Religion - The Question of Faith

I wanted to post my view of religion because it is one of the most divisive issues discussed today.
The Question of Faith: How religion has made humanity damaged goods

In the beginning there were men; men with the intention to control the weaker individuals in their society for their own betterment. Using their intellect, creativity, and insight, men devised a scheme that would not only affect their current society – but would alter the landscape of human history. Religion necessitates dogmatic belief; a belief in something unseen, unheard, yet all encompassing. How could early man have created the creator? How could man take oral narratives from unwritten legends, myths, and folklore, to codified law? How could man have known what damage his selfish endeavor would reap upon the future of his world? This post will examine the role religion has played in several facets of human life. I will show a correlation between religiosity and violence; the religious impulse motivating capital punishment; the effect of religion on education in America; and finally I will explain how the belief in God has created greater intolerance.

Part 1: The path to peace is through the sword

When asked what imagery comes to mind when they hear the word religion, the majority of people will respond with some phrase from their holy book of choice, or perhaps they will pick some historically inaccurate depiction of creation. However, there is a small percentage who will depict religion as a violent entity; one that has caused some of the greatest injury to humanity. That small percentage would be correct – in my opinion anyways. And the violent nature inherent in religion has spurred some of humankind’s most advantageous, and disastrous exploits.

The land grab mentality that mankind possesses, is one that has ridden under the flag of religion from the time of its inception. People have chosen different banners, but the idea is the same: take what you want because God is on your side. How do people know when God is on their side? How do they know that God is not on the side of their enemy, (who undoubtedly believes God is on their team)? Who is to decide which people is most favored by God? These questions were of no importance to the Holy Roman Church during the Crusades. For two hundred years, from 1095-1219, the Holy Roman Church sought to bring Jerusalem back under the control of the Christians. The Crusaders fought against Jews, Pagans, Muslims, and everything in between. They used the word of God as their guide. The God of the Old Testament was vengeful, wrathful, and full of hate for people he supposedly created. (Encyclopedia Britannica) The Old Testament states the following with regards to violence: “Kill every male dependent, and kill every woman who has had intercourse with a man, but spare for yourselves every woman among them who has not had intercourse." (Numbers)
The Lord apparently didn’t think that was enough carnage, so he issued this order to Samuel: “Go now and fall upon the Amalekites and destroy them. . . . Spare no one; put them all to death, men and women, children and babes in arms, herds and flocks, camels and asses” (Samuel)

The God of the Bible also enjoyed random acts of violence throughout the early years of Christianity. The subsequent passages are glimmering examples of his wrath for mankind:
“Behold, the people shall rise up as a great lion, and lift up himself as a young lion: he shall not lie down until he eat of the prey, and drink the blood of the slain.” (Numbers, The King James Bible)
“God brought him forth out of Egypt; he hath as it were the strength of an unicorn: he shall eat up the nations his enemies, and shall break their bones, and pierce them through with his arrows.” (24:8)

The New Testament contributed its fair share of violence, and violent acts, in accordance with God’s wishes. Instances of abuse of children, women, and those who did not support Biblical Law, were subject to the harshest punishments. It is essential to note that the authors of the Bible wanted to instill a lifelong fear of God to keep people under the control of the upper class. They could not have accomplished such a tremendously difficult task without the help of a God – someone people believed was constantly watching over them.
The Bible was not the only religious book to endorse unparalleled violence. Belief in the teachings of Muhammad has motivated numerous individuals, countries, and Kingdoms to spread chaos for thousands of years. Like the Bible, the Qur’an widely contradicted itself. Stating Allah wishes peace to reign supreme, while simultaneously calling for the death of infidels.
“And slay them wherever ye find them, and drive them out of the places whence they drove you out, for persecution is worse than slaughter. And fight not with them at the Inviolable Place of Worship until they first attack you there, but if they attack you (there) then slay them. Such is the reward of disbelievers.” (2:191)
“Warfare is ordained for you, though it is hateful unto you; but it may happen that ye hate a thing which is good for you, and it may happen that ye love a thing which is bad for you. Allah knoweth, ye know not.” (2:216)
The hateful rhetoric of Muhammad and his disciples, gives one the impression that there is no other way to live your life, except at the mercy of a God whose greatest pleasure is the destruction of non-believers. The question then arises: if God created everything in the Universe, why would he create a Universe that he could only control from above? Why would he use donkeys, burning bushes, alcoholics, and Kings, to convey his message? The Bible and the Qur’an do not possess the ability to explain the answers. Nor do the Holy Books explain why God is angry with humans. God created sin in the form of temptation. If he was an all knowing God, wouldn’t he have foreseen man’s fall from grace?

The aim of religion is to provide a moral code by which you should live your life. The stories depicting violence are meant to scare you away from violence. In light of that fact, it is impossible to ignore the rate of violence compared to the belief in God. According to the Pew Foundation, in the United States, where more than 70% of people believe in the God of the Bible, you would imagine the U.S. would be a peaceful, tolerant society. That is not the case. In reality when observed from a religious standpoint, the States with the highest level of belief also have the highest rate of crime.

