News on Religion in Our Goverments

Hi RAZD, People seem to forget the homegrown terrorist, Timothy McVeigh for example. When you hear "terrorist" now you think of a Arabic person probably. We have created quite a few radicals here with no help from Islam. As I write this CNN is talking about possible dirty bomb attack in NYC or DC.

quote:

---

NEW YORK (CBSNewYork) Just two days before the 10th anniversary, New York City is on high alert.

​

Federal and local authorities have beefed up security after receiving intelligence about a credible threat. The alleged plot by al Qaeda involves detonating car bombs on bridges and in tunnels in New York and Washington D.C. to coincide with the anniversary of 9/11.

---

Read more...I agree, I think of how much money we spent to help the Afghan freedom fighters defeat the soviets, then when that was done we pretty much left. Maybe we could've made a difference by having continued to give support in the way of education and medical care, food...ect. But we didn't and the radicals we supported are now the terrorist we are so scared of. We created them when we let them indoctrinate a whole generation of children.

quote:

---

Wilson's role remains controversial because most of the aid was supplied to Islamist hardliner Gulbuddin Hekmatyar, now a senior Taliban leader and a supporter of al-Qaeda.

---

Charlie WilsonThe patriot act sickens me. We as a people have given up so much in the name of safety, given so much power to the government in the hopes they won't abuse it. Personally I don't trust them. In the pursuit of freedom and justice we seem all too willing to sacrifice both. AbE In NYC and DC the police and homeland security are randomly searching vans and trucks. How does that work? If your a plumber or repairman or anyone driving a van you might get searched for no other reason than the vehicle you happen to be driving? Doesn't sound very much like "The land of the free" to me.The media this morning has been about nothing but terrorism, the mission NASA launched to study the moons gravity got about 2 minutes of mention and a brief video of the launch. Everything else has had to do with 9/11 and terror. Edited by fearandloathing, : No reason given.Edited by fearandloathing, : No reason given.Edited by fearandloathing, : No reason given.

LOL... And homegrown.I do think of 9/11 when I hear the words terrorist or terrorism? Maybe someone who lived through the Oklahoma city event would think differently? I think of the WTC and Islamic extremist first though, thanks to the media.My father, 81, and a lot of his generation probably think of Pearl Harbor when they hear Japan mentioned, because of the impact it had on their lives through the images in papers and news reels before films. Edited by fearandloathing, : No reason given.

I have seen this story a few times now, I thought maybe it might be worth consideration.

quote:

---

Fort Bragg hosted a Christian-themed "Rock the Fort" concert last September that was sponsored by the Billy Graham Evangelistic Association, and was touted as "evangelistic in nature," according to the three groups.

​

The groups alleged that Fort Bragg chaplains promoted the event, which received "$50,000 in financial support, and $30,000 in logistical and security support" from the Army. Such actions "cannot be squared with (Army) regulations, much less with the First Amendment," the groups said.

​

The letter also complained that a recent attempt to hold an atheist-themed "Rock Beyond Belief" event at Fort Bragg was not granted the same venue or the same level of financial support.

---

Full story...I think that the "Rock Beyond Belief" show should get the same amount of support as the Billy Graham sponsored show did.I am not sure I even like the fact that a religious group got any help at all as far as govt money goes. Base security...OK

Personally I have to agree with you on the point of none of these shows should get support other than security, if it is on base, and venue, once again if it is on base.As far as proportionally funding I feel that both shows serve all service men. It is up to them whether they participate or not. I would have probably went to both shows just to see some music, or be entertained with the "other sides" opinions and views.In a way it only goes to show how our government wastes money. 80,000 dollars for a concert, give me a break. We have troops in the field who would spend that money on upgraded armor for their hummers if given the choice.Edited by fearandloathing, : No reason given.Edited by fearandloathing, : No reason given.

It seems you are right. I posted a few things about this type of practice. Well not exactly the same. Message 2Message 13Edited by fearandloathing, : No reason given.

You can call me anything, LOL, no worries, Fear suits me fine. Or FnL... either way I understand.

This may be a little off topic... Read more...I can't say for certain, but I have always felt the "Don't ask, don't tell" policy was religiously motivated. Most people I have discussed anti-gay law/policies seem to fall back on religion as the reason it, homosexuality, is wrong and shouldn't be tolerated.It should be interesting to see what kinds of problems our military will have to deal with in this transitional period. Edited by fearandloathing, : No reason given.

You just named the main problem I foresee. I hope I am wrong.I also wonder about gay marriage and spousal benefits. If a service man/woman is legally married in one of the states that allow it, then how will our military deal with this? I have no idea to be honest, just a thought...AbE...Moot point.After doing a little looking it seems my last question is a non question. Read more...SAD.Edited by fearandloathing, : No reason given.Edited by fearandloathing, : No reason given.

At least this is a step in the right direction. Maybe the ones who are getting F@#$ will now be able to stand up for themselves without fear of being discharged. Reminds me of the civil rights movement. Somebody has to be willing to stand up in the face of injustice, regardless of the outcome.

