Inflammatory emotional charged phrases

[cricket]

Ultimately, only the individual has control over his or her own reactions and feelings. It is up to the individual to decide what he or she will allow to affect his or her emotional state.

[Gregory Matthews]

Re: "Fact: the Geneva Convention does not apply to al Qaeda and other terrorists. A cursory understanding would make that clear. They are not uniformed, they are not the agents of a state.

According to the Geneva Convention, a combatant from a hostile power who is found in disguise, that is, not in uniform, may be summarily shot as a spy."

Ed, you may have read some of the Geneva Conventions. [There are many Geneva Conventions. The United States has signed some, and not others.} But, I doubt that you have ever sat in a class to be trained in them, or that you have ever had to apply them on the ground so to speak.

I will say on the basis of my training, your statement that I have cited above is wrong. I do not have a lot of interest in getting into a discussion of the Geneva Conventions. But, I will say that you are wrong.

Just by way of background, I have walked by the side of an International Red Cross person inspecting the detainment center where the U. S. Army had detained non-uniformed representives of a hostle power, as well as civilian representatives of that country. I will tell you that the International Red Cross representative was inspecting in accord with the provisions of the Geneva Convention that the U. S. had signed that related to those non-uniformed people.

I will tell you flat-out, that we were NOT permitted to kill them as spies. The Geneva Conventions are much more complex than you seem to realize.

[Dr. Shane]

</font><blockquote><font class="small">Quote:</font><hr />

The other way to get around this whole issue is to be less sensitive.

<hr /></blockquote><font class="post">

Since very early in my recovery from alcoholism I have been taught to take personal responsibility for my reactions to other's actions. I have been taught not to blame others for the way I react to them. Biblically we have the story of Peter and John in Acts Chapter 4 who were falsely arrested and yet glorified God. We have the story of Paul and Silas in chapter 16 where they were falsely imprisoned and sang hymns!

However, the administration here at C/A has not asked us to be less sensative or to have thicker skin. We have been asked not to use inflamatory emotionally charged language. So we can either try to comply with that request of the adminstration or decide to do our own thing like we always have before. Is there another option?

[there buster]

You are correct, Gregory, as follows:

1) I have never had a "class" in the Geneva Conventions

2) I have never had to administer them on the ground.

I have

• lobbied legislation

• written legislation

• interpreted that legislation

• been consulted by legal counsel to the executive branch on the interpretation of legal language

• been on multiple advisory committees to the executive branch

• written administrative code to implement legislation

• administered both law and statute

• been asked by the executive to help revise the administrative code

• been consulted by attorneys concerning this and other legislation

• received training is multiple areas of federal and state regulations
• been hired as a consultant to administer and implement compliance on regulations which occupied nearly 1000 pages. Some people considered them "complex."

And this on a range of issues from highway safety to education to security to environmental issues.

So, my statement was a little over broad. There are undoubtedly some detainees who were not subject to summary execution.

However, according to Article 29 of the fourth Hague Convention ("Convention (IV) respecting the Laws and Customs of War on Land and its annex: Regulations concerning the Laws and Customs of War on Land. The Hague, 18 October 1907.")

http://www.icrc.org/ihl.nsf/4e473c7bc885...c8?OpenDocument

"A person can only be considered a spy when, acting clandestinely or on false pretences, he obtains or endeavours to obtain information in the zone of operations of a belligerent, with the intention of communicating it to the hostile party" That definition is still binding.

Many of the detainees were doing just that. And although they are entitled to a trial, in a battle zone trials are both swift and brief-- and are administered by military tribunals, not civilian courts.

So, no, the documents are clear. Probably not every single one of the detainees would subject to execution, but many would be, if we so chose.

Since I don't know the circumstances under which the people you were inspecting were taken, I cannot comment. Very possibly, their circumstances were radically different.

The circumstances of many of the detainees at Gtmo is easily discoverable. Many of them were in another belligernt's area of operations using deception to gain information. Ergo, they could have been tried, even by a field tribunal in time of war, and executed.

Every law appears complex on the surface. The real difficulty is finding which provision or provisions apply to a given set of circumstances.