Consistent with statistics available for the year 2009; the States that include citizens with the highest level of devotion, also appeared on the list for highest rates of hard crimes. the most religious: Mississippi, Alabama, South Carolina, Tennessee, Louisiana, Arkansas, Georgia, North Carolina, Oklahoma, and Kentucky and Texas, which are tied.
The states with the highest crime rate: Louisiana, South Carolina, Florida, Tennessee, Alaska, Arizona, Arkansas, Alabama, Texas, North Carolina, Missouri, Illinois,
What does that say for religion? Why would the States that encompass the largest number of believers also possess the highest crime rate?

Part 2: The more you love God, the greater the punishment

In America we utilize an archaic system of punishment: Capital Punishment. The etymology of the word “capital” comes from the Latin term capitalis. Capital punishment is typically reserved for the worst criminals in society. Those people who have committed crimes which are beyond clemency. The Babylonians offered the first laws regarding Capital Punishment for a multitude of offenses, which they codified in Hammurabi’s code. The laws applied to different aspects of societal life: family law, civil law, criminal law, and case law. (Hammurabi)
Hammurabi’s code depicted numerous crimes as being punishable by death. This is incredibly significant to note, as Hammurabi’s code set the precedent for future legal writers, and religious leaders. The framers of the aforementioned monotheistic religions drew from Hammurabi’s code when constructing the word of God for broad application. The following is a small sample of some of the laws that would later appear in the Bible, Torah, and Qur’an:
If any one bring an accusation against a man, and the accused go to the river and leap into the river, if he sink in the river his accuser shall take possession of his house. But if the river prove that the accused is not guilty, and he escape unhurt, then he who had brought the accusation shall be put to death, while he who leaped into the river shall take possession of the house that had belonged to his accuser. If any one bring an accusation of any crime before the elders, and does not prove what he has charged, he shall, if it be a capital offense charged, be put to death. If the purchaser does not bring the merchant and the witnesses before whom he bought the article, but its owner bring witnesses who identify it, then the buyer is the thief and shall be put to death, and the owner receives the lost article.”
If any one break a hole into a house (break in to steal), he shall be put to death before that hole and be buried.

The Bible and Qur’an take identical stances with regards to crime and punishment. The famous quote used often in modern day courtrooms when requesting the death penalty is, “an eye for an eye, tooth for a tooth…” That quote is taken almost directly from the Code of Hammurabi. The Bible calls for Capital Punishment in the case of murder in Exodus. The Bible also absurdly states that animals can be put to death, on top of the death of their owner if the animal hurts someone: “If an ox gore a man or a woman, that they die: then the ox shall be surely stoned, and his flesh shall not be eaten; but the owner of the ox shall be quit.”
If you decide to keep the animal after it has killed someone, than you are in even worse shape than before: “But if the ox were wont to push with his horn in time past, and it hath been testified to his owner, and he hath not kept him in, but that he hath killed a man or a woman; the ox shall be stoned, and his owner also shall be put to death” (21:28.29)

Because of the influence of the Bible, Qur’an, and Torah; animals are still put to death for injuring someone. If animals can be put to death for being animals; it is not surprising that people fair about the same – maybe worse. The crimes punishable by death have significantly dwindled in Western Society in recent years. However, in countries located in the Middle East – where Sharia law is applied -–people are put to death for all of the crimes listed in the Qur’an as being punishable by death.
Most Western societies have abolished the death penalty because it doesn’t fit in with society’s view of its own humanity. The countries that have held on tight to the institution of Capital Punishment are statistically the most religious, or non-secular. According to the Pew Research Institute in 2009, the top 8 countries that use the death penalty are as follows: The Peoples’ Republic of China; Iran; Iraq; Saudi Arabia; The United States; Yemen; Sudan; and Vietnam. The Peoples’ Republic of China seems like an anomaly on this list; don’t be fooled by the lack of Religious acceptance. China’s government acts as God, Lord, and Savior, to its people. Iran, Iraq, and Saudi Arabia, are countries where Sharia Law dictates what behavior is acceptable, and how people should live. The United States is the most religious developed nation in the world. Yemen and Sudan are Muslim nations that have more than religious problems to deal with. And Vietnam consists of many Christians and Buddhists, who are fighting mainly for democracy.

The United States is the big surprise on the list. The Constitution of the United States was written in such a way as to separate church and state. The writers of the Constitution represented multiple religious and political backgrounds. They had witnessed the destruction of the Church of England knew the stories of the Pilgrims who sought refuge. They wanted to avoid the problems of religious influence on the public domain. The Bill of Rights specifically mentions “Freedom of Religion.”
The United States is also one of the only western nations that have yet to abolish Capital Punishment. There is a direct correlation between religious belief and the belief in the death penalty. Christians in the United States compose 78% of the demographic: this amazingly high percentage of believers demonstrates in part why Americans are unwilling to abolish Capital Punishment. (The Pew Research Institute )Their God said it was ok to kill those who kill – so what is the big deal?

Part 3: Learn this not that

In America, we have a University system that is the envy of the world. The world is so envious in fact, they send their best and brightest to the United States to study. Nevertheless, we have students from America who are struggling to compete with international students within the same age group. With the vast resources America possess, how is it possible that more and more international students are being offered admission at the top Universities? The answer is clear: scientific illiteracy.

According to a study conducted by the National Science Foundation in 2006; almost 50% of doctoral degrees in the many areas of science, were awarded to foreign born students. This trend is continuing to rise each year. One of the reasons for the increase in foreign born students in the sciences has to do with the influence of religion in science.

