• Subscribe to Crisis

  • Onward, De-Christianized Soldiers

    by George Neumayr

    praying soldiers

    The liberationist philosophy underpinning Obama’s co-ed, gay-friendly military holds, on the one hand, that sexuality is inherently fixed and thus beyond the control of individuals, and on the other that sexuality is subject to re-shaping “through changes in culture.” The social engineers of the military promised that age-old problems between men and women thrown together in close quarters would suddenly vanish under enlightened training.

    It hasn’t happened. Out of the military’s confused culture of loose moral philosophy, strict feminism, and combustible masculinity has come an endless stream of reports on sexual misconduct in the ranks. This week Congress mulled over the Pentagon’s admission that sexual assault cases have spiked 35 percent in the last two years.

    “The Pentagon, using anonymous surveys and sampling research, estimated that 26,000 active-duty personnel  experienced ‘unwanted sexual  contact’ last year, up from about 19,300 in 2010, according to an ongoing Defense Department study,” reported the Washington Post.

    How strange, then, that a military reeling from an epidemic of coarseness and immorality would continue to marginalize Christianity in its ranks.  It is hardly suffering from an outbreak of Christian virtue and witness.

    Defense Department materials classifying Catholics and Evangelicals as extremists on par with jihadists came to light recently. The Pentagon pooh-poohed these materials, which were used for a U.S. Army Reserve presentation, as a random incident. But it wasn’t. Christians are routinely treated as extremists by Obama’s politically correct generals.

    In 2010, Admiral Michael Mullen informed a Christian chaplain who opposed the repeal of the Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell policy that “if you cannot get in line, resign your commission.” That same year Lieutenant General Thomas Bostick told “bigoted” soldiers to “get with the program” or “get out.”  In 2011, the Army, until a backlash prevented the change, planned on tweaking its visiting guidelines at Walter Reed Medical Center to read: “No religious items (i.e. Bibles, reading materials and/or facts) are allowed to be given away or used during a visit.” In 2012, officials at the Air Force erased the Latin word for God, Dei, from the logo of the Rapid Capabilities Office. The logo had said in Latin “Doing God’s Work with Other People’s Money.” It was changed to: “Doing Miracles with Other People’s Money.”

    The same Air Force that this week admitted to a “cancer” of sexual assault among its members evidently finds too much Christianity worrisome. In 2011, it cancelled a course on Just War theory that had been taught for 20 years on the grounds that it made use of the writings of St. Augustine and other theistic thinkers. Mikey Weinstein, president of an aggressively secularist group misnamed the Military Religious Freedom Foundation, led the lobbying for that change by the Air Force. Soldiers, he bragged, will no longer be exposed to the “Jesus loves nukes speech.”

    Last month it came out that Weinstein is helping the Pentagon brainstorm about the possibility of court-martialing Christians. According to the Washington Post’s Sally Quinn, Weinstein met with Pentagon officials on April 23 to discuss cracking down on what he calls a “tidal wave of fundamentalists.”  “[T]here is systematic misogyny, anti-Semitism and Islamophobia in the military,” he said. Weinstein calls this “spiritual rape.”

    Media darling Joe Wilson, the former ambassador who tussled with the Bush administration, also joined Weinstein for this high-level meeting.  Wilson would like to see Christian chaplains who refuse to bend to Obama’s secularism booted from the military. The chaplain’s role, Wilson told Quinn, “is to minister to spiritual needs. You don’t proselytize. It’s a workplace violation.”

    This is beyond dark satire. While creating a permissive climate in which physical rape occurs, the Pentagon is fretting over “spiritual rape” with Joe Wilson and Mikey Weinstein, whose influence is real enough to have already forced many changes at the Air Force and other branches of the armed services. Weinstein is to the military what the ACLU is to courts: an agent of atheism that won’t rest until all believing Christians are run out of the public square.

    That generals showed up for the meeting with Weinstein is no accident. His secularism is widely held within the Obama administration and was bound to percolate to the top of all government agencies, particularly the military, where the authority of the commander-in-chief is unquestioned.

    In the wake of bad publicity, the Pentagon is trying to spin its meeting with Weinstein as insignificant. But it is not. He has the ear of skittish officials. According to Quinn, after “demands from Weinstein, the Air Force published, but has yet to distribute, a 27- page document, which includes a cover sheet that states: ‘COMPLIANCE WITH THIS PUBLICATION IS MANDATORY.’ ‘Leaders at all levels,’  the document says, ‘must avoid the actual or apparent use of their position to promote their personal religious beliefs to their subordinates or to extend preferential treatment for any religion.’”

    Meanwhile, Congress is baffled at how the culture of the military could permit so much sexual mischief. An exasperated Senator Angus King of Maine said, “Within the Air Force, it has to become unacceptable culturally.” It is a little late for politicians to be lamenting the loss of traditional mores.  The two trends within the military on display in the press recently—rising cases of sexual misconduct , declining Christian presence—are exactly what they should expect.

    The views expressed by the authors and editorial staff are not necessarily the views of
    Sophia Institute, Holy Spirit College, or the Thomas More College of Liberal Arts.

    Subscribe to Crisis

    (It's Free)

    Go to Crisis homepage

    • Prof_Override

      Let’s see here … you’re blaming the reprehensible behavior of WTF males (most likely brought up in evangelical communities – notice I didn’t call them Christian), on the lack of more of the same foul, toxic brew that got them to be such WTF’s in the first place … cool … I’m good with that.

      • Joe K

        Prof Override…What does WTF stand for. As a member of the military the only WTF I’ve come across is ” What the f*^( ” which doesn;t quite fit the context

        • patricia m.

          Was thinking something like WASP… Maybe White Traditional Families?

      • tom

        A lot of the Lackland AFB sex abuse involved minority men (drill instructors) and white girls in basic training. This has been covered up by our social engineering “elites”.

    • lifeknight

      Thank you for another great article! Let us ALL NOTICE that comments in Crisis have been targeted by those with anti-Christian and anti-family agendas.

    • Reets46

      I used to think that the military was the last bastion of Judeo/Christian mores. But lets strip the military of any Judeo/Christian influence and see if the problem of sexual misconduct improves.
      “The social engineers of the military promised that age-old problems between men and women thrown together in close quarters would suddenly vanish under enlightened training.”
      Ah yes, you can’t change human nature. Women are not men and call me old fashioned, but women should not be placed in supportive or active front line situations where they are thrown in close quarters with men and where their physical limitations may actually hinder the goal of the mission. In WWII women were nurses. It was a challenging and demanding job, but it was a beautiful way to contribute to the “war effort”.
      “You’ve come a long way baby.”, but what have you gained?

    • AcceptingReality

      I can’t stop thinking ’bout the Fall of Rome.

      • tom

        At this stage, it can’t happen soon enough so we can start the 2000 year building process again. Democrats are something, aren’t they?

      • James

        I’m thinking a little closer, chronologically: Spain prior to the civil war…

        • James

          … Or maybe Mexico under Calles…

      • bdlaacmm

        Uh, just what do you mean? Rome fell AFTER it converted to Christianity, not while it was pagan.

        (By the way, I agree with George on this issue. I just don’t see what your comment means, or how it relates to what’s going on in the military.)

        • John Hutchinson

          Rome was on the ropes in 268 A.D. (Weimar-like inflation and crash of currency (denarii), Empire torn into 3 or 4 political divisions by Pretenders, losing wars and emperors to the Parthians, apathetic and incorrigible populace. Starting with Aurelian, the central government became increasingly totalitarian in order to stave off that collapse.

          A corrupted Christianity failed (partially) to assist in that effort at restoration, which was a primary motivation behind Constantine’s recognition. (The Empire did continue in a sense in a reduce Byzantium. But the 4th Century Revolution really changed the Roman Empire into something radically different from its classical nature).

          Christianity didn’t cause the Fall of Rome. It just failed to rescue Rome from a certain trajectory toward collapse.

    • John O’Neill

      Solution to this problem is simple; stop supplying Christians to the American military; refuse to send chaplains to the military; take the American flags out of the sanctuaries of our churches and let the Americans have the totally atheistic country they voted for. Meanwhile the catacombs might be our destiny.

      • Kathleen

        That is exactly what the Godless Left wants.

        They want every last decent man driven from the military.

        Only then can they use the military in the way that they wish.

        • tom

          Since the popes declare our wars “:unjust”, perhaps decent men should stop participating in them? Where are our American bishops? MIA! Nothing new there.

          • Kathleen

            Our wars of late have been unjust.

            But these developments guarantee, if unopposed, that it only gets worse.

            Rock meet hard spot.

            As a middle age woman, I would strongly discourage the enlistment of any young man in my family.

            But abandoning the military and those good men (especially our holy priests) that are within it without a fight is folly.

            • tom

              I understand, but what if Obama started another war and no one showed to fight it? He’d be exhausted drying new “red lines”.

          • mikehorn

            Anyone in uniform swore to support and defend the Constitution, and to obey the orders of the President. If the President declares a war, and anyone in the military says no, that is serious business. Cowardice at least, possibly treason. If they decide that they are acting on the orders of the Bishops or the Pope, then they have violated their Oath. In time of war, that has some pretty serious consequences.

            • mikehorn

              Note that the Pope is a foreign head of state, to whom we send an official ambassador. The US Military following the orders of a foreign head of state? Should someone of German heritage follow the German Chancellor before the President? Really?

              • Watosh

                Hey The Congress just passed a resolution that gives the power to engage The United States in a war to the Prime minister of Israel. Essentially they said in a resolution that should Israel attack Iran, the United States is committed then also to attack Iran. Should a foreign country have the power to have the United States attack another country? Really. But this passed the American Congress by very large majorities. I did not hear any protests about this. But then it is well known around Washington that the American congress is owned by Israel.

