Let me guess... not one person of authority in the US armed forces will say a single word about a Muslim sharing his faith with other soldiers, or for that matter, a gay person espousing their alternative lifestyle. This is like a wacked out, freaking nightmare. Once again, however, scripture prophecies these abhorrent transitions in society as a whole. It's interesting to live to see it happen, though.
As I listened to the convoluted legal gobbledygook passing for erudite Constitutional expertise from the United States Supreme Court as they attempted to justify same sex marriage, my mind was flooded with the haunting words of some of the great men of history.
I thought of Aristotle, who said, “Political society exists for the sake of noble living,” a sentiment chiseled into the edifice of many a public building, including the south face of the state capitol building in Lincoln, Nebraska.
I remembered the words of John Adams, our second president, who famously observed, “Our Constitution was designed for a moral and a religious people; it is wholly inadequate for the governing of any other.”
From somewhere deep in my memory, I recalled the plea of Abraham Lincoln, who declared, “Freedom is not the right to do what we want, but what we ought. Let us have faith that right makes might, and in that faith, let us, to the end, dare to do our duty as we understand it.”
There were the eloquent but simple words of a wise Frenchman named Alexis de Tocqueville, who visited the United States in the 1830s and marveled at the genius of our system and the decency of our people. “America is great because America is good,” Tocqueville opined, “but if America ever ceases to be good, she will cease to be great.”
Author G.K. Chesterton wrote, “Fallacies do not cease to be fallacies because they become fashions.”
And the French author Voltaire said, “All sects are different, because they come from men; morality is everywhere the same, because it comes from God.”
But mostly, I thought of Thomas Jefferson’s lament, “I tremble for my country when I reflect that God is just; that His justice cannot sleep forever.”
We now live a lawless land ruled by lawless people. Our lawless president, Barack Obama, and his lawless attorney general refused to defend the law of the land — the Defense of Marriage Act — duly passed by both Houses of Congress and signed into law by then-President Bill Clinton. A lawless Supreme Court then disregarded the will of the people and the letter and spirit of the Constitution — again.
At the state level, California’s lawless governor, along with his lawless attorney general, refused to defend a ballot initiative duly passed by the people of California, thereby leaving it to private individuals to seek redress and defend the traditional and correct definition of marriage through the courts. On a technicality, the High Court decided that this group of citizens had no standing to sue in the first place — all because the people’s lawless elected representatives refused to carry out their constitutional duties.
Tocqueville would be saddened to know that America is no longer great, and we certainly are no longer good. And I don’t believe that he, nor Jefferson, nor Adams, nor Lincoln, nor Voltaire nor Chesterton would give the people a pass on the grounds that their elected officials and judges are lawless. We elected them, and we have allowed them to institutionalize deviancy while denying the fallen nature of man. We have refused to see that, regardless of what we believe, God is unchanging and He will not be mocked. And we have surely lost sight of the fact that we are not Him.
Doug Patton is a freelance columnist who has served as a political speechwriter and policy advisor to conservative candidates, elected officials and public policy organizations.
July 1st, 2013, 14:29
MinutemanCO
Re: The End of Christian America
The pattern of political and social degradation leads to a dire future.
July 1st, 2013, 16:28
vector7
Re: The End of Christian America
You are right MinutemanCO, this pattern is leading the nation down the wrong path... :(
The Supreme Court of the United States (SCOTUS) today released decisions ultimately which engaged in the dangerous type of legal activism that many have fretted about since the founding of the nation. In the scope of two rulings, United States v. Windsor and Hollingsworth v. Perry, the SCOTUS reversed several thousand years of civilized human history to create rights and affirm those powers of the court which neither exist within the scope of the U.S. Constitution nor the powers assigned to various branches of government.
After listening to numerous legal commentators, reviewing their papers, and of course reading the reviews plus decision itself, one thing is certain:
NAMBLA won a huge victory last week in the Supreme Court of the United States.
Who is “NAMBLA” and how did I reach this conclusion? More on that later.
First and foremost, I am not a jurist. I had an opportunity to go to law school but the desire to chase ambulances and smell like a dead possum in the road did not appeal to me, thus the option to earn less money but still maintain my some degree of self respect.