We rank ahead of Cyprus and South Africa in High School Math. In Science we rank ahead of Italy, Hungary, Lithuania, Cyprus, and South Africa. That isn’t an achievement to be proud of. Our school age children are going up against a wave of intelligent, motivated, and serious foreign students. The United States is letting its Christian majority dictate what is appropriate to teach children, versus the stance of the European, Asian, and Southeast Asian countries. Which is: what else can we teach them? One of our most populous, and religious, States, has taken the issue of educating the youth of America to a whole new level.

As recently as 2010, Academic Administrators for the Board of Education of Texas decided that the best way to educate our youth was to reform the curriculum. One of the many ways in which they reformed the curriculum, was to remove references to Evolution. Evolution is not a theory: it is a fact. By removing scientific fact from the textbooks of students, the Board of Education is setting the students up for failure. The Board recognized the Conservative Christian dollar – and acted in the interest of the Christian majority…and their wallets. The implications are widespread. Texas is the number one purchaser of textbooks in the nation. With schools losing money every year in Federal funding, they purchase books that have a lower per unit cost: that means Texas has the power to determine the market. Texans understand this. That is why Texas took action to remove Evolution from the books. If Evolution isn’t taught in Texas, chances are it won’t be taught elsewhere in the United States.

The Bible, Torah, and Qur’an, do not give the Theory Evolution room to breathe. Darwin’s evolutionary discoveries are important to the understanding of all sciences. This is precisely why our students are not matching up to others in Europe, Asia, and Central Asia. The Pew Research Institute conducted a survey of Americans in 2006, asking them if they prefer Creationism over Evolution, as the primary scientific model. A whopping 59% of respondents believe that Creationism should be taught in lieu of Evolution. The lack of real science in the classroom will not only handicap most American students striving for College, but will seriously debilitate them in the real world.

The story of Creation is similar in the Bible, Qur’an, and Torah. They all tend to agree that the Earth is about 6,000 years old, was once flooded, and that man and dinosaurs lived side by side. It is safe to assume that religion needs to be more flexible to allow fact room to grow. Anything that is not explicitly mentioned in the Bible, Torah, or Qur’an, can be explained away quickly with, “that is how God wanted it.” How can Americans be expected to compete for much longer if the only answer they are providing their children is, “that is what God designed it for.”
Part 4: God loves everyone. Except the following:
In Christianity, Islam, and Judaism, the acceptance and tolerance of all mankind is not consistent with their belief system. Though God - in his infinitely creative artistic abilities – designed man in his image; he forgot to address genetics. Genetics is a term that is widely used to describe the inner biological workings of man and beast. The understanding of genes is something that the scientific revolution brought us, some thousand or so years after the writers of the Bible, Torah, and Qur’an, decided that all man was not created equal.

The equality of man has been an issue since the beginning of human civilization. The Bible, Torah, and Qur’an, developed a story that fit the needs of the civilizations from which these Holy Books sprung forth. The idea of accepting people for how they were born was not in the best interests of those in charge. God needed to love only a select few individuals: his chosen people as the saying goes. How could God create man, yet only love a handful of his creation? How could he create temptation, intent, and desire, without addressing the genetic makeup of individuals?
The God of the Bible was very specific about whom he loved and whom he didn’t.
“If a man lies with a man as one lies with a woman, both of them have done what is detestable. They must be put to death; their blood will be on their own heads.” (20:13)
“Do you not know that the wicked will not inherit the kingdom of God? Do not be deceived: Neither the sexually immoral nor idolaters nor adulterers nor male prostitutes nor homosexual offenders.” (6:9)
“And Er, Judah's firstborn, was wicked in the sight of the LORD; and the LORD slew him.” (38:7)
“Now therefore, if ye will obey my voice indeed, and keep my covenant, then ye shall be a peculiar treasure unto me above all people: for all the earth is mine: And ye shall be unto me a kingdom of priests, and an holy nation. These are the words which thou shalt speak unto the children of Israel.” (Exodus 19:5)
The Bible not only forms intolerance for homosexuals, but for prostitutes, adulterers, and anyone that is not an Israelite. The intolerance constructed by the Bible has had seriously deadly repercussions in the years following its mass print. People in countries all around the world die because they are born different. They die because God has chosen them as being unfit for love. Again, this brings us back to the issue: why would God create men he had no intention of loving? The Bible does state: “hate the sin, not the sinner.” But what is that supposed to mean? How can you hate a sin that is the person?
In Surah 26:165, and 26:166; Allah states the following with regard to homosexuals:
“What! Of all creatures do ye come unto the males, And leave the wives your Lord created for you ? Nay, but ye are froward folk”
The homosexual wasn’t the only one that incurred God’s wrath: women were not created equal. God had created Adam in his own image, and from the rib of Adam he created Eve. Basically, the writers of the Bible and Qur’an wanted to display the subservience of woman to man. Because women were not viewed as equals, they were subject to greater scrutiny in all things. Women were also punished more extensively than their male counterparts: even when the crimes were identical in nature.
In Exodus, the Lord describes the place of a woman before man:
“Thou shalt not covet thy neighbour's house, thou shalt not covet thy neighbour's wife, nor his manservant, nor his maidservant, nor his ox, nor his ass, nor any thing that is thy neighbour's”

Women were deemed chattel, or property that could be sold, acquired, bargained for, and enslaved. This ideology is still present in many societies throughout the world. In America women still make less money on average than men; women still bear the majority of the household responsibilities; they have to fight occupational gender bias; and so on. This is a direct result of a society that believes in God. If God had declared woman the equal to man in all things – gender discrimination would not exist.