                • mikehorn

                  I don’t know of the incident you are talking about, but Constitution 101 should have taught you that Congress has the power to declare war and ratify treaties (talking both houses here). We have a pretty tight treaty with Israel, which means there are already many things that would bring us into war on their side. Similar for other nations, like S. Korea or the UK or Germany. If the Congress detailed a circumstance that would trigger the alliance and war, that doesn’t surprise me at all, and Congress is well within their power to do so. Even the President has limited war powers, if he sees an emergency and has to act now, before Congress can work through their system.

                  • Watosh

                    Well recently Congress passed a resolution to the effect that the United States should go to war against Iran whenever Israel attacked Iran. This signals to Israel that if they want the United States to go to war against Iran, all Israel has to do is launch an attack against Iran and then sit back and watch the United States destroy Iran. They, the congress, by so doing went on record as making this their recommendation, 77 Senators co-sponsored the bill. Now since theoretically it is Congress’s call to declare war this would appear to make an advance declaration. While this is anon-binding resolution, a statement from the Senate has power, and the senators know it.
                    I am not surprised that you were not aware of this because our corporate media does not want to alarm the public by letting them know of certain intentions.
                    The treaties with other countries that you allude to are different in that they are defensive treaties. We promise to come to the aid of other countries with which we have treaties should they be attacked. This then does not apply is they attack another country, so this does not mean these countries can determine when the United states goes to war.
                    When you erect the smokescreen that this is just a case of Congress detailing a circumstance that would trigger a war and that that is something well within their power to do so, you are dodging the naked fact that this detailing of a circumstance is one that allows another country to declare when the United States goes to war. You seem to feel it was a violation of our sovereignty if we should permit a foreign power, like say the Pope, tell us when we should go to war. So evidently you don’t object to having a foreign country tell us when we are to go to war, but it depends on which country tells us to go to war. Now Pope John Paul II pleaded with George Bush not to attack Iraq, but rather to give the inspectors more time to prove beyond any doubt that Iraq did not have WMD’s, which they had found to be the case at the time we declared war. I t might have been better for the United States, Iraq, and the world if George Bush had heeded this advice.

                • Proteios

                  Fear inferring not needed. We have many treaties, but congress still needs to approve to goto war. This isn’t limited to Israel, we have treaties with all NATO countries.

            • Proteios

              As it should. And also a good reason for those whose values and faith collide with how the military is being operated should not enlist.

          • Proteios

            The American bishops have spoken it against these wars. In fact, there were several interventions with bush the lesser…loser…no bush the lesser is appropriate…anyways, the Pope dispatched welk? I forget the name of a bishop or cardinal who knew the bush family and tried to stop the war as the Pope was very concerned about Christian persecution in the Middle East.
            Guess what? As usual the Pope was right and Christians haven’t been persecuted like this since the lead up to the crusades.
            Major point…just because our left leaning media doesn’t talk about anything involving Catholics unless it mocks us by our ‘antiquated’ values on sexual promiscuity, gay, pills, etc. doesn’t mean we aren’t taking bout it. The media ignores what it isn’t advocating.

        • John O’Neill

          When will we realize the complete depravity of the American culture and its government? Enabling evil is not a noble venture. Think of all the condemnations that were hurled at the German Catholics for not standing up and fighting the evil of national socialism. We thought that we would have done something; cooperating with the commandant is not doing something no matter how much we wish that we were mitigating the evil somehow by softening its effects. America now competes with Nazi Germany and Soviet Russia in seeing how many ways it can spit on the laws of God. Do not render to Caesar the things that are God’s.

          • Kathleen

            Dear Mr. O’Neill,

            I am not your adversary on this topic.

            But one must deal with the practical application of moral teachings.

            For instance you say (quite rightly) that, paraphrased, we should be condemned for not fighting evil.

            So in your view, does fighting evil involve abdicating the rule of the military to the enemies of Christ? What about those good men (most especially our holy priests) within the military — do we abandon them to the enemies of Christ without protest or effort to defend them?

            Or does fighting evil require that we do what we can to contest this take over of the military by the enemies of Christ?

            I’ve already stated how I have concluded that I must apply the Church’s teachings giving my state of life above, so I won’t repeat that.

            Keep in mind, that the success of the Catholics in the Spanish Civil War was due in no small part in their retaining significant allies within the military up until the time of the conflict, who then became a major factor in the resulting success. A success one may note was not duplicated in France or Mexico where that factor was absent.

      • MarkRutledge

        This is precisely the opposite of what we should do, John. We are called to fight the good fight, not meekly yield the battlefield.

      • MarkRutledge

        This is precisely the opposite of what we should do, John. We are called to fight the good fight, not meekly yield the battlefield.

      • MarkRutledge

        This is precisely the opposite of what we should do, John. We are called to fight the good fight, not meekly yield the battlefield.

      • Chad

        Why than did Paul appeal to Caesar?

    • Ford Oxaal

      The military would not turn on the American people at this point, even if ordered to do so, but the goal of the traitors at the top is to be able to use the military for their own evil purposes. (As if this is something new in the history of mankind.) If you are evil, here is your agenda: Take away the second amendment, turn the military into godless killers on a federal leash, break down the family with every available opportunity, tear down the American bulwark of good, and rebuild it in your own image.

      • HigherCalling

        “The world left to itself grows wilder than any creed. …That is the only real question — whether the Church is really madder than the world. Let the rationalists run their own race, and let us see where they end. If the world has some healthy balance other than God, let the world find it. Does the world find it? Cut the world loose; does the world stand on its own end? Does it stand, or does it stagger?”

        (The Ball and the Cross, GKC)

      • Proteios

        You forgot bout nullifying and reworking the first mend ent. One I consider far superior to the second. Controlling how we talk. What is politically correct. This controls hearts and minds so much that they won’t have to take the second amendment away. People will demand it. Just look.

        • Ford Oxaal

          You are right. The whole ‘hate speech’ thing is Orwellian. Someone played the ‘hate card’ on me the other day. The strategy on their part is to stifle the debate and take a morally superior posture. My response now is to just double down.

    • http://www.facebook.com/people/Tony-Esolen/1184164082 Tony Esolen

      Do these people demand that soldiers not try to persuade one another to vote Republican or Democrat? To root for the Cardinals rather than the Cubs? To eat eggs rather than granola? Is it only discussion about the Eternal Things that is proscribed? Maybe the soldiers should put duct tape over their mouths all day long; that way we might be sure that nobody would ever be offended.

      • Kathleen

        Yes, we live in the midst of breathtaking insanity.

        But it is to be expected — indulging in habitual, grave sin darkens the intellect.

        Now the Sin That Cries Out To Heaven is out in the open.

        But the policy is “Don’t ask, don’t tell” for the Church established by Jesus Christ.

        It is classic Soviet Communism as far as policy, where the adage was: “One may be Christian as long as no one knows.”

        • tom

          It all shows Obama’s true stripes.

      • MarkRutledge

        Rooting for the Cardinals over the Cubs is simply a matter of good taste. But you make a good point. It seems the most effective, pernicious lies are the most audacious. The proposition that restricting religion in general and Christianity in particular is somehow tantamount to religious freedom can only come from the pit of Hell. Let all good Christians recognize from whence this nonsense comes. This is Why We Fight.

      • MarkRutledge

        Rooting for the Cardinals over the Cubs is simply a matter of good taste. But you make a good point. It seems the most effective, pernicious lies are the most audacious. The proposition that restricting religion in general and Christianity in particular is somehow tantamount to religious freedom can only come from the pit of Hell. Let all good Christians recognize from whence this nonsense comes. This is Why We Fight.

      • MarkRutledge

        Rooting for the Cardinals over the Cubs is simply a matter of good taste. But you make a good point. It seems the most effective, pernicious lies are the most audacious. The proposition that restricting religion in general and Christianity in particular is somehow tantamount to religious freedom can only come from the pit of Hell. Let all good Christians recognize from whence this nonsense comes. This is Why We Fight.

    • Me

      Rising cases of sexual misconduct? Or rising rates of reporting sexual misconduct? Perhaps the abused just aren’t prepared to take it any more? Which would be a good thing.

      • Kathleen

        You might wish to re-read the article.

        The data is NOT based upon reported cases.

        The data is based upon “anonymous surveys and sampling research.”

        • Me

          I saw that, but people put up with less these days (as they should). When
          I was young, I put up with all manner of inappropriate touching and didn’t see it as sexual misconduct because it fell short of an extreme standard I considered to be “the line”. If men treated my daughters like that today, I’d rip them a new one.

          • http://thewhitelilyblog.wordpress.com/ janet_baker76

            Wow, I’m sorry for your experience. It’s very heavy to have been unprotected as a child.

      • http://thewhitelilyblog.wordpress.com/ janet_baker76

        No, it’s rising. Those women nurses of WWII were not raped to a woman, and that’s one figure the military has offered, in a recent NPR report: every women in the military raped at least once.

    • Michael Paterson-Seymour

      Rousseau put it very succinctly: “As soon as public service ceases to be the chief business of the citizens, and they would rather serve with their money than with their persons, the State is not far from its fall. When it is necessary to march out to war, they pay troops and stay at home: when it is necessary to meet in council, they name deputies and stay at home. By reason of idleness and money, they end by having soldiers to enslave their country and representatives to sell it.” [Du Contrat Social IV 15]

      • Kathleen

        The diabolical French Revolution was THE fruit of Rousseau’s vile work.

