The Sodomy Pride Parade and Festival in San Diego, California, is the fourth largest in the United States, with typical attendance of 200,000 persons. At this year’s parade, which took place this past weekend, SMSgt. Joanna Gasca, a reserve Air Force recruiter assigned to the 944th Fighter Wing, marched in uniform for the first time. Many hundreds were expected to join Sgt. Gasca, but media reports stated that the uniformed military contingent totaled 40 members, divided between active-duty and retired personnel. This was the first time that military personnel marched in uniform at a sodomy pride event.
Naval Commander Kent “The Gay” Blade, who will retire this fall after 26 years in the Navy, said being able to march in uniform was a perfect culmination of his career. (Better even than killing a terrorist or two? But I digress.) The 47-year-old Commander Blade said that since last year’s repeal of the “don’t ask, don’t tell” law, he has received unconditional support from his fellow officers, and added, “We’ve all been able to talk more freely about our lives. Nobody’s leading a second life. And now that I can march freely in uniform, I think it’s a great display for the Navy.” Indeed.
Although military personnel are normally prohibited from marching in such events, Sgt, Gasca did receive permission from Lieutenant Colonel Leslie Pratt of the Secretary of the Air Force’s public affairs office to march in uniform. Interestingly, following his approval, Colonel Pratt “immediately retired” and was not available to respond to media questions about his decision.
Further, within 24 hours after Sgt. Gasca was granted permission to march in uniform, Secretary of Defense Leon Panetta, through his Department of Defense (“DOD”) bureaucracy, granted blanket permission for other members of the Armed Forces to also march in uniform. Justification for this decision was based upon the fact that the San Diego Sodomy Pride was an event that had garnered national attention. (Not for the best of reasons perhaps?) In making its announcement, DOD delivered its statement not to The New York Times, The Washington Post or even to George Stephanopoulos of ABC News, but to LGBT Weekly, a San Diego publication for the “lesbian, gay, bisexual and transgender community.” The DOD statement, quoting Rene Bardor, Deputy Assistant Secretary of Defense for Community and Public Outreach, said: “It is our understanding that event organizers plan to have a portion of the parade that is dedicated to military members . . . organizers are encouraging service members to seek their commanders’ approval to march in uniform and to display their pride. . . . . We hereby are granting approval for service members in uniform to participate in this year’s parade.” (Emphasis added.) As you can readily imagine, these decisions could not be made without the express approval of the highest levels of the Obama Regime, and not just at the level of a Lieutenant Colonel Pratt.
There have been strong limits over the past two centuries on when and where a member of our nation’s military is allowed to appear in uniform. This decision violates the DOD regulations on the use of uniforms. The regulations prohibit wearing uniforms “ when wearing the uniform may tend to bring discredit upon the armed forces.” Further, wearing of the military uniform would be disapproved at an event “intended to, or which appears to endorse, selectively benefit, or favor any private individual, special interest group, business, religious, ideological movement, commercial venture, political candidate or organization.” (Emphasis added.) Imagine the righteous indignation and umbrage that would ensue at The New York Times or at MSNBC if military personnel were granted permission to march in uniform at a “Christian Pride” parade, or at a “Tea Party Pride” event, or Heaven forbid, at Glenn Beck’s Restoring Love event in Dallas next weekend. (Incidentally, both Code Pink and the members of the Westboro Baptist Church will be protesting at the Restoring Love rally next weekend. Strange bedfellows, eh?) The Pentagon, in violating its regulations, provides a special benefit and favoritism to the LGBT community, and seeks to advance the DOD’s attempt to normalize LGBT conduct in the U.S military. It would be hard to even begin to contemplate what would happen during a second term of the Obama Regime.
However, in the midst of the celebration of San Diego Sodomy Pride, the mainstream media ignores a deeply sobering April 2012 report by the Center for Military Preparedness (“CMR”), entitled “’Chilling Trend’ of Sexual Assault in the Military” and available here.