Historically speaking, an area of which I can speak from experience, the non-decisions decisions of the United States Supreme Court will shake this nation for years to come; at least until the entire system is overturned via tumult and quite probably an internal political revolution.
The decision to allow via a non-Constitutional route to deny citizen’s rights via Proposition 8 and the 10th Amendment should have alarmed the entire world; a United States not united under a Constitutional system is no different from that of 1862 America, where the rule of law was truly an ad hominem affair where states, counties, and localities determined not just what the rule of law consisted of, but how individual behavior was to be determined.
Despite the proclamations of the mainstream media, this has nothing to do with the “right” to have same sex marriages. This is more about the deconstruction of Western civilization and the willingness of the United States to participate in the mass suicide the Western European nations have engaged in already. Personally speaking, I could care less about the religious ceremonies of any two individuals regarding marriage or death; however, thanks to the Federal Reserve Act plus the 16th Amendment, the relational status of two American citizens is now crucial not to the understanding of the societal implications, but the very survival of our nation itself.
Two gay individuals can now marry.
So what?
That is fine but the decision under the majority opinion stated by Justice Kennedy, himself now an accused homosexual by CNN, states a clear course for not just LGBT proclamations for the right to marry but polygamy, and worse. The first thought of the so-called conservative “Christian Right” was that those bizzarro creatures known as Mormons should have the right to marry 100 women per male plus relatives, despite the fact that the LDS has banned polygamy for over 120 years. In reality, there is a far larger religious sect at play now, and that very religion is which alleged to be that of the U.S. President now has a legal challenge of its own to deal with.
Under Sharia Law it has been a long standing practice where the male had the choice of a mate regardless of age as long as she was “pure.” The best way to ensure purity was to find a girl between the ages of six and twelve which was a practice accepted since Aisha married the prophet Mohammed when she was around six to seven years old. In most Islamic cultures, the activity of marrying a child of purity to ensure that Allah would smile upon the offspring has been an accepted practice up to and including the use of financial transactions of wealthier Muslims providing dowries to lower caste citizens for attractive daughters for the purpose of marriage and procreation. While this activity might sound shocking to the average American, in many parts of the world this an accepted cultural norm, providing the poor or lower middle class within many societies an opportunity to advance and provide for their families and improve the lot of their family name.
What does “NAMBLA” have to do with Islam? Nothing. 100% zero, zip, nada. However, the ideals endorsed by Justice Kennedy’s majority decision have everything to do with American reality and the ability of a forty year old man to marry a twelve year old boy or girl. Let us keep this in context however of the limitations of the two decisions from last week. Despite the cheery proclamations of the “conservative” media that this was no big deal, in reality the rights to marry whomever one loves or within the religious sphere of desire has now been extended across all cultural and societal aspects of America. If a Muslim wishes to have 4 wives, technically speaking under Kennedy’s majority opinion, how can any court block such a desire or recognition of the ceremony?
Thus one has to ask, under the equal protection clause and other creations expanded by the Supreme Court, how can any Federal or State court block a twenty-five year old man from marrying a thirteen year old girl based on the precepts of Islam or any other religion? Expanding that idea further, what happens when the IRS is used to “acknowledge” and legitimize the “Church of the Fuzzy Apricot” in the Castro District of San Francisco, California and adult males establish as part of their beliefs that marrying young boys is part of their accepted norm?
The Supreme Court based on the standard established by the leftists on the courts which was objected to by the Constitutionalists, especially Justice Scalia, now creates a standard based not on 4000 plus years of Western Civilization for marriage, but instead on feelings and political correctness. To remain consistent, the idea that a non-existent religion creating “religious” standards for marriage must be accepted by the Federal Government and thus by the states. In other words, the rulings against Prop 8 and DOMA did nothing to legitimize gay marriage but instead more to deconstruct thousands of years of civilization and government recognition of marriage to procreate and expand population instead of creating tax breaks to manipulate individual’s net income!
This practice of manipulating human behavior with the tax code has come home to roost. When the first marriage between a thirty-something year old pervert and a boy occurs in your community, do not bitch at us Libertarians. We warned you. America was not ready just yet for the freedoms we believed in and the corruption created by the 16th Amendment and the Progressive perverts who have destroyed our liberties, and by extension, our future.