        His view of man, society, and God are antithetical to Catholicism.

        You would do well to read New Advent’s excellent analysis as a starting point in developing a sensus traditionis on the topic.

        As far as the topic at hand, Rousseau’s demand that the individual sublimate himself for society would hardly cure what ails us.

        • patricia m.

          Agree. Rousseau couldn’t even support his children, what a *great* man – irony.

        • Michael Paterson-Seymour

          It was the great Catholic historian, Hilaire Belloc who wrote, “Now it is not too much to say that never in the history of political theory has a political theory been put forward so lucidly, so convincingly, so tersely or so accurately as in this short and wonderful book… Rousseau’s hundred pages are the direct source of the theory of the modern State; their lucidity and unmatched economy of diction; their rigid analysis, their epigrammatic judgment and wisdom—these are the reservoirs from whence modern democracy has flowed; what are now proved to be the errors of democracy are errors against which the Contrat Social warned men; the moral apology of democracy is the moral apology written by Rousseau.”

        • mikehorn

          The French Revolution was fundamentally different than the American for a very important reason: the French monarchy derived a good deal of its power from the Catholic Church. Bishops and priests and Cardinals held positions of power and privilege like nothing even dreamed of in the Colonies. Any revolution in France would be, by definition, a revolution against Catholicism, too. Has Catholicism started to reinforce its prior doctrine of Divine Right and worldly Papal Authority?

          Are you saying we should bring back the European monarchies and reinstate the Cardinals and Bishops as fat, selfish, secular horrors like they were in France pre-Revolution?

          As ugly as the French Revolution got, it forever undercut the monarchies and theocracies of Catholic Europe. For that I am grateful.

          • Michael Paterson-Seymour

            The Catholic historian, Hilaire Belloc put it very neatly, when he said of the French Revolution, “The political theory upon which the Revolution proceeded has, especially in this country [the UK], suffered ridicule as local, as ephemeral, and as fallacious. It is universal, it is eternal, and it is true.”

            He also notes the obvious truth that, after the Wars of Religion, “The very fact that the Church had thus become in France an unshakable national institution, chilled the vital source of Catholicism. Not only did the hierarchy stand in a perpetual suspicion of the Roman See, and toy with the conception of national independence, but they, and all the official organisation of French Catholicism, put the security of the national establishment and its intimate attachment to the general political structure of the State, far beyond the sanctity of Catholic dogma or the practice of Catholic morals.”

            • mikehorn

              What are you arguing here? That the French clergy weren’t really Catholic? Of course they were. They acted like the Church had acted for the previous 1000 years. Using the “no true Christian” argument doesn’t really work.

              Pope Pius IX actually granted the French church a degree of autonomy and took a step away from Papal authority over the governments of Christian nations. This whole set up with the Pope exerting worldly power over kings and nations is one of the uglier parts of Catholic history, with Emperor Popes who resembled Caeser more than Peter.

    • cestusdei

      I was in the military. I know how it works. Soon enough any Christian will have to be in the closet and stay there in order to remain in the service. Eventually they will be banned anyway. Catholics are very vulnerable to this. The secularists and homosexual activists will not tolerate Christianity. They don’t care if this weakens our military.

    • Alecto

      Military or not, doesn’t every single American have a constitutionally protected right to free exercise? This perversion of the First Amendment; this misinterpretation of the First Amendment as some kind of obstacle to worship, to pray, to act, to evangelize, is crazy. It’s a topsy-turvy world. It’s so nutty, I don’t know how anyone can take Weinstein seriously? He must be stopped before he does any more damage. This is what happens when kids are educated in public schools.

      • http://twitter.com/pdmcguirelaw Paul McGuire

        I think there is general agreement that the right to free exercise of religion is protected by the First Amendment. Where we disagree is how far that reaches. Notice nobody is stopping you from worshiping or praying. Can certain types of evangelization be limited? That is the question we face now. I think it will take some time for widespread agreement on where the freedom of religion ends for individuals who wish to share with others a belief that they are sinful because of their sexual orientation.

        • Kathleen

          This debate is not leading to some pleasant agreement on definitions of freedom.

          It is leading to the absolute crushing of Christian dissent to the homosexual agenda — as pointed out by LEFT-Libertarian British journalist Brendan O’Neill who has described it as:

          “. . . conformism, the slow but sure sacrifice of critical thinking and dissenting opinion under pressure to accept that which has been defined as a good by the upper echelons of society . . .” ( http://www.spiked-online.com/site/article/13518/ )

          To speak up against this tidal wave publicly now involves very real danger to one’s career and livelihood. The cases of the homosexual lobby forcing firings, etc, are quickly mounting.

          • tom

            A controversial psychiatrist, Thomas Szasz, said it best: “It can be dangerous to be wrong,but, to be right, when society regards the majority’s falsehood as truth, could be fatal.” We’re there, right here, in America.

            • Watosh

              Jane Eyre is a fascinating story, but can you imagine if the two protagonists were and older man and some young man acting as the governess in his household. Imagine the charming musical of My Fair Lady if the male lead was played by Rock Hudson and the person he wanted to show could be passed off as a member of high society by teaching say Freddie Bartholemew how to use proper English. I wonder what kind of a box office attraction that would be. I recall when I was growing up there was a kid born with six fingers. He was born that way but don’t tell me that having six fingers is “normal.” Imagine two married homosexuals getting together for a night out with their next door neighbor who are husband and wife. Yes and 2 + 2 = 5 provided you make 2 large enough.

          • http://twitter.com/pdmcguirelaw Paul McGuire

            Ironically, the lack of critical thinking is coming exclusively from the religious groups as seen by mindless parroting of dogma as if it can not ever be questioned. Nothing shows lack of critical thinking any more than insisting that your truth is the only truth because that is how God meant it to be.

            If people wonder why the “homosexual agenda” is winning, the simple answer is, the lies spread by the opposition are being debunked over and over and people realize the truth in the arguments on the other side.

            I was recently graced with a book from a relative that summarizes every argument that a religious group might make and even sets out its own explanation of everything that makes up the “homosexual agenda.” I now have a better understanding of what is meant by the use of that term and still I can’t see anything wrong with the change it brings.

            • http://twitter.com/anthonymarks5 anthony marks

              1. No civilization in the history of mankind has ever accepted homosexual marriage.

              2. No religion in the history of mankind has ever accepted homosexual marriage

              3. Homosexual males average over 100 sexual partners.

              4. Homosexuals have higher than average rates of venereal disease.

              5. Homosexuals have higher than average suicide rates.

              6. Homosexuals have higher than average alcohol and drug abuse rates

              7. The Christian faith, as taught in the New Testament, prohibits homosexuality.

              8. The human body was not built to accommodate the physical actions of homosexuals, actions which cause damage to the body(not to mention the soul).

              Which of these facts are lies?

              • http://twitter.com/pdmcguirelaw Paul McGuire

                A number of modern religions accept same sex marriage. In the US, more liberal denominations of the Christian church do. In other areas, the Buddhists don’t particularly have a problem with gay couples getting married. To suggest that gay marriage does nothing but take away religious freedoms ignores the religions whose abilities to marry same-sex couples in their churches are restricted.

                3, 4, 5 and 6 are more linked to difficult lives caused by people constantly telling gays they are unnatural. Living a lie is hard work. Finding a lasting relationship requires first accepting and loving yourself. It is hard for many gay men to love themselves in a society where they tend to grow up being told that they fail to live up to the expectations of society. Thankfully, that won’t be as problematic anymore because the new generation is being raised by families that accept their children regardless of sexual orientation or gender identity.

                • http://twitter.com/anthonymarks5 anthony marks

                  Buddhism does not allow homosexual marriage. I guess we’ll see if your guess is right about 3,4,5,and 6, but what if you’re wrong? What if thousands of years of civilization are right?

                  • http://twitter.com/pdmcguirelaw Paul McGuire

                    It is not a guess. It has been documented by many studies of gay men. A psychologist who spent a lot of time with gay patients set out a lot of that in his book The Velvet Rage, talking about the difficulties that come when gay men are insecure with themselves and seek constant validation in casual sex and other vices.

                    Your understanding of buddhism might not allow for gay weddings but there have been some buddhist gay weddings already.
                    http://www.cnn.com/2012/08/13/world/asia/taiwan-buddhist-same-sex-wedding

                    • Thorgasm

                      Paul M., you’re a huge neckbearded douche, and a liar.

                      • Crisiseditor

                        On this site, comments are expected to be civil. If you disagree with a comment, then make an argument. Be constructive or leave.

              • mikehorn

                America was the first nation to establish a Constitution that had no mention of any god, that never claimed the rights and duties came from a god. Our rights and duties come from us, “We the People”. The rights are granted to the citizens by those very same citizens.

                Catholicism has always had an uneasy relationship with the ideals of the American Revolution. The Vatican even placed Thomas Paine on its list of forbidden and heretical works.

                • John H. Graney

                  Even so, the Declaration of Independence does explicitly mention God. And I don’t see anything in the Constitution that contradicts the Declaration.

                  • mikehorn

                    Two things. One, the DoI does NOT mention the Christian god. It mentions a Creator, which bad history has equated to the Christian god. The author and many of the signers were Deists, who had actively rejected the Christian god in favor of a “first cause” sort of deity who was no longer a factor in daily affairs. Definitely not Jehovah or Jesus.

                    Second, the DoI is an historical artifact but not a founding document in any legal sense. The basis of our government and our laws is the Constitution, which is decidedly secular. It’s mention of god is to forbid any religious test for public office, a direct rejection of European theocracies, especially like those in France and Spain that were supported by Papal Authority and accepted only Catholics. Historically, it was also a direct reaction against the brutal religious wars of the previous couple centuries.

