Obama ‘Strongly Objects’ to Religious Liberty Amendment

[ChezC3]

Obama

The Obama Administration said the amendment would have a “significant adverse effect on good order, discipline, morale, and mission accomplishment.”

Ain't that the concerns he cast side and told everyone to deal with when he got rid of DADT?

Oh that's right, tolerance isn't for those kind of people...

 

[MaggieD]

Obama

Ain't that the concerns he cast side and told everyone to deal with when he got rid of DADT?

Oh that's right, tolerance isn't for those kind of people...

Did you read this link? How ridiculous would this be?

The amendment was authored by Rep. John Fleming, R-La. It would have “required the Armed Forces to accommodate ‘actions and speech’ reflecting the conscience, moral, principles or religious beliefs of the member.

 

[sawyerloggingon]

Obama becomes more Stalin like every day.

 

[ChezC3]

Did you read this link? How ridiculous would this be?

It depends, elaborate please...

I think this to be ridiculous

The Air Force censored a video created by a chaplain because it include the word “God.” The Air Force feared the word might offend Muslims and atheists.
A service member received a “severe and possibly career-ending reprimand” for expressing his faith’s religious position about homosexuality in a personal religious blog.
An enlisted service member received a career-ending punishment for sending personal invitations to his promotion party which mentioned that he would be providing Chick-fil-A sandwiches due to his respect for the Defense of Marriage Act.
A senior military official at Fort Campbell sent out a lengthy email officially instructing officers to recognize “the religious right in America” as a “domestic hate group” akin to the KKK and Neo-Nazis because of its opposition to homosexual behavior.
A chaplain was relieved of his command over a military chapel because, consistent with DOMA’s definition of marriage, he could not allow same-sex weddings to take place in the chapel.
An enlisted service member was threatened and denied promotion by a senior NCO for expressing – during a personal conversation – his religious belief in support of traditional marriage.

Are these to be allowed to continue?

If it is just the matter of wording, or a clarification of what actions and kinds of speech, than "strongly oppose" is kinda disproportionate, don't ya think?

 

[MaggieD]

It depends, elaborate please...

I think this to be ridiculous. Are these to be allowed to continue?

If it is just the matter of wording, or a clarification of what actions and kinds of speech, than "strongly oppose" is kinda disproportionate, don't ya think?

The wording of the amendment is ridiculous. Freedom of expression of religious beliefs via speech I have no problem with. It's the word "actions" I object to.

 

[ChezC3]

The wording of the amendment is ridiculous. Freedom of expression of religious beliefs via speech I have no problem with. It's the word "actions" I object to.

but it is the "speech" part that Obama takes issue with..

But the White House said the change would limit the discretion of commanders to address “potentially problematic speech.”

The action part isn't one that should worry you. No serviceman can in some way do anything that would jeopardize men or mission with this legislation or act in a hostile manner or show discrimination.

My previous quote showed the concerns which brought about this legislation and they do hold merit.

Essentially this is legislation to stop discrimination. Just like if it was gender or age or sexual preference.

 

[Redress]

Obama



Ain't that the concerns he cast side and told everyone to deal with when he got rid of DADT?

Oh that's right, tolerance isn't for those kind of people...

No, those are the concerns he rightly said where not going to happen. He did not "cast those concerns aside", he looked at the information available and judged they where invalid.

 

[notquiteright]

This is the same Fox Noise guy who was drug in here claiming an Army band flute player was punished for his religious beliefs. Now the 'poor' Christians are being persecuted and must be protected.... for real?????

More Religious garbage about being a minority and being picked on. Sad really. :3oops:

 

[ChezC3]

This is the same Fox Noise guy who was drug in here claiming an Army band flute player was punished for his religious beliefs. Now the 'poor' Christians are being persecuted and must be protected.... for real?????

More Religious garbage about being a minority and being picked on. Sad really. :3oops:

For real.

As you've demonstrated.

 

[ChezC3]

No, those are the concerns he rightly said where not going to happen. He did not "cast those concerns aside", he looked at the information available and judged they where invalid.

Oh, that's right, because he cares...

Too bad he doesn't care about tolerance for everyone's rights...

 

[notquiteright]

For real.

As you've demonstrated.

I have demonstrated??? I have nothing against Christians, some of my best friends are Christians...

Just no way, no how is there any attack on Christians in the military. The military has been very muted on it's religious trappings. Always been that way. A grunt can pray loud n long while under fire, but can't use their religious beliefs to attack policy.

And once again who has been attacked and needs 'defending'????

 

[ChezC3]

I have demonstrated??? I have nothing against Christians, some of my best friends are Christians...

Just no way, no how is there any attack on Christians in the military. The military has been very muted on it's religious trappings. Always been that way. A grunt can pray loud n long while under fire, but can't use their religious beliefs to attack policy.

