May 17, 2012
Print This Post
Military chaplains and service members opposed to same-sex marriage are coming under attack in the military, according to Republican lawmakers and a chaplain advocacy group.
The Chaplain Alliance For Religious Liberty said there is an effort under way to silence, and in some cases punish, those opposed to gay marriage. The allegations surfaced after the repeal of Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell.
FOLLOW TODD ON FACEBOOK. CLICK HERE.
“If you are supportive of same sex marriage, you can speak boldly,” said Ron Crews, executive director of the Chaplain Alliance. “But if you are opposed, you are silenced.”
Crews is one of 19 individuals to write a letter to the House Armed Services Committee urging lawmakers to protect the religious liberties of chaplains and service members.
“Until Congress acts decisively, efforts to silence the voices of our military chaplains of all faiths and backgrounds will likely continue well into the future,” the letter read. “It is time that Congress secures the rights of all chaplains, once and for all, instead of allowing those that do not subscribe to the orthodoxy of the day to be unconstitutionally silenced.”
The Pentagon disputed those assertions. In a statement to Fox News they said chaplains are not required to participate or officiate in any private ceremony that might conflict with their religious or personal beliefs. They also denied any service members have been punished for opposing gay marriage.
“In general, as we have reinforced in training across the force, DADT Repeal is not about changing attitudes but rather about reinforcing behavior that treats everyone with dignity and respect,” the spokesman said.
George Wright, an Army spokesman at the Pentagon, said in a statement to Fox News “the religious freedoms of Army chaplains are already well protected in Army policy and regulations.”
Crews said they know of dozens of instances where military personnel have come under fire. He said one chaplain was told that if he could not support DADT he should resign his commission.
“Some of these chaplains have in fact had their careers impacted,” he told Fox News. “They’ve been punished. Right now, if you are opposed to this policy you’re not seen as a team player.
An amendment to the 2013 defense authorization bill could change that. The amendment, sponsored by Rep. Todd Akin (R-MO), protects religious freedom of military chaplains and service members opposed to same-sex marriage.
Akin said he’s received a number of complaints about people of religious faith concerned about what they perceive to be attacks on Christianity.
“There is a war on religious belief in the military,” Akin told Fox News.
Akin said he was aware of chaplains who’ve come under fire for their opposition.
“That’s the point (of the amendment),” he said. “To prevent further reprisals in the future.”
“It’s frightening,” Crews said. “This is just another example of this administration’s push against religious liberty.”
Related posts:
FOX News Talk
Seems like no one can have an opinion or a stance on things these days without being personally attacked ad hominem. Free speech and opinion is only chic when everyone is on the bangwagon on the same issue, but those who dare to think differently are personally attacked and ridiculed like Bristol Palin who has been recieving vile death threats and personal attacks just for simply disagreeing with McKenyan. Whatever happenend to agreeing to disagree minus the attacking and trying to silence a person just to satisfy an agenda? Attacks on faith have always existed, and its going to get worse as time moves on in this apathetic society we live in where the line between right and wrong is blurred, and everything is acceptable because everyone is doing it.
McKenyan? And you talk about agreeing to disagree without attacking. You are a fucking hypocrite.
Exactly! Another example is this new acceptance of gays where I not only need to be accepting, I have to praise it and approve of it and maybe even act a little metro-sexual to prove how accepting I am. Or, be a bigoted gay -bashing- Faux News- minion and hater. I say Oh-#@&-ing- well. Living here in the US of A means you are FREE to feel offended. So get over it, because I AM NOT BACKING DOWN.
Exactly! Another example is this new acceptance of gays where I not only need to be accepting, I have to praise it and approve of it and maybe even act a little metro-sexual to prove how accepting I am. Or, be a bigoted gay -bashing- Faux News- minion and hater. I say Oh-#@&-ing- well. Living here in the US of A means you are FREE to feel offended. So get over it, because I AM NOT BACKING DOWN.
Nick Wrong, Obama is half Irish and Kenyan you dumb ass idiot, or have you forgotten? Get the hell out of here.
Tyler Johnson Here, here! And lets not forget that if you oppose Obummer's policies and job performance, you are a racist instead of a citizen simply voicing your opinion which has nothing o do with his race. I'm sick of the whole new 'PC' trend personally, and also refuse to bow to it.
Cherri SHotgun
The left is really getting carried away with the race card. I never thought of race when voting. In fact I could care less about a candidates race and care more about experience, the plan for getting the country back on its feet, and if any of the candidates philosophies and beliefs run alongside mine. As of late, any kind of opposition to whatever McKenyan says or does is going to always be met with the most outrageous claims and allegations.
Joel Rivera He sure doesn't act like he's half Irish does he? He just identifies with the kenyan half of his genetic makeup – like keeping his illegal aunt and uncle ,who have deportation orders, in the country.
Dee Bristol
Its interesting to note, that even though he was raised by his white grandparents, I doubt very much that he knows the black experience, and what it is to be black, but yet tries to act black. Just because he's half Irish doesnt mean that luck is on his side. I think something funny is obviously going on when his aunt and uncle are allowed to stay in defiance of immigration law.
INVOKING ad-hom in defense of somebody who is being criticized for making ad-hom attacks?
Puhleeze.
Bailey Bednar
I love it when you say puhleeze on your knees. GET THE HELL OUT OF HERE!
Todd Starnes has declared a War on Civil Rights.
Even if you define yourself by a poor behavior it is still a poor behavior.
The next generation is a benefit and mattress sports are only ever an expense.
I can see a day, where sodomite gangs prey on young requites.
There're there all ready Mike. priests.
If a chaplin, under the laws of God, does not want to particapte in gay marriage, he has that right.
Chaplain is the correct spelling. Chaplin is incorrect. Please pay attention.
They are there already Papa Mike, NEA and AFT UNION member public school teachers molesting our children.
It has been going on for years and priests are/were a very small percentage. The fags have invaded the schools as children are easily swayed and they know it. Our President is a traitor to this country for supporting this unnatural behavior.
More spelling nazis…
Actually, it's been going on for centuries, aided and abetted by the church leadership…
Priests are the single largest demographic group of child rap ists in history….
I believe that honor goes to the Muslims.
I can't remember the last time I went more then 2 or 3 days without reading about a judeo-chrisitian little boy rap ist, and I can't remember the last time I read about any muslims doing likewise….I'm sure you can back up you claim with some verifiable references…
Are all children little boys? I don't know what you read but I've not seen it, do you get a paper from NAMBLA?
NAMBLA is certainly disgusting, but their 'members' rarely act on their desires….
Christian clergy are the largest single documented group of child rapers in history… although it's becoming quite clear that the ultra-orthodox jewish community has embraced the despicable practice with great enthusiasm….
http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2012/may/17/ultra-orthodox-jews-accused-offender?newsfeed=true
White, religious and conservative are the trinity of traits most consistent with child molesters…
http://yellodyno.com/Statistics/statistics_child_molester.html
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2001029/Child-brides-young-5-married-secret-middle-aged-men.html
Howard Aubrey I just read that whole article and most of their source PDFs and none of it said Christians or Conservatives were the majority. There are a lot of Christians in the world that do nothing but help people. You can't just say all white Christians are child molestors. That's like saying all Democrats are far-left Liberals.
Of course I can't say that, which is why I didn't. However I HAVE provided empirical evidence that shows that most child molesters are white christians..
Of course I can't say that, which is why I didn't. However I HAVE provided empirical evidence that shows that most child molesters are white christians..
No you have not provided that "evidence".
Howard Aubrey I am Catholic and am as appalled as anyone about the abuse scandals. Back in the 60's the Church decided to admit homosexuals into seminary to "help" them stay celibate. In 2005 the Vatican ruled no homosexuals can enter seminary Almost all the abuse cases were with teen-age boys. As far as your stats about "white" abusers, you may want to consider in many countries, child rape is not an abuse–thus no stats.
I like how "fags" isn't a censored word on this website, but proper names, even of those persons mentioned in the actual articles these same comment boards are attached to, often are…
Keep it classy, y'all.
I like how "fags" isn't a censored word on this website, but proper names, even of those persons mentioned in the actual articles these same comment boards are attached to, often are…
Keep it classy, y'all.
Papa Mike Go to hell, jackass. Have fun cruising for twinks tonight!
Matt Bird if it was then FoxNews wouldn't be the official new service for the White Supremists and Domestic Terrorists.
Merrell O Brian-I am not a White Supremacists or a Domestic Terrorist, are you? Yet we are both on a Fox News comment discussion.
There're there all ready Mike. priests.
If a chaplin, under the laws of God, does not want to particapte in gay marriage, he has that right.
Teachers are equally guilty of molestation, if not more so. DOMA currently prevents any Chaplain or Federal facility being used for gay marriage, but the admin wants to abandon it with their radical gay agenda. Forcing Chaplains to participate is foreseeable.
Yes, forcing Chaplain's to officiate over interacial marriages is WRONG!
Oh, wait… which people were we oppressing today?
Kaycie- Nice attempt at conflating two completely separate situations. Of your examples, one is expressly condemned within scripture (which is what a Chaplain teaches), the other is not. You don't have to agree with Christianity or its teachings, but if you want to allow ALL people the freedom to practice their religion (which our Constitution expressly guarantees) and have equal rights, then you can't compel chaplains to violate their religion's tenets. That is the crux of this problem and apparently you don't see that.
Andrew Burden Nice job ignoring the point and deflecting all over the wall. The Bible was (and still is) used against any particularly "unliked" group, and it was used against African Americans in the same way it is used today against gays. How you personally interpret (IE: cherry pick) your religious teachings and history is irrelevant.
The freedom to practice ones religion does not include trampling the rights of *other* people to do so. You do not get to bully, harass, discriminate, and legislate against groups of people you don't like (for whatever reason it is today you don't like them, its ever changing) simply because you are religious. Most Chaplain are mature enough to understand this, even if you aren't.
And what you "don't get" is that a job in the military is not like in the civilian world. You will follow the executive orders handed down to you, or you will find a civilian job. We don't let the military vote on "popular orders" or ignore unpopular ones. In the days of DADT, all obeyed that law or were punished accordingly. Today, the zealots will find the law less suppportive of their personal hatred toward gays, and you'll just have to learn to live with that somehow. Do try not to lose sleep over it.
do you wear polyester blend? Eat shellfish? married a non-virgin?
I can tell you one thing, Red Lobster is going to burn in hell.
Kaycie- I am very aware of what a job in the military entails… Not sure you do though based on what you've said here. I've worn a uniform for longer than you have been breathing most likely. I've not missed any points here. I'm not particularly religious myself, but I can see that you are only viewing the argument from your own perspective. Try stepping out of your shoes and looking at the issue from a Constitutional perspective. You will see that those who chose not to believe in a religion cannot infringe upon the practice of those who do. I don't know of a single instance within the military where a chaplain has bullied, harassed, discriminated against anyone (unless you want to say Clinton's DADT was discrimination and even then it wasn't chaplains who were making or enforcing that policy). BTW, nice job making blind assumptions about me on a public forum- perfect way to show your inflexible dogmatism… I don't like or dislike homosexuals. I like or dislike individuals based on their value of their character. I also very much like our Constitution and when someone tries to violate that (punishing chaplains for practicing their religion- if that really happened), I am sworn to oppose it. So you might want to refrain from making ad hominem attacks on complete strangers, about which you know nothing, if you want to be taken seriously by anyone other than intellectually inflexible negats.
You're not going to win a fight based on who's military balls are bigger. (That's called filler.) Also, you haven't asked my "perspective," those would be assumptions on your part, making you a straight up hypocrite after accusing me of the same. More filler to distract from your inability to directly contest my comments. If you were in the military you know full well that the military doesn't play the "frivolous orders" game, and screeching at me about the Constitution doesn't change that reality. Also, Chaplains know better than to do that, as I said elsewhere, they're more mature than most, so know not to make a stink about it if their personal religious beliefs run counter to their orders and military duties, since their individual beliefs might not be beneficial to the UNIT they are a part of as a whole, which is what military policy is geared to.
Btw, I don't care about your personal opinion about homosexuals. Completely irrelevant to the topic, so why are you giving me your private opinions? More filler, no doubt.
When the military punishes, it does so by the UCMJ and strict code of military conduct. You should understand this full well. I'm also thinking the constitutional advisors at the Pentagon have a grasp on the subject matter, so you can stop ranting about how you personally have to swing your mighty sword of ad hominems (another empty assumption on your part) to defend it. Or perhaps you just don't like how they've applied it now that the shoes are on the other foot. Of course, YOU know best how to apply it, right? You and everyone else with an opinion.