                    According to the Constitution, any treaty negotiated, ratified, and signed becomes US Law. The Treaty of Tripoli was negotiated under President Washington, unanimously ratified by the Senate (full of Founders), and signed into Law by President Adams. It included the wording “As the Government of the United States of America is not, in any sense, founded on the Christian religion,…”, and that statement has been US Law for more than 200 years.

                    • http://www.facebook.com/people/Tony-Esolen/1184164082 Tony Esolen

                      No on all counts. The Constitution is silent on religion, except where in the First Amendment it assures the States that the federal Congress will have nothing to do, one way or another, with an establishment of religion, either to establish a national church, OR to disallow the state-established churches. Find out what the founders meant by the word “religion” — do some research on the meaning of the word.

                      • mikehorn

                        The Constitution definitely mentions religion, by forbidding its use to bar anyone from holding office. The no religious test for office (Article VI if I remember correctly) was written to prevent the nastiness seen in sectarian strifes in England and the rest of Europe, where the dominant religion of the moment used its power to exclude all others. Then the dominant religion changed and the same nastiness happened. America decided that wasn’t a way to run a country.

                        The fact that there are no other references was unique at the time. America stated that the authority for its government did not come from a god or a church. It comes from the citizens. The source of authority, according to the Constitution, is We the People.

                        About the federal vs state churches, that was cleared up by the Supremacy clause, stating that Federal law trumps state law (Article VI). The 14th Amendment also made the Constitution applicable in all the States.

                        But that is moot – the military is part of the Federal Government. It is set up, funded, organized, overseen, and in many other ways controlled by Congress, which means that the military (and its members) is specifically forbidden any way that might establish an official religion. The President is Commander in Chief, but most other powers over the military belong to Congress. Even the promotion of officers to higher rank goes through Congress. Every general getting another star actually gets a voted on in Congress. In the military, Catholic is equal to atheist and to Baptist and to Muslim. There is no other way for it to work.

                      • Watosh

                        And our country is now engaged in a race to the bottom culturally, and are engaged in assassinations in other countries around the world, is continually at war, the wealth is owed by the very few, our Presidents routinely lie to us, etc. Excelsior. I keep remembering reading the poem “Ozymandias” in high school English class, I’m showing my age now, whenever I hear someone say that the United States is the most powerful nation that ever existed on the planet. But we are the greatest we keep on telling ourselves.

                      • mikehorn

                        There were no assassinations and no cries of moral decline 100, 200, or 300 years ago? There were. A Pope actually signed a warrant calling for the assassination of a sitting monarch (Pius V and Elizabeth I). He also tried to assert worldly power over the citizens of England, absolving them of allegiance to their government. That turned out well: Spain was defeated, starting the decline of worldly Catholic power in the form of Catholic empires. The English didn’t listen to the Pope.

                        We are not headed toward decline. Doom and gloom all you want, but I work around young people all the time. Smart, dedicated, innovative. The only thing that will put us in decline is if we start to stifle the freedoms that made us great.

                      • Watosh

                        I was referring to the time between the fifth and eight centuries, and invited comparing the mass slaughters that had taken place during the last say 150 years under governments that were not by any stretch of the imagination, catholic theocratic states. I don’t see where the absence or the occurrence of cries for assassinations or cries of moral decline relates to this comparison. By the way don’t mistake the wars of nationalism that took place following the fifth and eight centuries as religious wars, they were nationalistic rivalries between monarchs who viewed themselves as ruling by divine right. Some monarchs ruled Catholic countries and some monarchs ruled Protestant countries, and during these wars Monarchs of countries largely Catholic often allied themselves with Monarchs of largely Protestant countries to defeat rival Monarchs of largely Catholic countries. As for the Pope ordering the assassination of some monarch, any Catholic will admit that some Popes have had terrible morals, the saving thing is that a Pope does not determine Catholic teaching, but takes an oath to merely pass on and preserve Catholic teaching, o the church has survived them. I would need a specific reference to this Papal inspired assassination because as you noted England hated Spain and Catholics so English historians spread the Black Legend accusing Spain of every evil they could imagine.
                        Finally you may work upon young people, and some are decent but where I live in a better part of Raleigh the young men drive around in boom cars listening to an atavistic hypnotic drum beat or vulgar hip hop, the rock concerts feature depraved contortions amid the screams, and in the apartment where I live they have to have someone go around picking up the beer cans and fast food debris that are left in the parking lots outside their apartment entrance. The young women seem more mature and decent, but in talking with them at the doggy park, inevitably a young, attractive, pleasant, well spoken woman will make reference to her “ex.” Incredible. Of course you aware of the number of single mothers there are trying to raise children in poverty, and the number of teen age pregnancies. But as the Dr. Panglosses find so consoling is that “this is the best of all possible worlds.” Some drugs don’t come from substances. Myself, I have lived too long.

                      • Thorgasm

                        Mike horn, does living a neck bearded delusion help you sleep at night?

                      • mikehorn

                        In what way is my spelling out of Constitutional realities delusional? If you are trolling, that is fine, but you seem to have an opinion on the factual nature of my point. Care to make an argument?

                • http://www.facebook.com/people/Tony-Esolen/1184164082 Tony Esolen

                  Excuse me, but the federal Constitution was never meant to be a cultural document. It is a set of by-laws outlining the relationships of the States (meaning: Res publicae; not provinces) to the Federation of the States. Who in his right mind at that time would have wanted that set of by-laws to do more than what such a thing can be expected to do? Please to place the document within the historical and cultural situation.

              • Chad

                Number 1!!!

              • Maria

                All of them.
                But then, given the Christian Church’s history of not only excusing but glorifying inhuman cruelty, this is not surprising.,..

            • Watosh

              And I would argue that nothing shows lack of critical thinking anymore than insisting that your truth is the only truth because that is what you say or that is what some person has claimed.

        • John H. Graney

          No one is “sinful” because of their “sexual orientation.” People sin when they commit acts of sodomy. Acts of sodomy, incidentally, can be committed between two persons of the same sex, two persons of different sexes, and even between married persons. I suspect that you already knew that, though.

    • Alecto

      Military or not, doesn’t every single American have a constitutionally protected right to free exercise? This perversion of the First Amendment; this misinterpretation of the First Amendment as some kind of obstacle to worship, to pray, to act, to evangelize, is crazy. It’s a topsy-turvy world. It’s so nutty, I don’t know how anyone can take Weinstein seriously? He must be stopped before he does any more damage. This is what happens when kids are educated in public schools.

    • Alecto

      Military or not, doesn’t every single American have a constitutionally protected right to free exercise? This perversion of the First Amendment; this misinterpretation of the First Amendment as some kind of obstacle to worship, to pray, to act, to evangelize, is crazy. It’s a topsy-turvy world. It’s so nutty, I don’t know how anyone can take Weinstein seriously? He must be stopped before he does any more damage. This is what happens when kids are educated in public schools.

    • Pickles

      Maybe men should just stop being rapists. That would solve the problem.

      • Kathleen

        It’s not just men.

        A number of measures (not just military) indicate far more dramatic increases in the rate of female committed sex offenses.

        The secular world has largely been using your suggested method of simply suggesting, nicely, that folks stop victimizing each other.

        But that pesky ol’ fallen nature keeps rearing it’s nasty head it seems.

        Seems that’s what has gotten us here.

        On the other hand, Christianity has a demonstrated, positive impact on that fallen nature.

      • Watosh

        I feel I should inform Pickles that studies have shown the sexual is quite strong in the young. Now theft is a problem that could be solved if men and may I say some women, without being considered a sexist, would not steal. Very true. but if one puts several thousand dollars out on one’s lawn in most neighborhoods one may experience the loss of this money the next day. This would not happen if people did not steal, mind you, but people do steal. One thing our faith teaches is that when one is tempted the best way to avoid giving into the temptation is to flee from the temptation. By mixing the sexes in the military one is placing a temptation to err. So while men shouldn’t rape and people shouldn’t steal and people shouldn’t take advantage of weaker people, we see this happen throughout recorded history, therefor saying that if people didn’t do bad things there would be no problems is hardly meritorious and not likely to produce a reduction in the undesired incidents because it ignores reality.

        • Pickles

          This sounds like the reasoning for putting women in hijabs. How can we expect men to control themselves around such temptations? Are there any other careers where women shouldn’t be allowed because they make men lose control of their sexual urges?

          • http://thewhitelilyblog.wordpress.com/ janet_baker76

            I agree with you that men must exercise the control–Jesus said the same thing when he told men THEY had sinned when they looked at a woman with lust (one great reason to love Him)(so unislamic). What we don’t agree with is what a society must provide in order to up the odds that men will be able to do so. It will never be a certainty,100% compliance, or we would not have the brains and souls that God gave us. We have free will, that’s our beauty. But we are not ‘free’ to do as we like. Too bad it never was a completely different word. What mischief has been done in their conflation.

          • Watosh

            I wouldn’t want to prohibit women from any careers. If women want to be soldiers than let us have all women units? You can deny biology by describing the biological differences as merely differences in gender, that way masking the fact that they are different sexes, but Pickles, they are different and they have an attraction for each other, and to ignore this is to invite problems that wouldn’t occur if some prudence was used by both men and women. We know we should not give in to temptations, but we know that if we make the temptations strong enough the temptations will win out. There are certain careers that men are not eligible to enter because of their sex, i.e. motherhood, winning a beauty contest but that is the nature of the difference in men and women, and so it goes.

