I have a theory about the soldiers

[elfs]

So, there have been a spate of theories about what happened in Iraq, about how the soldiers were influenced by America's obsession with movies about bad taste, or pornography, or feminism, or lesbians, or football hooliganism, or whatever.

I have my own theory. They were the victims of abstinence education.

I mean, the evidence is pretty strong. These were people who had no understanding of sexuality, not their own, certainly not of other people. Their only attachments were to their own tribes and ideologies. And it's clear that their activities were the result of the kind of pent-up rage that can only happen when one's natural inclinations are denied their expression.

It's no loonier than any other.

Comments

[rfreebern.livejournal.com]

I don't think it's loony. In fact, I came to nearly the same conclusion earlier today in a conversation with friends:

You know, with all this prisoner-torture stuff going on, I keep hearing about Americans' "sexual decadence" supposedly being at fault. When is the stupid country going to wake up and realise that it's not that we're obsessed with sex, it's that we're obsessed with sex and refuse to admit it. If we were open and comfortable about our sexuality, then we wouldn't even think of making prisoners perform sexual acts as a form of torture. Sexuality wouldn't be a weapon, because it would be, culturally, regarded as normal and pleasurable.

I generally think that comprehensive sex education and removal of the societal stigma against anything vaguely sexual would go a long way towards solving many problems. Unfortunately, I doubt it'll happen anytime soon.

[http://users.livejournal.com/dominic-m-/]

Not while religion run our government. Religion is what causes all the laws about sexual abstinance and repression, yet in the long run this churns out more weirdos in the long run. Our government needs to stand firm in the "seperation of church and state" and then things will finally START getting better. ::sigh:: I wish we had more clear headed people making our laws rather than all those zealots making laws up because a book said its that way. We need laws that are made BY the PEOPLE, FOR the PEOPLE. Till our government seperates itself from any and all religions our children will pretty much be at the mercy of any law made by zealot out there. Yes this rant goes out on a limb, but its the best way I could respond properly.

[samvimes.livejournal.com]

Our government needs to stand firm in the "seperation of church and state"

I agree. But it never will... unless we can first get rid of these guys (http://www.informationclearinghouse.info/article5646.htm).

[http://users.livejournal.com/dominic-m-/]

I couldn't agree more. I am not actually suggesting getting rid of religion( I will get tons of hate mail from every corner of the world if I do), but the fact that alot of religious people look down upon us less religious(assuming your probably in the same non-religious boat as me, If I am incorrect forgive me) people trying to better our government/world with ideas that don't follow their strict standards. Most of it is unintentional but there are quite a bunch of those that want to force the laws of their gods down our throats and that just tweaks a nerve or two(thousand) of mine. I cannot say with accuracy that george bush is the worst of these people (He is actually nice compared to others) but he is a prime example of one (the whole constitutional ban on gay marriage is the perfect example of him forcing his godly views on us,but sadly enough it is not the worst.). I am trying to be careful what I say here and if I am upsetting anybody with my anti-religion/government musings please forgive/vent by calling me names, I don't mean to anger(too much :p).

[samvimes.livejournal.com]

It's not all religions we need to worry about. It's not even Christianity per se that troubles me. If Bush were a Christian as I understand the term, he would be in favor of love and forgiveness and peace. He would follow the example of Jesus. He wouldn't be trying to force his beliefs on everyone else. The behavior I see is very different. I have friends who are deeply Christian, and abhor what Bush has been doing.

The real problem is that peculiar subset of religions that have replaced the message of love with one of hate and fear. See, for example, Christian Reconstructionism (http://www.apologeticsindex.org/r10.html) and Kingdom Theology (http://www.apologeticsindex.org/l04.html). I imagine other religions are similar: most Muslims go through life just trying to get along, and maybe make the world a little better, but there's that twisted hard core whose members issue fatwas and fly planes into buildings. Why? Because religions are power centers, and power corrupts its wielders; and because even religious leaders are people, who sometimes get seriously screwed up in the head.

Religion, like a weapon, can be used for good or for evil. So I'm wary of painting all religion with the same brush.

That said, I do think separation of Church and State is a fine idea. Religions do indeed proscribe certain behaviors for their followers, and these sorts of moral judgements have no place in law. People should be free to decide what religion (if any) and moral code they will adopt. Laws exist to ensure that nobody tramples on anyone else's freedoms. If your religion says you should smoke marijuana every morning, and never eat squash, why should I care? It doesn't affect me either way. But if you drive to work while high and smash into me, you should go to jail; your actions have now affected my life. And if you try to pass a law saying I should never eat squash, I'm going to get upset, even if I think squash tastes nasty.

[http://users.livejournal.com/dominic-m-/]

I tried posting a response earlier but something went awry and my internet crashed and yadda yadda yadda. But to mimic my previous try I truly enjoy the way you think. I see things (as above) pretty much in the same way you do. I just wish more people thought like this (dont hate me for saying that peoples its just an opinion). This post is much worse phrased than the last attempt and I am too sick right now to make it look uber pretty.

[http://users.livejournal.com/dominic-m-/]

It not as far fetched as the rest of that crap. At least your theory has a little psychology to it. If you want to throw some more finger pointing in you can blame religion too, all that repression and underlying hatred for any other religion thats not yours. But then again who knows?

[technoshaman.livejournal.com]

You're probably both right.... the parents and teachers are no longer teaching social responsibility (or much of anything else); they sure as hell aren't taught respect for their fellow human being... and when they're confronted with the people who, so they're told, whose brothers are the first to lead an attack on their homeland in 200 years, which homeland's fanatic leader throws around terms like "axis of evil", and the officer corps from the L-T on the spot clear back to the CinC are turning a blind eye - not to mention lying to them and generally jerking them around - what do you expect soldiers to do? They're going to rebel, and they're going to carry out street justice on the enemy.

Now, so I've read, they've yanked their internet access, and the entirety of the MP unit that was involved in this - a largish number of people, where (so it seems) only a handful were this far out of line - have had medals they were up for cancelled.... can we say, guilt by association? I thought we chucked the Brits out over this 230 years ago...

Just keep going, Bush. If the electorate doesn't replace your sorry ass in November, the legions are liable to frag it... and I'm just gonna sit here and nod and say you had it coming.

[http://users.livejournal.com/dominic-m-/]

Well If we did not have the stupid a$$ electoral colleges in the first place none of this crap would have happend. GORE is the REAL president in my mind. He had more votes, and was robbed in florida. Oh and about that street justice, I am quite liable to start taking some street justice out on bush soon unless he vacates the white house this election.

[technoshaman.livejournal.com]

Careful what you say in a public forum, my friend. Besides, Gore would've been just as bad a puppet as Dubya is, just in a different direction. Kerry shows at least some signs of being his own man; we shall see, I suppose.

[http://users.livejournal.com/dominic-m-/]

:p Yea ill be more carefull, but what I said is true, gore did have more votes. And you are right about kerry, he seems to be actually interested in the presidency for good cause. Wheteher its truly going to end up for good or not is yet to be seen.