Leaderboard

Hey everybody lets have a big fucking argument about religion. I'm sure we'll finally sort it all out this time.

It's in the KC-135 vol 3 because Doug Masters never quite recovered from washing out of IFF.

I think compulsory service is a better idea than a draft.

Okay, I don't disagree with you there. I guess I should have been more specific in my question. That is, why does a worldview devoid of religion (this is an assumption), but one that purports to be highly tolerant (again another assumption) and one that thrives in a pluralistic society allow for discrimination of another worldview that espouses some sort of religious belief? I fully understand that all worldviews have adherents who fail to live out the ideology of their beliefs thereby generating bad reputations. It's reasonable (or should be) to debate ideas associated with various worldviews (i.e. to let the merits of the ideas stand alone), but denouncing a philosophy solely on the ground of the actions of its followers can be shortsighted (I'll be the first to admit that I'm culpable of said shortsightedness). It seems strange to me to relish in another group's misfortune (such as those citizens of Cologne desiring religiously based medical procedures) based solely on their religion. Had the tables been turned and the decision restricted followers of an irreligious worldview, would the support been the same? In fact, it's not a leap to suggest irreligious philosophies are but a "religion" of a different ilk. Instead of faith in a deity/deities/some other power, adherents (whether weak or strong atheism/agnosticism) adhere to a "belief" (poor word choice, I know) lacking in theistic overtones. Merriam-Webster even allocates a description befitting such an idea: "a cause, principle, or system of beliefs held to with ardor and faith". In short (or not, in this case), I guess that unless the most sacred rights suffer violation, people should be allowed to act according to their religious/irreligious beliefs. I certainly don't agree with a lot of what's believed by various groups, but I don't think it the place of the government to restrict people's actions solely because they were based on a worldview and not a compelling medical reason. I don't normally quote the ACLU (as they are a group whose ideas are at times incongruous with my own), but in their Amici Curae brief for Alvarez vs. the US it was wisely stated: "The First Amendment was meant to ensure that the government would not become the arbiter of truth in the marketplace of ideas; it was “designed and intended to remove governmental restraints from the arena of public discussion, putting the decision as to what views shall be voiced largely into the hands of each of us.” Cohen v. California, 403 US 15, 24 (1971)." It's dangerous (in terms of preserving individual freedom) when the government plays the role of authority on what are valid/invalid ideas. Disclaimer: just because I quoted the ACLU who helped argue against the Stolen Valor Act does not imply my support of the Court's decision.

Is that stereotyping if we make them Red Air? Will they be GCI dependant? Standard loadout? They're going to simulate some fucked up loadout (wall to wall AA-8s) just to have an Eagle guy stand up and say "Thats not how you do that!"

Fuck, every bitter disgruntled dude on this board is a volunteer. I can't imagine the morale problems we'd have with a bunch of people who never wanted to be in the military.

"NT-ISR is the heat!"

...Red Air?