July 1st, 2013, 18:19
MinutemanCO
Re: The End of Christian America
Down, down down... the bottom still seems so far away. Hell hath encompassed our once fair land. I, however, choose to stand for the foundation of biblical morality that once established a nation like no other. If I face persecution or worse because of my choice, so be it. I would then be deemed worthy to suffer for the cause of Christ. A noble cause, to be certain. I'm not worthy of it, but noble it is.
July 2nd, 2013, 22:59
vector7
Re: The End of Christian America
Quote:
Originally Posted by MinutemanCO
Down, down down... the bottom still seems so far away. Hell hath encompassed our once fair land. I, however, choose to stand for the foundation of biblical morality that once established a nation like no other. If I face persecution or worse because of my choice, so be it. I would then be deemed worthy to suffer for the cause of Christ. A noble cause, to be certain. I'm not worthy of it, but noble it is.
AMEN MinutemanCO!!!
Complete Shock’: University Staffer Tells College Student She Must Remove Christian Cross Necklace
Audrey Jarvis, a 19-year-old liberal arts major, was in for a surprise last month when she arrived to her campus job wearing a cross necklace around her neck. Why, you ask?
This personal decision to wear a Christian pendant was met with a troubling reaction from her boss at Sonoma State University in Rohnert Park, California.
While she was working at the Associated Students Productions, a student orientation event, her supervisor told her to remove the necklace and said that it might offend incoming freshman. And if once weren’t enough, she was reportedly asked a second time to conceal the cross, with her boss giving an ultimatum to either hide it under her shirt or take it off entirely, Fox News reports.
The necklace, the supervisor said, was not allowed under the chancellor’s rules — and wearing it would potentially offend attendees and make the feel unwelcome. Jarvis was so upset over the incident that she left her post early and called her mother to discuss the situation. Now, the scenario has made its way into national media.
Following the June 27 event, the Liberty Institute, a conservative legal organization, is defending Jarvis, calling the request an overt act of religious discrimination.
“My initial reaction was one of complete shock. I was thrown for a loop,” Jarvis, a Catholic, said in an interview with Fox News. “I was offended because I believe as a Christian woman it is my prerogative to display my faith any way I like so long as it is not harming anyone else. I was very hurt and felt as if the university’s mission statement — which includes tolerance and inclusivity to all — was violated.”
Susan Kashack, a spokesperson with the university, confirmed to Fox News that the incident did occur and that the university is extremely sorry. From corroborating that the reasoning for the requested removal was rooted in fears that the cross might offend to pledging that an apology is impending, Kashack was candid, admitting that the supervisor was “completely wrong.
“It was absolutely an inappropriate action for him to make that request of her,” the representative said, noting that the school’s president, Ruben Arminana is trying, through Kashack, to reach Jarvis for an apology.
The abortion battle in Texas was still raging Tuesday as both abortion supporters and pro-life activists flooded the State Capitol to make their voices heard. The Texas House and Senate reconvened briefly for a special session called by Gov. Rick Perry.
One of the more bizarre tactics used by pro-abortion activists involved chanting “Hail Satan!” to harass a pro-life crowd as they sang “Amazing Grace.”
Texas blogger Adam Cahm was able to capture the “Hail Satan” chant on video. Watch it here:
It’s been a very interesting day at the Texas State Capitol. Cahnman’s Musings hasn’t been following the hearing.
Instead, we’ve been participating in the surrounding events,” he writes. “LetTexasSpeak has been doing a live broadcast from the rotunda where women have been sharing their abortion related testimonies. The pro-abortion crowd has responded with repeated chants of ‘hail Satan.’ It’s taken us all day to get a video recording…”
Obviously, it is much more likely that the abortion supporters were chanting “Hail Satan!” to mock pro-lifers rather than actually hailing Lucifer, but anything is possible.
And there was plenty of discussion about “Hail Satan” on Twitter. Twitchy has the details.