Perhaps, as you so tactfully put it, I'm "flat-out wrong." Perhaps International Law in this area is "more complex than [i} seem to realize." (Some might take offense at such words, might consider them inflammatory).

Perhaps. But the documents in question, and the facts in this case support my position.

[there buster]

The only option I can see is that those who won't trim their sails to go with the prevailing wind around here just leave.

I keep hoping, but it's getting tough.

[Jeannieb43]

For what it's worth, I don't always "go with the flow," either. In fact, some inflammatory comments do tend to rile me. But I usually just decide not to reply.

After all, what's a conversation without some varying viewpoints? [as long as they're not personal attacks, that is]

[Bravus]

</font><blockquote><font class="small">Quote:</font><hr />

The only option I can see is that those who won't trim their sails to go with the prevailing wind around here just leave.

<hr /></blockquote><font class="post">

Genuine inquiry: *which* prevailing wind? The wicklunds one? The Amelia one? The Shane one? The Ed White one? The NeilD one? Just that list represents the incredible diversity of perspectives and approaches that exist here, so I'm not sure which of these is overwhelming.

Sure, many of the moderators might share some perspectives, and I agree with your point that moderators have extra responsibilities in voicing their opinions with care, but I think it's clear that the moderation is not stifling alternative voices - including those that are critical of the moderators and of CA itself.

[there buster]

Quote:

---

varying viewpoints? [as long as they're not personal attacks

---

The problem is the inability or unwillingness of moderators to distinguish between the two, and enforce accordingly.

[there buster]

Quote:

---

*which* prevailing wind? The wicklunds one? The Amelia one? The Shane one? The Ed White one? The NeilD one?

---

There's one primary political one, somewhat more diversity theologically, but the abusive technique is nearly identical.

When I saw the title of this thread, I thought there might be some serious discussion about the topic. Hope springs. But, it's really moot. Like a lot of SDA congregations, as long as the habitues are happy, there's no point in rocking the boat.

My bad.

[Neil D]

Quote:

---

Just thinking, now... The other way to get around this whole issue is to be less sensitive. I know Nico would disagree with me, and maybe she has a point, but perhaps it's just like any bullying: if they don't get a reaction, they'll stop. Or maybe they won't stop, but you won't have reacted...

---

There is a third option, Bravus. One that I have been attempting to use, that is, to place people on the ignore list that EVERY person in C/A has...This way one person can ignore another as a way to control oneself from answering the offending remarks.

It is rather simple to use....And it has implications for both partys....Mainly, that a failure to respect another's boundary.

There are a couple of issues with non-respecting another's boundray. One is controling information, and the other is recognizing that certain forms of communication causes a negeitive reaction. To stem the tide of negetive reaction [aka knee jerks reactions], a cognative person can simply ignore a user as a way to stem the flood of negetivity that he wants to flood the board. This should be commended as it is a style of self-control that allows dialoge to continue between other parties over a subject.

Quite honestly, it IS a shame when two people don't respect each other's boundarys. Viewpoints can be disagreed with....controling another person to do your will...that is an absolute unvirtuous shame.

In our current case, a person can not point out the failure of current leadership without being accused of hatred/bigotry/unpatriotic to one's own contry. [ Which is absolutely laughable, considering that if the sentiment were enforced during the colonial times, we would be still english subjects.] That is why we have "freedom of speech", and are allowed to give another viewpoint in the US Constitution.

In a BBS, we are subject to the governing "Lord", [stan, you can stand up and take a bow here ], who allows, in this virtual kingdom of his, the type of responsible communication to bring out new ideas and hold onto traditional ones. I believe the goal is to have conversations, even on politics, and not freeze or stop the thinking, and cause knee jerking comments.

A person who continues to demonstrate language that stops conversations, and the free flow of ideas, is in essence working against the constitition...He may not agree with the ideas being presented, but to continue to demonstrate a behavior of controling the flow of information using suberversive tactics, is tantamount to bullying that is being done in the schoolyard.

It is the desire to be the 'queen bee" [if female] or the "King bee" [counterpart of the female] by controling the independant behavior of people contrary to the social mores of a [small] group. This type of bullying is injurous to the group as a whole, and as such, the whole needs to demand that the individual needs to find another way to express him/herself with other means, other than abusive emotional language and bullying tactics and non-respecting behavior.