      • http://thewhitelilyblog.wordpress.com/ janet_baker76

        Like we can, without help! Ah, here, again, the Triumph of the Will (except, Not!). We need prayer and the sacraments, we need coherent laws and consistent enforcement, and we need the cultural example of chastity, voluntary abstinence from the expression of sexuality, in order to support the faint impulse toward virtue that we may experience when strongly tempted to rape–or to steal, or to lie, or to kill. What we get instead, here in the USA, is every stone thrown at the very idea of chastity, and then surprise when we don’t live it when tempted. The overwhelming message in our media is that it is impossible to resist the impulse to have sex–EVERYONE must be married, or at least masturbate. That’s the pagan concept, as well as the protestant one (they’re identical).

        • Ratio

          Actually, rape in the Army has been going down the past 5 years. Why does this easily googled fact not show up in the article? Because it destroys his argument.

      • Chad

        Yes, I agree. Men should stop killing each other as well. Women shouldn’t gossip and base their self worth on physical appearance. Dogs should not poop on people’s lawn…etc…

      • Proteios

        Those “men” who do such heinous acts represent a minority. I should no more but considered a potential priest by virtue of a penis than a female should be considered a prostitute if I see cleavage and a short skirt.
        And yes. Crime should stop.

    • Greg Cook

      As someone who served in the Navy many years ago I am concerned that this social engineering is emasculating the military. We had enough problems on our ship on a deployment (Iranian hostage crisis)–I cannot imagine how much worse it would have been with women onboard thrown into the mix. The military has many virtues: it teaches that actions have consequences, that hierarchy is real (like it or not–I learned that the hard way), and that standing up for freedom is a noble act. The military was the most diverse setting I have ever been in, and the most egalitarian (meritocracy).

    • Watosh

      Hmm, has anyone noticed that in OBAMA’s gay friendly military we have Admiral Michael Mullen, who as he attended Catholic elementary and Catholic High Schools, so presumably is a church going Catholic who in 2010 tells a Christian chaplain who opposed the repeal of “don’t ask, don’t tell” policy, “if you cannot get in line, resign your commission.” Admiral Mullen, one of our illustrious brave warriors shows that he like the other Catholic high ranking military are “good Germans,” and would not think of bucking any orders from a superior. Of course I guess that is how they obtained their exalted military positions. And if these church going Catholics who hold positions of leadership in the military fully support Obama on this, naturally Obama is going to figure he has their backing to run over Christian consciousness. Their solid backing of this order tells Obama that he is doing the right thing, even the Catholics in leadership positions agree with him. So let us not put all the blame on Obama. Obama, a liberal, does not know any better; but Admiral Mullen and other Catholics like General Dempsey should know better and should have some spine.

      • tom

        McMullen and Dempsey have been irish-American quislings to their Faith. It’s been a jaw-dropping disappointment to see these guys speak out of both sides of their mouths. Two “soupers”.

      • mikehorn

        Mullen serves his country in uniform. To confuse or conflate his faith with his military service would be grounds for dismissal, and should be. The government is forbidden from establishing religion, any religion, or even religion over non-relgion. Admiral Mullen serves a sectarian nation that was “In no way founded upon the Christian religion” (Treaty of Tripoli).

        • Watosh

          Yes, but what you are saying is that a Catholic wearing the uniform must obey the orders of a secular government and ignore the teachings of his religion when there is a conflict. This requires a Catholic to violate the teaching of his religion to serve the interest of a secular state. Now if one believes that the Catholic religion contains the way God wants us to behave, and if there is such a God one must conclude that that God wants everyone to so behave, then for a Catholic to go against this amounts to a l denial of his faith. Which Catholics have been doing in this sectarian nation, and this pleases those who do not share the Catholic faith. For this reason the idea of a secular state appealed to those who have little religion, or if they do, their religion regards the Catholic faith with distrust. People, Catholics themselves, do not realize the idea of having religious freedom in a state was advanced because the initiators felt it was an anti-Catholic measure. Catholics fell for this because it seemed better than being put in jail for practicing the Catholic religion. As it is said, “No man can serve two masters.” To obey man rather than God is what this is about essentially. If you believe we should obey the laws of a sectarian state rather than the laws of God, then you will find this arrangement most satisfactory. If you can sell this idea to Catholics then you are able to wean them away from their faith by getting them to do what their religion tells them not to do. Many Catholics believe they can serve two masters, but for those who really believe that their religion comes from God this creates a problem, and the realization that a secular state has problems for them..

          • mikehorn

            This is exhibit 1 on why nobody would elect a Catholic to any position of authority. The problem is, which god gets preference? Whose religious beliefs? You seem to demand nothing short of a Catholic theocratic state. We tried that and have a name for it: the Dark Ages.

            A Catholic retains their right to personal belief, but when swearing an Oath to military service they most definitely give up many rights about deciding right and wrong. Higher rank gives more moral authority in terms of warfare decisions (legal targets, etc), but exactly zero extra rights as far as the nation’s laws. Civilian authority over the military means that elected officials get to choose most of the right and wrong for the military. A general cannot go to war, for instance. A general also cannot bar anyone from military service or treat them in any unequal way unless Congress and the President spells it out for them (previous ban on homosexuals came from Congress). Alterations to the UCMJ come from Congress and the President. The military Oath swears to obey commands and act in accordance with the Uniform Code of Military Justice.

            Last I checked Catholics still felt bound by the 10 Commandments, which includes telling the truth (not bearing false witness). This means that when a Catholic swears an Oath and then breaks it, they have failed in their religion, too. If a Catholic is incapable of living by the restrictions of an Oath, they should not swear it.

            • janet_baker76

              You seem to demand nothing short of a Catholic theocratic state. We tried that and have a name for it: the Dark Ages.
              Dear heart, you are logical! Yes, it does devolve to this. Religious freedom simply doesn’t work, and one must choose. But the Dark Ages were named dark only by those who wanted to overthrow the Catholic state–those were the protestant forces whose profits had been constrained by the economic policies of the Medieval period, and who wished to institute the same Free Market crap we are still suffering, as it devolves still, expropriates what little property is left to working people, and discards the concept of marriage altogether, as we see today, since there is no property now to pass on. We have been beggered by your new thing. We who were free in the Catholic state are enslaved in this economy. More of us went to university free in the thirteenth century than go today, relative to the population. We had one third of the days off, they were feast days and it was the law that we feasted. There were inalienable commons, common land, common services to help the poor. Health care was free. And it was good health care, follow the topic for half an hour! Do you know why Catholic women refused in great numbers, in defiance of their husbands, to worship in the new religion, and preferred to die for their True Faith? Because Catholicism is better for women than all other faiths! John Bossy, noted English historian, concluded it, and takes pains to list the many ways women were favored in the Catholic state and unfavored in the new one, including an ‘out’ if they wished not to marry but to pursue a career and still be cared for in their old age, called religious orders–overturned (ripped off!) of course by the protestant rebellion.
              Ah God I wish we had it again. Do you know there are many muslims who wish to live in a Catholic state than in a secular one? Do you know Vatican II overthrew our right to a Catholic state where we were in the majority? Do you know that the economics of the Catholic state are those of moderate socialism, and that Pius XI liked them? Please, dark ages! Only to the devil.

              • mikehorn

                Is this comment for real?

                • http://thewhitelilyblog.wordpress.com/ janet_baker76

                  Yes. And all google-able. There is much interest among historians now for the Middle Ages, and I personally, as a long time union organizer and general activist, am most interested in their brilliant economics. It is everything Occupy wants. It is local, deliberately small and decentralized, yet organized (guilds and religious orders). I have perhaps presented the matter in too dramatic a way–due to the influence of working on my science fiction novel, where people finally get some space to live as they wish. Which is in religous states, Mikehorn. I refer you to the Gallup Poll, Who Speaks for a Billion Muslims. Their wish for their state and religion to agree on principles is well established, but Gallup also sampled Christians, who answer exactly the same way when the question is put, Do you want Biblical principles to be reflected in civil law? Yes, we do. Do you know that Liberians just recently, like last month, filled their capital with demonstrations for–a religious state. Theirs has just now been secularized, apparently. They don’t want it. We want coherence, Mike. We want Truth and Peace to kiss. We want to live our lives peacefully on earth and go to heaven. Maybe we need an asteroid to do it, but we’re clear on it. BTW I don’t think you will see this reply. I had the dickens finding your WTF response to my other one–it flashed by once, but I couldn’t find it again without going to Discus. Well, I hope you see it, anyway.

            • Watosh

              You give the “Dark Ages” as an example of what can happen in a catholic theocratic state. According to a recent study by Peter S. Wells published in book form “Barbarians to Angels,” He states in his preface, “The idea of the Dark Ages is a historical relic from the time when texts were the only source of information about the past, and no one understood the archaeological evidence well enough to fill the gap …We now have the benefit of archaeological material from the first millennium which is rich enough to give us a powerful alternative picture. As I show in the book, the time once known as the Dark Ages—the fifth through eighth centuries–was anything but dark. It was a time of brilliant cultural activity.”
              During this time people could wander through Europe unhindered by national boundaries. After Rome fell as the authority for much of Europe, authority did not vanish but became localized and decentralized, (sort of like the Republicans to accomplish in the United States today).
              And there were no widespread wars during this time.
              Now in the preceding somewhat over the last 100 years we had the WWI slaughter of millions, we had the genocide of the Ukrainians under the Communists, We had the Holocaust where millions of Jews and Poles and were exterminated, WWII where millions of Germans and Russians and Japanese were killed by massive bombing of civilians by both sides (the British and Americans were in a position to do most of this damage), Then we had the Korean War that resulted in millions of dead, the Viet Nam War, ditto, the starvation of Iraq by the imposition of terrible sanctions, supposedly causing 500,000 starvation deaths of Iraqi children according to U.N. estimates, then came the invasion of Iraq which was unjustified and unnecessary that killed hundreds of thousand Iraqis and left millions homeless, and Iraq has been destroyed as a coherent state as a result——And you, with these facts in mind, want to call the period after the fall of Roman central authority an example of a failed society, of a Dark Age? Really.
              We do have a state religion, it is the American State which we worship constantly, and which will have no other gods before it. would you defend a German Officer in the Nazi Army for following orders because he took an oath to Hitler? Incidentally did you notice that the attempt to assassinate Hitler was done by a Catholic, no doubt he betrayed his oath. Given your religion you are absolutely justified for not voting for an Catholic candidate as one might actually believe what his religion and his God has taught. Which amounts to the existence of a religious test for holding office.