Another off- topic story I don't think anyone will mind, this may be worthy or a thread of its own?I just ran across this.

quote:

---

Seven scientists and other experts went on trial on manslaughter charges Tuesday for allegedly failing to sufficiently warn residents before a devastating 2009 earthquake that killed more than 300 people in central Italy.

​

The case is being closely watched by seismologists around the globe who insist it's impossible to predict earthquakes and dangerous to suggest otherwise, because seismologists will be discouraged from issuing any advice at all if they fear legal retaliation.

---

Ridiculous.

I wasn't aware of any policy prior to DADT, stupid on my part, I guess I always thought it was the only policy the military had. I never knew they used to ask people if they were homosexual.Thanks for the info. My guess of it being religiously motivated was way off.

quote:

---

There was no unified homosexuality policy across the various branches of the military until 1949. Before then, the various branches tended to court-martial personnel caught engaging in homosexual conduct for sodomy and issue them a dishonorable discharge. In 1940, psychiatrists Harry Stack Sullivan and Winfred Overholser formulated guidelines for psychiatric screening for military inductees. While both believed homosexuals should not be inducted, their proposal did not explicitly exclude them.[5] The United States Army Surgeon General's office issued a circular in 1941 that for the first time classified "homosexual proclivities" as disqualifying inductees for military service. The United States Navy and the Selective Service adopted similar exclusionary policies.[6] The Women's Army Corps adopted a similar policy in 1944.[7]

​

With the massive mobilization and deployment of troops for operations relating to World War II, it became impractical to convene court-martial boards for homosexual conduct offenses. Commanders instead issued blue discharges — a form of administrative military discharge — to gay personnel instead. The blue discharge, which was also issued disproportionately to African Americans, was neither honorable nor dishonorable. However, blue discharge holders faced difficulties in civilian life because the blue discharge carried with it a negative association. The Veterans Administration, denied blue-discharge veterans the benefits of the G.I. Bill as a general policy.[8] In 1944, a policy directive ordered that homosexuals were to be committed to military hospitals, examined by psychiatrists and discharged under Regulation 615-360, section 8.[9]

​

Blue discharges were discontinued in May 1947, with discharges that would formerly have been blue now falling under one of two new headings, "general" and "undesirable".[10] A general discharge was considered to be under honorable conditions — which is distinct from an "honorable discharge" — and an undesirable discharge was under conditions other than honorable — which, again, is distinct from a "dishonorable discharge".[11] At the same time, however, the Army changed its regulations to ensure that homosexuals would not qualify for general discharges.[12] Under this system, a servicemember found to be homosexual but who has not committed any homosexual acts while in service would receive an undesirable discharge. Those who were found guilty of engaging in homosexual conduct were dishonorably discharged.[13]

​

In October 1949, the newly-consolidated Department of Defense standardized anti-homosexual regulations across all branches of the military: "Homosexual personnel, irrespective of sex, should not be permitted to serve in any branch of the Armed Forces in any capacity, and prompt separation of known homosexuals from the Armed Forces is mandatory." Read more...

---

It seems this was how it worked before DADT.

quote:

---

Don't ask, don't tell (DADT) is the common term for the policy restricting the United States military from efforts to discover or reveal closeted gay, lesbian, and bisexual service members or applicants, while barring those that are openly gay, lesbian, or bisexual from military service. LGBT people are allowed to serve but must do so without coming out or speaking about any homosexual relationships, including marriages or other familial attributes, while serving in the United States military. The policy was enacted in 1993 under the presidency of Bill Clinton.

---

I am guessing you joined after 1993?Thanks NoNukes for making me learn a little history.

quote:

---

During the Vietnam War, some men pretended to be gay in order to avoid the draft. However, a significant number of gay and bisexual men and women did manage to avoid the pre-screening process and serve in the military, some with special distinction.

---

I am not sure what the pre-screening process entailed? I assumed it was a direct question in some psychological test. Maybe it wasn't a direct question but the above implies they did actively attempt to find out if you were gay or not.As I have said before, I never really knew much about our military's policy prior to DADT. Thanks for a little more enlightenment.

Seems another "good Christian" shows their true colors....(pun intended)... discriminatory racist bigotry. The YES! Weekly Blog: Racialized remark about marriage amendment attributed to state senator's wifeI would love for her to explain how she used the word "Caucasian" and not have been being racist?How does being, or not, Caucasian have anything to do with amendment 1. North Carolina Senate Bill 514 - Wikipedia(2011)Of course I live in a state where it is perfectly legal to marry your first cousin... (as long is isn't a double cousin) so I guess all bets are off.

I really think she is just a dumb twit who was politicking. She was saying what she thought the other person wanted to hear. (not a smart move for the wife of a senator)In the big picture though it speaks volumes about how far some people are willing to go in order to push their agenda forward. Edited by fearandloathing, : No reason given.