• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!
  • Welcome to our archives. No new posts are allowed here.

Christian Chaplain Threatend Over Pro-Christian Facebook Post

LowDown said:
She's a military person and doesn't have 1st amendment rights if it conflicts with her commander. Anything that interferes with good order and discipline is verboten.
Click to expand...

Does anybody know chapter and verse of what is allowed / not allowed under the these circumstances? I don't pretend to know. But there does seem to be something of a double-standard here. Solldier's in uniform publically coming-out without fear of reprisal while "Don't Ask Don't Tell" was in affect while this individual gets demoted and her pay cut for making a statment on Facebook.
 
The Baron said:


And yours is on full display.



You don’t know that.



Trespassing?

Really?

That’s the best you can do?
Click to expand...


He's supposedly the author of the Lord's prayer, which among other things, is very concerned about trespassing. As for homosexuality, he's not on record as expressing an opinion on it directly, which suggests it wasn't such an urgent concern to him as trespass was.
 
christian_oppression_pie1.png
 
Threatening to knock her back in rank and dock her pay over a facebook post having nothing at all to do with the military is simply ridiculous. She should have brought the case before the IG at the very least.

There is absolutely no reasonable justification for her unit leadership to have taken such a hardline stance on the issue.
 
Last edited:
sangha said:
christian_oppression_pie1.png
Click to expand...

So the blacks in South Africa could not have been oppressed by whites because there was such a huge majority of blacks.

Many non-religious people spend most of their time being unfairly and excessively critical of Christians and otherwise putting them down, so a reasonable person would only agree that Christians have some justification for feeling put upon.
 
LowDown said:
So the blacks in South Africa could not have been oppressed by whites because there was such a huge majority of blacks.

Many non-religious people spend most of their time being unfairly and excessively critical of Christians and otherwise putting them down, so a reasonable person would only agree that Christians have some justification for feeling put upon.
Click to expand...

The US is not SA, and christianity is not a race.
 
LowDown said:
Many non-religious people spend most of their time being unfairly and excessively critical of Christians and otherwise putting them down, so a reasonable person would only agree that Christians have some justification for feeling put upon.
Click to expand...

Well now you know how we felt for the vast majority of human history. Surely you can weather a few decades of ridicule compared to centuries of oppression and murder that we faced throughout history.
 
This article is suspect for many reasons.

1. Unnamed sources.
2. Unverified account of the events.
3. Only one side allowed to present their story.
4. Used by a political commentator.
 
CriticalThought said:
This article is suspect for many reasons.

1. Unnamed sources.
2. Unverified account of the events.
3. Only one side allowed to present their story.
4. Used by a political commentator.
Click to expand...
Another Townhall.com winner. They love the Everyone Hates Christians meme.

Wait until some poor school administrator tells (wrongly) a kid that she can't sing Jesus Loves Me This I Know in the talent show. You'd think it was the Holocaust all over again.
 
rathi said:
There are gay soldiers in the U.S. military. Making public disparaging comments against their sexual orientation is definitely creating a hostile and antagonistic environment. The real question is whether statements made on facebook are considered public or not.
Click to expand...

Stewart said:
Does 1st amendment rights apply in this case?

Wouldn't there exist between a soldier and the army a private culture.
Click to expand...

That's a big "NO" to all who think 1st ammendment rights are a protection from losing a job. The 1st ammendment protects your right to say anything, not to say anything and keep your job. When they've interpreted the laws on "expectation of privacy" for speech on social media, it comes down to this; if your employer hears about it, you must not have kept the profile "private" enough, so they can argue that it wasn't a private conversation. To differentiate speech from what is a representation of your employer and not, they only have to prove that you mentioned your employment on that particular profile, even just once in passing. (Typically you have a defense if you never use their name, but not much.)

For example; if I talk about my job on facebook, I'm a representative the second I mention them by name and all posts from that point on are considered representations of my employer. If I say something offensive and they gain access to the post, it's considered public speech. Both cases have some defense from retaliation, but not much; But, if you say something in public as a representative of an employer (double whammy), there's no law in the world that could protect you from retaliation.