And once again who has been attacked and needs 'defending'????

Yes, the post you presented was one of ridicule. You seem to have a funny way of showing it. I don't believe we're talking about the same military. The military has always been accommodating to religious belief. In boot, every Sunday we had 4 hrs to attend religious service. Had ample opportunities to form Bible study when out in the fleet, had allowed neighboring churches access to the base to proselytize. Even in a correctional setting, you were guaranteed the right to read two books, The Navy Blue Jacket Manual and the Bible. They couldn't, could not prevent you from having access to or reading from either of those two texts. This idea that "religious trappings" are/were "very muted" is just simply not true in my experience.

You've been attacking and religious liberty needs defending.

 

[Paschendale]

Wait wait wait...

The Obama Administration “strongly objects” to a proposed amendment to the National Defense Authorization Act on Wednesday that would have protected the religious rights of soldiers – including evangelical Christian service members who are facing growing hostility towards their religion.

Ha ha ha ha!! That's a funny joke. Evangelical Christians in the military are constantly bestowed perks and special treatment. The only "growing hostility" is everyone else, especially Muslims and atheists, being tired of getting pushed around. Not letting the Evangelicals discriminate is now supposedly "growing hostility" towards them. That's rich. Christians are not being oppressed. They're just being required to follow the existing rules for the first time.

 

[notquiteright]

Yes, the post you presented was one of ridicule. You seem to have a funny way of showing it. I don't believe we're talking about the same military. The military has always been accommodating to religious belief. In boot, every Sunday we had 4 hrs to attend religious service. Had ample opportunities to form Bible study when out in the fleet, had allowed neighboring churches access to the base to proselytize. Even in a correctional setting, you were guaranteed the right to read two books, The Navy Blue Jacket Manual and the Bible. They couldn't, could not prevent you from having access to or reading from either of those two texts. This idea that "religious trappings" are/were "very muted" is just simply not true in my experience.

You've been attacking and religious liberty needs defending.

Yes we are not, in basic we had one hour for services that were held at a certain time and that was it. There is a big difference between forming a Bible Study group, which as best as anyone has said will not be 'endangered' nor will owning a Bible, and this vague action crap under consideration.

Very muted- no cross on an Army chapel except those grandfathered in before the rule, Ft. Sill's old chapel has a cross. No using your religious beliefs to voice opposition to a policy. I NEVER SAID someone couldn't own a Bible or attend services so you are arguing an issue never commented on.

What did you do in the Navy, I was a grunt in the Army, my concept of attacking something is WAAAAY different than yours, but please do more than make vague statements... what religious practice have I attacked or advocated being curtailed/ended entirely???

You accuse but offer no proof. like i said some of my best friends are regular church attending Christians, I have ZERO problem with them being such, had ZERO problem with them attending Services, went when out in the field with them, best hour's sleep I can get out in the field.

Christianity doesn't need protecting in the Military, this is just political grandstanding...

 

[Dezaad]

Indeed, far right Christian actions have been tolerated, and even encouraged, for far too long in the military. Now they are being curbed, and some want the old far right nastiness to instead be protected.

But, they keep trying to make it seem like they are the ones being persecuted, usually with outright lies or deliberate deception about what is actually happening.

I can't tell if they don't understand that not being allowed to persecute others is not persecution, but someday they'll get it.

 

[ChezC3]

Yes we are not, in basic we had one hour for services that were held at a certain time and that was it. There is a big difference between forming a Bible Study group, which as best as anyone has said will not be 'endangered' nor will owning a Bible, and this vague action crap under consideration.

Very muted- no cross on an Army chapel except those grandfathered in before the rule, Ft. Sill's old chapel has a cross. No using your religious beliefs to voice opposition to a policy. I NEVER SAID someone couldn't own a Bible or attend services so you are arguing an issue never commented on.

What did you do in the Navy, I was a grunt in the Army, my concept of attacking something is WAAAAY different than yours, but please do more than make vague statements... what religious practice have I attacked or advocated being curtailed/ended entirely???

You accuse but offer no proof. like i said some of my best friends are regular church attending Christians, I have ZERO problem with them being such, had ZERO problem with them attending Services, went when out in the field with them, best hour's sleep I can get out in the field.

Christianity doesn't need protecting in the Military, this is just political grandstanding...

You're conflating my telling of personal experience with what the issue at hand is.

The Air Force censored a video created by a chaplain because it include the word “God.” The Air Force feared the word might offend Muslims and atheists. Denies religious expression
A service member received a “severe and possibly career-ending reprimand” for expressing his faith’s religious position about homosexuality in a personal religious blog.denies personal conscience which had nothing to do with his role in military
An enlisted service member received a career-ending punishment for sending personal invitations to his promotion party which mentioned that he would be providing Chick-fil-A sandwiches due to his respect for the Defense of Marriage Act.Denies personal expression which again, in no way would effect military duty
A senior military official at Fort Campbell sent out a lengthy email officially instructing officers to recognize “the religious right in America” as a “domestic hate group” akin to the KKK and Neo-Nazis because of its opposition to homosexual behavior.I shouldn't even have to explain this one...
A chaplain was relieved of his command over a military chapel because, consistent with DOMA’s definition of marriage, he could not allow same-sex weddings to take place in the chapel.Punitive measures taken for following the LAW?!!?!?!?!?
An enlisted service member was threatened and denied promotion by a senior NCO for expressing – during a personal conversation – his religious belief in support of traditional marriage.persecution and discrimination for religious belief, cut and dry

What did I do in the Navy? I was a Navy Chaplain..... :lamo Nah, jk'ing... I was a Deck Ape.

Now the 'poor' Christians are being persecuted and must be protected.... for real?????

More Religious garbage about being a minority and being picked on. Sad really.

This wasn't ridicule? Ridicule is a form of attack.

I didn't make vague statements I figured I was dealing with an adult with no impairment to his attention span.

Christianity is the religion that was used in the examples, religious freedom is what needs protecting.

Given the Obama record on protecting religious freedom, I'd say this "grandstanding" has merit.

 

[notquiteright]

You're conflating my telling of personal experience with what the issue at hand is. What did I do in the Navy? I was a Navy Chaplain..... :lamo Nah, jk'ing... I was a Deck Ape. This wasn't ridicule? Ridicule is a form of attack. I didn't make vague statements I figured I was dealing with an adult with no impairment to his attention span. Christianity is the religion that was used in the examples, religious freedom is what needs protecting. Given the Obama record on protecting religious freedom, I'd say this "grandstanding" has merit.

LMAO, like I have said in many other threads some 'conservatives' are very thin skinned and very selective in what they see as ridicule and what is simply telling the truth.

The soldier who received the reprimand got it not for attending services. not for having a Bible in his wall locker. Not for attending Bible study. So the ability to attend service, own a Bible, and hold Bible study is safe. What isn't safe is using religion to attack an army policy. Several soldiers and marines have received reprimands for posting on the interwebz attacks on gays, gay policies in the military and for that matter their opinion on the war, ROE, Obama, and a few other things. One thing to bitch in the mess hall, another to post it on the interwebz and that apparently won't be tolerated.

Now the Chaplain didn't just mention GOD, the video is entitled 'So God Created a First Sergeant' a direct steal from Paul Harvey's original work. Cheesy and much better when the late Paul Harvey did it and best left in his era.

Nice try, FYI I have an acceptable attention span, just a low tolerance for 'poor abused' Christians and their whine.

 

[ChezC3]

LMAO, like I have said in many other threads some 'conservatives' are very thin skinned and very selective in what they see as ridicule and what is simply telling the truth.

The soldier who received the reprimand got it not for attending services. not for having a Bible in his wall locker. Not for attending Bible study. So the ability to attend service, own a Bible, and hold Bible study is safe. What isn't safe is using religion to attack an army policy. Several soldiers and marines have received reprimands for posting on the interwebz attacks on gays, gay policies in the military and for that matter their opinion on the war, ROE, Obama, and a few other things. One thing to bitch in the mess hall, another to post it on the interwebz and that apparently won't be tolerated.

Now the Chaplain didn't just mention GOD, the video is entitled 'So God Created a First Sergeant' a direct steal from Paul Harvey's original work. Cheesy and much better when the late Paul Harvey did it and best left in his era.

Nice try, FYI I have an acceptable attention span, just a low tolerance for 'poor abused' Christians and their whine.

Wha?

Still wanting to take my personal experience of my time in the Navy and interject it as the argument? OK...

That's your personal opinion, which apparently, those who share it is the only one you want to hear in the public square.

Nice try what? I pointed out express points of contention, showed how they are discriminatory, and all you've down is try to brush them aside. You ridicule Christians, and then say they need to toughen up, but I bet, I bet your bottom dollar that if that ridicule was directed at another group, one you may have sympathies for, you'd be up on a high horse whining and moaning about the poor, poor, oppressed masses.

 

[notquiteright]

Wha? Still wanting to take my personal experience of my time in the Navy and interject it as the argument? OK... That's your personal opinion, which apparently, those who share it is the only one you want to hear in the public square. Nice try what? I pointed out express points of contention, showed how they are discriminatory, and all you've down is try to brush them aside. You ridicule Christians, and then say they need to toughen up, but I bet, I bet your bottom dollar that if that ridicule was directed at another group, one you may have sympathies for, you'd be up on a high horse whining and moaning about the poor, poor, oppressed masses.

Again I don't ridicule Christians, some of my very good friends go to Church twice a week, I ridicule the concept that somehow Christianity is under attack and must be protected. TRY and absorb that.