              • mikehorn

                There has been some revisionism of the Dark Ages. Was it all doom and gloom? No. But it was a theocracy. The flourishing of Western thought didn’t come until the Catholic religious monopoly was broken and debate could start. This took the form of nasty, brutish wars over theology, which I consider to be amazingly stupid.

                America was founded on the idea that argument was good and necessary, but should be controlled. Power could be transferred peacefully, which is why some don’t consider our Revolution over until Washington left office and power was transferred peacefully to the opposition. Debate, argument, differing opinions have been our strength, generating vigorous thought and progress. A theocracy doesn’t lend itself to that.

                • Watosh

                  The colonists in America resented paying some modest taxes to the English. When they levied protests, often the English King then reduced or rescinded the taxes. After the “revolution” when the new American government levied some onerous taxes on some of the farmers who helped win the revolutionary war, the farmers felt this was ruining them so they mounted a protest and George Washington raised a militia and went out and subdued the farmers and executed a few. freedom is so wonderful. The transfer of power was peaceable because the wealthy retained control after all. And a good many scholars attribute the flourishing of science was due to the influence of the Catholic Religion. As I pointed out, objective scholars acknowledge that the brutish wars over theology were simply nationalistic rivalries among ambitious tyrants. Again when you speak of brutish wars over theology, we have the butchery of Napoleon and the Reign of terror in a revolting France that killed more people in 2 years than the Inquisition did in 200 years, and then those mass slaughter of millions and millions that took place in our recent enlightened times after the brutish wars over theology had ended.

          • Ratio

            Actually no. You cannot force a service member to violate their religious beliefs. When I was in training, I said that I needed to be at Mass for the Feast of the Immaculate Conception and they complied. You don’t seem to know how the military works and how it is better than public schools at keeping God.

      • Ratio

        In truth, DADT doesn’t affect chaplains. They are protected under law to preach the tenants of their faith without restriction. I also can’t find any reference to this incident and can only assume it to be a fabrication.

        • Watosh

          Oh, so they are protected, just like whistle blowers are protected. Have you noticed the number of whistleblowers who have been demoted and/or prosecuted? Besides do you really believe that when it has become military policy to welcome homosexuals that some chaplain in the military is going to be allowed to preach that homosexual acts are sinful, and that homosexual marriage is an abomination? If you believe that I have a bridge to sell you cheap. Where have you been? Now you mention that you can’t find any reference to this incident when it appears in the magazine article that has sparked this controversy. but regardless if the incident was fabricated the basic issue exists, the military is committed to see that homosexuals are not disparaged or their lifestyle discouraged, so anyone who does not go along will feel the full force of the military’s displeasure. It is essential that everyone in a country conform in order to maintain cohesion, to believe otherwise is not permitted. Free speech and religious freedom is permitted as long as your speech and your religion conform to the State religion.

          • Ratio

            First off, whistle blowers are protected. It is called the Rules for Courts-Martial and protects the rights of witnesses just like any American. So no, I haven’t seen anyone getting demoted or prosecuted for notifying the authorities. If something like that does happen, like the incident in Germany last year, the repercussions are severe for MANY people.

            As a matter of fact, Chaplains are protected under federal law. So yes, they can say what is an abomination to their own faithful. It is NEVER been ok to use your status as a Chaplain or a soldier to further ANY political movement. The reason that the military doesn’t care about their lifestyle is because their lifestyle does not affect their ability to pull a trigger. Everyone in my unit knows me to be a Catholic and that I find homosexuality to be a sin. It isn’t an issue for us. We can live in complete harmony because our faith and beliefs do not help in accomplishing the mission. If a homosexual attempted to tell me that I was wrong in my belief, I could seek relief. As a matter of fact, an incident like this happened where a soldier was asked by a homosexual soldier if he thought the lifestyle was wrong. The soldier in question, being a Christian, replied that it was a tenant of his faith that homosexuality was a sin. To this the other soldier berated him for his view. That soldier was disciplined for disorderly conduct.

            The military respects ALL beliefs so long as you aren’t going around telling people they are going to hell or homophobic bigots. It is an issue on BOTH sides and BOTH sides will be disciplined according to what is just. There ISN’T going to be a sudden attack on Christians. ANYONE else who doesn’t comply, be they Hindu, Buddhist, Jew, or Atheist, WILL be subject to disciplinary action.

            I can tell you are not in the military since you don’t really have a knowledge of what goes on, much like the author of this piece.

            • Watosh

              Well I just read someone has done a study of the recent crackdown that has happened to whistleblowers. If you are not aware of this you need to open your eyes. Obviously you have a chip on your shoulder and can’t think straight. the number of whistleblowers that have recently been punished is a major story. Whne someone has drunk the Kool-Aid as you have anything fact that doesn’t agree with your prejudices gets rejected. And I served on active duty as an Air force Officer during the fifties. It sounds like you are a heterophobe, as you are foaming at the mouth over this.

              • Ratio

                While you were active duty, did you know anyone in the legal shop? I work there. We are the people who determine whether a policy is legally sufficient and how commanders are to enforce it. What you and the author of this article suggest is something that CANNOT happen as it is AGAINST THE LAW. It isn’t a question of changing a policy. Enforcing the policy the way that it is represented is not only contrary to the intention of it but against FEDERAL LAW. I find it ridiculous that people will take something they don’t understand and use it for fear mongering. A few fact checks and Mr. Neumayr would have an informed article based on Truth (you know, that thing that we all are supposed to strive for) instead of half-truths and over generalizations (aka lies). If you could link the “major” story (that I can’t find anywhere), that would be helpful. Thank you for your service.

                • Watosh

                  Well you are right there are laws that protect whistleblowers, so they are not prosecuted for whistle blowing, but it is easy enough to find them guilty of some other infraction. John Karikou blew the wistle on torture and John Karikou is now serving time in prison. But if you as an attorney like to cherish your legal myths, no one can stop you. I worked with attorneys in the government and the thing that impressed me is that whereas when I saw a law that said it is again at the law to do “A,” then I did not try to do “A,” but these attorneys when confronted with a law that said it was against the law to do “A” and they wanted to do “A” they invariably would rationalize a way to get around the law. And as modern psychologists have discovered if someone has a belief in their mindset, when these people are confronted with facts that their belief is wrong they generally doubledown and become even firmer in their belief. You have provided another data point, as statistics have shown that the Obama administration has cracked down harder on whistleblowing than the bush administration did. Sibel Edmonds has written an interesting story in the book, “Classified Woman” how she was treated for trying to report serious security violations in the sensitive position she worked in. But then don’t look for the truth as it might upset your nice theoretical constructs.

                  • Ratio

                    Really? What infractions are those? John Kiriakou was not punished for whistle blowing, he was punished for disclosing classified information when he blew the whistle. He was stupid, plain and simple. He broke his oath and betrayed the names of his comrades who were still covert. He essentially betrayed them to the enemy. Under the UCMJ, that is considered treason, and aiding and abetting the enemy. He could have revealed the necessary information without revealing any names of his comrades. He did not.

                    The law is the law. You can try to find ways around it but the letter is the letter and it is changed by Congress only.

                    These aren’t theoretical constructs. I am basing my judgement on the truth and sound facts. If you would like to believe any story of government corruption and the conspiracy theories, be my guest. As an alternative, you could do some more research than Mr. Neumayr and have a more complete picture. The Communist Manifesto accidentally teaches an important truth: a man with wrong opinions bases them on some sort of facts. Learning from your enemy has always been a basic tenant of warfare. They teach that at BCT, don’t they do the same at OBC?

    • http://twitter.com/anthonymarks5 anthony marks

      When I was in the Army I used to get into debates with Southern Baptists and Evangelicals all the time who were convinced the Pope was the anti-Christ. Nobody started crying or ran for help, we’d voice our opinions,( I think I convinced a few not to worry about John Paul 2) and move on. Have soldiers become so feminized in the last 30 years that they can’t stand up for themselves and their religion? A bigger thing for the left to worry about is a military without the restraints of Christianity. An army with no morality can be very dangerous.

      • mikehorn

        You misunderstand what is happening because you are listening to fools and fear mongers like the article’s author. Your conversations are still fine, and were never threatened.

        If your supervisor was trying to get you to come to his/her SBC church and treated you differently based on whether or not you attended, that would be forbidden. Supervisors and commanders were doing this, thinking that their people needed “saving”.

    • poetcomic1 .

      It is worth remembering the navy’s Tailhook sex scandal with over 80 officers destroyed for ‘sexual assault’ etc. The testimony clearly shows the female navy officers were doing the Girls Gone Wild thing big time and were equally ‘involved’ and often outdid the men in outrageous and shocking behavior but got totally off. There is this image of virtuous and prim Officer Womyn being attacked by leering male wolves. Yeah, right. Lynndie England at Abu Ghraib – not the picture of the tough and dedicated lesbian career soldier or the clean-cut American service girl. Just another ‘girl gone wild’ and part of the culture of male ‘lowest common denominator’.