And since you make the point that most aren't making a fuss about their required duties, we can assume your fervent desire to defend them is misplaced. I'm pretty sure they can speak for themselves in your absense.
I didn't ask your perspective because you gave it loud, clear and demonstrably one-sided… As to all your other rantings, well, like you said… filler. You are cracking me up though… Please continue… Or do you need me to make more clear, concise and cogent points in order to spur more ranting? No, I suppose you don't. From your posts here it would seem you can rant about all manner of things without any prodding. Enjoy your cool-aid infusion. Bye Bye …
Kaycie Zubowski I personally know of ex-homosexuals. I know of no ex-blacks, ex-hispanics, ex-whites etc.
Please note that chaplain is the correct spelling. Chaplin is incorrect.
Stop being a duck!
Please note that dick is the correct spelling. Duck is incorrect.
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/09/22/jewish-voters-favor-obama_n_1905002.html ….. And all the People said "So Be It! Forever"…. Obama stands for Tzedakhah and Haganah of the Jewish State…Ahi! HaTzionut Eretz Yisrael Adat HaShem Eloheynu
Jewish Voters Support Obama By HUGE Margin
http://www.huffingtonpost.com
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/09/22/jewish-voters-favor-obama_n_1905002.html ….. And all the People said "So Be It! Forever"…. Obama stands for Tzedakhah and Haganah of the Jewish State…Ahi! HaTzionut Eretz Yisrael Adat HaShem Eloheynu
Jewish Voters Support Obama By HUGE Margin
http://www.huffingtonpost.com
were slowly becoming a nazi germany.we used to crucify governments for doing what were doing.
That didn't take long: Godwin's law states: "As an online discussion grows longer, the probability of a comparison involving Nazis or Hitler approaches.
Since he was kind enough to break the ice, I'll take the liberty of pointing out that Hitler was a white, christian conservative…
If he were alive today, FOX would have given him his own show….
so whats the difference between that and what cnnmsnbc does for the liberals?
The difference is CNN reports and we decide.
ha ha thats funny…whew really had me going there….cnn reports….ha ha ha….you should take that act on stage
And you're telling me Fox News is fair and balanced and without an agenda? Bahahaha!
That's because it happened in the recent past and we all know about it. There are other more obscure examples, but Hitler is really the best example of how people will allow "Change" until it's too late to stop.
That's because it happened in the recent past and we all know about it. There are other more obscure examples, but Hitler is really the best example of how people will allow "Change" until it's too late to stop.
actually i didnt say anything remotley resembling that….so what are you laughing at really? oh now i see, you made an assumption and reacted only to end up looking like a jack-ass…s'ok theres no crime agaisnt that and we still are a (somewhat) free country
actually i didnt say anything remotley resembling that….so what are you laughing at really? oh now i see, you made an assumption and reacted only to end up looking like a jack-ass…s'ok theres no crime agaisnt that and we still are a (somewhat) free country
Howard Aubrey hitler was not a Christian or a conservative, he was at most a pagan and at least an agnostic, he was also a fascist, which is liberalism.
Howard Aubrey know the facts. Hitler was in no way a Christian or a Conservative. He was a Jew-hating, anti-religious, murdering, racist Socialist.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Adolf_Hitler#Religious_views
In public, Hitler often praised Christian heritage and German Christian culture, and professed a belief in an "Aryan" Jesus Christ—a Jesus who fought against the Jews.[328] He spoke of his interpretation of Christianity as a central motivation for his antisemitism (hatred of the Jews), stating that "As a Christian I have no duty to allow myself to be cheated, but I have the duty to be a fighter for truth and justice."[329][330] In private, Hitler was more critical of traditional Christianity, considering it a religion fit only for slaves; he admired the power of Rome but maintained a severe hostility towards its teaching.[331] Historian John S. Conway states that Hitler held a "fundamental antagonism" towards the Christian churches.[332]
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Adolf_Hitler#Religious_views
like hell he was. he was an oportunist just like Obama
James Owings, All you've done is shown he was no fan of organized religion. The same description would have fit well for Martin Luther.
Howard Aubrey- actually National Socialism is on the LEFT side of the political spectrum… and he wanted to outlaw Christianity within the Reich… but yes, he was white… so at least you got 33% of your statement right…
Andrew Burden, Offer a reference for Hitler wanting to ban Christianity within the Reich! The German Army belt buckles read GOTT MIT UNS, which translates to GOD WITH US.
He thought Christianity was a religion fit only for slaves. It's in my previous comment.
Andrew Burden At least somebody knows what they are talking about.
Hitler required ALL German soldiers to swear an oath of allegiance to god and to wear a belt buckle that said 'god is with us'… He remained deeply connected to the church and attended mass right up until his death…
He was homophobic, xenophobic and a textbook conservative….
You can't change history, Hitler would have been right at home at a teabagger rally or sitting next to O'Reilly or Beck….
You are wrong.
Howard, try actually studying Nazi Germany… Take a class maybe… Then you will find out a bit more about the path he put the Reich upon, where he intended for it to go and how he twisted religion to his own purposes… Dig a little deeper than the surface rust… Have some intellectual curiosity… It will open your eyes to the pure evilness of National Socialism. You will find that you are sadly mistaken about the things you are professing here (and making yourself look a bit foolish too). Your obvious hatred for conservatism seems to have blinded you to facts, history and rationality…
Andrew Burden, I see, so you finish by offering no references and no facts and want us to believe that history just happens to back up what you already believe.
Andrew Burden Amen to that, Andrew.
Tim Gale, it isn't worth my time to go dig out my references from their boxes to satisfy you. But I have studied Nazi Germany at length. What I have stated is historical fact. Believe me or not. I don't really care. But if you have any intellectual curiosity and aren't afraid to upset your own blinkered reality, then do some real research (or take a class from a reputable institution of higher learning). You will actually learn something you obviously don't know now…
So, the old "If you knew what I knew, you'd know!" argument will have to suffice then? All without a lick of evidence!
Tim- Ah yes… I see you don't have any intellectual curiosity then… I was challenging you to go find out for yourself and not take my word for it. But I realize some people prefer to live in their willful ignorance. Enjoy it- it must be sublime…
Read your Bible. Just because someone calls themselves a Christian doesn't make it so. Hitler was anything but a Christian. And what does being white (or any other color) have to do with anything here?
Andrew Burden, Your claim that Hitler wanted to ban Christianity is unsubstantiated and untrue: FACT! You made the claim here. You offer the evidence! Hitler was a Roman catholic with his birthday being celebrated at the Vatican.
Andrew Burden: If Hitler was not a Christian, why does he mentioned being driven and inspired by God so many times in Mein Kampf ?It's mentioned on pages. 65, 119, 152, 161, 214, 375, 383, 403, 436, 562, 565, 622, 632-633. I'll grant you there is some debate as to whether he was a practising Catholic, but he certainly believed in god.
Andrew Burden: If Hitler was not a Christian, why does he mentioned being driven and inspired by God so many times in Mein Kampf ?It's mentioned on pages. 65, 119, 152, 161, 214, 375, 383, 403, 436, 562, 565, 622, 632-633. I'll grant you there is some debate as to whether he was a practising Catholic, but he certainly believed in god.
Andrew Burden But anyway, there are a heap of Christian dictators to choose from besides Hitler: Franco, Pinochet, Videla, and Salazar to name a few. So what's your point?
Andrew Burden But anyway, there are a heap of Christian dictators to choose from besides Hitler: Franco, Pinochet, Videla, and Salazar to name a few. So what's your point?
Howard Aubrey Another liberal who doesn't have his facts straight and just starts shooting off at the mouth with his pants pulled down. Hey Howie, why don't you educate yourself.
Steve Smith- Yes, please do take Mein Kampf at face value and completely disregard how Hitler was attempting to hijack and twist Christianity to his own purposes in order to appeal to the German people and sway them toward National Socialism… Go ahead, fall right into his hands like so many Christian Germans did at that difficult time. Wow, the intellectual malpractice here is staggering. You all enjoy that cool-aid… I'm making no point about those other dictators at all but you seem to want to…
Andrew Burden, still no references, just assertions that fit with your already made up mind that a murderer could possible share your faith.
Steve and Tim – trying to link Hitler to Christians is like trying to link mass murderers and dictators like Stalin, Mao, Pol Pot and Castro to liberals in the US or, at the very least, the OWS movement. Well, they were communists, after all. And from the colors some of you wave, it might not be far from the truth… "Power" to the people, right?
Andrew Burton: Hitler's Mein Kampf, despite its burdensome language, actually did lay out Hitler's plans for the propagation pf the war. And as William L. Shirer pointed out (amongst other authors) in his seminal "The Rise and Fall of the Third Reich", Allied politicians and military planners would not have been so surprised by Hitler's invasion of the USSR (amongst other things) if they had bothered to read it. So you are falling back onto the old "You're an idiot–I'm smarter than you although I have no proof" argument. Awesome logic. But again, what is your point? Are you trying to link dictatorships and authoritarian regimes with atheism? If so, there is more correlation between dictators and mustaches. If you are simply going to resort to name-calling, go ahead. Others here will see your ignorance besides me.
Ah Tim… Just like Kaycie, you make blind assumptions about complete strangers… Which are humorously incorrect… Where did I profess that religion (any religion) has NOT been hijacked by all manner of leaders for all manner of reasons to achieve all manner of ends… In fact that is exactly what I AM professing in Hitler's case. Hitler was an evil genius who knew how to play to the crowds. He used his own people's religion against them in order to attain and consoliate power. I didn't just randomly make up my mind about historical facts- I actually learned them through long study and instruciton by internationally accredited authors and professors. So you don't insult me when you say my mind is made up- in fact it is a compliment to their academic teachings. I've seen the facts, read them from multiple, independent sources. But you go right ahead and believe what you want- that is your right and I'll fight to defend your right to believe that. But this discussion was never destined for any productive end so you all enjoy your world- the cool-aid must be really good there.
In 1985 the Austrian author Wilfried Daim published a photograph of an alleged document signed by Hitler in 1943, which proposed the:
"Immediate and unconditional abolition of all religions after the final victory ('Endsieg') not only for the territory of Greater Germany but also for all released, occupied and annexed countries …, proclaiming at the same time Hitler as the new messiah. Out of political considerations the Muslim, Buddhist and Shintoist religion will be spared for the present. The 'Führer' has to be presented as an intermediate between a redeemer and a liberator, yet surely as one sent by God, who has to get godly honour. The existing churches, chapels, temples and cult places of the different religions have to be changed into 'Adolf-Hitler-consecration places'. The theological faculties of the universities have to be transformed into the new faith. Special emphasis has to be laid on the education of missionaries and wandering preachers, who have to proclaim the teaching in Greater Germany and in the rest of the world and have to form religious bodies, which can be used as centres for further extension. (With this the problems with the abolition of monogamy will disappear, because polygamy can be included into the new teaching as one of the statements of faith.)"
Historians generally believe that Hitler feigned belief in the most popular religion in Germany in order to attain power, what a novel idea.
Be careful Eric Layne. There are some on here who won't like you upsetting their applecart….
I am a big fan of research myself, I wish more people actually read about history, and listened to the talking heads less.
Eric Layne, it got unconvincing at "alleged".
Andrew Burden, You have no reason to assume that Hitler was not a catholic. Btw, I'm not here to offend you or anuone else.
Eric Layne, You have your dates wrong: it being 1958 NOT 1985. And even if it is true, (and that document may not be — remember this was the cold war era), one sparrow does not make a summer. Indeed, in 2003, "in his study The Holy Reich, the historian Richard Steigmann-Gall comes to the conclusion that Christianity, "in the final analysis, did not constitute a barrier to Nazism." Furthermore, he comments on the reason why Nazism is quite often seen as the opposite of Christianity: "What we suppose Nazism must surely have been about usually tells us as much about contemporary societies as about the past purportedly under review. The insistence that Nazism was an anti-Christian movement has been one of the most enduring truisms of the past fifty years…. Exploring the possibility that many Nazis regarded themselves as Christian would have decisively undermined the myths of the Cold War and the regeneration of the German nation … Nearly all Western societies retain a sense of Christian identity to this day…. That Nazism as the world-historical metaphor for human evil and wickedness should in some way have been related to Christianity can therefore be regarded by many only as unthinkable."