The pro-abortion crowd also brought some really interesting signs to the rally (Some are offensive):
http://www.theblaze.com/wp-content/u...7/600x4082.jpg
Pro-abortion rights supporters chant at the state Capitol in Austin, Texas, on Tuesday July 2, 2013. Gov. Rick Perry has called lawmakers back for another special session with abortion on the top of the agenda. Credit: AP
http://www.theblaze.com/wp-content/u...07/600x378.jpg
Opponents and supporters of an abortion bill gather in a courtyard outside a hearing for the bill at the state capitol, Tuesday, July 2, 2013, in Austin, Texas. Credit: AP
http://www.theblaze.com/wp-content/u...07/600x423.jpg
Opponents of an abortion bill, including a woman who gave her name as Wendy, center, and Jessica Deleskey, right, yell chants outside a hearing for the bill at the state capitol, Tuesday, July 2, 2013, in Austin, Texas. Credit: AP
A recess was called for the Texas Legislature until July 9.
The proposed bill would ban abortions after 20 weeks of pregnancy, require that the procedure be performed at ambulatory surgical centers, mandate that doctors who perform abortions obtain admitting privileges at a hospital within 30 miles and that even nonsurgical abortions take place in a surgical center.
Only five out of 42 clinics in Texas qualify as ambulatory surgical centers and they are in major metropolitan areas. Many clinics would need to relocate to meet ventilation requirements and to have the space required for operating rooms and hallways.
Similar measures have passed in other states, but many are tied up in court. Mississippi’s only abortion clinic remains open pending a federal lawsuit over the requirement for doctors to have admitting privileges.
(NaturalNews) Today Natural News denounces Melissa Harris-Perry, the latest talking head "death worshipper" to publicly imply that she supports the murder of living, breathing newborn children. According to Harris-Perry, life begins when the parents feel like life begins. And together with some twisted new "ethics" arguments from the radical left, this can include months or years after a child is born.
That's why I need to premise this article with a disclaimer: This article is not about abortion. It's about the murder of children after they are born. Because once a child is born alive, terminating that life is no longer a "choice" … it's murder by every legal and moral standard. Because while abortion friends and foes can argue about when life begins in the womb, no one disagrees that a child born alive is, well, ALIVE… do they?
Indeed, they do. MSNBC talking head Melissa Harris-Perry insists that life only begins when the parents have a "feeling" that it begins. "When does life begin? I submit the answer depends an awful lot on the feeling of the parents. A powerful feeling -- but not science," Harris-Perry said to nationwide astonishment on her July 21 MSNBC show.
And in one stroke, she simultaneously condones the murder of newborn infants (i.e. "post-birth abortion") while attacking the science of biology which unambiguously states that a living, breathing infant with a heartbeat and brain function is alive, not dead.
But don't tell that to the radical abortion whackos. Far beyond arguing for the "right" to abort a baby in the first or second trimester, many abortion advocates who run in the same circles as Melissa Harris-Perry are now publicly arguing that it is okay for parents to kill their children up to age three. This is now being promoted as a "post-birth abortion."
It was also called a "fourth trimester abortion" by a clever pollster who recently took to the streets of George Mason University to find out if summertime college students would sign a petition legalizing fourth-trimester abortions. Nearly all who were asked to sign the petition did so! One of the college students even asked whether the procedure would "cause harm to the child."
Ok, ok, let's let let them have abortions, no apologies, retroactively.
I think we ought to start with those people screaming for abortions.
What's everyone else say?
July 30th, 2013, 14:50
MinutemanCO
Re: The End of Christian America
Their arguments are fallacious. Let me see if I have this correct... immoral lovers of convenience and casual sex, whether I like it or not, will abort their offspring illegally (in alleys with coat hangers) in focused pursuit of their hedonistic lifestyles (call it choice), so we should legalize the act. Is this not similar to the concept that perhaps there will always be people who have chosen to steal from others in pursuit of their own materialistic goals, so larceny should be legalized as well?
Within the framework of true morality, relativism must be given no quarter.
A fascinating interview in the Wall Street Journal with Russell Moore, the incoming president of the Southern Baptist Convention’s Ethics and Religious Liberty Commission. This influential position was held previously by Richard Land, who became a well known face on the cable nets and Sunday shows.
Moore says, in essence, that the culture war has been lost:
‘The Bible Belt is collapsing,” says Russell Moore. Oddly, the incoming president of the Southern Baptist Convention’s Ethics and Religious Liberty Commission doesn’t seem upset. In a recent visit to The Wall Street Journal, Mr. Moore explains that he thinks the Bible Belt’s decline may be “bad for America, but it’s good for the church.”
Why? Because “we are no longer the moral majority. We are a prophetic minority.”