      • mikehorn

        Or we could expect people to serve with honor and dignity without being idiots. Someone trusted with our nations weapons should probably be able to control themselves.

    • http://www.facebook.com/people/Kevin-Rilott/100002483923935 Kevin Rilott

      I would not like to go into combat as a member of the anti-Christian American military.

      • mikehorn

        Then don’t. If you can’t serve with honor alongside your fellow citizens, than I’d rather you stay home, too.

      • Ratio

        By that statement, I can tell you have never BEEN in combat. Stay home please. The rest of us will gladly serve with whomever can fire a rifle.

    • Pingback: Pope Francis on Atheism - Big Pulpit

    • Philipp

      This should only come as surprise to those who bought the line that the United States is a Christian nation, or that somehow its military was always on the side of what is right and good.

    • Pingback: Onward, De-Christianized Soldiers | Jonah in the Heart of Nineveh

    • mikehorn

      There is a lot here. Bottom line, service members have the same religious freedoms now that they always have. They also have the same restrictions. Why? Because the First Amendment has TWO clauses related to religious practice. The one quoted often here has to do with free exercise. Catholics have it, and so do Baptists and Jews and Hindus and atheists. But once you swear an Oath and put on a uniform, you are also bound by the second clause, forbidding any hint of establishment. Once under Oath and in uniform, you are the government, and are forbidden many activities. Individuals still retain the right to hold their own beliefs, but they are forbidden from interfering with any one else’s right to hold different beliefs. Sectarian coercion and strife has no business in the military. They are required to be professional American soldiers. Not missionaries. Not Crusaders with a Papal mandate. American soldiers representing those of many faiths, and those with no faith.

      Imagine you have a Catholic soldier led by a Mormon commander who was also a bishop in his church. That Commander said that everyone was required to show up to a prayer rally led by him to advance the Mormon faith. Not only is attendance required, but also participation, and your yearly fitness review depended on you participating in the religious event. Think you would object? Now, if the Catholic soldier was just talking to his mormon friend over a pint of water about different religious points, say over lunch or on some off time, that would be different, right?

      That is what we are talking about. The difference between free exercise and friendly conversation, and the abuse of government position to advance a religious idea.

    • mikehorn

      Other rights men and women in uniform give up or face legal consequences:

      -Speech. Especially if you are privy to Privacy Act or secret information. Breaking this will either send you to jail or, in time of war and giving up secrets, can get you executed for treason. Speech in uniform is definitely not free. It isn’t for civilians, either, but the military has all the same civilian restrictions plus many more.

      -Political activism (assembly). The military must remain above the political fray, or it will no longer be an American military. Uniforms at political rallies are forbidden. An Army Guard member got in trouble for this in the past year or so.

      -Political speech, in uniform. Facebook counts.

      -Contemptuous speech. Facebook counts.

      -Press. Only some are even allowed to talk to journalists about some subjects.

      -Search and seizure. Depending on where you are and what you are doing, even possessing some common things is forbidden.

      -Due process. Some crimes in time of war, especially in combat, are up to the decision of the ranking person around you. Some actions, like cowardice or aid to the enemy, can get you shot by your own side, forget a jury.

      I’m sure there are others. Serving in uniform means serving others, serving the country, placing that service above your personal rights in many cases. If you cannot serve, if you cannot take the Oath seriously, then don’t sign up.

      • Theorist

        evangelization=putting yourself over others? How and by what mechanism? And is it true for all people all the time? One might as well say that being a worker at macdonald’s means serving the country (indeed, even the whole world) and that therefore, one must not talk about religion ever since that would be to tyrannize over the whole world. It is a plain non sequitor fallacy to say that because someone argues w/someone else, that therefore that someone usurps rights.

        • mikehorn

          One person’s rights end precisely where another’s begin. In the military the strict rank structure makes the concept of envangelizing very tricky. Friendly conversation between equals (say, two sergeants) is fine. Even friendly conversation between different ranks is fine as long as it doesn’t involve your chain of command, though the bigger the difference in rank the more questionable it becomes. Command chains can change, so the rank difference that doesn’t matter today might matter next year. A chaplain will never be your commander (if they do, they give up all special rights and Geneva status that chaplaincy gives and become another regular combatant), so the difference in rank does not matter. Chaplains started as officers due to education, but officer rank has its uses when a chaplain has to intervene on behalf of someone without rank.

          Immediate chain of command has to worry about two things. First and foremost they need to avoid the first hint of favoritism for any reason. Since soldiers retain their rights to their personal beliefs, they need to trust that the people giving them orders are professionals who will put the job before differences in faith. A Muslim or atheist soldier needs to trust that their platoon commander will not single them out for hazardous or unpleasant duty because of their differences in faith. A good commander might even consider not even hinting at what their personal faith is in order to preserve the trust and loyalty of those under his command. As soon as a difference in faith becomes favoritism or coercion or anything negative on the performance reports, then that chain of command has lost its ability to lead. That direction leads to a military incapable of fighting because no one trusts each other to act professionally.

          As for McDonalds, I think your comparison is absurd. An hourly employee has the right to personal dignity and their efforts should be respected, but for a business to work they also need to retain branding rights. If an employee hurts the company’s brand, that employee is hurting the company in a material way (owners and stockholders have rights, too, which include business practices in a capitalistic system). Depending on circumstances, a manager would be correct to fire an employee for being a religious nut while serving fries. Really, I don’t need hell and damnation when all I want is a quick lunch. If that happened, I’d take my business elsewhere (see material damage to the owners and stockholders). Similarly, an employee shouting obscenities or insulting customers wearing a cross or a hijab or anything obviously religious would also deserve to be fired for the same reasons as the “preacher” burger flipper.

        • mikehorn

          I forgot to ask if you really think an hourly McDonalds or WalMart employee has an equivalent job to an infantry soldier? Really?

          One signs his tax paperwork and tries to show up on time. The other swears an Oath to the Constitution. One might get fired if they make a mistake. The other might get himself and a dozen other people killed.

          Do you really need this spelled out? The difference was not obvious to you?

        • mikehorn

          “evangelization=putting yourself over others? How and by what mechanism?”

          Because others have as much right to their religious beliefs as you do. Obviously you believe you are right or you wouldn’t believe it, but in the military you position sometimes gives you real power over the lives and livelyhoods of others, and their families. If you try to convince a subordinate they are wrong about religion, what if they tell you exactly where you can stick your rosary? They have that right. But now you are in charge of a person you just informed they were a bad person on a basic level (heretical belief), and they refused your argument in no uncertain terms but now you have to fill out a performance report, or they are due for one of the standard decorations. Can they trust you to do your job, which is to be an objective military leader? Are you able to do your job in the military regardless of the religious beliefs of those under you? If you can’t, or you continue to harrass the subordinate about religion, or if you fail to write the decoration or give a half-hearted or negative performance report, that subordinate can go around you and request a new supervisor, and state exactly why. Now you look like an unprofessional fool who put personal belief above the job you swore an Oath to do, and your ability to do it in the future is in question.

          • mikehorn

            Even more, when it comes to a combat situation, can your subordinate trust you to make impartial decisions that affect lives? These military situations are now entangled and confused and conflated with matters of personal belief, where you could be in a position of authority to coerce obedience from another, depriving them of their rights.

            So yes, you put your religious liberty in a position of more importance than the religious liberty of someone else.

          • Theorist

            There’s a difference between being a good solider and being a good Christian. As long as the basic morals of one do not interfere with the other, then there would be no conflict in the chain of command. This basic insight clearly shows that people who have deep differences can serve in the same organization as long as that organization is doing something which they can all generally agree upon; for what the question is always “who is the best man for the job ” and not “who is absolutely the best man?”. If this were not true, then one might as well bar all political differences from the military such that no one can hold political opinions and be a soldier for fear that such opinions might cause injustices. Do you see a contradiction here? The very creation of a rule against bias presupposes that some party in favor of their particular definitions of what is bias and justice are favored as opposed to some other conception (perhaps religious). So your rule is not so much a measure against divisiveness as much as it is the hypocritical privileging of one person and type of attitude over another -the very thing which you most fear. The fact is, lack of professionalism is always going to be with man, as long as not everyone agrees on everything all the time. However, what to do in that case, is a quandary because this implies that no rule ought to be applied universally. And yet that latter statement is a rule too…Akrasia.

            • mikehorn

              I’m thinking you are misunderstanding the problem, taking your analogy of religious view and political view. They are both similar in that, in the military, you are at the same time free to hold your own opinion on both and forbidden from expressing those opinions in any way that either abuses your position of authority over subordinates or in any way makes it appear as if the military is supporting either a partisan or sectarian position. The two are very much similar on the limitations that the military places on what is a matter of personal conscience. In politics, you can have a friendly discussion, but can not use your position or rank in an attempt to further the political goal. Military members are very specifically forbidden from wearing their uniform at any partisan political event, because once the uniform is on you are automatically acting in your official capacity.

              Hopefully I didn’t misunderstand your position.

              My position is that the military maintain its neutrality in the face of an increasingly aggressive Evangelical and Fundamentalist Christianity. The military never has been and never should be a Christian military. Funny thing – talk to a Vietnam vet or a WWII vet about this subject and the abuse of position many Christians are guilty of, and they will tell you that this is a new thing. Back in the day, that Christian would have been told in no uncertain terms to stop being a jerk. Perhaps we need the Greatest Generation back. A Christian using their position to coerce or intimidate is an ugly thing, and has always been forbidden. Today, after 30 years of Christian Dominionism and similar movements, the military has to forcefully remind its people to stand by their Oaths and act appropriately, as they should have been doing all along, and as their predecessors did.