Andrew Burden Hitler's BD was NEVER celebrated at the Vatican. Archbishop Cesare Orsenigo(Papal Nuncio to Germany) held this office from 1930 to 1945, which meant it was his job to represent the Vatican to whatever German government was in power.There is a photo that has everyone cropped out except Orsenigo and Hitler with a caption saying it was in celebration of Hitler's BD—not so-it is simply-Photoshop and internet sorcery.
Howard Aubrey The Dutch Catholic Bishops wrote a letter April 19,1942 condemning the Nazi treatment of ALL Jews and mistreatment of people in general. The other mainstream churches refused to read a letter–cowards they were! The Gestapo responded by making a special effort to round up every monk, nun and priest who had even a drop of Jewish blood. Some 300 victims were deported to Auschwitz and immediately sent to the gas chambers. Hitler was no friend to Christianity–especially Catholicism.
Howard Aubrey The Dutch Catholic Bishops wrote a letter April 19,1942 condemning the Nazi treatment of ALL Jews and mistreatment of people in general. The other mainstream churches refused to read a letter–cowards they were! The Gestapo responded by making a special effort to round up every monk, nun and priest who had even a drop of Jewish blood. Some 300 victims were deported to Auschwitz and immediately sent to the gas chambers. Hitler was no friend to Christianity–especially Catholicism.
Ill take the liberty of pointing out that your a damn fool. Hitler was no Christian, just a blood thirsty socialist son of a bitch. He was anti-big business, anti-capitalist, and hated the rich, something he has in common with democrats, as well as hating Jews, ironically of course just like the "Occupy the Commode" movement who expressed that feeling towards companies ran by Jews. If the damn nazi kraut were alive, no media outlet in their right mind would bother giving him the time of day. Come on boy, you need to be more original than that when going after Fox.
Howard Aubrey
As big as an idiot as you are, too bad you cant trade places with Hitlers victims.
Howard Aubrey Why don't you talk about what you actually KNOW something about because you have taken the time to do your research? Hitler was NOT in any way a Christian. He was a Satanist, and he was part Jewish…the very reason that he hated and tried to exterminate that particular race. He also exterminated many other groups as he saw fit and or encountered them. Such as the mentally or physically challenged, homosexuals, Christians, etc.
Tim Gale You really should get 'it' right if your going to try and talk it. “As a Usenet discussion grows longer, the probability of a comparison involving Nazis or Hitler approaches one.” There is a tradition in many groups that, once this occurs, that thread is over, and whoever mentioned the Nazis has automatically lost whatever argument was in progress. Godwin's Law thus practically guarantees the existence of an upper bound on thread length in those groups. However there is also a widely- recognized codicil that any intentional triggering of Godwin's Law in order to invoke its thread-ending effects will be unsuccessful. Godwin himself has discussed the subject. Your attempt at a cheap shot is noted
Cherri Shotgunn, Hitler wrote: "I believe that I am acting in accordance with the will of the Almighty Creator: by defending myself against the Jew, I am fighting for the work of the Lord.." And from this we can clearly see that Hitler wasn’t a Christian?
Joel Rivera, The evidence shows that:
Hitler was born and baptized into Catholicism.
His Jewish antisemitism came from his Christian background.
His early personal notes shows his interest in religion and Biblical views.
He believed that the Bible represented the history of mankind.
His Nazi party platform (their version of a constitution) included a section on Positive Christianity, and he never removed it.
He confessed his Christianity.
He tried to establish a united Reich German Church.
Hitler allowed the destruction of Jewish synagogues and temples, but not Christian churches.
He encouraged Nazis to worship in Christian churches.
He spoke of his Christian beliefs in his speeches and proclamations.
His contemporaries, friends, Protestant ministers and Catholics priests, including the Vatican, thought of Hitler as a Christian.
The Catholic Church never excommunicated Hitler. He died a Catholic.
To ignore the evidence of Hitler's Christianity demonstrates how power of belief can obscure the facts.
Idiot.
Idiot.
Cherri Shotgunn, Yes, that’s why I modified my claim with a tongue in cheek “That didn’t take long.” But hey, if all else fails, I’m sure a total pig-headed unwillingness to admit Hitler was a Christian on the back of an ad hominem attack will see you through. But just the same, a well written response, for around here.
Your ignorance is overwhelming..Christian Conservative??? Really? Are you serious? If this isnt an attempt at humour I would suggest you do a little reading…bone up on history…
If we are not aware of the events and people in our history we are doomed to repeat thier mistakes…I'll help you out a wee bit…Hilter was raised as a Catholic, which he rejected…Moron…
Your ignorance is overwhelming..Christian Conservative??? Really? Are you serious? If this isnt an attempt at humour I would suggest you do a little reading…bone up on history…
If we are not aware of the events and people in our history we are doomed to repeat thier mistakes…I'll help you out a wee bit…Hilter was raised as a Catholic, which he rejected…Moron…
Your ignorance is overwhelming..Christian Conservative??? Really? Are you serious? If this isnt an attempt at humour I would suggest you do a little reading…bone up on history…
If we are not aware of the events and people in our history we are doomed to repeat thier mistakes…I'll help you out a wee bit…Hilter was raised as a Catholic, which he rejected…Moron…
Hitler was NOT a Christian. He was raised Catholic but quit attending service in 1933. He sent over 200,000 Christians to the death camps as well. The only God in Nazi Germany was Hitler himself.
Howard, your ignorance of history and Hitler are only exceeded by your stupidity.
Put Hitler back in Godwin's box please – and read Eric Metaxas' biography on Bonhoeffer – you'll see the way that the Nazi's co-opted, neutralized, and perverted Christianity in Germany to serve their purposes. And you will see how brave Christians resisted and died for their beliefs. I don't want to see parallels to that shameful time in human history repeated – however the manipulation of the church by the executive is eerie. Hitler was no Christian.
He certainly was not a Christian in any sense of the word. Jews AND Christians were highly persecuted by him. Virtually everything he did violated the commands of Christ. Your comment about Fox News is equally totally wrong.
He certainly was not a Christian in any sense of the word. Jews AND Christians were highly persecuted by him. Virtually everything he did violated the commands of Christ. Your comment about Fox News is equally totally wrong.
Wrong
Wrong
Howard Aubrey Wrong Hitler was not really a "Christian" that is a Progressive Parroting Talking Point Alinsky Lie, and you are just a eugenicist useful i d i o t gender confused heterophobic atheist.
Well, you COULD 'help' us learn by pointing us toward some empirical research to support your claims… It's how educated people debate….
Making the types of claims you've made without providing references would get you laughed out of community college….
Whoa, Hitler was nowhere near conservative, in fact the most conservative members of German society tended to oppose him, they felt he was ruining the old traditional ways. Also Hitler and the Nazis were not Christian, some may have been raised so, but the Nazi ideology was a mix of mysticism, germanic mythology, and outright athiesm.
Hitler was anti-Christian, a Socialist, and something of a pagan in beliefs. NAZI has the word Socialist in the name.
Howie, really, do tell. Guess that's why it was known as the national socialist party. As for being Christian, well, perhaps his mom was a Christian but his little known dad was Jewish. The narrow minded, propaganda gobbling lemmings that follow IN LOCK STEP the talking points of the libs. I suggest you do some reasearch. Obviously you are a product of the obama/ayers educational system.
Howard Aubrey et al- what would be the point of leading you to multiple, independent and reliable sources on the history of National Socialism? Are you seriously saying you would go read them and open your mind to historical facts as opposed to your dogmatic and socially narrow-minded pre-conceived notions? Your posts here indicate you mind is already made up about Hitler and the supposed (although demonstrably false) parallels to modern conservatism and Christianity. I do find it fun though to watch the mental contortions you and others are going through to justify your assertions that Christians and convservatives are the equal of Hitler…
Jeannine Howard I think you have someone else's post confused with me… I never suggested Hitler's BD was celebrated at the Vatican. Someone else (on the other side of this discussion) made that assertion.
Actually, the National "Socialist" Party was a purposeful misnomer. You can look it up anywhere, most every historical study will tell you that the Nazis were right wing conservatives. They are the polar opposite of liberal Marxists. Geez, you people have no clue about real, non-partisan-propaganda history.
Jan Tompkins And Hitler was not a pagan. He did not believe in a God and Goddess. He had no interest in preserving or respecting the earth. He was an agnostic.
Howard Aubrey Hilter was white, I'll give you that one, but christian conservative? Not hardly. And FOX wouldn't touch him with a 10 foot pole.
For those looking for references, this is the one I keep referring to when this ridiculous debate comes up:
Yes, the "National Socialist" (NAZI) Party called itself 'socialist' – but it was entirely ant-communist.
{ "From 1936 to 1938, the Nazis waged a variety of anti-Bolshevist campaigns. Hitler and Goebbels, among others, made major speeches at the Nuremberg rallies. Numerous books and articles assailed the Soviet Union. In 1937, there was a major anti-Bolshevist exhibit produced by the Reichspropagandaleitung, the party's central propaganda office, that traveled to major cities."}
http://www.calvin.edu/academic/cas/gpa/anti-bolshevism.htm
You can also read from the newer incarnation of the party: the "Libertarian National Socialist Green party"
http://www.nazi.org/ and their platform: http://www.nazi.org/nazi/national_socialism/
{ Liberalism: * * * c: a political philosophy based on belief in progress, the essential goodness of the human race, and the autonomy of the individual and standing for the protection of political and civil liberties.}
http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/liberalism
{ Conservatism: * * * b: a political philosophy based on tradition and social stability, stressing established institutions, and preferring gradual development to abrupt change ; specifically : such a philosophy calling for lower taxes, limited government regulation of business and investing, a strong national defense, and individual financial responsibility for personal needs (as retirement income or health-care coverage).}
http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/conservatism
Based on these definitions, Nazi Germany had some aspects of the broadest political philosophy of conservatism, but none of those attributed to liberalism. Lower taxes and limited government were obviously not a part of the Nazi philosophy, but strong national defense and a stress on 'tradition and social stability' were very much so.
You might also check out this site:
http://www.oldamericancentury.org/14pts.htm
Mr. Aubrey: I guess one out of 3 ain't bad. Hitler was white. He was not a conservative, he was the head of the the Socialist party. He was born to Catholic parents, but as an adult rejected it, openly despising Christianity and dabbling in the occult. These things are beyond dispute. You are entitled to your own opinions, but not your own facts.
Wrong, Hitler was not religious at all, get your history straight you assclown, oh wait, just like Oblamo and the presidential history website you have to re-write history.
oh brother HITLER hated Christianity you lug lol. HITLER being a Christian is like Obama in love with America
A true story about Hitler when he was a young boy. He was witnessed too my a girl about Jesus coming into his heart. Hitler shook like a leaf when he heard it. Poor guy.
Tim Gale
Hitler was no Christian, he was pure evil, a tool of the devil. He acted as if God was on his side when God wanst. He leaned on his own finite human understanding rather than spiritual. Religion was just a crutch he used to proclaim his destiny. He messed with Gods chosen and guess what, the bastard is burning in hell. Abraham – then known as Abram, father of Israel was promised by God: "And I will bless them that bless thee, and curse him that curseth thee: and in thee shall all families of the earth be blessed. Gen 12:3". Hitler cused the Jews, and he paid the price. Looks as if he didnt read the Bible to heed that warning. If I recall correctly, it was either Hitler or one of his generals, later on during the war, when things were looking bad for the nazi's, who said, "Who's side is God on?"
Joel Rivera, How do you know all this? What evidence do you have that has been denied me? God took sides in WW2?
Nah. He was too busy taking sides in local sporting events to give a flying fig about the war.
We're a secular nation, what does religion have to do with anything?
Aubrey: Hm, about like obama is a black Christian (who is actually half-WHITE and a closet muslim, until he's garnered complete power). obama only started attending a so-called "christian" church in preparation for his political aspirations – it had nothing to do with Christianity, as evidenced by the facts which have come forth about that "church" since. Hitler was raised Catholic. Personally, though I'm sure I'll be crucified for this statement, I consider Cathlics to be in a different league than typical Christians, who have a PERSONAL relationship with Christ and talk directly with him for forgiveness of their sins, unlike Catholics, who go through MAN to ask God's forgiveness. I'll include a link for perusal as to the real nutjob and anti-Christian bigot that Hitler really was. http://homepages.paradise.net.nz/mischedj/ca_hitler.html
Also, Jews were not the only ones slaughtered by the so-called "christian" Hitler. He was responsible for the slaughter of 20M Russians, 10M Christians, 6M Jews and 1900 Catholic priests.
By the way, what does being WHITE have to do with anything….troll?