The group also needs to define what is GOOD communication in this forum, not what is bad. Because we have not defined what is good communication, we only know that once we have crossed the line, we know that we have strayed from good communication.

So, perhaps good communication needs to be defined. Otherwise, we need a moderator who will demand that HIS standards be used as 'good communication". Perhaps this forum will need to police itself with a defination of good communication...

So, what do you see as good communication, or the way to share ideas....?

[Stan]

WHILE we are all getting in touch with this, there is one issue that is not touched upon, openly. AND that is because we do not know how to say it, perhaps someone can add to my initial comments.

When you are at a Board Meeting, and some one starts a question to another member with the word Brother, you pretty much know that the 'Brother' is going to be hit some some condescending remark, slam or 'challenge'.

It is like saying, I am going to tell you off, but because I call you Brother, you can not get upset, as it is what the Bible says to do. The reality is, the Bibles does say, whoever does his will is our brother, but the deeper reality is people of the NT did not call each other brother and sister in the Bible, or if it does, I must have skipped over that part, that is an inheritance from our Catholic friends to make us feel like we are doing religion right. Similar to how some people feel when they dress like they did in EGW day, makes them feel like they are doing "religion right".

I know the intent of calling someone Brother is good, but it does come across not in the way that I am sure was intended by the author.

You had asked to review inflammatory remarks and statements, this, in my opinion, as well as some others that have commented on that, is one of them, especially to some of the members.

Perhaps others can explain that better than I did.

Stan

[Dr. Shane]

In every hispanic church I have ever been in (US & Latin America) everyone calls each other brother and sister. Even the pastors are called brothers! For example one rarely says "Pastor Sanchez" but rather says "Brother Sanchez". All the children use the term when speaking with adults. The children do not call the adults Mrs. Gonzales or Mr. Garcia but rather Sister Gonzales and Brother Garcia. To me that has created a warm, family environment in the Adventist church. Having been raised in such a dysfunctional family, it is just what I needed.

I don't know the history of the terms but I try to use them. Above all else it places us on an equal ground. God is no repector of persons and when I use the terms brother and sister it reminds me that we are all on the same ground. It keeps me humble is what it does.

[Jeannieb43]

But what Stan was telling us was that things are different, here on an internet forum. There's no face-to-face, for one thing. We have to depend on the use of language itself, not upon idiomatic expressions, to convey meaning.

We're each different individuals, some different ethnicities, and definitely each is from a different "home church" where such "brotherhood" develops.

[i have to tell an example here.] Our family moved from a large urban congregation to a medium-sized, rural town where there was a small Adventist church. Everybody in the small church called each other "Brother" and "Sister." My mother was immersing herself in the new habits so thoroghly that one day when she went to the jewelers to have her watch repaired, she asked for the owner by name: "Brother Butterfield." She nearly died of embarrassment, however, because he was not a church member, she didn't know him personally, and she had no idea whether or not he was even a Christian! But we kids had a good time teasing her about her "Brother Butterfield" over and over again during our teenage years.

[Dr. Shane]

Hey now, I have done the same thing myself <img src="/ubbtreads/images/graemlins/shocked.gif" alt="" />

[cricket]

Some cultures use the terms, "Brother" and "Sister".

Some cultures use the words, "Pastor", "Mr.", "Mrs.", and Dr."

Some cultures use the words, "Sir" and "Ma'am."

Some cultures use the words, "Bro" and "Homey."

Some cultures just use the given name: "Bob" and "Sue."

Some cultures use slang terms: "B@#%&" and "F&$#!*"

Some cultures use the words, "Uncle So-and-so" and "Auntie So-and-so"

Undoubtedly, there are terms of address as listed above to which some will take offense. Every speaker will be wise to understand the cultural background of the person he is addressing so that none will be offended.

[Amelia]

</font><blockquote><font class="small">Quote:</font><hr />

When you are at a Board Meeting, and some one starts a question to another member with the word Brother, you pretty much know that the 'Brother' is going to be hit some some condescending remark, slam or 'challenge'.