The Qur’an expanded the rights of women somewhat. The teachings of Muhammad were unable to completely absolve women from their duties as servants to man, but he was able to lessen their burden so to speak. Allah stated:
“Your women are a tilth for you (to cultivate) so go to your tilth as ye will, and send (good deeds) before you for your souls, and fear Allah, and know that ye will (one day) meet Him. Give glad tidings to believers, (O Muhammad” (2:23)
“Women who are divorced shall wait, keeping themselves apart, three (monthly) courses. And it is not lawful for them that they should conceal that which Allah hath created in their wombs if they are believers in Allah and the Last Day. And their husbands would do better to take them back in that case if they desire a reconciliation. And they (women) have rights similar to those (of men) over them in kindness, and men are a degree above them. Allah is Mighty, Wise.” (2:28)
The rights of women in nations that are highly religious suffer the greatest. Women in the Middle East – under Sharia Law – are made to conceal their faces and/or hair in order to prevent men from feeling lust. It is the duty of the woman to control the lust of man, not the man’s duty to control his own lust. This places women in a particularly difficult situation, especially in issues of rape.

The Qur’an does not endow women with the same level of trust that it does men. In the matter of rape the Qur’an states that four witnesses need to have been present when the rape occurred to speak on behalf of the woman. This doesn’t bode well for women who were attacked while alone in their homes. If four witnesses cannot be brought to testify in her defense, than the woman will have to pay damages to the accused. Oftentimes the accused can stone the woman alongside her family for her impropriety.
The interpretation of religious laws should be of great concern to everyone. The religious laws that I have exhibited as being of an intolerant nature have continued to play an active role in society. Our political systems, educational systems, and military operations have all had felt the touch of religion. In a secular society, there’s no place for religion in a scientific curriculum just as in such a society matters of public concern should be solved through debate and not through dogma.

Obesity

As one of the fastest growing epidemics in America - obesity costs more to tax payers than almost every other preventable disease, behind smoking. Smoking will soon become a thing of the past. There are fewer smokers than ever in America, and with the laws passed recently regarding smoking in public - even fewer people will light up.
But what about the crisis that is childhood diabetes, high blood pressure, over active thyroid, heart disease, high cholesterol, and so on? People need to realize that although they are free to eat what they like, it is not free for America. According to recently released date on obesity in America, there is a direct correlation between obesity and high medical costs. When someone is super morbidly obese, or just plain fat - they are more likely to frequent the doctors office than Americans of average weight.
It isn't just the cost of their medical expenses that we need to address: it is the cost of lost productivity as well. For example; you work in an office where there is more than one obese individual. When they become sick - which they often do - you have to cover for them or the company will lose money. This is a serious issue. You, as the average weight American will not receive extra pay for covering for the out of office coworker. Additionally, lets suppose this office has multiple overweight people who are frequently out sick: how do you handle the situation without getting sued for discrimination? It is also helpful to note that as a former business owner (construction business with my ex husband), we could not afford to employ overweight individuals because of the costs associated with their employment. The cost of healthcare, as well as their work related expenses; such as workers compensation.
I had a friend that was 360 pounds. She was constantly out sick from work because of her weight. When you don't exercise you are more susceptible to illness. And anyone who has worked in an office understands how unsanitary offices can be. Moreover, this friend of mine would not exercise to save her life....literally. My friends and I made it a mission to try and help her lose weight. We even joined a gym together, (she didn't join), cut our calories, and would not eat fast food. She did nothing. She basically said she was going to wait until she was so fucking fat that her insurance would HAVE to pay for her gastric bypass surgery! This is a problem that I have read on numerous websites. Her mother had gastric bypass surgery after reaching over 500 pounds. Needless to say, she and I are no longer friends.
The important thing for everyone to understand is that the choices you make for yourself, can affect others. Especially if it is something that negatively affects you.
I am thankful that the State of California has passed a law that any restaurant with over 20 locations must advertise their caloric content. I know I have gone out to places like outback steakhouse where I would order a steak thinking, "ok, a slab of meat can't be that bad for me." Only to realize they add so much salt and other ingredients that cause the calorie count to sky rocket.
The point is, let's not be selfish and overeat. There are people starving in this world. There are people starving in America for that matter. There are people who do not have health insurance: I am one of them. I can't obtain health care because of I dislocated my shoulder twice within a year! If Americans made an effort to control their eating, and other bad habits, then people like myself would not have to go without health coverage.
The greatest thing that has happened recently is the health care reform bill. I am really optimistic about it. I know a lot of people will say, "but how will we pay for it." There are infinite ways we can pay for it. I will write about that later. bye for now xoxo

Abortion rights

Today I posted a reply on Yahoo about abortion rights for women. I don't understand why men are so concerned with a womans right to have control of her feminine health. I know they feel it is "murder." But if you look at the legal definition of murder; this certainly doesn't qualify.
Women have a multitude of reasons for choosing to abort their pregnancy. A woman should not have to justify those reasons to anyone. It is a difficult decision that women do not choose lightly.
I have known multiple women who have had abortions. They don't regret it at all. Most have gone on to have children.
Some people argue that if you have sex you should have whatever children you produce - um no. Imagine you are a woman who is allergic to latex, or in my case birth control. You are with someone and you love them, accidents happen. Does that mean that you should give up your dreams because of a pregnancy? Should you stop having sex because you are afraid of getting pregnant?
It is nobody in the governments fucking business! Roe V Wade should not be challenged. If you choose not to have an abortion, or to not support abortion - than go ahead and not support it. But do not presume you have the right to tell another human being what they can and can't do with their own bodies.