Aubrey: Hm, about like obama is a black Christian (who is actually half-WHITE and a closet muslim, until he's garnered complete power). obama only started attending a so-called "christian" church in preparation for his political aspirations – it had nothing to do with Christianity, as evidenced by the facts which have come forth about that "church" since. Hitler was raised Catholic. Personally, though I'm sure I'll be crucified for this statement, I consider Cathlics to be in a different league than typical Christians, who have a PERSONAL relationship with Christ and talk directly with him for forgiveness of their sins, unlike Catholics, who go through MAN to ask God's forgiveness. I'll include a link for perusal as to the real nutjob and anti-Christian bigot that Hitler really was. http://homepages.paradise.net.nz/mischedj/ca_hitler.html
Also, Jews were not the only ones slaughtered by the so-called "christian" Hitler. He was responsible for the slaughter of 20M Russians, 10M Christians, 6M Jews and 1900 Catholic priests.
By the way, what does being WHITE have to do with anything….troll?
Aubrey: Hm, about like obama is a black Christian (who is actually half-WHITE and a closet muslim, until he's garnered complete power). obama only started attending a so-called "christian" church in preparation for his political aspirations – it had nothing to do with Christianity, as evidenced by the facts which have come forth about that "church" since. Hitler was raised Catholic. Personally, though I'm sure I'll be crucified for this statement, I consider Cathlics to be in a different league than typical Christians, who have a PERSONAL relationship with Christ and talk directly with him for forgiveness of their sins, unlike Catholics, who go through MAN to ask God's forgiveness. I'll include a link for perusal as to the real nutjob and anti-Christian bigot that Hitler really was. http://homepages.paradise.net.nz/mischedj/ca_hitler.html
Also, Jews were not the only ones slaughtered by the so-called "christian" Hitler. He was responsible for the slaughter of 20M Russians, 10M Christians, 6M Jews and 1900 Catholic priests.
By the way, what does being WHITE have to do with anything….troll?
Tim Gale: http://homepages.paradise.net.nz/mischedj/ca_hitler.html
Just for a little more insight before your next post.
The discussion about Hitler being a Christian is asinine. Tim, what's your religion? Or, none? I'll dig something up and find you guilty by association. Hey, all Muslims are terrorists! About as stupid as folks on here trying to make some connection of Hitler to christianity and Christians.
Ironic, the left is desperate to demonize Christians in America today, so they come up with all sorts of BS examples for their straw man. It's the only group in America where it's politically correct denigrate. Hollywood jumps on the bandwagon as well. Not dissimilar to the demonization of the Jews in Germany in the 30's. That's right. Seems to be open season on Christians these days. Specifically, white Christians.
Well, 40 years of "enlightenment" has appeared to make it politically incorrect to call anyone a communist. Anything but that. Well, a few of you on here seem to hold that value system close to your heart.
The discussion about Hitler being a Christian is asinine. Tim, what's your religion? Or, none? I'll dig something up and find you guilty by association. Hey, all Muslims are terrorists! About as stupid as folks on here trying to make some connection of Hitler to christianity and Christians.
Ironic, the left is desperate to demonize Christians in America today, so they come up with all sorts of BS examples for their straw man. It's the only group in America where it's politically correct denigrate. Hollywood jumps on the bandwagon as well. Not dissimilar to the demonization of the Jews in Germany in the 30's. That's right. Seems to be open season on Christians these days. Specifically, white Christians.
Well, 40 years of "enlightenment" has appeared to make it politically incorrect to call anyone a communist. Anything but that. Well, a few of you on here seem to hold that value system close to your heart.
The discussion about Hitler being a Christian is asinine. Tim, what's your religion? Or, none? I'll dig something up and find you guilty by association. Hey, all Muslims are terrorists! About as stupid as folks on here trying to make some connection of Hitler to christianity and Christians.
Ironic, the left is desperate to demonize Christians in America today, so they come up with all sorts of BS examples for their straw man. It's the only group in America where it's politically correct denigrate. Hollywood jumps on the bandwagon as well. Not dissimilar to the demonization of the Jews in Germany in the 30's. That's right. Seems to be open season on Christians these days. Specifically, white Christians.
Well, 40 years of "enlightenment" has appeared to make it politically incorrect to call anyone a communist. Anything but that. Well, a few of you on here seem to hold that value system close to your heart.
Top rated news agency for 12 years in a row, how do you think Fox news accomplished that?.. Do you think its a republican only audience? Do you think the agencys peers didnt vote at all? Come on, put a little effort into your thought process…
Prove that Hitler was a Christian? Where do you get such vile information, cnn? no one who is a true Christian would ever order the execution of people simply because of race as he did- To the Bible believing Christian, the Jewish people are to be prayed for and scripture even admonishes us to bless them rather than curse them-
Albert Speer quotes Hitler stating, "You see, it's been our misfortune to have the wrong religion. Why didn't we have the religion of the Japanese, who regard sacrifice for the Fatherland as the highest good? The Mohammedan religion too would have been much more compatible to us than Christianity. Why did it have to be Christianity with its meekness and flabbiness?"
Tim Gale
The nazi's were blind to the truth. They believed the truth as it was proclaimed from the mouth of evil in the form of Hitler. Hitler had the ability to mesmerize the masses with his impassioned speeches, and therefore planted the seeds that would prove the downfall of Germany. He used religion, wardped it, manipulated it to advance his call, and one could say that he probably saw himself as an agent of God when he was truely vile and evil. Hitler, in a way, had his cult going on, using relgion as the basis to justify what he did, but those who knew the Bible from end to end knew that Hitler was a fraud, what scripture would call a false prophet. Jeremiah 23:16 This is what the LORD Almighty says: “Do not listen to what the prophets are prophesying to you; they fill you with false hopes. They speak visions from their own minds, not from the mouth of the LORD.
religion: pure religion is caring for orphans and widows. I would say the United States Military does a pretty good job at doing this. Toys for tots, fallen soldiers spouses given comfort. So there is no war on religion in MY Military anymore.
Come on…. There is no war on religious freedom. The law protects Chaplains, it's right there in the article. NO CHAPLAIN IS REQUIRED TO PARTICIPATE IN A GAY WEDDING! However, spreading hate speech about soldiers is not right. What ever happened to hate the sin, love the sinner? You won't get in trouble if you don't go around talking about how being gay is immoral, by your standards. Just live and let live and your life will be much happier.
Maybe you did not read the article, but there are instances where people who did not agree with homosexuality on moral grounds are being punished. In addition, seems that you may not think they are being punished but it will be by perception sakes and what I think. Not what some bledding heart liberal thinks.
Maybe you did not read the article, but there are instances where people who did not agree with homosexuality on moral grounds are being punished. In addition, seems that you may not think they are being punished but it will be by perception sakes and what I think. Not what some bledding heart liberal thinks.
Brad Lowery The military doesn't punish people randomly. You have to stick your neck out, make yourself a target for SOME reason. People who oppose civil rights for gays are free not to LIKE the current course, but military discipline demands they adhere to the orders given to them. If they can't do that much (which its standard operating procedure in the military), then they need to find a civilian job somewhere where they can harp on the "evil gays" all they like.
Kaycie Zubowski Why are gay marriages allowed on military bases anyway? Gay marriage is only legal in a handful of states. A military base is a Federal institution-gay marriage is not legal on the Federal level.
Spoken like a true gay deceiver and arbitrator of the current trend in this country to make every thing that is opposed to God acceptable, and everything that try's to follow God's law, debasing.
Kaycie Zubowski you are so off center it is laughable! In the course of teaching the Bible, God's Word, every Chaplain must utter the trut about homosexuality as it is written in God's law. This makes them a target without protection of religious freedom. Period!
Ah the educated elite of immorality. How does that support for Muslims stack up. They are totally against gays. Also, it won't be long before this small minority of sick individuals will be gone through Natural Selection. So are they born this way or is adopted behavior. Genome Project proved no DNA differences. Even so, with no offspring, no individuals with traits or behavior. So in time they will be cancelled out. With less than 1% of the population reported to be in this minority, we should not feel compelled to make separate rights. How does Polygamy sound to you Barry.
Jesse you are correct in certain respects and in error in others. The law does indeed protect the Chaplains but the law is not implemented in the services, only statutes. A statute is explained in its use as, "A statute should be construed in harmony with the common law unless there is a clear legislative intent to abrogate the common law." Anderson on the UCC, Texts, Cases and Commentaries. What is being used against the Chaplains and people in general in this society are statutes. Since these abrogate the law they are anti-law. If the Chaplains and others concerned with the rights change their posture of attack against these anti-laws and implement the common law they will have the rights they think they have called unalienable not civil. Civil rights, rights of contract under the 14th Amendment, are for fictions of law (business, d/b/a's, etc.) not humans. For instance, when an attorney represents you he or she is re-presenting you as a fiction in order for the commercial court to act upon the claim. All courts are commercial because we have to Article III courts, all judges pay is diminished and the private trust/corporation monopolistic BAR Association owns and controls the judiciary, in other words, treason has been committed against the American People by the BAR Association attorneys.
Jesse you are correct in certain respects and in error in others. The law does indeed protect the Chaplains but the law is not implemented in the services, only statutes. A statute is explained in its use as, "A statute should be construed in harmony with the common law unless there is a clear legislative intent to abrogate the common law." Anderson on the UCC, Texts, Cases and Commentaries. What is being used against the Chaplains and people in general in this society are statutes. Since these abrogate the law they are anti-law. If the Chaplains and others concerned with the rights change their posture of attack against these anti-laws and implement the common law they will have the rights they think they have called unalienable not civil. Civil rights, rights of contract under the 14th Amendment, are for fictions of law (business, d/b/a's, etc.) not humans. For instance, when an attorney represents you he or she is re-presenting you as a fiction in order for the commercial court to act upon the claim. All courts are commercial because we have to Article III courts, all judges pay is diminished and the private trust/corporation monopolistic BAR Association owns and controls the judiciary, in other words, treason has been committed against the American People by the BAR Association attorneys.
Jesse you are correct in certain respects and in error in others. The law does indeed protect the Chaplains but the law is not implemented in the services, only statutes. A statute is explained in its use as, "A statute should be construed in harmony with the common law unless there is a clear legislative intent to abrogate the common law." Anderson on the UCC, Texts, Cases and Commentaries. What is being used against the Chaplains and people in general in this society are statutes. Since these abrogate the law they are anti-law. If the Chaplains and others concerned with the rights change their posture of attack against these anti-laws and implement the common law they will have the rights they think they have called unalienable not civil. Civil rights, rights of contract under the 14th Amendment, are for fictions of law (business, d/b/a's, etc.) not humans. For instance, when an attorney represents you he or she is re-presenting you as a fiction in order for the commercial court to act upon the claim. All courts are commercial because we have to Article III courts, all judges pay is diminished and the private trust/corporation monopolistic BAR Association owns and controls the judiciary, in other words, treason has been committed against the American People by the BAR Association attorneys.
But it is not our standards that are offended by the gay lifestyle – it is our Creator and He has enjoined us to stand up and say that something is wrong. If it is done correctly, the correct message of 'love the sinner, hate the sin' comes across. But even if it is done correctly, the sinner will still protest because he likes to sin. I just refuse to hear anyone who calls me 'homophobe', 'gay basher', etc., because people spit on, beat, plucked the beard, etc. from the Savior of the world. I will go through what I have to for Him, because He gave His all… Bring it on, God haters:)!
you have never been in the military, it appears.
Jesse, Jesus loves me and same Jesus who loves me also loves you too..being gay is immoral not by human's standards but by God's standards and some day we all have to face our Maker.. and we want to see you all in heaven..
Jesse, Jesus loves me and same Jesus who loves me also loves you too..being gay is immoral not by human's standards but by God's standards and some day we all have to face our Maker.. and we want to see you all in heaven..
Brad Lowery Who are these "people?" I could make up something and say "well some people" but without specific cases, this is all bull.
Jeannine Howard Homosexual marriages are not yet allowed on military bases as far as I know. With DOMA in place, military homosexuals can't get married. Well – they can't get married to the gender they're attracted to. They can marry someone of the opposite sex but that would be dumb if they're homosexual AND it would be fraud.
the stench that surrounds obama, and his ilk, are over powering. every decision his administration has made , is devisive. caught lieing, condesending to the supreme court, telling the american people they will be fined if they do not have health insurance. trying to make a secret deal with the russians, have an illegal uncle in this country, and failing to deport him. and you know what, no one knows , I repeat, no one knows where he came from. never worked a day in his life. part of one term as a senator, now the president of the united states. the rest of the world is laughing.
the stench that surrounds obama, and his ilk, are over powering. every decision his administration has made , is devisive. caught lieing, condesending to the supreme court, telling the american people they will be fined if they do not have health insurance. trying to make a secret deal with the russians, have an illegal uncle in this country, and failing to deport him. and you know what, no one knows , I repeat, no one knows where he came from. never worked a day in his life. part of one term as a senator, now the president of the united states. the rest of the world is laughing.