The phrase is arresting coming from such a prominent religious leader—akin to a general who says the Army has shrunk to the point it can no longer fight two wars. A youthful 41, Mr. Moore is among the leaders of a new generation who think that evangelicals need to recognize that their values no longer define mainstream American culture the way they did 50 or even 20 years ago.
On gay marriage, abortion, even on basic religious affiliation, the culture has moved away. So evangelicals need a new way of thinking—a new strategy, if you will—to attract and keep believers, as well as to influence American politics.
The easy days of mobilizing a ready-made majority are gone. By “prophetic minority,” he means that Christians must return to the days when they were a moral example and vanguard—defenders of belief in a larger unbelieving culture. He views this less as a defeat than as an opportunity.
[...]
He is definitely pushing a new tone for this generation of evangelicals. “This is the end of ‘slouching toward Gomorrah,’ ” he says. Not only is the doomsaying not winning Christians any popularity contests, but he doesn’t think it’s religiously appropriate either. “We were never promised that the culture would embrace us.”
He also questions the political approach of what was once called “the religious right.” Though his boyish looks bring to mind the former Christian Coalition leader Ralph Reed, Mr. Moore is decidedly not a fan of the “values voter checklists” the group employs. “There is no Christian position on the line-item veto,” Mr. Moore says. “There is no Christian position on the balanced-budget amendment.”
Which is not to say that Mr. Moore wants evangelicals to “turn inward” and reject the larger U.S. culture. Rather, he wants to refocus the movement on serving as a religious example battling in the public square on “three core issues”—life, marriage and religious liberty.
Politically, the evangelical right isn’t going anywhere. They will still play a large role in Republican Party politics, and will still be indispensable to the campaigns of dozens of Republicans in many districts.
But to a secularist like me, Mr. Moore’s words sound like a welcome dose of pragmatism. Achieve what is doable, accept the world not for what you would have it be, but for what it is. This is not to say that there shouldn’t be an effort — a war, if you will — to fight on many issues. But perhaps the battles will be fought on a different kind of battlefield — one where moral authority is gleaned not from numbers or political power, but from the light of example.
Read the whole interview for some fascinating insights.
Two Baptist chaplains said they were forced out of a Veterans Affairs chaplain training program after they refused orders to stop quoting the Bible and to stop praying in the name of Jesus.
When the men objected to those demands, they were subjected to ridicule and harassment that led to one of the chaplains leaving the program and the other being ejected, according to a federal lawsuit filed Friday.
The Conservative Baptist Association of America is suing Secretary of Veterans Affairs Eric Shinseki; the group’s suit alleges two of its chaplains were openly ridiculed by the leader of the San Diego-based VA-DOD Clinical Pastoral Education Center program.
'Not only was the treatment these men received inappropriate, it was also a violation of federal law and the religious freedom guarantees of the First Amendment.'
- Attorney John Wells
“Not only was the treatment these men received inappropriate, it was also a violation of federal law and the religious freedom guarantees of the First Amendment,” said John Wells, an attorney representing the Colorado-based denomination.
“No American choosing to serve in the armed forces should be openly ridiculed for his Christian faith,” he said, calling it one of the most blatant cases of religious discrimination he has ever seen.
Lt. Commander Dan Klender, a Navy chaplain, and Maj. Steven Firtko, a retired Army chaplain, had enrolled in the VA’s Clinical Pastoral Education Center program in San Diego last year.
The one-year training program is required for anyone wanting to work as a chaplain in a VA hospital. VA chaplains differ from other military chaplains in that they are limited to working in VA hospitals.
The program, which has affiliates around the nation, is open to chaplains of all religious faiths. However, applicants must have completed master-level seminary work.
There were seven chaplains enrolled in the San Diego program led by Nancy Dietsch, a Department of Veterans Affairs employee with a history of antagonistic behavior toward evangelicals, Wells said.
“She’s been very, very critical of Christians,” Wells said in a telephone interview. “Instead of teaching anything dealing with faith issues, she’s dealing with a holistic, humanistic approach. It’s the idea that the spirit comes from within.”
The VA did not return telephone calls, but they did release a statement to NBC San Diego. The VA said the two men were “bullying other classmates and refusing to honor other faith groups.”
Wells said the chaplains were subjected to anti-Christian bigotry.