Spotlight on Music: The Skeletones

Hello out there! I wanted to shift the focus from politics to music. The band that I feel needs more recognition is The Skeletones! They are a ska band from Riverside that have been playing for around 20 years. My daddy happens to be the trumpet player, and my uncle is the trombone player! In spite of the obvious family ties, they are an excellent band with a number of really great songs that I am sure you will all enjoy.

Gun Control

I will undoubtedly encounter the greatest amount of opposition to this, but I do not think people should be allowed to carry concealed weapons without a permit. There, I said it. Sorry Andrew. Why shouldn't people be allowed to carry concealed weapons without a permit? Well, I have my own personal belief that carrying concealed weapons doesn't make anyone any safer. For example, you are sitting at a Starbucks and a man walks in with what looks like a gun in his jacket. You are unsure what to do. So, you call the cops and report the suspicious man to police, who respond by drawing their weapons at the man and forcing him to the ground. They search him and find the gun in his jacket. He doesn't have a permit for the gun. What was he doing toting a gun around into a coffee shop? What happens if someone mistakes him for a robber? There are a host of frightening scenarios that I am sure will come into fruition as soon as Arizona ensures its citizens can carry their weapons concealed and without a permit.

Drones

Here is a paper I wrote about Drones that I feel sufficiently sums up my sentiments:

War, guerre, guerra, война, 戦争, πόλεμος: a word that everyone on this planet has heard. It is a word that has as many meanings as there are people. Every individual who has experienced war understands it differently. People who witness the destructiveness of war have to change: war changes people, and the way war is fought changes with time. The idea of waging war stretches back in time to the earliest days of civilization. As soon as man fashioned tools for ease of living - he fashioned tools to hasten death. These tools metamorphosed as time passed. But the fundamental idea behind war has stayed the same. The inherently selfish, cruel, and territorial man has demonstrated his inability to coexist peacefully with others of his kind. And man has created an arsenal of specialized tools to stake his claim on this planet. During the course of this paper I will examine the history of the Predator Program; the inducement of the drone programs: why did we choose drones as opposed to soldiers: What is the human cost of using unmanned machines to conduct war; and finally, I will attempt to answer what the future holds for unmanned assault vehicle programs.
Every decade has brought forth a new tool of war. This past decade has unevened the field on which countries once stood relatively equal. Many countries have the same technology to create weapons of mass destruction, but they choose not to develop these weapons for fear that they might use them. The United States is unusual in that it has actually used weapons of mass destruction. That is why the United States Military has sprung into action with new weapons programs that will affirm its title as King of the World.
Beginning in 2001 when the September 11th attacks occurred, the government looked for a solution to quell the fear growing amongst the American people. They needed a viable option for hunting down the perpetrators of the attacks – one that would not only lessen the dramatic effects of sending in foot soldiers – but also to strengthen the quality of intelligence gathered.
Every administration has one major concern when it sends troops to other countries to fight wars: American casualties. From the Vietnam War to the First Gulf War to the present wars, the biggest concern for the administration is to minimize casualties or prevent the press from comprehensively covering the war casualties as the previous Bush administration did.
Hiding casualties has never worked and never will work. So for the past few decades the Pentagon—or really DARPA, its research and development unit—has been working tirelessly to develop unmanned weapons which would not require us to put American soldiers in harm’s way. The new arena of war is one in which we use robotics to wage what is often called asymmetric war: war not between armies of two nations but between transnational radical groups that have to be targeted while avoiding casualties in the countries within which they operate. For many critics, this development is troubling because it signals a paradigm shift in the waging of war. In this new logic of robotics war, we’ve two primary concerns: minimizing our casualties and achieving our goal of targeting insurgents most anywhere in the world. The problem in this logic is that it creates the conditions for maximizing civilian casualties on the ‘other’ side and it potentially turns the globe into a possible arena of war. Issues of state sovereignty, international treaties that require the accouchement of waging war, the treatment of prisoners: all of these become irrelevant when we operate unmanned remote-controlled planes that can see into peoples’ homes and eliminate elements considered enemy-combatants.
The CIA worked closely with the United States Military to identify a qualified contractor to produce a fleet of surveillance drones to serve as the eyes and ears of the CIA. The surveillance program was incredibly successful. The CIA noticed that the Taliban could not figure out who was spying on them. They were observed killing their own people in an effort to expose any traitors. All the while it was the reconnaissance drones flying overhead, relaying vital information to the CIA for ground and air attacks. (Shatchman, 2009)
The CIA and the United States Military did not want to discontinue using such a successful program. They needed to work closely with weapons contractors to create a new weapon that would not only observe and report – it would hunt and kill.
The newest and potentially, most destructive program actualized in the last decade is the Predator Program. It is part science-fiction, part nightmare - but one-hundred percent deadly. The Predator Program is the crown jewel of the United States Military. It is shrouded in secrecy, though its power is well known in Afghanistan where people have witnessed its potency.
The designation unmanned aerial assault vehicle conjures up images of video games, or the Terminator movie series. Whichever way you imagine it, it is much worse in person. There is nothing more frightening than a machine buzzing above a city, deciding which target to take. In the annals of human history there has never been a war fought without men. The Predator Program stems from that very idea: a war without men. The United States military has been attempting unmanned warfare for the past three decades. However, not until the recent wars on Iraq and Afghanistan, have they truly blossomed. But what is the Predator Program?
The Predator Program is an extremely technical Military weapons program that consists of vehicles designed with various operational capabilities. The Predator B – also known as the MQ-9 Reaper was conceived by General Atomics Aeronautical Systems for use by the United States Air Force. The MQ-9 is the first "hunter-killer UAV designed for long-endurance, high-altitude flight.” (Magazine, 2009)The MQ-9 is the flagship unmanned vehicle of the United States Air Force. However, there are multiple vehicles in use today.
According to General Atomics Aeronautical, the UAV (unmanned Assault Vehicle) Predator-1 is capable of operating at an altitude of twenty-five thousand feet for up to forty hours. It also boasts a wingspan of 48.7 feet, and a length of 27 feet. This giant machine can also carry up to 450 pounds of payload. This was the first in the line of Predators. The Predator B, (which later became the MQ-1), is capable of coasting at fifty-thousand feet; carry eight-hundred pounds of internal payload, three-thousand pounds of external payload (missiles); reach speeds of up to two-hundred and twenty knots; a wingspan of sixty-six feet; and an operating life of thirty-three hours.
The MQ-9 reaper also developed by General Atomics Aeronautical for the Military; has a service ceiling of over fifty-thousand feet; payload of thirty-eight hundred pounds; a maximum speed of two-hundred eighty knots; and plenty of room for missiles. The difference between these UAV's and others used in battle is the Predators are designed as hunter-killers. They can be programmed to locate and eliminate targets from incredibly high altitudes to avoid detection, and destruction.
The Predators – also known as drones – are operated from a control room by two sensor operators and one pilot. They are completely removed from the actual fighting and run zero risk of being injured. On the other hand, Air Force fighter pilots always run the risk of being hit by surface to air missiles. The cost of a jet, plus the training over the course of a pilots’ life, is worth too much to risk. (Hanley, 2007)
The cost of one UAV can vary depending on the payload capabilities. The MQ-1 costs around $7.4 million, and the chance that a UAV will be destroyed in combat is relatively low.
The Predator Program was created in part to help protect the interests of the Military at a reasonable financial cost. With the purchase of just one UAV - the Military stands to save millions of dollars per day in operating costs. Additionally, the Air Force could save $1.5 billion dollars by cutting Fighter Pilot Programs. "It takes more than a year and $2.6 million to train a fighter pilot. It takes 20 weeks and $135,000 to train a UAV pilot, who doesn’t need to be a fighter pilot, hence the savings." (jetwhine.com, 2009)
Considering the costs associated with waging a war is always at the forefront of the minds of the members of congress and the American people. Americans and Congress don’t want to see dead soldiers on the news. Congress and the American people overwhelmingly support the drone programs because they value an American life more than the lives of innocent civilians in the countries where we are fighting.
For all the technical trappings of these unmanned machines – they lack the accuracy that is needed to ensure only the intended target is eliminated. The question of accuracy for a machine designed to kill, has been raised since the inception of the program. Congress knows that when you use a weapon, you are taking responsibility for the collateral damage as well.
Collateral damage is a term used to describe the civilian casualties associated with inaccurate air strikes. There is also the question of responsibility that has been raised by concerned Americans and leaders of the countries whose homeland is becoming a proving ground for American operated drones.
In Pakistan there have been drone strikes that have not only caused the deaths of civilians, but have increased the presence of Taliban in tribal areas. According to Reuters, there have been over 44 drone attacks in Pakistan in 2009. Of those 44, only 5 were successful. In total, 704 people were killed in the Northern Territories in Pakistan; 90 percent of those killed were civilians including women and children. The sovereignty of Pakistan has been shaken, and the alliance with the American Military and CIA is causing an increase in sectarian violence in the regions hit by drones. (Anthony, 2009)