              The really unsettling thing about this thread is that the most common people at the wrong end of this abuse are Catholics and Mormons. The most common people abusing their position to force religious devotion of a specific sect are Fundamentalist Protestants of several denominations, most commonly Southern Baptists, who do not recognized Catholic as a Christian religion. For Catholics to actually support this behavior is mind-boggling.

            • mikehorn

              We don’t want a Democratic Army or a Republican Army or a Libertarian Army (contradiction in terms on the third) for the same reason we don’t want a Christian Army. We want an American Army. This is why personal opinion is protected and coercion and favoritism are forbidden. Understand my point?

    • mikehorn

      I have a question for the author: The article is at best misleading, but has so many errors or little items not mentioned that it presents a false argument, whose intent is to mislead readers through a false presentation of partial facts or incorrect facts. When did lying become a Catholic value? Did you go to confession after writing this article?

      Dishonesty is a really poor way to support any religion. Just saying.

    • http://www.facebook.com/profile.php?id=1418569472 Phillip Lozano

      “Christians are routinely treated as extremists by Obama’s politically correct generals.”

      That’s pretty much a complete lie. Why do you find it easier to lie than to address reality?

      • Augustus

        So the “politically correct generals” of our baby killing president doesn’t think Christians are extremists? If it’s so obvious, then prove it. Your baseless assertion convinces no one.

    • http://www.facebook.com/profile.php?id=1418569472 Phillip Lozano

      It’s worth noting that thousands of practicing Catholics in the military have turned to the Military Religious Freedom Foundation for help in dealing with unrelenting persecution by Evangelical fundamentalists.

    • http://www.facebook.com/people/Rachel-Tabachnick/100000803685185 Rachel Tabachnick

      The reality is that MRFF and Mikey Weinstein have represented many Catholics and that the vast majority of the men and women in uniform ask for help from MRFF are Christians. See, for example, this article and letter by a Catholic soldier who reached out to MRFF.
      http://www.veteransnewsnow.com/2011/07/24/catholic-troop-fights-anti-catholicism-in-u-s-army/

      Many of the chaplains and officers that have been called out by MRFF are Independent Charismatics, some of whom literally demonize Catholics and Mainline Protestants.

    • keithbreedlove

      Just think how low we’ve sunk that this kind of garbage is tolerated and becoming mainstream. Today, even Gen. George Washington could be court martialed.

      • mikehorn

        George Washington was a Deist, not a Christian. Just saying.

        • keithbreedlove

          I think that you’re confusing him with Thomas Jefferson. George Washington’s statements and sentiments show him to be a Christian.

          • mikehorn

            He referred to Providence. Deist language. He was notably fair to all religions, though, insisting on chaplains from many faiths in his military so that different sects could serve simultaneously and without fear of their personal faith being an issue because a superior had a different faith.

    • http://www.facebook.com/people/Tony-Esolen/1184164082 Tony Esolen

      I find the comments here simply astonishing. Young men are supposed to behave in a way utterly unlikely even in a society that values purity and chivalry, as ours DOES NOT; AND they are supposed to keep their mouths shut about the most important matter in any believer’s life, and, if truth be known, in any human being’s life at all. The hatred and contempt leveled at them, the carelessness of their welfare, is shocking.
      Mike keeps on repeating the old canards about the deism of the Founders as if it were gospel truth. Read their writings — go beyond the somewhat deist Jefferson and the inconsistent deist Franklin. Washington was no deist; he attended services in an Episcopal church; he prayed regularly, and that by definition a deist cannot do, because the god of the deists, the god of Spinoza, is not a personal god, and cannot be appealed to. There is all kinds of evidence to suggest that Washington was deeply influenced by Ignatius’ Spiritual Exercises and by Jesuit priests near Mount Vernon.
      The Founders knew well that no society could be built upon hostility to the virtue of religion, which is the rendering to God what He is due, in thanks and praise and obedience to the moral law and the divine law. They knew their history. It is why most of them (Jefferson was the outlier) were appalled by what was going on in France.

      • mikehorn

        They are expected to follow their Oath and the orders given them and abide by the UCMJ. This means they cannot be missionaries converting everyone in their path. If they want to be missionaries, they should not be American soldiers.

        They don’t have to keep their mouths shut – that is one of the lies in this article and a few others. I dealt with this below, but a simple conversation is perfectly fine. Superior/subordinate is not, favoritism or the opposite (over many subjects, including religion) is wrong and will get you in trouble. They are expected to be better in many ways than civilians because they have to be: everyone is watching.

      • mikehorn

        Washington attended services, but any news of him praying is either apocryphal or otherwise unsubstantiated. One true story is when the Episcopal minister told Washington that he never received communion, but instead stayed in his seat. The minister said this was a bad example and Washington agreed – after that Washington never attended services where communion was celebrated.

        Otherwise, there is good evidence he attended because his wife was a believer, but there is no evidence that Washington was.

        Jefferson thought any mention of supernatural in the Bible was so much absurdity. He liked some of the philosophical stuff, but that hardly means he was a Christian or even close.

        John Adams changed his views a few times, but ended his life very far from anything a Catholic would recognize. No Trinity, no divine nature of Jesus.

        Thomas Paine, if he were alive today, wouldn’t have to change anything at all and would be regarded as a full-throated atheist along the lines of Hitchens, considering his pugilistic writing style. The Age of Reason: “I do not believe in the creed professed by the Jewish church, by the Roman church, by the Greek church, by the Turkish church, by the Protestant church, nor by any church that I know of. My own mind is my own church. All national institutions of churches, whether Jewish, Christian or Turkish, appear to me no other than human inventions, set up to terrify and enslave mankind, and monopolize power and profit.”

        • Caritas06

          Charles Carroll, of Carrollton, the last surviving signer of the Declaration of Independence, was a practicing and devout Catholic.

          Stephen Hopkins – a devout Quaker. Numerous signers were practicing Episcopalians and Presbyterians, including a future president James Madison (Episcopalian) , who said: ” The belief in a God, all powerful, wise, and good, [is] essential to the moral order of the world, and to the happiness of man.” Why is their more plentiful witness less valid than that of a few select examples? Were their sacrifices or contributions less important? No, today some select those founding gathers whose view best support some “modern predilections.

    • Ratio

      This article was not very well researched. The reason the Air Force is having so much trouble is because they haven’t instilled the discipline in the airmen or implemented policies and programs to prevent these things from happening. Notice he only mentions the study of service wide incidents and the Air Force’s reports. The Army has implemented policies that have reduced sexual assault and harassment by 50% in the 2012 fiscal year. In the 2013 fiscal year, the propensity to report has risen to 90% and incidents have lowered by 75%. The Army is the only service whose incident number have actually gone down. Soldiers and leaders have been trained from the beginning and strict policies are implemented and enforced to prevent those with tendencies to commit such acts from the start of every soldier’s career.

      The briefing that many have said is an affront to Christianity IS, in fact, an isolated incident. Following Army policy, the person giving that brief should be, and likely was, disciplined for being discriminatory. In his defense, there are MANY people who identify with Christianity who could be considered extremists. A famous example is the Westboro Baptist Church. The new policy is NOT suppressing all mention of religion. That is actually against the law and their rights as servicemembers. What it is preventing is undesired proselytizing. So you can’t go up to someone, slip them a Chic tract, and ask “have you accepted Jesus Christ as your personal Lord and Savior?” You CAN express your religion however you please so long as you are not being obnoxious about it. When the Command Judge Advocate plays the Paschal Troparion and the senior paralegal NCO says God bless you, Christianity is hardly being suppressed. I ask Mr. Neumayr to get the facts instead of listening to the Private News Network, the military’s most unreliable news service.

      • mikehorn

        Thank you for acknowledging that any religion can harbor violent extremists, including Christianity.

        • Ratio

          I found out that you can upvote your own posts. Astonishing how many people have a single upvote.

    • Pingback: Nigeria Is At War, Government Ill-Prepared To Fight – Falana - CitypeopleNews

    • common sense

      The writer has obviously never served a day in the military. Also, what many readers fail to comprehend is that this does not end religion but prevents proselytizing by crazy evangelicals. I served for over 10 years and I was tired with evangelicals telling me that I could only be saved if I was one of their own. They told me that Catholicism was inherently wrong. You can still go to church, wear a cross or religious medal, read the bible at chow, but you can’t try to provide other service members with the Good News if they DO NOT WANT IT. People who have not served do not understand how service members have been compelled to attend religious activities that may actually run contrary to their own beliefs. I attended a couple of non-Catholic services because Catholic services were not provided. If I choose not to go, I would have been tasked with washing and buffing all of the floors, cleaning toilettes, and other busy work punishments.

    • Pingback: Time for Christians to Exit the Military : Catholic Stand

    • Matteo

      The proper response to the Mikey’s of this world is the one Gen. Anthony McAuliffe, in an earlier war, gave another anti-Christ son of a bitch: “NUTS!” But then, what business do Christians have serving in the ranks of an organization that sends their women into combat, compels them to fraternize with sodomites and whose “mission” involves sending them to be killed or maimed to ensure “free and fair elections” for Muslim pederasts?

      • mikehorn

        You realize the Germans in WWII were predominantly Christian, a mix of Catholic and Lutheran? That the official Nazi Army belt buckle had their motto “God With Us” on it?

        The anti-Christian force were the Soviets, and they were our allies.