“And that would be putting it mildly,” he said. “A lot of these so-called liberals are very liberal with their own ideas, but when it comes to somebody else’s ideas, they don’t want to hear it.
Among the allegations listed in the lawsuit:
1. Dietsch told the chaplains that it was the policy of the VA in general and her in particular that chaplains should not pray in the name of Jesus.
2. During a classroom discussion on faith, Firtko said “faith is the substance of things hoped for, the evidence of things not seen.” Dietsch told the chaplain he was not allowed to quote from the Bible in her classroom.
3. In October 2012, Dietsch told the class she believes God could be either man or woman. When Firtko referred to “The Lord’s Prayer,” she “angrily pounded her fist on the table and shouted, ‘Do not quote Scripture in this class.’”
4. In the aftermath of the Sandy Hook school shooting, Klender mentioned during a group discussion on counseling that he would tell a parent that “there
is evil in the world.” Dietsch retorted, “You don’t actually believe that do you?”
5. In January 2013, she told the chaplains “there is no room in the program for those who believe they are right and everybody else is wrong.”
6. Later that month she told students that there are many ways to heaven and that one religion cannot be right, while others are wrong. Firtko objected to that statement by quoting Jesus who said “I am the way, the truth and the life. No one comes to the Father but through me.” Dietsch told him to stop quoting from the Bible, then stated, “If you believe your beliefs are right, and everyone else’s is wrong, you do not belong in this program.”
The harassment had become so bad by February that Klender withdrew from the program. A week later, Firtko received a letter notifying him that he’d been dismissed from the program.
In July, the pair filed a formal complaint against Dietsch for religious discrimination and violating the Association of Pastoral Continuing Education Standards.
Attorney Wells said it appears the government is trying to establish “a secular humanist-based religion free from any influence of Christian dogma.”
“The most egregious part is the VA supervisor told two chaplains that they were not allowed to pray in the name of Jesus and they could not quote Scripture,” he said.
Wells feared that unless changes are made, Christian chaplains are going to be discouraged from serving in the military.
“Christian chaplains are under a lot of pressure right now and facing a lot of challenges,” he said.
One nation under God? Under President Obama, maybe not so much.
As first reported on WMAL’s Chris Plante Show Tuesday, the Commander-in-Chief joined a cast of 61 other noted lawmakers, politicians, news anchors and celebrities, including every living President, in reciting the Gettysburg Address, which President Abraham Lincoln delivered on November 19, 1863.
The dignitaries all delivered the address as Lincoln had written it, including the phrase, “that this nation, under God, shall have a new birth of freedom.” (Click to listen). Curiously, however, in his version of the address, President Obama omitted the words “under God.”
Filmmaker Ken Burns gathered the celebrities' speeches as part of a PBS documentary. Burns edited the individual speeches into one final mashup that is available on his website, learntheaddress.org, as well as each celebrity's individual rendition.
Copyright 2013 WMAL.com. All Rights Reserved. (Photo: AP)
November 20th, 2013, 13:33
American Patriot
Re: The End of Christian America
Because, well... Obama is a dick. Simple.
November 20th, 2013, 15:21
Malsua
Re: The End of Christian America
No, because people would have noticed had he put in "Allah Ahkbar"
November 20th, 2013, 15:25
American Patriot
Re: The End of Christian America
True. They might have blown it off as sudden jihad syndrome though. Considering his color and all.
The Air Force Academy has admitted they removed the phrase “so help me God” from three oaths in the 2012 edition of their official cadet handbook, Fox News has learned.
The revelation came after more than two dozen members of Congress sent a letter to Academy Supt. Lt. Gen. Michelle Johnson demanding that she explain why the phrase was removed.
The lawmakers contend the 2012 edition of the Contrails Cadet Handbook excludes the phrase ‘so help me God’ in the Cadet’s Oath of allegiance, the Oath of Office for Officers and the Oath of Enlistment.
Air Force Academy spokesman Maj. Brus Vidal told me the omission was a simple mistake.
“The Constitution does not require that this phrase be scrubbed from the oath,” read the letter drafted by Rep. Jim Bridenstein (R-Okla.) and signed by 28 lawmakers. “The First Amendment to the United States Constitution prohibits the establishment of religion’ however, the inclusion of the phrase ‘so help me God’ in an oath of service does not rise to this level.”