I WILL NOT BE SILENCED…This is still America and I still have freedom of speech and thought…I will go to the grocery and when someone asks me how I am I say, "I'm fine, but I'll be better when we get rid of Obama." I've never had a single person do anything other than say ,"Yes, he's gotta go." The vote is coming…
And I have pretty much the same reaction from most people. The only people I know (an elderly couple) who DON'T oppose obummer, say they simply will not vote for him now due to his recent 'coming out' in his opinion of gay marriage support. I shall also exercise MY right to freedom of speech, thought and lifestyle.
I truly believe that many of the Obama voters from last time will get it right this time. They will say they voted for Obama, but will have voted for Romney or skip the vote altogether. They will not admit they were wrong last time. So, there is reason to be positive about the new change. So great to see so many true American patriots here.
I can care less what people do behind closed doors. But what we have here is judicial tyranny aided by the political corruption at the highest levels of government. To force on the majority to accept a human behavior and practice that is biologically contrary to the natural order, deviant from the human biological gender standpoint, and deemed abnormal by every civilization since the dawn of mankind is sad beyond comparison. And to use for and the threat of government to silence those that morally object should be criminal.
Chaplains have for the most part been totally neutered by the PC atmosphere. If one's beliefs makes another feel guilty…then you have to be quite. Last year the Chaplain that lead the opening prayer at the Christmas Eve concert at JBPHH never mentioned the name Jesus Christ…pretty much says it all.
As my ex-husband, who is in the army, explained it to me when you join the military you become Property of the US Government. It's not a joke someone came up with. It's not a job it's you entire life. You are property of the government and have to give up a lot of your rights because you are property not a person. The only rights you have are ones given to you by the military. They do not have "Freedom of Speech".
This is not true if you understand what rights you are talking about. Freedom of speech is an unalienable right not a civil right. Civil rights are for 14th Amendment citizens (creations of Congress). The language "citizen of the United States" is the operative phrase, meaning citizen of (belonging to) the United States (UNITED STATES™, a corporation). It is presumed that the military contract extirpates the unalienable rights you have; however, it only restricts them under certain conditions. Everything is an Offer and you either accept the offer, serve a Conditional Acceptance of the Offer, or serve a Counteroffer. The problem is that people are not taught or do not choose to learn how to conduct their business, they rely on fictions of law called attorneys which are monopolies controlling the judiciary, in other words treason against the Constitution for the United States of America. The Social Security Number and the name attached to it makes you a fiction and 14th Amendment citizen, thereby pulling into the trap of claiming civil rights over unalienable rights. The truth shall set you free!!!
Actually, Robin is right. As a military member the constitution does not apply to you. You fall under the jurisdiction of the UCMJ (Uniform Code of Military Justice) and not the constitution. Article l, Section 8 of the Constitution gave those governing rights to Congress, "The Congress shall have Power . . . To make Rules for the Government and Regulation of the land and naval forces", via the UCMJ.
I am sure you have heard a military member being called a G.I.–that means government issue; in otherwords, property. When I was in the USAF, my buddies and I were out enjoying the weekend and one of them got a sunburn and was reprimanded for "defacing government property."
The operative words are ""The Congress shall have Power . . . To make Rules for the Government and Regulation of the land and naval forces", not laws. There is a major difference between law and rules and regulations. Ignorance of law is no excuse, not ignorance of rules and regulations. If the rules and/or regulations are not within the parameters established within the language of the Bill of Rights then they are not bound to be kept. If this were the case there could not be war crimes as long as this particular language was in effect as the governing condition. The difference is to know what rights are and how they apply in relation to rules and regulations. The soldier in question got reprimanded for violating a regulation but he did not break the law. Statutes are rules for the government and the People mistakenly apply them to themselves. Ignorance is not bliss.
Not entirely accurate Dan. Austin Wayne Cooper is correct in that a uniformed member of the armed forces suspends their constitutional rights under very specific conditions. The Constitution of the U.S, UCMJ, Articles of the Geneva Convention, Law of War, State and local laws, etc all apply.
You are incorrect . I do not know where in the world you came upon your mistaken idea that there is free speech in the military. No matter it simply is not true so someone lied to you as you could not have served and came away from the experiance thinking that.
In addition, the ‘Uniform Code of Military Justice’ is private copyright material. The word ‘code’ means ‘secret.’ This regulation is treated as law, when, in fact, it is not, it is regulation as stipulated in the Constitution for the United States of America. People in the military are under its control because they do not understand the difference between law and regulation. The word regulation is used as a contractual term in this instance, in that the presumption is that you contracted to give up your unalienable rights; however, that would be ludicrous to presume that you are fighting for something you cannot have if you fight for it. The Bill of Rights do not stipulate that these rights are to those who are not in the military, hence, the UCMJ is within the confines of the parameters set forth in the Bill of Rights.
Young Strong you are making your argument from anecdote. Mine is from experience, study, application, and knowledge. Also, I never said there was complete free speech. I said certain rights were suspended under specific conditions. Pay attention…
Young Strong you are making your argument from anecdote. Mine is from experience, study, application, and knowledge. Also, I never said there was complete free speech. I said certain rights were suspended under specific conditions. Pay attention…
Cooper, take a chill pill. You're wrong. Deal with it.
Hey Doug Robinson, I guess in your case ignorance is bliss. If the only argument you have is to "take a chill pill, you're wrong" no wonder why we have the largest prison, probation and parole population in the world. Here in another tidbit of information for the ignorant, there are over 3 million (3,000,000) law books in the Library of Congress and it would take over 8,219 years to read them. If ignorance of the law is not excuse then support to me who has read all of these books in order to have no excuse. Moreover, since you support statutes, there are over 60,000,000 statutes. Take the road less traveled and educate yourself.
Hey Doug Robinson, I guess in your case ignorance is bliss. If the only argument you have is to "take a chill pill, you're wrong" no wonder why we have the largest prison, probation and parole population in the world. Here is another tidbit of information, there are over 3 million (3,000,000) law books in the Library of Congress and it would take over 8,219 years to read them. If ignorance of the law is no excuse then support to me who has read all of these books in order to have no excuse. Moreover, since you support statutes, there are over Sixty million (60,000,000) statutes. Take the road less traveled and educate yourself.
You are only "their property" if you believe "you are their property"… As for me and mine, we will dwell in the hoise of the Lord.
This whole discussion is not new. It is akin to Truman's executive orders 9980 and 9981 of July 26, 1948 that integrated the military. It was brave and forethinking and was not immediately well accepted by the powers that be, the conservative churches, the 'old' military and the public. It was considered reckless but in the long run it has created a stronger military and a stronger nation.
This caterwalling by those with their feet planted in the bigotry of the past will soon realize that the result will be the same. This nation will be stronger because of the repeal of DADT and the acceptance of civil unions for all adults.
To quote Jefferson and Truman– "equal rights for all, special privileges for none."
Rap
You be FOS Bob. Homosexuality is a SICK ACTION. It's not like race. One MAY be born with tendencies but it's still a choice.
like being black is a choice….all your yankee posters are bigots,idiots and really stupid…just put the word black,instead of gay and reread your posts,then you'll see how evil and hateful you jerks are!!!!
No hate from you huh? So much for your comment having any validity.
Why are you even on this site? You obviously have no real input. Shut up and go back to your rainbow glitter.
Michael Fitzpatrick Thanks for your input. You just proved my point.
Yes,i hate hate
Yes,i hate hate
BJ Heath
You go boy, your free to opine and generalize all you want even if it makes you sound like a jackass.
BS! What religious war? Even the Vatican supports same-sex marriage/union http://ncronline.org/blogs/ncr-today/pope-approves-gay-marriage.
If you feel you have been given an unlawful order, follow the chain of command. Until then, you can go find another job, or shut the hell up. Dismissed.
Soros is probably one of the most evil men that has ever walked the earth and his puppet obammy the gay potus are trying to silence anyone that dares to challenge or go against their evil schemes to destroy our nation. Obimbo has made our nation the brunt of jokes about him being a wet gay noodle and all he wants to do is play golf and go on vacations and use tax payers monies for his own selfish agrandizement. I consider it a badge of honor to be called a homophobe or anti semite or anti black, political corectness is a great way to shut down the opposition, for some like me it does not work. Hate speech is yet another way the elitist bureacrats try to control every aspect, again I could care less, I will not be forced to accept homosexuals as normal they spread filthy diseases through their lifestyle choice of death.
Poor Larry
Poor Larry
Your an idiot…..
Lawrence, I've had a look at your Facebook page and it seems you are obsessed with homosexuals. You think about gay sex more than gay's do. Bitch, come out of your closet because the only people who do that are repressed gays… you do tend to scream the loudest.
Bailey Bednar STFU you shit-packer, with your nonsensical 'argument', bitch.
You, your and you're. Try to get it right next time. When calling someone else an idiot it would help if you didn't look like one yourself.
And that's how they do it (meaning you, Bailey). When no legitimate defense is available, character assassination arises. I'm shocked you didn't tell him to STFU, like your kind normally does!
Attention! Grammar police on the look out for all suspected grammar criminals!
Hmmm, same old rehtoric by a bunch of Pro-gay, Pro-Pedophile Trolls. Christians are slowly being made to feel that being Christian is akin to a Hate Crime. What was it Attorney general Holder said about brainwashing the masses? Law-enforcement is already being trained to have a Pavlovian response to Christians aas evidenced by the Videos and training aids released by the DHS citing Christians as the #1 suspects of being terrorists and returning Vets as the #2.What is ridiculous is the number of Anti-Christians who havee some misguided belief that their fellow Anti-Christians the Muslims will embrace them with open arms. Traitors are never trusted and infedel traitors will be despised by those they serve. To be Christian is becoming Anti-PC and growing movement to make Christians feel ashamed to stand up for themselves. Eventually Christians will have to become more Pro-active, hopefully before they start putting Christians in those FEMA camps.
Don't you fundamentalists ever get tired of playing the VICTIM card? Even as your power and influence grows to new highs in society and government – you still go on about how repressed you are. You do realize that the US army has more trouble with fundamentalists proselytizing and disregarding its secular regulations than the other way around.
You are full of BS! Same old rehtoric and propaganda! None of you Anti-Christians can come up with an original idea on your own. In fact REAL studies show that Military groups without any kind of faith in God eventually dissolve into Mobs of Thugs, exactly what the Obama White House wants, easier to commit atrocities against your own citizens, look at Syria.
You are full of BS! Same old rehtoric and propaganda! None of you Anti-Christians can come up with an original idea on your own. In fact REAL studies show that Military groups without any kind of faith in God eventually dissolve into Mobs of Thugs, exactly what the Obama White House wants, easier to commit atrocities against your own citizens, look at Syria.
Way to not address my point buddy. Oh right "REAL studies" – lets see those studies. I guess when you write "REAL studies" that makes your imaginary studies somehow exist more in your mind? History also puts a lie to your Mob theory. You all play the victim card and are made to feel under threat. It is part of how fundamentalist dogma in your cult works.
@Lee Stern – I don't believe anyone is "pro-pedophile" Except pedophiles. Pedophilia and homosexuality are two VERY different things. Most pedophiles are heterosexual males – include male on male abuses. Also that thing about vets as #2 type of terrorists or whatever, that was rescinded after backlash and I don't recall Christians mentioned. No one is being "anti-Christian" in the military. Christians get waaay more leeway than non-Christians do. I serve so I know firsthand. I think if any Christians are ashamed it's the way some of you act and bring shame to your religion.
You are so full of BS ! Quit sucking on that glass dick!
This administration is anti-Christian, pro-Muslim. The gay marriage issue is merely a distraction to keep the focus off the Socialist agenda. We can expect many more of these distractions from this pernicious president.
Its funny how McKenyan, who in the past proclaims marriage between a man and woman, suddenly changes his stance after Joe Joe Bite-Me opens his big mouth as usual and puts the boy on the spot. But the timing of it is pretty obvious since his approval numbers are practically floating on sewer water.
Right you are. Everyone knows that Muslims are pro-gay. That's sick. No one hates gays more than us Christians.
