court is loyal to god. It is used merely as a device for affirming the person's fidelity in that matter; whether in obedience to orders, or in truthfulness of testimony. Furthermore, for witnesses who take offence to swearing, the oath can be "do you affirm that you will tell the truth..." God is used most likely because there was no higher oath that could be taken. Swearing by one's grandmother just does not cut it.

Rather than narrow the scope by limiting your statement to American soldiers or admitting error, you responded:

cybotron Posted on Jul 20 2004, 08:03 PM
We were talking about France britain and US and Gandalf? The witness on the stand is not agreeing to be shot for derelection of duty.... Falling asleep, fleeing in the face of certain death, etc. Who cares about stupid murderous atheistic states? A boy offended by an oath to god would not last ten minutes at west point. Such a fool does not exist.

I do not know if you are or were a soldier. I think it is a poor defence to rely upon something you really cannot provide any evidence to support. Sure, you can post photos that you claim are of you in uniform, etc., but I would not be advised to believe that they are really of you. Please do not misunderstand me, I am not denying your service, only asking that because in such medium as this forum, anyone can assert such service, whether or not it is true, let us leave your military experience out of this, and stick to arguments that rely on logic and well-known facts.

In reference to the witness on the stand, my only point (and you should easily have noted it) was in refernece to the "so help me god." Nevertheless, you went off and griped about witnesses not being subject to firing squads or other such life-ending consequences.
Yet, you called me nuts. I for one, know how to argue. I could speak of my education, of the classes in which I earned As & Bs. However, as I have asked you to refrain from using your military service in these arguments, I will likewise refrain from using my education (other than the fact that it should be apparent by the quality of my arguments).

[jeffbert]

But, I must blame myself for attempting to argue with you, since I already know of your habit of making irrelevant responses. It is all Fafner's fault. If he had not been carrying on with his own arguments, I would not have been seeing messages in my inbox about this thread.

[fafner]

Originally posted by cybotron+Jul 20 2004, 11:56 PM--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>QUOTE (cybotron @ Jul 20 2004, 11:56 PM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'>we are talking about military oaths. The oath is allways "So help me God".... This does not change. France still has royalty or aristocracy and the officer corps.. All those kids in the trenches are there in the name of God. And are sworn in the name of God. What slackers and civvies do on the streets and gutters of their own delusion and ingratitude is their own affair, atheism, whatever. But the soldiers serve under oaths to god.They are despised so much. By some.
A soldier owes his first loyalty to God. Thus a soldier that crosses the bounds and kills unarmed jews just because his state, the nazi state orders him to is guilty of murder. Even if the college profs, the judges, the goverment, the generals say it's ok. That soldier is a common murderer if he carries out that order. Such an order is contrary to his soldiers oath.[/b]

Maybe you didn't see my statement: France is laic. Read my lips: LAIC That means that a soldier, at least in France, does not make any oath to any God, whatever/whoever it/he/she is.
Concerning the loyalty to the State, French soldiers have a special law: they are not forced to carry an order which is unconstitunional,illegal or immoral. In this case their duty is to refuse the order and destitute the hyerarchical superior. In France, before a war trial, there is no argument such as "My hyerarchical superior ordered me to ..." B)

[i]Originally posted by Cybotron@
There is not now even one Atheist state on this planet. By atheist i mean a state where religion is banned.

No one here talked about a state that bans religion. This is not the same thing as "laic", that means that the state does not carry any religion nor finance any cult. So separating religion and state does not mean that any cross in the cemetery should be removed or anything like that, it means that any cult must be financed by its own ways, not by the state. And philosopically, that means that anybody is free to choose his/her own religion, be it a foreign one, agnosticism or atheism.

<!--QuoteBegin--Cybotron[/i]
coward. That's what you called me.
And I have a Vietnamese Cross of galantry and a USMC Combat action ribbon. on my wall. You lack common sense. In time of most dire need, in the face of a fanatic enemy. :wahah: [/quote]
No one here questions your courage. Obviously if someone here knows what is it to be in a war field, it is you.
However in the field of argumentation Jeffbert is right: each time someone proves that what you say is false you don't answer. In a certain point of view you flee. This is to be coward. There are different ways to be a coward. Personnally I would probably be a coward in a war field, that's why I never considered entering the army. And you are a coward in the field of argumentation. We all have our weaknesses

Now to come back to my last question...
Where does a government agent's loyalty lies? You seems to answer that the loyalty belongs to God, but that does not look convincing for me. Let's go back to Gandalf: you said he is an agent of the government, but you weren't clear to which government. According to what you said, Gandalf's loyalty would then belongs to God? Which God? I don't see any in the Lord of the Rings

[fafner]

Originally posted by jeffbert@Jul 21 2004, 06:32 PM
But, I must blame myself for attempting to argue with you, since I already know of your habit of making irrelevant responses. It is all Fafner's fault. If he had not been carrying on with his own arguments, I would not have been seeing messages in my inbox about this thread.