The CMR report notes that “sexual assault in all branches of the services has increased by 22 percent since 2007.” The report further states that violent attacks and rapes in the Army have nearly doubled since 2006 to 1,313 last year, with five percent of the assaults on men. Furthermore, it reported that in “all branches of the service, male sexual assault victims have increased significantly, from ten percent in 2010 to 14 percent in confidential reports.” Of course, you might have missed those facts on Katie Couric’s news program (do you even know anyone who watches that anymore?), and for many of you, I suspect you learned about the increase in male sexual assault in the military here first. As homosexual conduct has now been “normalized” and de-criminalized in today’s military, based upon recent trends, one can readily anticipate major increases in sexual assault against male soldiers by LGBT predators abusing their authority in the coming few years.
Colonel Ron Crews, USAR retired, and executive director of the Chaplain Alliance for Religious Liberty, was quoted recently:
“Gay pride” parades are not the time and place for military members to wear their uniforms. All you have to do is look at videos of the last few San Diego Gay Pride parades on YouTube and see that this event does not meet the guidelines that the DOD established in 2005 concerning the wearing of the uniform at public events. Will wearing the uniform at Gay Pride Parades bring credit to the Armed Forces? I cannot imagine moms and dads wanting their children to be part of a military that pushes the homosexual agenda at every turn.
Sadly, nor can I, Chaplain Crews. In one of those pesky sayings of St. Paul, he encourages Christian believers in Ephesians 5:11-12: “Have nothing to do with the fruitless deeds of darkness, but rather expose them. It is shameful even to mention what the disobedient do in secret.” It is shameful for our nation’s military to affirm such sinful and abhorrent behavior. May God have mercy on our nation during these terrible days, even though we have been undeserving of any of His mercy for decades.
“As homosexual conduct has now been “normalized” and de-criminalized in today’s military, based upon recent trends, one can readily anticipate major increases in sexual assault against male soldiers by LGBT predators abusing their authority in the coming few years.”
The majority of male-on-male rape in the military is committed not by self-identified gay men but by groups of men against an individual in order to “put him in his place”. They also frequently involve not sexual contact but rape with some other object. It’s a form of humiliation.
Heterosexual rape is also a large problem in the military. Should we simply eliminate all heterosexual men from military service? Maybe the women since we cannot trust men to not force themselves upon them?
James Michels, you do raise an interesting question because none of the two reports that were cited in my blog refer to this notion of “groups of men” using sexual assault to put someone in their place in military units. So perhaps you have some special knowledge of this situation from when you served in the military or from having prepared studies for our nation’s military. Of course, consistent with the relative proportion of exclusively homosexual males in society, we can expect that the overwhelming majority of those in the military who commit violent sexual acts would self-describe themselves as either heterosexual or even bisexual. In fact, during 2011, three of the top five violent felony offenses committed by military offenders were sexual in nature (rape, aggravated sexual assault, forcible sodomy). Thus, the fact that most acts of sexual violence, either in society or in the military, are committed by men who self-describe themselves as heterosexual or bisexual proves nothing. Second, most rapists target acquaintances rather than strangers, and sexual assaults often occur when the perpetrator is in a power position over the victim or is, at least, acquainted with the victim. Thus, we could expect this to exist in military units where there is relatively strong unit cohesion. Third, what makes the “normalization” of homosexuals in the military particularly dangerous, in my view, is that research shows that the vast majority of male rapes are never reported. Although the reports cited in my blog indicate that men now constitute 14 percent of all sexual assault victims in our military, studies show that male sexual assault victims report their assaults to authorities even less often than women who have been raped or sexually assaulted. One could readily expect that this would be the situation in a military unit where men are physically strong and should be capable of defending themselves, but are assaulted by another man (or even your proverbial “group of men”). The victims suffer a severe blow to their manhood and self-esteem from having been forced into a sexually submissive and degrading situation. Studies have typically shown that 90-95% of men who are raped do not report it, even though there are high medical risks of male rape (from STDs and HIV/AIDS, for instance) and the emotional costs are great as well. This is another reason that I would certainly now dissuade both young Christian and conservative men and women from joining Obama’s Army. Yes, women are raped and sexually assault as we learned last week from Sgt Luis Walker’s conviction by a military jury, but the number of males who will be sexually assaulted and raped can be expected to grow. As to your comment/question that we should eliminate all heterosexuals or women from the military, that is, of course, a throw-away line. But when they are convicted of sexual assault or rape, the perpetrators should be punished severely, including bringing back the death penalty and/or the old-time sentences of thirty years or more at hard labor at Fort Leavenworth. But thank you for your thoughtful comment.