In order for this country to be closer to who we tell the world we are homosexuals should and will be granted the right to marry the consenting adult who wants to marry them and the marriage will be recognized in every state. Also, in order for this country to be closer to who we tell the world we are no person should be punished for his or her beliefs. Likewise, no preacher at the pulpit should be coerced by anyone, including the government.
Howard Aubrey, Hitler was most definitely NOT a Christian. He had his picture taken walking out of a church with a cross in the background for political reasons. In fact he was being PC at that time in Germany. He had Detrick Bonhoffer who was a Christian, executed. Try being intelectually honest.
If you were "intellectually honest" as you say, you would not talk about Hitler without reading Mien Kampf. In that book he explained his feelings, philosophies and motivations – all before he attained political power. Just do a quotation search and you will see that he was a very religiously motivated (abet evil) person. Since you obviously did not read it and can't even spell intellectual – you have weakened your argument. Perhaps you should not cast stones……
If you were "intellectually honest" as you say, you would not talk about Hitler without reading Mien Kampf. In that book he explained his feelings, philosophies and motivations – all before he attained political power. Just do a quotation search and you will see that he was a very religiously motivated (abet evil) person. Since you obviously did not read it and can't even spell intellectual – you have weakened your argument. Perhaps you should not cast stones……
Not only that Howard, Hitler was not a conservative, he was a fascist.
If conservatism is not fascism (true), and fascism can be defined as an evil blend of government / corporate governance that limits the natural rights of people, then I have a question for you: why is the current flavor of conservatism in the US so focused on allowing the unlimited acquisition of power by corporations? Deregulation, letting corporations write the tax codes, corporate welfare, government bail outs, the creation of a Ministry of the Interior (aka Homeland Security), etc. Seems that even if we agree that conservatism is not fascism – we would also have to agree that US conservatism in its current form is not truly conservative and has many fascist tendencies. What say you?
If conservatism is not fascism (true), and fascism can be defined as an evil blend of government / corporate governance that limits the natural rights of people, then I have a question for you: why is the current flavor of conservatism in the US so focused on allowing the unlimited acquisition of power by corporations? Deregulation, letting corporations write the tax codes, corporate welfare, government bail outs, the creation of a Ministry of the Interior (aka Homeland Security), etc. Seems that even if we agree that conservatism is not fascism – we would also have to agree that US conservatism in its current form is not truly conservative and has many fascist tendencies. What say you?
PS: I retract my jab about your spelling – speaking of casting stones. We all make typo’s. I was just angry that any time a religious person does evil, other religious people try and say the evil guy must have been an atheist. You can be evil and religious – history is replete with such men.
PS: I retract my jab about your spelling – speaking of casting stones. We all make typo’s. I was just angry that any time a religious person does evil, other religious people try and say the evil guy must have been an atheist. You can be evil and religious – history is replete with such men.
Not only that Howard, Hitler was not a conservative, he was a fascist.
Not only that Howard, Hitler was not a conservative, he was a fascist.
Guess Obama didn't know the real reason they are called Rear Admirals.
Until someone is actually forced to solemnize a same-sex partnership, this is nothing but fundy paranoia.
There has been ZERO, that is NONE, that is NOTTA, that is ZILCH instances of any chaplain being forced to do anything regarding same-sex marriage.
Paranoia will destroy ya.
Todd Starnes is the absolute nut low of the internet.
It would be interesting to learn if the Chaplain(s) who say their jobs are impacted were privately against gay marriage, or preaching anti-equality in their sermons. Military Chaplains are supposed to be non-sectarian, and not all of the religious sects are against equal rights.
I would be willing to bet you would find the same complaints against chaplains that preached against the integration of the ranks.
It would be interesting to learn if the Chaplain(s) who say their jobs are impacted were privately against gay marriage, or preaching anti-equality in their sermons. Military Chaplains are supposed to be non-sectarian, and not all of the religious sects are against equal rights.
I would be willing to bet you would find the same complaints against chaplains that preached against the integration of the ranks.
The tactic of openly heterophobic b oyfriends and g irlfriends in the military is for one purpose only and that is to destroy the F ederal D efense of M arriage act that restricts any Federal Benefits going to buddies and sisters. Once in the service they can use the fact that their benefits are not transferable to their buddies and once the court acquiesces and you all know they will they can then go after Federal buddy marriage benefits like social security and other benefits. That is what this is really all about the deceitful P rogressive A linsky way right out of R ules For R adicals. Most active duty service members do not want g a y s flagrantly serving in the military and they know there will be major problems and litigation issues down the line as well as in the barracks and the showers, make no mistake about what openly g a y means. Children and parents on military bases and military residential neighborhoods will have to learn to accept the couples moving into the neighborhood or face reprimand, h a t e c r I m e violations for even uttering a derogatory comment as well as mandatory counseling, reeducation and diversity brain washing and later it will be the public at large facing reprimand as well and reeducation counseling and fines. I would say the volunteer military did not sign up for a g a y military and therefore deserve to be honorably discharged with full pay and benefits if they wish out of the service on religious or principle basis, as the government is in breach of contract by repeal this measure D A D T. At this point people anyone can join if they wish to join a g a y military and many will not. What I resent the most about the gay mafia is their deceitful way of pushing this d e v I a n t c r a p on normal people and using the law in a perverse manor and these tactics to justify their own d e v I a n c y. Their siblings and parents now must occupy the closets these s e x u a l deviants have fled. Heterophobes big lie is that they are somehow discriminated against. This is another Alinsy twist as no one is discriminated against because they are heterophobes all citizens men and women have exactly the same rights, be they men or women, their problem is their phobia makes them unable to wed a legal partner, it is the same as someone who would want to wed another married person is unable to, or someone who would want to marry their daughter or son, their grandmother or grandfather, sister or brother or their cat or dog, its simply ridiculous and makes as much sense as mustard marshmallows! They want to serve their country do it and shut up. They don't like that, don't join, it's a free country and a volunteer military. They are not forced to join so they have no say, soldiers with a say are dangerous to National Security because they need to take orders not give them. They don't like that and want to give the orders. We need to repeal the repealof don’t ask don’t tell. For the g a y mafia next it’s on to suing the country over their military benefits and attacking the marriage act.
The repeal of DADT not "gay ban" will cause big waves down the line. Since "gays" are neither men nor women they should not be housed with the sexually normal populace. Also since this is a voluntary military it would appear the defense department as well as the United States Government are in breach of contract with their corpsman as they never signed up for a "gay" military and to force them into housing together is a violation of their religious, civil and moral rights and certainly not what they were signed up for under the terms of their contractual agreement upon enlistment in the service. They should be immediately granted on demand an honorable discharge with full benefits, as their contract with the U.S.Government has been breached, under contract law. It is just as if the Corpsman had said he, she or it, no longer wished to abide by the contractual rules of this organization agreed to on enlistment, he, she or it, would be subject to discharge or legal ramifications. The U.S.Government is under the same contractual agreement as an individual party under contract law. I would hope this would be addressed in a court of law when someone brings this up. There will be much legality brought to court from both sides of this issue caused by the quisling, heterophobic atheistic anti American worms that brought this on our country. This will be a big problem for years to come and cost will be in the hundreds of millions of dollars or more once the dust settles and we all begin to see what is in the law now that they have passed the law. There can never be such a thing as a "gay" soldier as once you begin to classify humans in obscure categories it never ends and as I have said if "gay" means neither man nor woman they really have no rights under the Constitution of the United States. This repeal was an error, just as it was an error to put it in place of what came before Clinton which was no "heterophobes" in the military. In fact with the repeal which is a lie as it is no repeal or "gay" would be immediately discharged but in fact it is a new policy not a repeal but sold to America in an Alinsky tactic to change the term New Legislation into Repeal Legislation that is not a repeal. The thing I hate the most are the lies from the enemy worms within the government and the maggot "gay" mafia who are just useful I d I o t eugenicist or outright self loathing quislings who's families must now occupy the closets these deviants have fled.
Repeal of gay ban causing few waves in military.
By ROBERT BURNS – AP National Security Writer | AP – 50 mins ago.
The repeal of DADT not "gay ban" will cause big waves down the line. Since "gays" do not seem to classify themselves as men or women they should not be housed with the sexually normal populace as all men and women have equal rights under the constitution in its current form. Also since this is a voluntary military it would appear the defense department as well as the United States Government are in breach of contract with their corpsman as they never signed up for a "gay" military and to force them into housing together is a violation of their religious, civil and moral rights and certainly not what they were signed up for under the terms of their contractual agreement upon enlistment in the service. They should be immediate granted on demand an honorable discharge with full benefits as the contract has been breached just as if the Corpsman had said I no longer wish to abide by the rules of this organization he would be subject to discharge or legal ramifications the U.S.Government is held under the same contractual agreement as an individual under contract law. I would hope this would be addressed in a court of law when someone brings this up. There will be much legality brought to court from both sides of this issue caused by the quisling, heterophobic atheistic anti American worms who brought this on our country. This will be a big problem for years to come and cost will be in the hundreds of millions of dollars or more once the dust settles and we all begin to see what is in the law now that they have passed the law. There can never be such a thing as a "gay" soldier as once you begin to classify humans in obscure categories it never ends and as I have said if "gay" means neither man nor woman they really have no rights under the Constitution of the United States. This repeal was an error, just as it was an error to put it in place of what came before Clinton which was no "heterophobs" in the military. In fact with the repeal which is a lie as it is no repeal or "gay" would be immediately discharged but in fact it is a new policy not a repeal but sold to America in an Alinsky tactic to change the term New Legislation into Repeal Legislation that is not a repeal. The thing I hate the most are the lies from the enemy worms within the government and the maggot "gay" mafia who are just useful I d I o t eugenicist or outright self loathing quislings who's families must now occupy the closets these deviants have fled.
You let commies into the county and they start to alter the language until Christianity becomes illegal and science becomes a religion. Even in America where free speech is protected unless you are talking about true morality. Two major things happened in the government take over by communist one was in the early 1960's Bible study anywhere near a public school was made illegal and in the 1960's Inalienable Rights by our Creator was usurped by the creation of "Civil Rights" granted by members of the Government and bestowed upon man through the benevolence of the ruling class.
That is the problem we have in this country pitting patriots against useful I d I o t s indoctrinated into a godless world through the public school system and thankful for the limited rights granted to them under the new world order Civil Rights never understanding that they had all of the rights bestowed upon them by their Creator prior to the illusion created under the Orwellian Double Speak term Civil Rights. Civil Rights means no rights unless your ruler agrees. The rulers in the United States happen to be We The People however our Rights have been hijacked through unconstitutional legislation creating inequality under the very guise of distributing equality through newspeak language.
like Rita implied I didn't know that any one able to make $5278 in a few weeks on the computer. did you look at this link.
lazycash42.c()m
lazycash42.c()m
There is a war on against all that is religious, period. Our country was founded on religious freedom. Nowadays, all you can hear are the minority anti-religious groups demanding the majority give in. And the sad part of it is WE ARE!
http://www.breitbart.com/Big-Government/2012/05/17/The-Vetting-Barack-Obama-Literary-Agent-1991-Born-in-Kenya-Raised-Indonesia-Hawaii
Soooo…how is this different than when the US Senate attempted to ban the practice of Wicca at all US military bases in 1999 with the support of then-GOP candidate GW Bush? Where was the outcry from the evangelicals then? Oh that's right, THEY SUPPORTED IT! Sorry, I'm finding it difficult to boo-hoo for you here. You are more than willing to suppress the religious voices of others you don't agree with, but come under some heat of your own, it is discrimination. Give me a freaking break.
Let this be a lesson to all those Christians who worship the military.
The gays can do what they want, just keep it out of my space. As for religion in the military, the muslims and their support group, CAIR, want to change our uniforms so that women wear those stupid headrags. As a former Navy WAVE, I like the unifom the way it is – it looks very professional – the headrag would just mess everything up. And besides that, it's called a "uniform" for a reason, we all wear the same thing, it promotes unit cohension and good order – and on top of everyting else, wearing the headrags promotes a relligion. Noone in uniform is allowed to wear any symbols of any religion in open view. This idea does promote the muslim religion openly and is a distraction. Ifthe rest of us are forbidden by regulations to show our religious beliefs – the muslims should be held to the same regulations.
Well the uniform change thing you allege (I have never heard this) will never happen. They have made exceptions for Sikhs and maybe a couple others but it is very, very rare they make exceptions to the uniform standard.