The use of drones in the war on terror is justified for some as a necessary tool for the protection of Americans fighting on the ground. However, General George Patreus said that the “drones are not helping us on the ground.” As the General in Command of ground operations in the region, he understands that killing civilians only creates a bigger rift between the people and the government. How do you expect a country to cooperate with you in finding terrorists if you are killing more innocent people than the terrorists are? The international community is also questioning the legality of these strikes. The United States has countered that argument by stating the “force is necessary and legal on the grounds of Self Defense as proscribed by International Law and the Geneva Conventions Code of Military Conduct.” (Gates, 2009)
An unmanned combat assault vehicle is not subject to the same laws as a soldier. These vehicles are sometimes pre-programed for autonomous operation and are not controlled by a human operator. Who then is to answer for any human rights violations? Can a machine be held responsible for a war crime? These machines were designed to kill insurgents or terrorists – but they are incredibly inaccurate. If you have a Marine firing into a crowd to kill one man – he will be held personally responsible for killing the civilians. If a drone flies overhead with the intention of killing one terrorist; kills that terrorist, but also destroys a house full of innocent people – who answers for that?
The Brookings institution, a Think Tank in Washington D.C., has published reports that repeatedly demonstrate the lack of efficiency of drone attacks. They specifically noted, “For every one militant that is killed as a result of a drone attack, ten civilians lose their lives.” (Reidel, 2010) They have also stated that by using drones that kill civilians, they are only making Al Qaida more determined and better able to conduct recruitment. When you dehumanize a population, they will do anything to protect themselves and their families – even if it means joining a fight they wanted to avoid. The majority of people in Afghanistan, Pakistan, and surrounding areas, want to live peacefully without interference from terrorists or Americans. (Sherjan, 2010) They do not want to continue living in constant fear. Who would? These civilians will turn violent if they feel they are being forced into a corner. They do not understand that we are there to help – especially if they see their families destroyed due to a barrage of missiles coming from the sky.
The missiles from the sky are operated by men and women who have learned to desensitize themselves by turning killing into a game. They are in charge of multi-million dollar death planes that can’t yet differentiate between an enemy and a civilian. The machine operators are some of those same Americans that were recruited into the Military using video games to separate reality from the virtual world. It makes it difficult to feel empathy for a dot on a screen. They clock in and clock out like any nine to five job in the civilian world. These men and women are not there to witness the aftermath of their seemingly routine operations. They may never see actual combat, though they will have racked up more confirmed kills than any other soldier fighting on the ground.
A war fought without boots on the ground is exactly what Washington wants. They want to expand the Predator and Reaper programs to ensure the fewest American Military casualties. Under President Bush, the Predator Program proved its worth. The Obama administration was faced with a difficult decision: do they expand the Predator program to replace soldiers in Afghanistan, Pakistan, and Iraq? Or do they maintain the program at its current level, and keep our presence minimal in the area?
The answer was a compromise: expand the Predator Program and minimize the presence of soldiers on the ground. The CIA has their own program running simultaneously, though the workings of which are classified. We can assume they are improving the Predator Program to include a more efficient missile guidance system, as well as to increase the effectiveness of its surveillance system.
The future of these weapons is certain. The government has discovered an “effective” means of fighting a war at a low cost. They can minimize the loss of American soldiers by using unmanned vehicles of all kinds. This will fare well with the American public who want to see soldiers return home, and it fares well with Congress who want to increase our influence in foreign nations through Military dominance.
Currently Northrop Grumman is developing two types of unmanned combat assault vehicles for the Military: the Scaled Composite Models 396 and 395. They are competing with the Hunter-Killer program that produced the Predators and Reapers. The Scaled Composite Models will be produced at half the cost and half the size – making them a more formidable competitor for future wars.
Lockheed Martin, General Atomics, and Boeing, are also cashing in on the CIA and United States interest in unmanned machines. Boeing has developed the HALE: an unmanned surveillance drone that is capable of ten days of flight. Lockheed Martin has invented the smallest drone: the Samurai. The Samurai weighs just 150grams and is capable of shrinking to under three inches in diameter to spy indoors. Lockheed Martin has likewise made advances to the surveillance drone industry with their RQ-170 Sentinel. It has been dubbed the “Beast of Kandahar” because it has been spotted over Afghanistan.
General Atomics is the undisputed leader in unmanned assault vehicle development. Their latest addition is the Avenger which “is packed with 3,000 pounds of surveillance equipment and lethal munitions, such as laser-guided Hellfire missiles and 500-pound GBU-38 bombs. It can reach speeds of up to 530 mph, far faster than its spindly predecessors, the Predator and Reaper.” (Fulghum, 2009)
Some lesser known companies are also vying for a chance at making a wave in this fast growing industry - Aurora Flight Sciences, Scheibel, and Aesir – have all developed competing drones for use in battlefields across the globe.
The United States Air Force is developing an unmanned aerial vehicle called the MQ-MC, which they hope will phase out fighter pilots permanently by 2047. They are working on simulated dogfights which will enable the MQ-MC an opportunity to “acquire the experience” to make decisions during a combat mission. These simulations are designed to increase awareness for the unmanned vehicles – similar to the methods employed by fighter pilots. The Air Force is aiming to create a fleet of unmanned vehicles that are capable of making in flight operations decisions based on the predictability of human fighter pilots. (Homeland Security News, 2009)
The technology responsible for the creation of drones has enabled the CIA and the United States Military to create a new type of war: a war that can be fought on our terms, without the use of soldiers or fighter pilots. It is ostensibly a new approach to a tired routine that could potentially save the lives of Americans. These machines are being designed to replace the manpower that was once required to protect our interests abroad. (Anthony J. Lazarski, 2001)
However, it is important to note that with all new technology, it can be dangerous if left unchecked. The fears of many who oppose the use of drones are that the machines will fight a war without loyalty. Furthermore, there is a fear that surveillance machines will broaden their reach on our own soil. This fear is not without warrant. Already surveillance drones have been deployed to assist in operations on American soil. The government has authorized the use of drones on our homeland in an effort to find terrorists that are operating within our territory. (Tirpak, 1997)
Whichever side of the argument people take, they need to keep in mind the total costs of conducting war without soldiers. Remember the political costs to our allies. How do their countrymen feel about surrendering to a machine versus a commander? During the Gulf War, Iraqi troops famously surrendered to the U.S.S Wisconsin’s drone – the Pioneer. (Archive ) What about the lives that are lost due to the inaccurate air strikes conducted by unmanned combat assault vehicles?
There will no doubt be countless arguments on either side as to whether one should support the drone programs or not. It is rather obvious at present that the drones have caused serious irreversible damage to the regions in which they are deployed. The people who have suffered the most are the women, children, and men that live in Afghanistan, Iraq, Pakistan, and coming soon: Somalia. These people will never forget these atrocities. Moreover, there will merely be an escalation in violence in these countries due to our mechanical presence. The antipathy people feel toward America will likely rise as well with every drone deployed.
Perhaps in the future there will be an outcry against the use of unmanned assault vehicles. It is possible that seeing the needless destruction, people will call for the machines to be decommissioned. Only the future holds the answer to this and many other questions. And Americans will be right there in front of their computers and televisions watching the latest developments.

