any thoughts on this?

[rtwngAvngr]

Originally posted by NewGuy
Bite thine tongue. You just proved liberals can have logical train of thought even if based on false information.

In new math it would be:

Praying means whatever you want
Bush is bad
Praying for Bush to get whatever you want is bad for liberals. -but the majority are gay and will elect Kerry anyway so who cares. So, stop the prayer.

DARTH LIBERAL:"Your meager prayers are no match for our arrogant secular humanist communism! Submit NOW! ...... oh, and bush was awol"

 

[DKSuddeth]

Originally posted by rtwngAvngr
Liberal reasoning:
Praying is bad
Bush is bad
Praying for bush must somehow be really bad.

the worst :

 

[rtwngAvngr]

Originally posted by DKSuddeth
the worst :

Without proving Bush's support, it's the argument you've chosen. Are you satisfied with it?

 

[DKSuddeth]

Originally posted by rtwngAvngr
Wait dk. Why would you slam the ministry even if bush is not involved?

the ministry is getting slammed because they're shoving pamphlets in the face or our soldiers, who are getting shot at and bombed on a daily basis, and telling them that they need to pray for our president because he's facing a tough time.

Thats like me telling the virgin mother that she needs to pray for the roman soldiers, because its not easy for them to do what they're doing to her son.

 

[DKSuddeth]

Originally posted by rtwngAvngr
Without proving Bush's support, it's the argument you've chosen. Are you satisfied with it?

again, where do you see that I'm connecting Bush to this at all?

the only connection to Bush that I see is that the ministry is telling the troops to pray for him. Not once have I said bush is aware of, endorsing, or approving this.

 

[rtwngAvngr]

Originally posted by DKSuddeth
the ministry is getting slammed because they're shoving pamphlets in the face or our soldiers, who are getting shot at and bombed on a daily basis, and telling them that they need to pray for our president because he's facing a tough time.

Thats like me telling the virgin mother that she needs to pray for the roman soldiers, because its not easy for them to do what they're doing to her son.

So they're actually assaulting our soldiers by roughly physically jamming pamphlets into their faces. Are there documented injuries as a result of these apparently violent confrontations?

 

[NewGuy]

Originally posted by DKSuddeth

Thats like me telling the virgin mother that she needs to pray for the roman soldiers, because its not easy for them to do what they're doing to her son.

(sniff, sniff)

Catholic?

 

[DKSuddeth]

Originally posted by NewGuy
(sniff, sniff)

Catholic?

nah, the guilt culture has never been very popular with me.

 

[DKSuddeth]

Originally posted by rtwngAvngr
So they're actually assaulting our soldiers by roughly physically jamming pamphlets into their faces. Are there documented injuries as a result of these apparently violent confrontations?

they don't document the numerous paper cuts because (insert colin powells voice here) those are numbers they just aren't interested in :

 

[rtwngAvngr]

Originally posted by DKSuddeth
again, where do you see that I'm connecting Bush to this at all?

the only connection to Bush that I see is that the ministry is telling the troops to pray for him. Not once have I said bush is aware of, endorsing, or approving this.

So what do you believe is the significance of this story.

An organization is asking troops to pray for bush. So what. Ministerial dereliction? People always ask people to pray for others.

 

[Merlin1047]

First a note to "newguy": If jumping to conclusions ever becomes an olympic event, we need to enter you. No doubt you would bring home the gold. Seems you let your bias agains Pres. Bush color your reading and comprehension skills. Nowhere in the basic post was any assertion made that Pres. Bush himself had made the request. The president is no more responsible for this than he would be if I asked you to pray for him.

And then there's this from acludem:

This is despicable. In the military conformity is not only expected, but it's necessary. When you hand out prayer pamphlets, everyone will have to participate. This is abusive, divisive and wrong.

I doubt that you have ever served in the military, otherwise you would know that this statement is thoroughly false. The armed services are EXTREMELY punctillious in regard to remaining neutral on religion. After 25 years of service, I can verify that no commander gives a rats-ass who prays and who doesn't.

I can guarantee that no soldier was forced or coerced to accept a pamphlet. If a soldier disagreed with the contents of a pamphlet he had accepted, he was absolutely free to throw it away. If a soldier chose to pray for his commander-in-chief that was fine. If he chose to ignore the whole thing, that's his option and nobody would criticize him for it.

Seems that sometimes your desire to find fault is faster than your ability to come to a rational conclusion.

 

[acludem]

No, I haven't served, but two of my uncles did, one for a regular tour of duty via the draft, the other was career military for 25 years. What I said about conformity comes straight from my uncle who retired from the U.S. Air Force in the late 1980s after 25 years in the service. If you're calling him a liar, I guess that's your opinion. I never said they were all required by the military to accept a pamphlet, but in the military, individuality is not encouraged, so chances are most soldiers felt compelled to participate.

acludem

 

[Hobbit]

I've been through boot camp at the Naval Academy, and the military is VERY religion neutral. They have services for every demonination imaginable, except they have them all on Sunday, since every other day is full. Don't want to go to church? No problem, you can stay in your room and straighten it up for inpection, or you can get to work memorizing. Most people do go to church during boot camp just to get away from the detailers (read 'upper classmen in the position of drill seargent'), but it is by no means encouraged. In fact, I once got chewed out because I went to church, despite my room not being fully 'squared away.' Now, religion is about the only thing I didn't see myself as having to conform to, but that's it.

Also, I've had an uncle, a grandfather, and 3 great uncles who all served, not to mention 5 friends I have right now, and they seem to agree with me on that point.

However, in my mind, these people sending a pamphlet like that to the soldiers fighting for their lives, are almost as low as the people who come out and say the Pope is the antichrist.

 

[Merlin1047]

I never said they were all required by the military to accept a pamphlet

Okay, you didn't say that everyone had to accept a pamphlet, you did say that participation was mandatory. Here is your statement:

"When you hand out prayer pamphlets, everyone will have to participate. This is abusive, divisive and wrong."

Now I don't know how you want me to interpret "everyone will have to participate", but I try to accept statements at face value without spinning them to suit my personal convictions.

And please quit with the silly accusations, they lend no credibility to your argument. I don't know your uncle. Why would I call him a liar? I wouldn't even do that to you unless I had absolute proof. No doubt what you were told by your uncle was factual. But I think that you probably erroneously extrapolated that the conformity your uncle told you about extended to everything. It does not. Never did.

 

[NewGuy]

Originally posted by Merlin1047
First a note to "newguy": If jumping to conclusions ever becomes an olympic event, we need to enter you. No doubt you would bring home the gold. Seems you let your bias agains Pres. Bush color your reading and comprehension skills.

Look who's talking smarty butt. I made a follow up post in regard to that didn't I?

Seems that sometimes your desire to find fault is faster than your ability to come to a rational conclusion.

Again, look who's talkin'.

 

[5stringJeff]

Originally posted by acludem
]I never said they were all required by the military to accept a pamphlet, but in the military, individuality is not encouraged, so chances are most soldiers felt compelled to participate.

Having served five years of active duty, I will tell you that in the field, I had to interrogate people to find out about religious ervices, and I was an officer who knew people. Soldiers usually don't get the information until after the fact.

Regardless, I never once had a soldier under my leadership (or any others that I met) that felt compelled to do anything religious, save during Plebe Summer (Beast) at West Point. And I can guarantee that a Marine isn't going to be told when to go to church or when to pray.

 

[acludem]

Whether or not they are forced to, should we be allowing groups to pass out pamphlets asking troops to pray for the President? Does this cause divisiveness in the military, regardless of whether or not one is forced to pray? I think it does cause divisiveness, and I think it is inappropriate for the military to allow these pamphlets to be handed out.

To quote Gene Hackman in Crimson Tide: "We're here to defend democracy, not practice it"

acludem

 

[NewGuy]

Originally posted by acludem
I think it is inappropriate for the military to allow these pamphlets to be handed out.

1. There is a freedom of religion handed down from the Constitution. Therefore, wether you think it appropriate or not is irrelevant.

2. Last time I looked, the documentation signed by an individual who joins the military says that they are government property from here on out and give up their rights as citizens.

The bottom line: a lower level governmental body cannot revoke any higher level right. Therefore, regardless, this whole contract point is null and void.

To quote Gene Hackman in Crimson Tide: "We're here to defend democracy, not practice it"

acludem

That is rather indicitive to your level of understanding of our government.

We don't defend democracy. We defend our nation. That is the only power our troops have Constitutionally.

We don't even HAVE a democracy. WE HAVE A CONSTITUTIONAL REPUBLIC.

 

[acludem]

I'm a political science honors student, pal, I do know what our government system is. We talk about defending democracy all the time. And yes, we do have a democracy, or have you never voted on an initiative petition? I have voted on many propositions that voters petitioned to have placed on the ballot. We do not, however, have a pure democracy. What we have is called a Representative Democracy also known as a Republic. Many European Countries are what we call Parliamentary Democracies, others are Constitutional Monarchies. Britain, for example, is a Constitutional monarchy. Britain has a queen, but has been for many, many years a representative or parliamentary democracy with an elected parliament. The monarch's powers in Britain are basically nil. The same holds true for countries like Sweden and the Netherlands. Would you like me to continue to your basic governmental systems lesson? France is an interesting case study, and Italy is even more interesting. Would you like to hear more about those governments?

I still think it is inappropriate for the military to allow religious pamphlets to be handed out to troops. If troops wish to pray they should do so on their own.

acludem

 

[NewGuy]

Originally posted by acludem
I'm a political science honors student, pal, I do know what our government system is.

1. Boy, am I glad you didn't say "logic honors student".
2. I am not your pal.
2. Operative word "student"
3. No, you don't

We talk about defending democracy all the time. And yes, we do have a democracy..... We do not, however, have a pure democracy. What we have is called a Representative Democracy also known as a Republic.

You dork. Which answer do you stick with?
Republic? -I just said that. You obviously went to a public school.
A Republic governed by a what?.....Constitution....hence: "Constitutional Republic".

Many European Countries are what we call Parliamentary Democracies, others are Constitutional Monarchies. Britain, for example, is a Constitutional monarchy. Britain has a queen, but has been for many, many years a representative or parliamentary democracy with an elected parliament. The monarch's powers in Britain are basically nil. The same holds true for countries like Sweden and the Netherlands. Would you like me to continue to your basic governmental systems lesson?

Please, do. I am pitifully inept at absorbing the black hole that is the qualitative and quantitative sum of the public school system.

France is an interesting case study, and Italy is even more interesting. Would you like to hear more about those governments?

Ummm, no. I think I already know far more than you do based on your admission of ignorance. I can call penguins penguins, roadrunners roadrunners, and ostriches ostriches. They are all birds and can run. Your list is all socialist governments no matter what the claim. As part of the EU, a nation becomes multi-level communism.
You might fair better switching to basketweaving.

I still think it is inappropriate for the military to allow religious pamphlets to be handed out to troops. If troops wish to pray they should do so on their own.
acludem

Yeah....See, that is the part that REALLY doesn't work about LIBERTY. Liberty entitles freedom to people. In this case, we have the freedom OF religion, not freedom FORM religion. While you would like to break it up, people are social creatures and do better in a group dynamic in regard to sticking to things. You and others like to break this up into an individual experience, and then claim that nobody else should know. Next you will claim all religion bad. It is the slippery slope proven by history. It is the common example of the democratic parties political agenda, socialist agendas, and admittance by people in thepolitical spectrum claiming "democracy" around the world.

This WOULD bring us to the next point that Christians are taught and encouraged to pray in groups as well. Thanks to people like you, your preference would be setting governmental policy in defiance of our faith, which, ironically, set up a government to give YOU your ability to be a heathen right stealer.

I guess your idea of a democracy...I mean impure democracy....I mean Representative Democracy....I mean Republic....isn't really the CONSTITUTIONAL REPUBLIC we are supposed to have, is it?

IT IS SOCIALISM.