One thing you "Conservatives" need to realize: Jesus Christ is a liberal. His concern is for the poor and to make sure that the religious zealots are held accountable. Also, as a gay man, I'm very proud of how I've not merely survived but prospered in a Southern land of haters. I won't be silenced either. The thing about relgious freedom is two-fold. First of all, NO ONE in these United States is married by the church. No one. Marriage is a State institution which authorizes the power to both atheist judges and priests alike. So, "Give to Caesar that which is Caesar's". Secondly, your "religious freedom" stops at your own family. Period. My Equality is not an enfringement on anything except your bigotry. Get over it. You did with interracial marriages. Now, you'll do the same here.
Merrell O'Brian–you are correct in saying Jesus could be considered liberal in some social justice issues-yet -he was considered a religious zealot. You are also correct in stating marriage as being a State institution. Marriage as a religious sacrament was one of the casualties of the Reformation. The Catholic Church alone still considers marriage a Holy Sacrament–what the state does is secondary. Interracial marriages does not follow in your argument. Homosexuality is a behavior choice–one with dire consequences for health of those who practice the lifestyle as well as for society in general. If you truly love your partner, you will not practice homosexual behavior. The CDC confirms the gay community accounts for 61% of new HIV cases yet the gay community according to the CDC is only 2-4% of the general population. This does not include syphilis, tuberculosis and a myriad of other diseases that is rampant in the gay community. Homosexual men are more than 44% more likely to contract HIV than other men. IF YOU LOVE YOUR PARTNER, YOU WILL NOT LIVE THE GAY LIFESTYLE. Will you still be gay, of course-however to practice the behavior is dangerous to yourself and others and society.
Why do men have nipples? When you understand that basic human phsyiology, you will come to understand how homosexuality is genetic. It's that simple. It's not a choice. I'm glad the human race didn't see things the way you do when syphilis, gonorreheoa and the many, many, many vaginally conductive diseases were fatal. I'm sure they did think like you over the Black Plague in the sixteenth century. Thank goodness we're not that primative now in our understanding. I suppose an argument could be made that the Blacks started HIV and that it is a "Black disease" when you take into consideration that heterosexual Africia is being annihilated by it. However, that's not a logical conclusion EITHER.
I've had the great fortune of LOVING two husbands. One for eight years and the other for twelve. One was a Marine and we had the respect of all our friends. IF YOU ONLY SEE GAY SEX AND CAN'T SEE LOVE YOU WILL NEVER UNDERSTAND GAY MARRIAGE. The Younger Americans totally understand this and are moving us in the same direction as interracial marriage and thus, the analogy.
Merrell OBrian Can you please show me any evidence Homosexuality is genetic–that is scientific evidence that can be replicated? There are a lot of studies that try to prove genetic ties to homosexuality but cannot be replicated which is the standard of a valid study. You infer I stated homosexuals started HIV, syphilis etc–I did not. Behavior, whether homosexual or heterosexual causes these horrific diseases. STD's are from behavior. If you knew a behavior would damage someone–is it love to continue? Even a monogamous homosexual relationship produces drastic damage to the body. You know this. Many people have attractions to something/one and to behaviors. This is not license to act on that attraction when the result is so damaging to the health of those participating and to the health of society as a whole.
Merrell OBrian Can you please show me any evidence Homosexuality is genetic–that is scientific evidence that can be replicated? There are a lot of studies that try to prove genetic ties to homosexuality but cannot be replicated which is the standard of a valid study. You infer I stated homosexuals started HIV, syphilis etc–I did not. Behavior, whether homosexual or heterosexual causes these horrific diseases. STD's are from behavior. If you knew a behavior would damage someone–is it love to continue? Even a monogamous homosexual relationship produces drastic damage to the body. You know this. Many people have attractions to something/one and to behaviors. This is not license to act on that attraction when the result is so damaging to the health of those participating and to the health of society as a whole.
Merrell OBrian Can you please show me any evidence Homosexuality is genetic–that is scientific evidence that can be replicated? There are a lot of studies that try to prove genetic ties to homosexuality but cannot be replicated which is the standard of a valid study. You infer I stated homosexuals started HIV, syphilis etc–I did not. Behavior, whether homosexual or heterosexual causes these horrific diseases. STD's are from behavior. If you knew a behavior would damage someone–is it love to continue? Even a monogamous homosexual relationship produces drastic damage to the body. You know this. Many people have attractions to something/one and to behaviors. This is not license to act on that attraction when the result is so damaging to the health of those participating and to the health of society as a whole.
Merrell OBrian Can you please show me any evidence Homosexuality is genetic–that is scientific evidence that can be replicated? There are a lot of studies that try to prove genetic ties to homosexuality but cannot be replicated which is the standard of a valid study. You infer I stated homosexuals started HIV, syphilis etc–I did not. Behavior, whether homosexual or heterosexual causes these horrific diseases. STD's are from behavior. If you knew a behavior would damage someone–is it love to continue? Even a monogamous homosexual relationship produces drastic damage to the body. You know this. Many people have attractions to something/one and to behaviors. This is not license to act on that attraction when the result is so damaging to the health of those participating and to the health of society as a whole.
Merrell OBrian Can you please show me any evidence Homosexuality is genetic–that is scientific evidence that can be replicated? There are a lot of studies that try to prove genetic ties to homosexuality but cannot be replicated which is the standard of a valid study. You infer I stated homosexuals started HIV, syphilis etc–I did not. Behavior, whether homosexual or heterosexual causes these horrific diseases. STD's are from behavior. If you knew a behavior would damage someone–is it love to continue? Even a monogamous homosexual relationship produces drastic damage to the body. You know this. Many people have attractions to something/one and to behaviors. This is not license to act on that attraction when the result is so damaging to the health of those participating and to the health of society as a whole.
Merrell OBrian Can you please show me any evidence Homosexuality is genetic–that is scientific evidence that can be replicated? There are a lot of studies that try to prove genetic ties to homosexuality but cannot be replicated which is the standard of a valid study. You infer I stated homosexuals started HIV, syphilis etc–I did not. Behavior, whether homosexual or heterosexual causes these horrific diseases. STD's are from behavior. If you knew a behavior would damage someone–is it love to continue? Even a monogamous homosexual relationship produces drastic damage to the body. You know this. Many people have attractions to something/one and to behaviors. This is not license to act on that attraction when the result is so damaging to the health of those participating and to the health of society as a whole.
Merrell OBrian Can you please show me any evidence Homosexuality is genetic–that is scientific evidence that can be replicated? There are a lot of studies that try to prove genetic ties to homosexuality but cannot be replicated which is the standard of a valid study. You infer I stated homosexuals started HIV, syphilis etc–I did not. Behavior, whether homosexual or heterosexual causes these horrific diseases. STD's are from behavior. If you knew a behavior would damage someone–is it love to continue? Even a monogamous homosexual relationship produces drastic damage to the body. You know this. Many people have attractions to something/one and to behaviors. This is not license to act on that attraction when the result is so damaging to the health of those participating and to the health of society as a whole.
Merrell OBrian Can you please show me any evidence Homosexuality is genetic–that is scientific evidence that can be replicated? There are a lot of studies that try to prove genetic ties to homosexuality but cannot be replicated which is the standard of a valid study. You infer I stated homosexuals started HIV, syphilis etc–I did not. Behavior, whether homosexual or heterosexual causes these horrific diseases. STD's are from behavior. If you knew a behavior would damage someone–is it love to continue? Even a monogamous homosexual relationship produces drastic damage to the body. You know this. Many people have attractions to something/one and to behaviors. This is not license to act on that attraction when the result is so damaging to the health of those participating and to the health of society as a whole.
All human fetuses start life as female. This is why men have nipples. During the gestation period, the XY chromosomes do their magic to change some babies into males. There is no set structure as to which part must develop first before this chemical, hormonal change occurs. In some, the brain is more evolved before the change occurs. What we are is the result. Also, estrogen levels in the mother at the time of gestation affect the sexual disposition in ways recorded particular to homosexual offspring. If we are created in “God’s image”, why do men have nipples?
I can easily equate your supposition of men shouldn’t love other men because it brings harm to them as, couples should never allow a baby to be born who is going to live in pain. The argument is ambiguous, arbitrary and does not follow a non-legal protocol allowing for the non-logical element of human love.
Also, considering I know for a FACT that most heterosexual men enjoy and engage in anal sex with their wives, I see no “greater thanless than” scenario with which to differentiate. This type of thread exists to take the conversation away from love, which is the basis of family. Marriage itself is a partnership of exchange in which security is exchanged for sex. Adding love to it greatly enhances the ideal but not the purpose. We gays desire marriage for the 1,200 Federal benefits which are afforded to the recognition of that legal status and, because we are equal according to the 14th Amendment of the US Constitution.
In the case of Prop 8, ALL “scientific” evidence against gay marriage has now officially be discredited by its authors. In fact, the authors of the studies sighted by the Prop 8 defense all claim the religious right fraudulently concluded facts not in evidence and are discredited now before the case moves on to the Supreme Court.
Your argument regarding a disabled child being born does not follow our conversation. If you want to compare that argument, you would have to agree that homosexuality is a disorder at birth that should not be allowed. Darwin would agree. Just a side note, if a "gay gene" were discovered, how many couples do you think would abort the child? YOU may know for a fact that most heterosexual men YOU KNOW have anal sex with their wives but this is not so in the general public. If most heterosexual couples participated in anal sex, the disease stats would show this is so–and they do not. NO ONE should engage in anal sex. It is an abuse the our bodies. You are in error that all scientific evidence has been officially discredited. A study just last month unequivocally stated by one of Australia's leading psychiatrists, Professor Kuravilla George, who is the State Government's equal opportunities champion and deputy chief psychiatrist in Victora, and has joined forces with 150 doctors lobbying the Federal Government to ban same-sex marriage-"-same sex marriage poses a health risk to society". Quote:"We submit the evidence is clear that children who grow up in a family with a mother and father do better in all parameters than children without. " There are many, many studies to support this–studies that can be replicated. So homosexual relationships are not only harmful to those who participate in the behavior but to children and society in general.
Merrell O'Brian: Just a question–who would you agree should be allowed the status of marriage?
That's so strange. My reply was deleted. Hmm…well, takes way too long to re-write. Besides, there is nothing "win" here. I changes minds and hearts one couple at the time. We're up to 54% across America, a clear majority supporting gay marriage. Keep up the good fight Jeannine. I wish you much health and happiness. Civil Rights should never have been left open to a vote anyway. That's why we have a Constitution–to protect the minority from the majority. But, if we gotta slug it out the hard way well, Been fighting twenty years and it's getting really good now!!
Sorry your reply got deleted–that has happened to me a few times–it is frustrating! I think I hit "enter" instead of "reply". Anyway can you answer my question above-who would you agree should be allowed the status of marriage? 54%?–in what poll?
Sorry your reply got deleted–that has happened to me a few times–it is frustrating! I think I hit "enter" instead of "reply". Anyway can you answer my question above-who would you agree should be allowed the status of marriage? 54%?–in what poll?
May 10th USA Today. Gallop poll was one of the last ones. ABCWashington. There have been several. And that's GREAT. Data clearly indicates that if the vote were held today for Prop8, we'd win by 6 points. However, the California GLBT have a very good point: Civil rights should NEVER be voted upon. The evolution of our Constitution to grant equality to blacks, then women and now gays is a process which the legislature must carry out. It would GREAT to see a state which houses 1in8 Americans slam the vote that way but, it would legitimize attempts from our side saying this is the way it should be done.
For a lady of faith, you certainly request a great deal of evidence. I would submit to you that Jesus said, "Whatsoever you ask in my name shall be given to you". Do you believe that? Has it always worked for you? How can you prove to me God exists? There are a billion people who are Muslims, just like there are a billion Budhists, Hindus and so forth. How can you prove to me you're right? Also, it is said that by faith, you can order a mountain to be cast into the sea and it shall obey you. So, can you do something perhaps less grand? Can you light a trash can on fire with your faith? No? Not even a trash can? Hmmm… Faith is choice. So IF being gay was a choice, I have the same rights as you with that choice.
The legal team for the NOM pulled in millions of dollars to find "research" to back up exactly the claims you are making against gays now. The three "studies", and only three, they could muster were discredited by their authors. Also, the authors of those studies said that NOM is misrepresenting their data and they do NOT agree with their use in the Prop8 case. As it heads to the Supreme Court, there is NO EVIDENCE at all on the religious right's side concerning any physiological, social or child upbringing against gays or gay marriage. Period. Now THAT is a matter of fact.
