Friday, August 25, 2006:
The military recruiters are raping teenage girls and also sexually abusing males.
The Citadel-The Military College of South Carolina Citadel Station, Charleston, South Carolina, US, is still experiencing sexual harassment issues concerning female cadets. Some one out of five females say they've been sexually harassed or worse.
These sexual and gender issues in the military have been on-going since the first armies of the earth. The US has had a number of scandals after the feminist movement of the 1960's and 70's.
Women-in-the-military has been seen as an equal-rights issue. Women fought for the equal right to use lethal violence to coerce others concerning the nation's foreign policy. This is no accomplishment of which to brag or be proud.
The military attracts those who wish to have the power or authorization to maim and kill others. It is billed as defending freedom and democracy, but we know that freedom and democracy are not secured via coercion. It is hypocrisy.
Women who join the military are expecting the males attracted to that life to behave consistent with non-violent males.
The military is only sterilized on the public relations front. In reality, the top brass and others know that war is truly hell. They like it at some level despite their protestations to the contrary.
The same mindset that say males in the military must act inconsistently with their main mission is the same mentality that continually moves to whittle at wars beastliness and savagery by means of the so-called laws of war.
In truth, war is all or nothing. It is an area where relativity is absolutely farcical.
As real, liberal Christians, which are the only kind, we counsel for zero war. We say that attempting to put into place and enforce rules to limit the maiming, death, destruction, and degradation of warfare is asking the strongest military to conduct civilized, chivalrous maiming, death, destruction, and degradation. It is hypocrisy from the start.
We want offenses limited of course, but it is also absurd to not view war as completely outside the divine law. It is absurd not to see that rules to mitigate are even less honest than all-out warfare that eliminates the iniquitous enemy from the face of the earth. In the face to having the commandment from God to turn the other cheek, any such war is unjustified.
Now they want women who are foolish enough to join the military to not suffer offenses, but it is insane to join the most competitive military in the world and expect to find gentility. That military commence training at the lowest ranks with nonstop angry, demeaning yelling and encouragement to savagery. That is the exact opposite training for fulltime gentility.
The whole concept of gentlemanliness stems from the truth that to be a king and right is to be gentle, kind, compassionate, considerate, gallant, valiant, and consistently so. The concept underwent pejoration on account of those who claimed the title of gentleman were under the surface often spoiled, lazy, aloof, indifferent, or malicious and cowardly.
The point is that Jesus was the true gentleman. He would not harass women in or out of the military, but neither would he use military means for his end.
The following should appear at the end of every post:
According to the IRS, "Know the law: Avoid political campaign intervention":
Tax-exempt section 501(c)(3) organizations like churches, universities, and hospitals must follow the law regarding political campaigns. Unfortunately, some don't know the law.
Under the Internal Revenue Code, all section 501(c)(3) organizations are prohibited from participating in any political campaign on behalf of (or in opposition to) any candidate for elective public office. The prohibition applies to campaigns at the federal, state and local level.
Violation of this prohibition may result in denial or revocation of tax-exempt status and the imposition of certain excise taxes. Section 501(c)(3) private foundations are subject to additional restrictions.
Political Campaign Intervention
Political campaign intervention includes any activities that favor or oppose one or more candidates for public office. The prohibition extends beyond candidate endorsements.
Contributions to political campaign funds, public statements of support or opposition (verbal or written) made by or on behalf of an organization, and the distribution of materials prepared by others that support or oppose any candidate for public office all violate the prohibition on political campaign intervention.
Factors in determining whether a communication results in political campaign intervention include the following:
- Whether the statement identifies one or more candidates for a given public office
- Whether the statement expresses approval or disapproval of one or more candidates' positions and/or actions
- Whether the statement is delivered close in time to the election
- Whether the statement makes reference to voting or an election
- Whether the issue addressed distinguishes candidates for a given office
Many religious organizations believe, as we do, that the above constitutes a violation of the First Amendment of the US Constitution.
Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.
That said, we make the following absolutely clear here:
- The Real Liberal Christian Church and Christian Commons Project not only do not endorse any candidate for any secular office, we say that Christianity forbids voting in such elections.
- Furthermore, when we discuss any public-office holder's position, policy, action or inaction, we definitely are not encouraging anyone to vote for that office holder's position.
- We are not trying to influence secular elections but rather want people to come out from that entire fallen system.
- When we analyze or discuss what is termed "public policy," we do it entirely from a theological standpoint with an eye to educating professing Christians and those to whom we are openly always proselytizing to convert to authentic Christianity.
- It is impossible for us to fully evangelize and proselytize without directly discussing the pros and cons of public policy and the positions of secular-office holders, hence the unconstitutionality of the IRS code on the matter.
- We are not rich and wouldn't be looking for a fight regardless. What we cannot do is compromise our faith (which seeks to harm nobody, quite the contrary).
- We render unto Caesar what is Caesar's. We render unto God what is God's.
- When Caesar says to us that unless we shut up about the unrighteousness of Caesar's policies and practices, we will lose the ability of people who donate to us to declare their donations as deductions on their federal and state income-tax returns, we say to Caesar that we cannot shut up while exercising our religion in a very reasonable way.
- We consider the IRS code on this matter as deliberate economic duress (a form of coercion) and a direct attempt by the federal government to censor dissenting, free political and religious speech.
- It's not freedom of religion if they tax it.
And when they were come to Capernaum, they that received tribute money came to Peter, and said, Doth not your master pay tribute? He saith, Yes. And when he was come into the house, Jesus prevented him, saying, What thinkest thou, Simon? of whom do the kings of the earth take custom or tribute? of their own children, or of strangers? Peter saith unto him, Of strangers. Jesus saith unto him, Then are the children free. (Matthew 17:24-26)