The Burqa

Recently in Europe there have been arguments over Muslim women wearing the burqa. People are arguing that the burqa should not worn as it contributes to terrorism. Here is a portion of my argument from yahoo:

While I don't agree with covering women up - I don't agree with a country banning a cultural practice that is not destructive to the population at large. I have read the Quran Torah, and Bible - there are a lot of inconsistencies with all three books. Nowhere in the Quran does it explicitly call for the complete covering of a woman. It does ask for modesty in dress - but so does the Bible. The Orthodox Jews dress in black from head to toe and are much more obvious in their submission to men than the Muslims in Los Angeles. I would not want to ban the Orthodox Jews from wearing something that I don't agree with. It is not my right to tell them what they can and cannot do if it is not harming me. I can see if for some security reason you are asked to remove a veil, or a turban. Though I can't imagine why they'd need to do that with the advent of x-ray and other physically non-invasive search techniques.
Something to keep in mind is that when you ban something you make it relevant. For example, you ban alcohol and drinking becomes more of a problem. (see US History for that one) When you make something a big deal when it isn't - you give the extremists more ammunition with which to attack your way of life. You give them something to fight about. It is alarming that people are willing to relinquish the rights of others. You let the government take the rights of others, soon your rights will be taken. Look at the US, after September 11th, there was hardly a whisper about the Patriot act infringing upon our right to privacy - the government was given sweeping powers over the people. Just keep that in mind. You allow something as seemingly innocuous as the attire of a person you don't agree with be regulated, soon it will be your attire that is deemed offensive, or dangerous to the public.

Extremism and terrorism doesn't know a dress code. As a former soldier I can tell you with utmost certainty that it doesn't matter what a perceived enemy is wearing. If someone's intent is to harm you, they can do it with clothes on or off.
When you say "what is to keep a similar even from happening here? are you referring to the banning of particular type of clothing? Or are you referring to terrorist attacks?
If you are talking about a particular type of clothing being banned, I am afraid to inform you that the American Constitution and the freedom loving people of this country would not tolerate it. This country was founded on the principles of equality. Yes, we have had our ups and downs. But through the efforts of Americans during the Civil Rights movement, as well as through the efforts of politicians who helped pass anti-discrimination laws - the rights of individuals has prevailed.
If you are talking about attacks occurring on American soil, that can happen at anytime by any person. It doesn't have to be a "brown woman" wearing a veil. Just look at what happened during 9-11. They were men dressed in accordance with American ideals. The best way to fight terrorism is to find its root. As I mentioned earlier, if we (American Military and our commanders) choose to kill civilians and support Karzai and other warlords in Afghanistan - we will only continue to divide the support of the people. In order to prevent any further attacks on American soil we need to earn the trust of the people in who's countries we are present.
In Pakistan there is a new Taliban emerging that is hell bent on destroying Western countries control of their regions. It will only further infuriate them if they see us banning their cultural symbols abroad. They can use that to further their cause. They can gain new support in the villages in Pakistan, Afghanistan, and others within that region of the World by saying "look how the West treats us abroad. They ban symbols of our culture. They bomb your villages full of innocent civilians. Take up arms against them."
As far as not having x-rays at malls etc. That is true. However, if you have lived in America you know that people most likely to commit atrocities on a large scale on American soil - are: Americans.
I think that there needs to be an understanding and respect for all cultures. We need to educate ourselves and our children so as not to continue this endless crusade against those who don't ascribe to our beliefs.

Immigration Reform

I have been ranting endlessly on Yahoo regarding illegal immigration, and more importantly: immigration reform. I have had numerous sparring matches regarding human rights and illegal immigrants. Here is a snippet from one of my most recent attacks:

As far as immigration is concerned: immigration reform is needed in this country. Picking up undocumented immigrants and shipping them back over the border only costs tax payers money. It does not guarantee they will not walk back over here. We do not need to waste money on this. In order to understand how we should address the problem of illegal immigration, we need to address the root cause. That being said, many of the illegal immigrants from Central and South America have come to this country because of economic hardship in their homelands. Some of the economic issues are directly related to American influence i.e. the Chicago Boys and Milton Friedman's free-market policies. His policies caused the political upheaval of numerous democratically run countries. When they opened up those countries to free-market policies, the price of commodities rose so much so that people were unable to feed themselves. They had to leave their homeland to find a new place in which they could lead a normal life. Many of the Democratic leaders in South America (Argentina as an example) were ousted in Military coups backed by the US. Therefore, if you want to talk about illegal immigration, you need to understand why they are here. Then you can address those issues. Otherwise, we will constantly fight an uphill battle with regards to illegal immigration.