Since, according to James, Guantanamo is so horrific, perhaps we can send the guilty military rapists there! I say that it is too bad Sheriff Arpaio or any south-side Chicago cop isn’t the warden at that detention center! Too bad Sheriff Joe is so busy in Maricopa County!
What is such a degrading, dismissive piece of writing doing in a supposedly Christian forum?
Dear Mr. Maxx,
How so? Seems cogent and well-written to me, and not dismissive or degrading at all. The blog is just one man’s opinion, and has me thinking. It is your comment that is merely conclusory with nothing of substance to back it up.
Even the title is sneering and derogatory in a middle-school bullying kind of way. I would be ashamed of one of my children if I caught him/her speaking about others in that tone.
The title seems to me to be quite funny, and yes, gently mocking. Think of it as more genteel than what your friends, such as Bill Maher, might say. Or is irony not available to Michael? Keep it up, Michael!!
Hey, Mr. Maxx (Good one, Dorothy! LOL),
Since you didn’t like the title to the blog, do you have a better idea for a title? How about “Queer Nation Soldiers Show Their Pride in San Diego”…or perhaps….”Sodomitic Military Parade Their ‘Members’”…or how about: “Very Few Homosexual/Lesbians Soldiers Prance in San Diego Parade,” or “LGBT Military Gambol in San Diego Last Saturday.” See, Mr. Maxx, any possible title would sound ridiculous, as was the event, the military’s participation and frankly, our Obamanation military. Believe me, those Islamist terrorists (if they really exist) are going to be looking for you and James! Then they will say, “let them eat gay marriage!”
Excellent points, James Michel! I would rather serve with gays than with bigots. As a straight man, I walked in our local Gay Pride Parade and was proud to see the number of uniformed men and women, including firefighters, that also marched in support of the rights of their fellow human beings. Times they are a-changing, and for the better.
HEY TJ,
Bet you didn’t bring your kids! Or maybe they didn’t want to go with you. Of course, they might have been too ashamed of you to go with you…might have even presumed you were homosexual or bi (presuming they are older than five years old and would know that from their public school class)….that you might not be their dad…who knows what thoughts lurk in the minds of young children! Anyway, I am glad you were proud to be marching with the firemen. I am sure they appreciated your approval.
Alan W, my wife and kids chose to accompany me. I was very, very proud to see them take a Christian stand against bigotry. As for whether the kids would think I might be gay or bi, I don’t have insecurities around my sexuality, and my kids and their friends are much smarter and more sophisticated than you assume. As for the soldiers and firefighters who marched with us, I assume they approve of my decision to support gays in the military, just as I approve of theirs. I understand that some people disapprove of gay sex and any other sexual act that is closed to the gift of life, but job discrimination within the military falls into the category of “unjust discrimination” that is denounced within the Catechism of the Catholic Church. Has anyone on this board never indulged in a sexual act that is “closed to the gift of life”? Contracepted sex? Sex past the age of fertility? Self-stimulation? Pre-marital sex? Gays are still an attractive target of ridicule to some, but that is not what Christ or the Catechism encourage. If you’re opposed to gay sex, don’t have it, even denounce it lovingly, but this hate-filled, self-debasing contempt and the efforts to provoke sneers and guffaws is really very alienating. Personally, I think good Christians would feel moved to comfort gays when they see this kind of acrimony.
Avramovich = moronic and incoherent;
James Michels = capable of critical thinking
LOL….Avramovich, you were dissed; like being called ugly by a frog!
As a retired Colonel with 31 years of service and three combat tours and three command positions I can say…I would never do it again. Being gang raped can not be any more humiliating than to see such a respectable institution sink to such depths. I am not alone. My convictions are the overwhelming majority. I no longer recommend the military or any of the military academies to any young person I meet who askes my opinion.
Dear Colonel Ben,
Thank you for posting your terribly sad and poignant comment, which moved me deeply. Over the decades, I had proudly encouraged the sons and daughters of my friends and family, and my students, to enlist in our military after either high school or college. Many did. As I wrote in my blog and prior comment to James, nowadays, I cannot do that with a good conscience, especially for those young people who are devout Christian believers and/or conservative. You have probably seen where upwards of 250,000 military personnel expect to leave the military sooner than they would have liked to do so because of the repeal of DADT. It is terribly sad to know that. At this point, people will perfunctorily thank you for your service, but I will thank you for your service with great sincerity and respect, and for the positive role model that you were to the men and women who served under your command. May God continue to bless you and your family richly.
Michael writes: “As I wrote in my blog and prior comment to James, nowadays, I cannot do that with a good conscience, ”
So it’s not the torture at Abu Ghraib, the conditions at Guantanamo, the tolerance of prostitution near Korean military bases or even the rape of military female officers that would discourage you from encouraging others to join the military: it’s the acceptance of openly gay soldiers no matter how law-abiding they happen to be or how distinguished their military careers have been.
If that’s your hierarchy of values, so be it. Keep voicing them, because it serves to underline how moronic such a system of standards is for your readers who are capable of critical thinking.
Frankly, your comments border on incoherent, anyhow, and you seem unable to draw conclusions that don’t strain credulity at every stretch:
“Heterosexual men do commit rape and make up the vast majority of rape cases within the military, but that’s no reason to form a military policy against heterosexual men or even draw conclusions about heterosexuality in general.”
yet ..
“Since some men who may or may not identify as homosexuals commit a small proportion of the rape cases in the military, ALL homosexuals should be forever banned.”
As I said, incoherent.
James: Guantanamo has been rebuilt from the ground up and the conditions there are reported by the Red Cross to be better than at many U.S. prisons; Abu Graib and the rapes you discuss are not matters of formal policy but actual crimes and you would not even know of them if they had not been uncovered and prosecuted. The acceptance of open homosexuality (which, regardless of TJ’s opinion, is not “Christian” at all) in the uniform of the service (and now on the streets) is a matter of formal policy. When you talk of comments bordering on the incoherent, you might reread your own stuff first.
TJ: It is remarkably arrogant to say that people with Bible-based moral objections to homosexual acts (not persons with temptations, but acts) have “insecurities” about sex instead of just being faithful followers of Jesus. He is, by the way, “one of those people who disapprove of gay sex” you refer to so slightingly. You might reconsider your dismissal of His views on the topic. At least, if you wish to provide a truly Christian example to your children.
Deacon Michael D. Harmon, you miss the point. I specifically said that it’s OK to have objections to homosexuality and even to “denounce it lovingly”. What I see as wrong is the schoolgirlish, tittering spite that is directed toward gays in, for example, the title of this piece. Anyone who is afraid to oppose unjust discrimination against gays for fear of being considered gay or bi is very obviously uncomfortable with his/her sexuality. Please take note of the context before jumping to conclusions.
Deacon Harmon writes: “Guantanamo has been rebuilt from the ground up and the conditions there are reported by the Red Cross to be better than at many U.S. prisons; Abu Graib and the rapes you discuss are not matters of formal policy but actual crimes and you would not even know of them if they had not been uncovered and prosecuted. ”
You’re ignoring an important truth: the *culture* and climate of the military is something other than that which “official policy” mandates. I think we both know that unofficial military policy is to wink at substantial indiscretions because many believe that the severity of lifestyle and the risk involved gets these folks a pass, in a sense.
It has been alleged that knowledge of Abu Ghraib went as high as Rumsfeld. It has also been alleged that the US military worked with the Korean government in ensuring that the prostitutes in the brothels near their bases were “disease free”. Heterosexual rape and sexual assault are huge problems. The Bush administration still insists that waterboarding isn’t “torture”. Guantanamo was only reformed after it was exposed to the press, otherwise we both know it would be operating the same way today as it was since its formation. The general attitude about all this is to sweep it under the rug, at least according to the exceptions who have come forward about all of this. “Official policy” is irrelevant.
Watch any documentary of military life. They watch porn, they cuss, they shoot people dead and they sometimes even do it with a “Hoora!” because that’s what they were hired to do. This isn’t a group of celibate Trappist monks.
As I said, all this is apparently tolerable to you … except for having “queers” around … no matter how qualified, trustworthy or ethical they happen to be otherwise.
You folks clearly have no sense of proportion on this issue even if you view it within the Judeo-Christian moral framework let alone a secular and humanist one. I’m telling you that any thinking person is going to find this bizarre and incomprehensible.
James, if it is as bad as all that, why would any homosexual want to join the military, let alone any nice heterosexual person….perhaps that is what the blog writer meant when he won’t advise joining for anyone now. And won’t it ruin the mani/pedis of homosexual soldiers? Could it be that they want to join, not because there is so much candy to enjoy with many handsome, virile and fit young men, but that it also gives the homosexual his chance to prove that he is a very manly man? Perhaps they want to join to transform the culture of the Army….to make it a more warm, friendly and inviting place? Prisons with nicely manicured lawns and tastefully decorated quarters (and prisons), lots of parties, colorful clothes….oh wait, am I stereotyping? I just wish Commander Blade would chime in. He would understand. Anyway, now that I understand from James that the military is such a vile place, they will have no more thanks from me. I pay my taxes. The soldier does his job, and he gets paid. That is enough! I don’t thank the lady at the DMV or at the SSI office for her service to the nation. And I don’t buy her a beer at the airport. After all, the military hasn’t won a war since World War II. So what is there to thank them for? Cut back on the veteran hospitals/clinics. Now we have obummer care, so the VA isn’t needed! Anyway, the service is terrible at the VA. Retirement after 20 years? 30 years? Federal double dipping? That is only for the Wisconsin firefighters with whom TJ proudly marches with his family. If the soldiers want benefits, then they can join the SEIU or NEA to look after their interests. But I am not paying their dues. Thank you! End of rant! The above message does not apply to Colonel Ben and those like him. Thank you, Colonel Ben, for being a great American. Let TJ (and his children) and James go and fight. Yes, I think of the stupid stunts at Abu Ghraib, but first I think of hearing Danny Pearl die! Anyway, the important thing is that you can see how even these sets of comments show how the military is being disparaged and disrespected…the opposite of what the pansy-waisted and politically correct Admirals and Generals were expecting. QED
It has been an interesting discussion arising from this blog. In our sex saturated society, how does anyone influenced by the media have a positive, biblical view of sex and sexuality? I think that most persons, as is abundantly clear from the vehemence of some of the comments here, have no idea of what a positive view of sex and sexuality really is. In our nation, no one knows or understands what God means His gift of sex and sexuality to be. It’s all so broken. In the absence of such knowledge and in the vacuum of the tragic silence of the church, a broken and distorted sexuality has filled the void. All sex outside of marriage, whether homosexuality, fornication or adultery, has become the counterfeit idol of our age and of modern America. As we see here from some of the comments, and under the banality of the guise of equal human rights (what about the rights of those who wish an incestuous marriage, or those who desire polyamorous marriages, or even the religious rights of some Moslems or Mormons to have polygamous marriages, etc.? Should they not have a right to marry the person or persons of their choice?), this counterfeit idol of fool’s gold allures and impacts those who even claim the name of Jesus Christ. Yes, repeal of DADT is terribly sad and puts at increasing risk the many young people in our nation’s military in so many ways. Today, I also wouldn’t recommend the military to any devout Christian or conservative young person either.
Sherman writes: “All sex outside of marriage, whether homosexuality, fornication or adultery, has become the counterfeit idol of our age and of modern America.”
So does this mean that heterosexual fornicators and those who view or participate in pornography should be ousted and/or banned from the military?
If you say “yes”, then you get points for consistency. Otherwise, you’re just a liar.
Straw Man, my dear James! Sounds like a good point about your society’s obsession with all sex! And why do gays want to be in the military? On average, they are better educated and earn far more, and then have higher disposable income (probably from fewer kids). Why your obsession about this topic?
“And why do gays want to be in the military?”
Same reason heterosexuals want to serve, I presume.
“On average, they are better educated and earn far more, and then have higher disposable income”
Are you suggesting that only uneducated, poor folk should want to join the military? Interesting.
“Why your obsession about this topic?”
So we should only care about those things that impact us? That’s called apathy. Really, you should ask the editors of Touchstone. Given all the possible theological and moral topics they could touch upon, homosexuality seems to involve nearly 20-30% of their posts.
“Straw Man”
No, it’s called determining whether one is principled or merely prejudiced. If you say you believe that fitness for military service is tightly bound to one’s sexual ethics … and you believe that fornication is gravely immoral … then the implication is necessarily that fornicators not be permitted to serve. Otherwise, you’re just wrapping your own personal antipathy in religious garb. As they say, you can put lipstick on a pig …
You do raise a good point: why aren’t there soldiers in uniform marching at an Adultery Pride or Fans of Pornography Parades? Maybe because”gay pride” is merely a social construct and not based on anything. And I presume that most gays are like you: with excellent critical thinking skills where you can use it in a government or non-profit job!
I notice the topic of what Jesus thinks about homosexuality (a suitable one for a Christian comment board, one would think) has been ignored since I raised it. So, c’mon, guys. Woman taken in adultery? Man and woman becoming one flesh? Wedding at Cana as interpreted by 2,000 years of theological reflection? How can there be a more central issue to this discussion? Step up to the plate, OK?
“I notice the topic of what Jesus thinks about homosexuality (a suitable one for a Christian comment board, one would think) has been ignored since I raised it.”
What does Christ say about homosexuality? He didn’t say much about sex at all. Paul made some comments, but then he also made “comments” about slavery and women that many Christians now interpret within a historical context. In any case, Paul was not God. Christ focused most of his energy on the poor and marginalized and went out of his way to help the reviled (tax collectors, lepers) to feel loved and included.
TJ, are you saying that St. Paul is not authoritative when he writes? Are not his teachings part of the canon of the Church? Are his letters not part of God’s inspired Word? And why would Jesus punish those who practice marriage exclusively between a man and a woman as He taught? Remember that Jesus taught in his Sermon on the Mount, “I tell you the truth, until heaven and earth disappear, not the smallest letter, not the least stroke of a pen, will by any means disappear from the Law until everything is accomplished.” I would infer that this means nothing will disappear from God’s law. And again in Matthew 19:4-5, Jesus teaches (reiterating the teachings of the Torah): “Haven’t you read,” he replied, “that at the beginning the Creator ‘made them male and female,’ 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’?” Notice that it is a man who joins to a wife, and the two will become one flesh. There are no other options for a God-approved marriage. Isn’t that right, Deacon Michael? I would encourage you, TJ, to spend more time to study prayerfully the Holy Bible. You should find that it will be revelatory to you, and I will be praying that God will illumine your heart.
Emil, I have great respect for St. Paul, but I do not consider everything he said to be authoritative. I certainly don’t accept his writings on slavery or the role of women, for example. I understand there are different levels of interpretation of biblical texts, and I am one who does not see every word of St. Paul as 100% true. Same with much of the Old Testament. What is authoritative to me is the word and example of Christ, and I am saddened to see Christ’s word being corrupted for political and economic reasons.
I don’t believe Christ would “punish those who practice marriage exclusively between a man and a woman.” I doubt he would punish two men or two women who marry either, provided the union is bound by love, but that is not for me to say. What I do know is that I would not with to judge them, to “throw the first stone” (how many of us can claim to have been sexually pure for our entire lives?), or to treat them with contempt and ridicule.
My Dear Friend TJ, It made me sad to read your discussion about your faith. Christianity does not offer us “cafeteria-style“ options of what beliefs to hold or to denigrate certain parts of the Scripture (St. Paul’s writings or the Torah) simply because you do not agree with it. You do, of course, have that right. However, if you wish to submit to the Lordship of the Jesus Christ and to become his “slave,” as many devout Christian believers seek to be, you cannot place your own thinking about His thinking. So, I would encourage you to contemplate your life, and ask the Lord Jesus Christ to be your Lord and Savior, and then to prayerfully ask God to fill you with His Holy Spirit as He illumines you to study God’s Holy Word to seek His leading in the your life and that of your family. Your eternal destiny is at risk, and God’s Word is not to be trivialized because it fails to comport with your notions of what Christianity is. It is not yours to make those determinations. Thank you for listening. Someone who cares deeply about you!
“And why do gays want to be in the military? On average, they are better educated and earn far more, and then have higher disposable income (probably from fewer kids). ”
Do you really want to emphasize the stereotype that poorly educated people who are not able to earn much are the ones who join the military?
Hey, Mr. Maxx, as you should know, most persons going into the military are just out of college or high school. Therefore, it is unlikely they were high wage earners (especially nowadays). And in our society, though of course this is changing rapidly in your Obamanation, it was a truism that higher education equated with higher levels of income. And since this blog thread talks about Abu Ghraib, you might recall that prior to joining the military, most of the soldiers punished for their “atrocities” had been pizza store assistant managers or similar lower-end and not high-paying jobs, with their education limited to a high school diploma. So it isn’t just a stereotype that people who enter the military are typically lower income earners, with a large number who are high-school graduates. This is just a fact, as I do know that you would never disparage lower income earners, Mr. Maxx, infering a stereotype about them. This fact about their generally lower level of education also contributes to the fact that many veterans often have great difficulty in obtaining employment after the military because of their lack of relevant marketable skills and experience.
Perhaps I’ve given Ms. Livonia too little credit:-)
Emil: I think we have reached the point in this discussion that my question was designed to elicit. Your respondent ignores the words Jesus actually said to impose his (her?) personal interpretation on them, in utter contradiction to the historic teachings of the church. And then denigrates St. Paul in passing, saying he does not trust the man Jesus chose personally to carry the Gospel to the Gentiles. (It is worth noting that Paul’s comments on slavery, which he had no chance of making illegal, were that masters and slaves were equal in the eyes of God, and should treat each other as brothers in Christ. Also we should note that when Christianity ceased to be despised and persecuted and became the official religion of the late Empire, slavery was ended. Women? Paul said wives should respect their husbands, and husbands should be willing to die for their wives. That’s certainly patriarchal….)
In sum, we have people convicting themselves in their own words that they are willing to ignore Jesus and do not trust the Gospel. Anathema sit.
Deacon Michael D. Harmon, as I’m sure you’re perfectly aware, Paul says a great deal more about slavery and women than you quote above. Leviticus and Exodus say even more. If you want to be a biblical literalist, that is OK. I choose to make the word and example of Christ my guide, which is why I think it’s important to reach out to the marginalized and to avoid the crude contempt this board indulges in.