You attack me? I fight back
It is your own and only fault: you can unregister yourself

[fafner]

Never aim with an empty gun... It looks like it is not possible to unregister from a topic
I really thought it was possible but as I never tried it I should not have said it was possible :huh:

[jeffbert]

Originally posted by fafner@Jul 21 2004, 12:55 PM
Never aim with an empty gun... It looks like it is not possible to unregister from a topic
I really thought it was possible but as I never tried it I should not have said it was possible :huh:

I have not tried either. I assumed that I could unregister for only that one topic in a given email message, but I really do not want to miss anything.

[fafner]

I have never tried to unregister because I am following all topics. In fact I have even decided to deactivate the automated registering feature because I read all the new posts anyway and that just floods my mail box
Now let's impatiently wait for Cybotron's answer B)

[cybotron]

In russia when a soldier is killed, they place a cross on his grave... The goverment pays for it.
The same in france. The french have a chaplain corps also. What you are seeing is the ridiculous devices that agnostic states use to hide the truth of military life. You need to accept your defeat in this matter. And perhaps i was too universal in my statement. But as the history of eurocentric war goes, I would not lean on the french military too much.
What civvie goverments say is of small reality in war. Who will pay for the crosses?Laic? Give me a break.
"....."I would say that this is anything but universally true. As you have stated it, it is a universal statement; for you include no modifiers. Thus, to prove your statement untrue, one need only provide a single exception: Here are three USSR, Red China, & Cuba. Soldiers in these countries were loyal only to the State."
In that same posting, ..."
Yet the crosses bloom.
"....Rather than narrow the scope by limiting your statement to American soldiers or admitting error, you responded:...."
It is impossible to limit my statement to American troops.
You are right. I did not want to say Christian soldier. I had tried allied soldier, but that was unconvincing.
Primarily my statement concerned the Crusaders as far as the codes of chivalry were concerned, but this would be in error also as the conduct of the crusaders was less than perfect. The teutonic knights also were twisted in Nazim. The allied military effort was exemplary. Still these states use up the kids, and the states buy the crosses. When they stop buying the crosses, I will confess to you that God is not the first duty. To do that in Britain and America would require the destruction of the foundations of the states. What Lovecraft would call the decrees of the Great Old Ones. The end of the Crown, the removal of in God we trust from the buck.
Hmmm. Maybe after the NEXT euro Laic war on French soil.

"....Yet, you called me nuts. I for one, know how to argue. I could speak of my education, of the classes in which I earned As & Bs. However, as I have asked you to refrain from using your military service in these arguments, I will likewise refrain from using my education (other than the fact that it should be apparent by the quality of my arguments)...."


You are still NUTZZZZ....
As can be seen by your arguments. :wahah:
There are many nuts and wackos on campus, and you are one of them. Anyone reading your responses can see that you are Nutz, and the ones that don't share your nutiness.

[jeffbert]

Originally posted by cybotron+Jul 21 2004, 03:37 PM--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>QUOTE (cybotron @ Jul 21 2004, 03:37 PM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'>In russia when a soldier is killed, they place a cross on his grave... The goverment pays for it.
The same in france. The french have a chaplain corps also. What you are seeing is the ridiculous devices that agnostic states use to hide the truth of military life. You need to accept your defeat in this matter. And perhaps i was too universal in my statement. But as the history of eurocentric war goes, I would not lean on the french military too much.
What civvie goverments say is of small reality in war. Who will pay for the crosses?Laic? Give me a break. [/b]

Defeated? who me? You are the one who said that a soldier's first duty is to god, not I. Yet, you steadfastly refuse to defend that statement. Yet, I'm the one who is defeated? Let me refresh your clearly defective memory:

<!--QuoteBegin--cybotron@Jul 20 2004, 05:56 PM
we are talking about military oaths. The oath is allways "So help me God".... This does not change. France still has royalty or aristocracy and the officer corps.. All those kids in the trenches are there in the name of God. And are sworn in the name of God. What slackers and civvies do on the streets and gutters of their own delusion and ingratitude is their own affair, atheism, whatever. But the soldiers serve under oaths to god.They are despised so much. By some.
[b]A soldier owes his first loyalty to God. Thus a soldier that crosses the bounds and kills unarmed jews just because his state, the nazi state orders him to is guilty of murder. Even if the college profs, the judges, the goverment, the generals say it's ok. That soldier is a common murderer if he carries out that order. Such an order is contrary to his soldiers oath.[/b][/quote]
In the course of attacking that statement (in bold font), I did mention some other things. However, they did support my argument. You, however, deviated from your statement, and found fault in some other issues. Hence, you changed the subject, rather than defend your assertion. Whether or not a state puts crosses on its military graves, medalions, or what have you, has nothing to do with whether the state or god is the highest authority to which the soldier must answer. The fact that the USSR is no more detracts not from the fact that therein the state was the highest authority. Likewise, the fact that China has reopened temples. Atheism was part of the communist doctrine very likely becuase its founders believed it to be divisive, rather than unifying. Moreover, when the Irish began immigrating to the USA late 19th and early 20th centuries, the Protestants already here feared that their loyalty would be to the Pope, rather than the USA. There was even a comic showing the Pope as an alligator crawling up from the swamp onto the land. The Irish were hated because their loyaly was suspected. Thus, the communists felt that religion was a danger. Looking at history, how many people have been murdered because their religious beliefs were not the states' official choice? In terms of numbers, yes, the communists, Stain alone, in fact killed more people than all the religious murders combined. However, if we consider the percentage of populations killed, the proportions are very different. With religious persecutions of Christians by Christians dating back to 3rd century A.C.E., there have been well over 1000 years of people killing people for god's sake (or, so they thought, any way). Not only killing them, but torturing and mutilating them, often publically, to instill fear in those who who dare to hold their own beliefs.

If indeed god is the highest authority to which soldiers must answer, we must ask, which god? If you had clarified your statement, your argument might have been of higher quality. However, it would still suffer from defects.

1. Supposing you had specified the US Soldier. There is a plurality of religious beliefs here. To avoid offending anyone's belief (as though that were possible), the US military would need to make god an abstraction. 'god' would therefore be reduced to meaning nature, or the so-called natural laws, that political philosophers embraced. Thus, the possibility for any soldier claiming that god had commanded him to kill his comrades would be avoided.

2. Likewise, if you specified the Christian God, there is still a plurality of beliefs to take into account. Mormons like more than one wife, Catholics insist that only their doctrine can yield salvation, Fundamentalists (even here, there are many different beliefs) might refuse to kill other humans.

Is it possible that you still cannot or will not see the problems with your statement?

Take this:
"A soldier owes his first loyalty to God."
& either renounce it, or clarify it. Narrow its scope. Specify a god, a state, but do not try to defend this indefensible statement.

I'm gonna teach you how to reason, even if you resist to your dying breath!

[fafner]

Originally posted by cybotron+Jul 21 2004, 09:37 PM--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>QUOTE (cybotron @ Jul 21 2004, 09:37 PM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'>In russia when a soldier is killed, they place a cross on his grave... The goverment pays for it.
The same in france.[/b]

I had never heard of such a thing
I thought that each person (or his/her family) was responsible for all financial details about obsequy.
Would you dare to clearly say: "In France, the state pays for the crosses on the graves." ?

[i]Originally posted by Jeffbert@
There is a plurality of religious beliefs here.

Jeffbert is absolutely right about that. As I myself think of God as an abstract concept I didn't even spot that detail
Please Cybotron... Which God are you referring to ?

And I will recall you my question you still ignore so far:
<!--QuoteBegin--Fafner[/i]
Where does a government agent's loyalty lies? You seems to answer that the loyalty belongs to God, but that does not look convincing for me. Let's go back to Gandalf: you said he is an agent of the government, but you weren't clear to which government. According to what you said, Gandalf's loyalty would then belongs to God? Which God? I don't see any in the Lord of the Rings
[/quote]