I will address your straw man just for a minute. My faith is based not only on faith but on reason. Now to the gay issue. Reason says biologically, our bodies just are not made for gay sex. Reason tells us indisputable evidence of the harm certain behaviors create to those doing the behavior, to children and to society. Choice to behave in a unreasonable manner is indeed a choice. What evidence did NOM use that is discredited? The NYT recent poll showed the county overwhelmingly against gay marriage. When I was in grad school we had to create and implement many polls. How the questions are asked greatly determines the outcome. The NYT polls states,"Told they must choose between legal or not legal, 51 percent said same-sex marriage should not be legal, while 42 percent say it should. And off topic a bit, " – fully 67 percent of those polled say Obama announced his support for political reasons, while 24 percent believe he wanted to do what is right".
Can you please answer my question," Who would you agree should be allowed the status of marriage?"
So here we are. And this is a good conversation. I sincerely appreciate the opportunity to converse with you in an open forum like this. I apprecate your kindness and, honestly? The fact that you HAVE an opinion worthy of having is refreshing. I, obviously, completely and totally disagree with you and will continue to pour my intellect, talents as a author and painter and network engineer, and money into my passion of seeing Equal Marriage throughout the United States. I believe you'll do an exceptional job opposing us, and the war shall continue.
I believe I did an excellent job explaining the genetics, to the best of my understanding. I have nothing more to add. As far as "should be allowed", citizens of these United States, having the Constitutional Rights of Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness fight for the evolution of our Constitutional understanding first with blacks then women, then interracial marriage (all of which were denied by the SAME ARGUMENTS you pose against us now). Gays are the next step in the application of the 14th amendment.
It is a fact that those under 30 are 85% in favor of Gay Marriage. It's simply a matter of time. Right now, as I write this, 25% of The United States, already has Gay Marriage by population. We've had a great decade! It's only getting better but! YOU should not fear. Just like interracial marriage did not threaten your religion, you won't notice any difference when we are nationally recognized as well. Biogtry disgused as religion is still bigotry.
@Jeannine Howard – The Catholic Church can think whatever it wants – but in the US it does matter what the state and federal government say. You can get married in the Catholic church but if you don't go through the legal channels too…legally you're not married. That's the same thing with that guy on Sister Wives. RELIGIOUSLY he's married to all those women. LEGALLY he's married to one. "If you love your partner you won't live the gay lifestyle?" Um – if someone is a homosexual then they will have sex with someone the same gender. It's called being safe – which some heterosexuals aren't and they get HIV too. Heterosexual sex can be JUST as dangerous as homosexual sex and it is if PEOPLE AREN'T SAFE!! Duh. STDs aren't sexual orientation specific.
Jeannine Howard Explain to me how people who grow up without any trace of homosexuality in their home, in their community, it's not on TV, it wasn't in the area anywhere "learned" homosexuality then? I have a gay brother. We grew up in a conservative state, a super conservative small town, absolutely no openly homosexuals known of, it wasn't on TV at the time we grew up so where did my brother "learn" to be a homosexual? He said he's known since he was five. He had to hide that until he graduated though. So tell me – if it's a "choice" how does someone choose that? If sexual orientation is a choice – then why did you "choose" to be heterosexual? That would mean at some point in your life, you had homosexual tendencies but you "chose" one over the other. I didn't "choose" to be heterosexual – I just am. I happen to be attracted to guys. It could've went the other way.
http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2008/dec/01/homosexuality-genetics-usa
Jeannine Howard http://religion.blogs.cnn.com/2012/05/19/my-take-the-christian-case-for-gay-marriage/?hpt=hp_c1 – I think this guy makes sense. It seems a lot of Christians have forgotten the basics of their religion and focus too much on random verses (that are mistranslated) in the Bible. Jesus didn't base his views on the Bible – so why should Christians? I think he'd be ashamed of some of you.
Merrell O'Brian: Thank you! And the same to you–it has been a good conversation. I have really tried hard not to bring religion into this conversation. I think I have only used information from secular sources such as the Centers for Disease Control(CDC) and readily available secular sources. Please think through your logic that those "allowed the status of marriage" tied to citizens of the United States. Have a wonderful day Merrell–since religion seems to have entered our conversation–God loves you very much, and God does not have an agenda but only wants what will set you free and what is best for you. God is above any our us and knows intimately what is in each of our hearts–and truly does love us.
Kelly Calder Thank you for entering the most excellent conversation I have had with Merrell. I really don't know where the Catholic church entered into this conversation. As far as STD's are concerned, you are correct, the presence or absence of STD's are NOT evidence of one's orientation. The Centers for Disease Control just verifies the gay community, while only 2-4% of the population has 44% times the STD's the heterosexual community has. You are also correct that some have homosexual tendencies and some heterosexual tendencies,—-some have tendencies toward hypersexuality(sex addict), some like members of NAMBLA have tendencies toward children, some have a tendency toward zoophilia(beastiality)–and so on. We all have tendencies toward all kinds of things. To act on some tendencies can have little or no effect on anything. To act on others can have drastic harmful effects on those doing the act and society as a whole. The "choice" is what one does with the tendencies one has, not the tendencies themselves. You are also correct that a "religious" marriage is just that, "religious" but marriages need to meet the requirements of the state–basically for legal reasons of taxes and so forth. Reason, in any tendency, is the key.
Jeannine Howard – Well the Catholic Church entered the convo due to you: "The Catholic Church alone still considers marriage a Holy Sacrament–what the state does is secondary." That is copied and pasted from one of your first posts. So that's why it entered.
Pedophilia is NOT a sexual orientation by the way. I wish people would stop acting like it is. It's not. It has nothing to do with if you are hetero or homosexual. It's an imbalance in your brain. There are also different types of pedophilia. Some people are attracted to children but never act on those impulses. They're still pedophiles. Zoophilia is also something different too. It's not the same as being hetero or homosexual.
Jeannine Howard Peace to you. Without religion, you would have no argument. The CDC is a disease center, Not a center on human sexuality. Dr. Kinsley and the American psychological Institute handle those matters and to them, homosexuality is normal. "It happens". I had an interesting life growing up Christian, which I still am. There were two Federal trials on the "civil" matters of gay marriage, both of which were soundly lost by the anti-equality crowd. We have one more to go and I'm confident of its outcome. MY HOPE is, those who are finally granted freedom aspire to that freedom and carry the torch of marriage for our nation. There is a strong argument for love in marriage with the addition of our people. I would suggest that if you wish to support marriage that you contend with divorce. Gay marriage is a lot like cable TV. Don't subscribe to the channel you don't want to watch. If you're against gay marriage, don't have one. And no, Christianity cannot be discounted as "anti-gay" because there are over 2 million affirming churches in America today. Why, that's almost the same number of Baptists, I believe. As far as pedophilia is concerned, I know that one of the reasons heteros don't talk more about it is too often, Daddy loves his little girl, a little too much!
I misspoke. And I really should check the statistic. I meant 2 million members of churches. I apologize if my error seems intentional. It is not.
Kelly Calder:This is my whole quote and it was a matter of distinction to a statement from Merell." You are also correct in stating marriage as being a State institution. Marriage as a religious sacrament was one of the casualties of the Reformation. The Catholic Church alone still considers marriage a Holy Sacrament–what the state does is secondary." I was stating that most if not all churches do not consider marriage a sacrament, except the Catholic Church which considers marriage first as a sacrament. I did not say pedophilia, zoophilia etc was a sexual orientation although these people do indeed have a sexual orientation toward children/ animals. That is who they are attracted to. Some men are attracted to other men but never act on their impulse. Men are just who they are sexually oriented toward.
You just said it is a sexual orientation – and they're not. Pedophilia and zoophilia are NOT sexual orientations at all. They are sexual attractions and most psychologists say that it's not even really a sexual attraction at all. It's a chemical imbalance in the brain. I'm not going further because I'm not a medical professional so I can't make an expert decision but medical experts agree those things are not sexual orientations.
One thing you "Conservatives" need to realize: Jesus Christ is a liberal. His concern is for the poor and to make sure that the religious zealots are held accountable. Also, as a gay man, I'm very proud of how I've not merely survived but prospered in a Southern land of haters. I won't be silenced either. The thing about relgious freedom is two-fold. First of all, NO ONE in these United States is married by the church. No one. Marriage is a State institution which authorizes the power to both atheist judges and priests alike. So, "Give to Caesar that which is Caesar's". Secondly, your "religious freedom" stops at your own family. Period. My Equality is not an enfringement on anything except your bigotry. Get over it. You did with interracial marriages. Now, you'll do the same here.
It is so sad to see our freedoms trodden under foot and tossed out like garbage. Far too many politicians forget that our beloved country was founded on freedom, of conscience and religion and speach, etc. Our constitution with all it's freedoms is what made our beloved country the best and strongest country in the world. They forget that to promote immorality is to promote lawlessness, because God's law (the 10 commandments) are the basis all other laws are built upon. When we legalize immorality and silence those who would speak against it, we plant the seeds that will be the ruin of all that this country so valliantly fought for, for the last 230 plus years, and anarchy and chaos will be its harvest.
Another Fox manufactured controversy. No victims named just vague accusations of perceived victimhood.
Wait… How exactly are they being silenced? It says that they are, but doesn't say how. Also, even if they are I have a hard time feeling bad about these ass holes being told to keep their hate to themselves. Boo effing hoo. We're all asked to keep quiet about certain things in the workplace, especially religious views.
The so-called war on Christianity is nothing more and nothing less than a well-deserved turnabout, guess-the-shoes-on-the-other-foot-now event. For millenia the churches of the world, not just Christianity, have been divisive, turning society into an us-against-them. There is a certain logic to it–what is more unifying than giving the team someone to hate/fear. For millenia these religious organizations have used fear tactics to beat its own members into submission by making an example of "outsiders." Fags have been just one of those "outside" groups.
Having said that, military churches are not the place to wage this war. As someone points out below, gay marriage is not yet "legal," so in essence forcing religious ministers to perform ceremonies that have no legal basis and are in stark opposition to the concept violates their rights as much as the rights of gays have been and continue to be violated. Two wrongs don't make a right.
Having said that. CHRISTIANS, WAKE UP! I have news for you gays are already being married everywhere and have been for millenia. You can't stop it, its already here. Marriage is the sacred union between two people declared before their God (if they have one), their families, friends and communities. Nothing more, nothing less. A slip of paper from secular government does not a marriage make. You can scream and wail all you want but you can't stop gay marriage on the basis of religion. This requires that the couple in question actually conform and agree with the precepts of the religion in question.
On the other hand what you can stop is secular CIVIL UNION. You can stop tax gay couples from receiving fair tax benefits, medical and death rights, insurance coverage, etc. However, this violates the first amendment rights of gays. One cannot make a valid supportable argument against gay marriage without bringing religion into it, and as soon as one does bring religion into it, it means that you are forcing your religion down the throats of people who do not agree with it. Further, by not allowing married gay couples the rights, privileges, and benefits afforded heterosexual couples one is violating the "equal protection of the laws" clause of the fourteenth amendment to the Constitution.
Homosexuality makes a mockery of marriage? I don't think so. Straights have been doing that for centuries quite well without our assistance.
Yes, I am. My partner and I have also been married before our God, friends and family for thirteen years and still going strong. A hell of a lot longer than many straight marriages that were "until death do they part." Yet, society deems that these sham marriages are somehow worth more than mine.
BTW. Yes some thirty states have stated they do not want gay marriage. I would hardly call it overwhelming. Many of those margins were awfully tight. Don't pat yourselves on your backs yet.
Oh, please. This is poppycock. The chaplains don't have to perform any weddings that they don't approve of. If they want to whine about it, they are able to do so. What babies you gay-haters are. Get over yourselves.
Fagscists are the most intolerant of the "Tolerant"…
Soldiers can't say Merry Xmas? Damn shame. Moving on.
Yeah we can actually.
I know. Just tired of the ongoing "War on" everything.
I know. Just tired of the ongoing "War on" everything.
Everything's a "war" you didn't know that? The "war" on Christmas – one of the bloodiest "wars" against a holiday ever. The "war" on Christians in the US – epic. It's unbelievable.
Is it? Is it really? Or maybe you guys are playing the victims a bit too much. Tell you what. When a law is passed saying that you can not practice xtianity in the privacy of your own home, then you can bitch and moan.
Dude – I was being sarcastic. I know it doesn't transfer very well on Facebook but when someone puts quotes around the word "war" – that usually means it's not serious. Or quotes around anything lol. I am in no way, shape or form Christian or religious so I was using sarcasm to display how ridiculous it is.
My apologies to you Kelly.
Lol – I figured out you were being kind of sarcastic so I thought I would return that – it's cool.
Soldiers can't say Merry Xmas? Damn shame. Moving on.