The points of contention you point to are very flawed. The Chaplain didn't just say the word God, it was the title. The Flute player was never punished. The Chaplain never relieved, the DoD has said the military chaplains DO NOT have to preform same sex marriage ceremonies.

You don't bring any real trackable facts in, and when I go digging the facts don't fit the umbrage. :roll:

And get my 'ridicule' correct- I said 'CONSERVATIVES' are very thin skinned at the beginning of my last post and ended it with I have a low tolerance for 'poor abused' Christian whine.... so do try to get SOMETHING correct.... :roll:

Oh and if the gays are ever HALF as disingenuous as the 'Christianity under attack' crowd oh HAIL YEAH I'd call them out on it too. but one thing to remember, Christians so outnumber gays in any scenario you can come up with so claiming the game is rigged against Christians will have a difficult time passing the smell test in the summer heat... eace

 

[Redress]

It depends, elaborate please...

I think this to be ridiculous




Are these to be allowed to continue?

If it is just the matter of wording, or a clarification of what actions and kinds of speech, than "strongly oppose" is kinda disproportionate, don't ya think?

You are assuming the editorial is telling the whole story in one sentence summaries. I looked up just the first one, and the one sentence summary is highly incomplete.

 

[sangha]

 

[ChezC3]

Again I don't ridicule Christians, some of my very good friends go to Church twice a week, I ridicule the concept that somehow Christianity is under attack and must be protected. TRY and absorb that.

What, that you're splitting hairs? Yeah, I caught that, that's why I doubled down...

The points of contention you point to are very flawed. The Chaplain didn't just say the word God, it was the title. The Flute player was never punished. The Chaplain never relieved, the DoD has said the military chaplains DO NOT have to preform same sex marriage ceremonies.

Does it matter if he wrote a 3000 word essay as the title using the word "God" exclusively? No. Never punished and never relieved, eh? See at least I provided evidence for the point I was making. It may or may not be incomplete, I don't know, but now you, oh, you, you're trying to discredit something by basically saying "Cuz I said so..." No link, no proof, and you got the stones to try and act all arrogant, like you've accomplished something... :lamo

You don't bring any real trackable facts in, and when I go digging the facts don't fit the umbrage.

At least I brought something.. :shrug:

And get my 'ridicule' correct- I said 'CONSERVATIVES' are very thin skinned at the beginning of my last post and ended it with I have a low tolerance for 'poor abused' Christian whine.... so do try to get SOMETHING correct....

I've had it correct from the jump, and why bring conservatives into this? I'm not one, you sure as hell ain't one, so the reason for your non sequitur is??????

Oh and if the gays are ever HALF as disingenuous as the 'Christianity under attack' crowd oh HAIL YEAH I'd call them out on it too. but one thing to remember, Christians so outnumber gays in any scenario you can come up with so claiming the game is rigged against Christians will have a difficult time passing the smell test in the summer heat...

You think Christians are disingenuous for what reason specifically? Another because "you said so" arguments? :giggle1:

and now you make up the completely fallacious argument that because Christians outnumber gays that that somehow means they, what? can't be persecuted? or that it isn't as severe? Is ANY persecution acceptable? I don't believe so, but like I said before, and you're clearly showing the tell tale signs, discrimination and persecution is OK so long as it is against people you "have a low tolerance for"... :thumbs:

Tsk...Tsk..:naughty and you call yourself progressive...

 

[Wiseone]

The amendment was authored by Rep. John Fleming, R-La. It would have “required the Armed Forces to accommodate ‘actions and speech’ reflecting the conscience, moral, principles or religious beliefs of the member.

You mean if one of my Soldiers were to verbally abuse another Soldier about his sexual perferences, I as the leader responsible for both of them would be unable to reprimand that Soldier for his verbal abuse? Not only no but hell No, I could never stand for the sort of damage that would do to good order and discipline. If you think you're fellow Soldier is going to hell becaue he likes other men, keep it to yourself and do your job.

 

[ChezC3]

You are assuming the editorial is telling the whole story in one sentence summaries. I looked up just the first one, and the one sentence summary is highly incomplete.

Yes, I suppose I am, but incomplete how exactly? Given the current climate and the complete disregard Obama has shown for religious Liberty, I figured it wasn't necessary to "dig deeper".

 

[ChezC3]

You mean if one of my Soldiers were to verbally abuse another Soldier about his sexual perferences, I as the leader responsible for both of them would be unable to reprimand that Soldier for his verbal abuse? Not only no but hell No, I could never stand for the sort of damage that would do to good order and discipline. If you think you're fellow Soldier is going to hell becaue he likes other men, keep it to yourself and do your job.

this would do nothing of the sort..

the same could be said about the fellow soldier who likes other men, no? Or is that throwing them back in the closet?