Posted by
Sue on Saturday, February 24, 2007 7:03:15 PM
02/21/07
As I have previously written, my brother is a scientist. He is also one of the better human beings I've known in my 60+ years on this Earth. My brother is a very devout and true believing Christian whose motto has always been, to my knowledge: do no harm.
My brother-in-law, sent us all a complete copy of Rep. Johnson's speech in support of the Iraq Conflict. I had not known until that email that Rep Johnson was also in the same camp as my brother-in-law when he was a Vietnamese POW, as was McCain. He remains one of my brother-in-laws heros to this day.
Below is the reply from my brother to all of us and as you can see, he is very devoted to America and it's peoples. He does, however, as he has over the past decades argued that "people" should do this or that for the betterment of the planet. I have never disagreed with him except to remind him of my thesis that 98% of the homo sapien species is not sufficiently evolved*, Nor, has it been educated well enough, particularly here in the USA in the past 30-40 years, to comprehend the complexity of conflicts throughout the world. The other 2% of the peoples have evolved, in my opinion, and strive mightily to teach, inform, distribute what they know. With the Internet today, it is so much easier to do that, but with 6 billion people and only a fraction of them on the Internet and a large fraction of them with a Leftist/Socialist bent, the task is daunting indeed.
The discussions between my brother and I have often been long, deep and satisfying. He has always known, as have I, that we may never change each others' minds, but we each gain a greater understanding. Have I said that I am an atheist? I had always defined myself as an Agnostic** but my brother insists that my beliefs, as he has heard them expressed by me, label me an Atheist. So for the last couple of years, I have used atheist to define my philosophy. I personally think he is totally wrong, but I have found that discussions are more interesting because people have a very definite opinion about atheists and most cannot totally come to grips with agnostic. So, I have not suffered much. But I am, in all truth, an agnostic.
I know that I am probably writing to the choir. I am, however, first and foremost writing for myself. I disagree with the Leftist/Socialist cause. I disagree that making people "well enough off" is the right thing to do. Many countries in Europe have, for some time, begun to see the problems that come as a result of socialistic policies. But, having said that, there are also many wrongs committed to the cause of democracy. Too much equality is a serious sin. I for one have agitated for "100% equality of opportunity". That is what I marched for, spoke for in the 1960's. It is unfortunate that on the road of good intentions, reality rose up and smacked us all with 2x4's.
When I asked for permission to reprint his email, he asked me if the blog in question was high quality...heh! He also asked me change one sentence, but it is "him" the first time around so I didn't change it. I will, if given permission, post my brother-in-law's reply to the email. You can then decide for yourselves. However, I think this is a quality blog....what do you think?*Definition courtesy of:
http://www.answers.com/topic/evolve**Coined by Thomas H. Huxley in 1870
My brother's email:
It is certainly sad that human beings mistreat other human beings so badly during wartime.
I
would prefer there were no wars and prisoner of war camps. Abolishing
war and prisoner of war camps is wishful thinking. Possessing the
highest technology to win a war decisively and swiftly is the greatest
deterrence to war, and this is practical Air Force thinking.
Since
wars do exist and will apparently continue to exist, I would prefer all
participants would agree to at least meet the standards set by the
Geneva Conventions, with no exceptions whatsoever. I do not agree with
the reason given by the current administration to abrogate these
conventions.
The
primary issue with the Iraq situation is it has devolved, in large
measure in many regions, into a conflict religious in nature, Sunni
versus Shia. This is an Islamic millennia-old conflict that we cannot
resolve with high technology United States military forces. Most
Americans understand this.
Regarding the comments by Representative Johnston, I recommend one take the time to read the concurrent resolution: "Congress
and the American people will continue to support and protect the
members of the United States Armed Forces who are serving or who have
served bravely and honorably in Iraq."
The
reason I serve in the United States Air Force is to guard our future
security in defense of our constitutionally founded freedom and in
defense of the principles articulated in our declaration of
independence:
"We
hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal,
that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights,
that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness. — That
to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving
their just powers from the consent of the governed, — That whenever any
Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right
of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new
Government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its
powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their
Safety and Happiness. Prudence, indeed, will dictate that Governments
long established should not be changed for light and transient causes;
and accordingly all experience hath shewn that mankind are more
disposed to suffer, while evils are sufferable than to right themselves
by abolishing the forms to which they are accustomed. But when a long
train of abuses and usurpations, pursuing invariably the same Object
evinces a design to reduce them under absolute Despotism, it is their
right, it is their duty, to throw off such Government, and to provide
new Guards for their future security."
During
my 25 years of service in the United States Air Force, I have
encountered many military members and civil servants and defense
contractors, who preferred there were wars. These men were desirous
for major wars to break out so they could get their turn to be a
warrior or get full funding for their projects or contracts. These men
sought glory through war fighting, or war preparations, and also
generally thought they were serving God in doing so.
Yet,
most of us neither prefer nor desire war. Most of us understand it is
a failure of mankind to follow godly precepts that causes and
perpetuates war. What we work to do is apply science to war fighting
so that we can win swiftly and decisively when called to do so by the
congress and president. This we do with the understanding that
scientific discovery is the preeminently noble goal. The more we
direct defense department resources to scientific pursuits, and less we
direct them to war, the better it is for us all.
What is your preference?
Love,