Bridenstein said “editing the oath for all Academy students is extreme and unnecessary, and does a disservice to the countless individuals who wish to include the phrase as a solemn reminder that they are pledging their fidelity to God and country.”
Air Force Academy spokesman Maj. Brus Vidal told me the omission was a simple mistake.
“It was an editorial oversight,” he said. “We learned within the last few weeks there was a problem.”
Vidal said there was no reasoning behind the omission and there was no forethought.
“Whoever was doing the editing didn’t catch it,” he said.
He said next year’s edition of the Contrails Cadet Handbook will be revised and will include the phrase “so help me God.”
Last month, the Air Force Academy was embroiled in another controversy involving “so help me God” after they decided to make it an optional part of the Honor Oath. The revision was made following a complained from the Military Religious Freedom Foundation.
The lawmakers directed Johnson to provide information on why changes were made to the Honor Oath and why a poster bearing the words “so help me God” was removed from the Academy.
MRFF President Mikey Weinstein had filed a complaint about the poster. Approximately 68 minutes after he complained, Johnson ordered the art work removed. That decision did not set well with lawmakers.
“We ask that you restore the poster bearing the oath in full to its original location as an honorable reflection of the oath of service,” the lawmakers wrote.
After the Honor Oath was revised, Johnson released a statement affirming the right of Airmen to “freely practice and exercise their religious preference – or not.”
“Here at the Academy, we work to build a culture of dignity and respect,” she stated.
Ron Crews, executive director of the Chaplain Alliance for Religious Liberty, said he’s received calls from concerned parents of cadets – lamenting the change in the oaths.
“This phrase is a deeply-rooted American tradition – begun by George Washington as the first president of the United States and now stated by many who take an oath of service to our country,” Crews said. “The removal of this phrase is a disservice to the countless men and women who wish to include this phrase as a solemn reminder that they are pledging their fidelity to God and their country.”
And while Crews said he respects the right of cadets not to say the word ‘so help me God’, he pointed out the law requires that the words remain part of the oath.
If that’s the case – why were they removed and who gave the order?
Let’s hope these lawmakers can root out the anti-religious forces that have infiltrated the Air Force Academy. It’s high time someone put a stop to the religious cleansing of the Armed Forces.
November 21st, 2013, 01:44
Avvakum
Re: The End of Christian America
"Curiously, however, in his version of the address, President Obama omitted the words “under God.”"
It's ok, I can handle open enemies, avowed atheists and agnostics. It's those sons of Judas Iscariot who are alleged Apostles of Our Lord who betray the Son of Man with a kiss, who are harder to deal with.
And while U.S. officials are touting the relocation as a security measure that’s a cautionary reaction to last year’s attacks on America's facility in Benghazi, several former American envoys are raising the red flag.
It’s a “massive downgrade of U.S.-Vatican ties,” said former U.S. Ambassador James Nicholson in the National Catholic Reporter. “It’s turning this embassy into a stepchild of the embassy to Italy. The Holy See is a pivot point for international affairs and a major listening post for the United States, and … [it’s] an insult to American Catholics and to the Vatican.”
“That’s like saying people get killed on highways because they drive cars on them,” he said in the report. “We’re not a pauper nation … if we want to secure an embassy, we certainly can.”
Moreover, the existing facility has “state of the art” security, he said.
Mr. Flynn, meanwhile, said the administration’s announcement reflects a hostility toward the Catholic Church.
“It’s not just those who bomb churches and kill Catholics in the Middle East who are our antagonists, but it’s also those who restrict our religious freedoms and want to close down our embassy to the Holy See,” he said in the National Catholic Reporter. “[There’s no] diplomatic or political benefit to the United States” from the relocation at all, he added.
Catholic Vote, a publication for the Church community, called the move “an unmistakable slap in the face” that clearly communicates that the United States cares little for the diplomatic facility.
And Mr. Nicholson went on, as Breitbart reported: “It’s another manifestation of the antipathy of this administration both to Catholics and to the Vatican — and to Christians in the Middle East. This is a key post for intermediation in so many sovereignties but particularly in the Middle East. This is anything but a good time to diminish the stature of this post. To diminish the stature of this post is to diminish its influence.”