In the context of this case; she had no privacy-defense the second the military found the post, by the very fact that they found the post. It doesn't mention whether she ever made it known that she works for the military on that profile, but I can infer that she did. That's the double whammy, there's no longer any defense from an employer's retaliation. She's lucky that they even gave her a choice; there was no legal obligation to do so.
 
Manc Skipper said:
He's supposedly the author of the Lord's prayer, which among other things, is very concerned about trespassing.
Click to expand...

And do tell, what do you think "tresspassing" means?

Manc Skipper said:
As for homosexuality, he's not on record as expressing an opinion on it directly, which suggests it wasn't such an urgent concern to him as trespass was.
Click to expand...

Once again you do not know that. No one does.
 
Ikari said:
Well now you know how we felt for the vast majority of human history. Surely you can weather a few decades of ridicule compared to centuries of oppression and murder that we faced throughout history.
Click to expand...

So you're fine with ridiculing people so long as it's not "your people"?

Interesting...
 
douglas said:
That's a big "NO" to all who think 1st ammendment rights are a protection from losing a job. The 1st ammendment protects your right to say anything, not to say anything and keep your job. When they've interpreted the laws on "expectation of privacy" for speech on social media, it comes down to this; if your employer hears about it, you must not have kept the profile "private" enough, so they can argue that it wasn't a private conversation. To differentiate speech from what is a representation of your employer and not, they only have to prove that you mentioned your employment on that particular profile, even just once in passing. (Typically you have a defense if you never use their name, but not much.)
Click to expand...

I completely agree that anything said on social media (Facebook, Twitter, internet, etc.) is in the public realm and no longer a “private conversation” but let me ask this. This woman was an apprentice to a Christian Chaplain so her views should have been anything but surprising. So how is expressing a view that is in total agreement with the job she holds a violation of anything?

Even the views as she expressed them were not offensive.
 
Definition of Political Correctness--


The avoidance of forms of expression or action that are perceived to exclude, marginalize, or insult certain groups of people

What is happening in the Military is an all out concerted effort to make it Politically Correct.

Political Correctness is a tool used by the left. It is their way of silencing voices. It has been so effective that today some don't dare speak what they think for fear of retaliation.

And what is so pathetic is the leftists demand tolerance of all yet they have none for those who do not agree with them. That could be described as a hypocrite! Can I get an AMEN? The left has double standards one they want everyone else to meet while excluding themselves to meet the same standards. Quite the scam!

For more proof that the left is attempting to turn our military into a Political Correct Complex, here is another recent article where a chaplain was ordered to take down a post over using the phrase "there are no atheists in foxholes".

Chaplain Ordered to Remove Religious Essay From Military Website | FOX News & Commentary: Todd Starnes

OMG what a friggen circus this has become. The ones we rely on to defend our liberties no longer have the same Constitutional rights! Pathetic!
 
vesper said:
...and what is so pathetic is the leftists demand tolerance of all yet they have none for those who do not agree with them. That could be described as a hypocrite! Can i get an amen?...
Click to expand...

amen!
 
Ikari said:
Well now you know how we felt for the vast majority of human history. Surely you can weather a few decades of ridicule compared to centuries of oppression and murder that we faced throughout history.
Click to expand...

So, you've been alive for the vast majority of human history? Do you fear murder and oppression at the hands of Christians, or are you just getting your Victim Card on the cheap?

The history of the early Church was one of several cycles of serious murder and oppression at the hands of the pagans of the Roman Empire, so I'd say that the Christians have paid those dues. Maybe the pagans were just getting payback.
 
The Baron said:

Even the views as she expressed them were not offensive.
Click to expand...

I could imagine homosexual soldiers finding the views as she expressed them offensive. I'm guessing you don't care about that, though.
 
I'm sure there have been plenty of homosexual soldiers, in the past, that have been discharged for their orientation despite having been off duty when they mentioned their orientation.
 
The Baron said:
Well, she's a chaplain's assistant...not sure she's gonna see much action.
Click to expand...

You don't even know who this person is. Much less if they are a Chaplin assistant and not even if they are female.
 
winston53660 said:
You don't even know who this person is. Much less if they are a Chaplin assistant and not even if they are female.
Click to expand...