<hr /></blockquote><font class="post">

LOL Stan, yep that happens here too. I wonder if members know they do it? <img src="/ubbtreads/images/graemlins/mittelgr124.gif" alt="" />

[Neil D]

Christine makes a valid point in addressing people from a cultural viewpoint. However, equally valid is where one crosses and mixes cultural norms and it become offensive. A good point made by Stan and Amelia.

This forum is an english speaking forum, and it is also Adventist. Both these have cultural norms that cross over. While we are mostly American, Canadian and Austrailian, there are occassional British, Ireland, South African, New Zealand varities that wonder in here from time to time. Generally speaking, we dont' address one another as 'Brother" or "Sister"...And generally speaking in English Adventist circles, that is also true. However, there is some sub-Adventist circles that do...But most of those are concidered extreme, at best, and cultish at worst. So, in most English Adventist circles, addressing someone as "Brother" so and so or "Sister" so and so, does NOT give most people the feeling of home, or reassurance. Instead, it gives one the feeling of being dressed down, of being subordinate, put down.

And, that is the reason why I never use that term(s) in my posts...Too many Adventists have been spiritually abused thru those terms.

[Dr. Shane]

When I attended Andrews University, for a short time, I always attended the African-American services and we all called each other bother and sister there too. I wonder if all African-American churches are like that or if it was just that one at Andrews.

I was really loved and taken in by that community. Perhaps that is why I felt so good going into the hispanic community with simular practices. I really do like that practice because a brother in Christ is something special. At first I was a little embarrassed using the terms but I got over that. But it contributes to my feeling of being part of the family of God. We are not just members of the same country club or students in the same school. We are bound by the blood of Christ. I have brothers and sisters within this movement that care for me more than my own biological family. I love this church and I love the people in it. We are family.

I think it is a shame that the devil can take such a wonderful emotional bonding element like Christian brotherhood and turn it upside down and use it to abuse one another. I had never even heard of such a thing until Stan (dare I call him "brother" <img src="/ubbtreads/images/graemlins/confused.gif" alt="" /> ) mentioned it here. The first time anyone ever called me brother was there at Andrews and it was nothing less than wonderful. He called me brother. Our skin wasn't the same color but we were (still are) brothers. What a wonderful feeling it was.

And I was just getting use to being a member of the family of God <img src="/ubbtreads/images/graemlins/frown.gif" alt="" />

[Stan]

t is not always unFriendly. Or even viewed that way. Brother and Sister in a warm situation makes it even warmer.. IT can really help build community of those who are of like mind...

In a argumentative mode it is not.

There is not a clear line that I can define..

Last weekend, I heard my name called Brother Jensen... I knew that I was going to get a truckload of unsolicited advice on a trivial matter.

Today, ( at camp meeting) was called Brother Jensen, and I it had such a friendly tone... from a ethnic church group that I love to attend (Filipino)

ONe was a nice greeting, the other was hi-jacking my time..

[Gregory Matthews]

In some contexts it is warm and friendly. In others it is condecending.

Frankly, I just roll with it, and generally do not respond when I feel someone is being condecending. At other times, I simply accept that the person is attempting to be warm and friendly, without knowing how it is often percieved.

[Dr. Shane]

Is it only white people that use this term to be condecending?

[Stan]

It is not always condsending, mostly when you know its going to end up in an arguementative conversation.

[Bravus]

I don't think it's a huge issue. It's kind of like when someone calls someone 'Friend' in a Western: time to take the bottles down off the shelf because the shooting's about to start! It's completely a context-bound thing, so it's hard to make a broad statement about it. For what it's worth, I like it that Shane does it - the vibe I get is that although he disagrees, he is working hard to do it kindly and politely, and I respect and like that.

[cricket]

Quote:

---

Is it only white people that use this term to be condecending?

---

In an ethnically diverse church, it is an ethnically diverse problem. It is a result of multiculturalism.

[Neil D]

I did not want to change the tenor of a thread, and since this seems more appropriate here, then there, I thought I would discuss it here, in the hopes of getting clarification....

Shane said-

Quote:

---

They just need to send those bombers to Gitmo and we'll get the truth out of them.

---

There is some confusion on my part...Since gitmo is a place of interigation and jail and alleged minor torture, this statement was assumed to be funny, based upon the ....I don't see how interigation in the form of alleged torture techniques is ...

Please clarify your statement...