Actually, if you had read the quoted article at the beginning of the thread you would have found that it stated the assistant was indeed a female.

There seems to be a number of posters unwilling to give credence to the article because the assistant went to a conservative commentator with their concerns. Well gee what gain would she have in taking her story to a liberal media outlet? You know the same media outlets that promote Political Correctness? Come on everyone find your thinking caps and put them on. Duh.
 
The Baron said:


Christianity is not bigotry. It is a moral standard.



The difference is you used to have soldiers--in uniform--publically come out as gay, marching on parades, appearing on the TV news to present their “brave story”, etc.

This woman posted a comment on Facebook and wasn’t pretending to represent the military. She did not evoke images of the military in her post…she didn’t even mention the military and was acting well within her First Amendment Rights.

Big difference.
Click to expand...

It's not religious, it's anti-gay. She couldn't say something anti-black and use religion as a shield either.

As Manc Skipper pointed out, this is such an important subject, let's take a look at what Jesus had to say on homosexuality:

Jesus said:
...
Click to expand...

And there we have it!

That being said, I don't think this was serious enough to warrant attention from the Army.
 
RabidAlpaca said:
It's not religious, it's anti-gay. She couldn't say something anti-black and use religion as a shield either.

As Manc Skipper pointed out, this is such an important subject, let's take a look at what Jesus had to say on homosexuality:



And there we have it!

That being said, I don't think this was serious enough to warrant attention from the Army.
Click to expand...

That is sheer baloney! And obviously someone who has not spent much time studying the words of the one known as Christ to many.


(Matt 19:3-9) “3 Some Pharisees came to him to test him. They asked, “Is it lawful for a man to divorce his wife for any and every reason?” 4 “Haven’t you read,” he replied, “that at the beginning the Creator ‘made them male and female,’[a] 5 and said, ‘For this reason a man will leave his father and mother and be united to his wife, and the two will become one flesh’? 6 So they are no longer two, but one flesh. Therefore what God has joined together, let no one separate.” 7 “Why then,” they asked, “did Moses command that a man give his wife a certificate of divorce and send her away?” 8 Jesus replied, “Moses permitted you to divorce your wives because your hearts were hard. But it was not this way from the beginning. 9 I tell you that anyone who divorces his wife, except for sexual immorality, and marries another woman commits adultery.”

This passage makes it clear that ALL sex outside of marriage was sinful. And marriage can only be a man and a woman. Thus, homosexuality is automatically outside the bounds of marriage and thus, sinful in Jesus’ eyes.

Have a nice day!
 
vesper said:
That is sheer baloney! And obviously someone who has not spent much time studying the words of the one known as Christ to many.


(Matt 19:3-9) “3 Some Pharisees came to him to test him. They asked, “Is it lawful for a man to divorce his wife for any and every reason?” 4 “Haven’t you read,” he replied, “that at the beginning the Creator ‘made them male and female,’[a] 5 and said, ‘For this reason a man will leave his father and mother and be united to his wife, and the two will become one flesh’? 6 So they are no longer two, but one flesh. Therefore what God has joined together, let no one separate.” 7 “Why then,” they asked, “did Moses command that a man give his wife a certificate of divorce and send her away?” 8 Jesus replied, “Moses permitted you to divorce your wives because your hearts were hard. But it was not this way from the beginning. 9 I tell you that anyone who divorces his wife, except for sexual immorality, and marries another woman commits adultery.”

This passage makes it clear that ALL sex outside of marriage was sinful. And marriage can only be a man and a woman. Thus, homosexuality is automatically outside the bounds of marriage and thus, sinful in Jesus’ eyes.

Have a nice day!
Click to expand...


This says absolutely nothing about homosexuality. You're trying to assert that anything he didn't mention automatically falls into sin. This is one of the most common passages used in church weddings. (Was used in mine as well) It defines MARRIAGE for christians, it does not condemn sexual orientations.

But please, continue to make up whatever you want to support your bigotry. I'll be waiting here if you can come up with something that Jesus actually did say on homosexuality.

I'm still waiting for this quote that everybody seems to be following:

Jesus: "Thou shalt publicly harass homosexuals and lobby thine government to make their lives miserable. "
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom