there is no war on religion... promise!

Dept. of the Navy - Walter Reed National Military Medical Center
WRNATMILMEDCENINST 5720.4C - NAVMED Policy Memo 10-015
Partners in Care Guidelines

Section 8.f - "No religious items (i.e. Bibles, reading materials, and/or artifacts) are allowed to be given away or used during a visit."

maybe it's me, but if the United States Navy has been put on the task, it sure looks like a "war on religion" to me.

but maybe this war is winnable:

We are in the process of rewriting our policy and would like to offer the following statement:

Bibles and other religious materials have always been and will remain available for patient use at Walter Reed National Military Medical Center. The visitation policy as written was incorrect and should have been more thoroughly reviewed before its release. It has been rescinded. We apologize for any confusion the policy may have caused.

Please know that at admission, all patients are asked for their religious preference and a chaplain associated with their preference visits them regularly to provide spiritual services. In addition, their families may also bring religious material.

WRNMMC provides multiple venues at WRMNMC for religious expression and worship. There is daily Catholic Mass as well as Protestant, Hindu, and Muslim services. Eucharist is also available at the bedside. There are weekly Torah studies, multiple weekly Christian bible studies, as well as weekly Qur'an study. Furthermore, chaplains coordinate spiritual needs for those whose faith groups are not represented by staff chaplains (such as Latter-Day Saints, Buddhist, and Christian Scientist).

Walter Reed National Military Medical Center remains committed to supporting the religious preferences of all our patients and we will continue to ensure their spiritual needs are met.
- Walter Reed National Military Medical Center

---

meanwhile, in other news...

If you think this is an isolated incident, consider the following dozen-plus examples reported in the past six months alone by the FRC and Rep. Forbes' office and a few of my own I found, which document how religious freedom and Christian liberty in particular have been limited, quarantined, omitted or outright obliterated.

--The Air Force Academy apologized for merely announcing Operation Christmas Child --a Christian-based charity and relief program designed to send holiday gifts to impoverished children around the world.

--Yet the Air Force is building an $80,000 Stonehenge-like worship site for "earth-based" religions, including "pagans, Wiccans, druids, witches and followers of Native American faiths."

--The Marine Corps considered tearing down a Camp Pendleton cross meant to honor fallen heroes.

--Air Force officials stripped religious curriculum from a 20-year-old course on "just war theory."

--The Department of Veterans Affairs censored references to God and Jesus during prayers at Houston National Cemetery.

--The Democratic-controlled U.S. Senate passed the $662 billion National Defense Authorization Act of 2012, which included a repeal of Article 125 of the Uniform Code of Military Justice, which states: "Any person subject to this chapter who engages in unnatural carnal copulation with another person of the same or opposite sex or with an animal is guilty of sodomy."

--The Department of Health and Human Services unveiled new health care rules that ignore basic conscience protections for medical workers with faith-based objections to abortion and contraception.

--Officials at HHS denied funding for the U.S. Conference of Catholic Bishops' successful program for sex trafficking victims because of the church's teaching on human life.

--Administration officials refused to intervene in the closing of the U.S. Commission on International Religious Freedom.

--President Barack Obama has lobbied for the passage of the Employment Non-Discrimination Act, which would trample on the faith of employers in hiring, firing and promotion decisions.

--The Pentagon released new regulations that force chaplains to perform same-sex "weddings" despite their religious objections.

--Secretary of State Hillary Clinton demonized other countries' religious beliefs as an obstacle to radical homosexual rights.

--Just this past week, the Military Religious Freedom Foundation sent a letter to officials at Travis Air Force Base, demanding the removal or transfer of a Nativity scene and a menorah that are part of a larger holiday display on the base.
- by Chuck Norris, at Newsbusters.com, on December 20, 2011

---

sources:
http://newsbusters.org/blogs/chuck-norris/2011/12/20/feds-war-religion-part-1-2
http://newsbusters.org/blogs/chuck-norris/2011/12/27/feds-war-religion-part-2-2
http://www.bethesda.med.navy.mil/

a moral (amoral?) government

The headline of the full-page ad asks, "What Would Jesus Cut?—A budget is a moral document." The text continues, "Our faith tells us that the moral test of a society is how it treats the poor."

The ad was produced by Sojourners, a self-described "evangelical" organization whose slogan is "Faith in Action for Social Justice." The ad was signed by Sojourners president Jim Wallis and more than two dozen Religious Left pastors, theologians, and activists. They urge our legislators to ask themselves, "What would Jesus cut?" from the federal budget.

How would you answer that question? My answer would be, "It's a nonsense question. Your premise is faulty. Your priorities are not His priorities."

Jesus had many opportunities to confront the Roman government about its spending priorities. It was, after all, one of the most brutal regimes in history. If the question "What would Jesus cut?" has any biblical relevance, we should be able to cite instances where Jesus lectured the Roman oppressors the same way the Religious Left lectures America.

Just compare ancient Rome with America today. Rome sent its armies out to conquer; America sends its soldiers out to liberate. Rome demanded tribute from other nations; America sends aid and emergency relief around the world. Rome enslaved nations; America rebuilds nations.

If the federal budget is a "moral document," what does it say about America? It suggests to me that America may be the most moral nation on earth! Name one other country that has spent $15 billion fighting AIDS in Africa. Name one other country that has provided more disaster relief, that has built more schools and water treatment plants, that has supplied more food aid around the world, that has sent more doctors, teachers, and technical advisers to developing nations.

Even America's military budget—much of which is being spent to rebuild Iraq and Afghanistan—reflects the basic compassion and unselfishness of the American people. Clearly, America hardly deserves any scolding from the Sojourners soapbox.

Did Jesus ever lecture the Roman Empire about its budget priorities? In Matthew 8, when the Roman centurion approached Jesus in Capernaum, our Lord could have said, "How dare you, a Roman warmonger, come to Me asking favors? Change your priorities! Tell your bosses in Rome to stop buying chariots and start funding welfare programs!" But Jesus didn't lecture the centurion. He said, "I tell you the truth, I have not found anyone in Israel with such great faith!"

In Matthew 22, when the Pharisees asked if it was right to pay taxes to Caesar, the Lord could have thundered against Caesar's misplaced budget priorities. Instead, He said, "Give to Caesar what is Caesar's, and to God what is God's."

In John 18, Jesus stood before Pontius Pilate, the Roman prefect, a friend of Caesar. Why didn't He give Pilate an earful about the injustice of Roman rule? If ever there was a time for Jesus to "speak truth to power" and become the "social justice Messiah," that was it!

But Jesus didn't preach the social gospel to Pontius Pilate. Oh, he spoke truth to power, all right. He delivered a profound message to Pontius Pilate—and to you and me: "My kingdom is not of this world."

Now, I'm not saying that Christians are never called to confront their government. God bless Dietrich Bonhoeffer and the Confessing Church for standing against Nazi genocide. But that's not the situation here.

And I'm not saying there isn't a social and compassionate dimension to the Christian gospel. There certainly is! Jesus had great compassion for the poor.

He preached in Nazareth, "The Spirit of the Lord is on me, because He has anointed me to preach good news to the poor." He sent word to John the Baptist, "The deaf hear, the dead are raised, and the good news is preached to the poor." Jesus presented the obligation to help the poor as an individual responsibility, a Kingdom responsibility—not the duty of the secular government.

Both the religious and secular Left in America seem to want government to replace the church in ministering to the poor and needy. One of Barack Obama's first proposals as president was a plan to slash tax deductions for charitable donations by high-income taxpayers. President Obama reasoned that a tax deduction "shouldn't be a determining factor as to whether you're giving that hundred dollars to the homeless shelter." Maybe so—but since private charities do so much good for the poor, why eliminate incentives for charitable giving? Could it be that liberals see private charities as competing with the big government welfare state?

In Romans 13, Paul tells us that we pay our taxes and support the government so that we will have a just, orderly society in which law-abiding citizens are protected from wrongdoers. But the responsibility for mercy and compassion belongs to the church—not the government.

What would Jesus cut? When He stood before the Roman Empire, He didn't suggest cuts. He received cuts. His flesh was cut by Roman nails and a Roman spear. He was bruised for our transgressions, and with His cuts we are healed. That's the gospel of Jesus Christ.

Stay tuned. In Part 2, we'll see how Jesus dealt with the "radical leftists" among his disciples.

- by Michael Youssef, Ph.D. (Master's degree in theology at Fuller Theological Seminary in California and a Ph.D. from Emory University in social anthropology.)

Keep Jesus Out of Your Socialism - MichaelYoussef.com
Keep Jesus out of your socialism (Part 1) (OneNewsNow.com)

http://twitter.com/MichaelAYoussef
http://www.youtube.com/user/MichaelAYoussef

the new party of NO

House passage of H.R. 1363, making appropriations for the Department of Defense for the fiscal year ending September 30, 2011,  "If presented with this bill, the President will veto it."

Department of Defense and Further Additional Continuing Appropriations Act, 2011 - Department of Defense Appropriations Act, 2011 - Appropriates funds for FY2011 for the Department of Defense (DOD) for: (1) military personnel; (2) operation and maintenance, including for the United States Court of Appeals for the Armed Forces, environmental restoration, overseas humanitarian, disaster, and civic aid, former Soviet Union cooperative threat reduction, and the Department of Defense Acquisition Workforce Development Fund; (3) procurement, including for aircraft, missile, weapons and tracked combat vehicles, ammunition, shipbuilding and conversion, and purchases under the Defense Production Act of 1950; (4) research, development, test, and evaluation (RDT&E); (5) Defense Working Capital Funds and the National Defense Sealift Fund; (6) the Defense Health Program; (7) chemical agents and munitions destruction; (8) drug interdiction and counter-drug activities; (9) the Office of the Inspector General; (10) the Central Intelligence Agency Retirement and Disability System Fund; and (11) the Intelligence Community Management Account.


Appropriates funds for deployments and other activities in support of overseas contingency operations, including for: (1) regular, reserve, and National Guard personnel; (2) operation and maintenance; (3) the Afghanistan Infrastructure Fund; (4) the Afghanistan Security Forces Fund; (5) the Iraq Security Forces Fund; (6) procurement; (7) National Guard and reserve equipment; (8) the Mine Resistant Ambush Protected Vehicle Fund; (9) RDT&E; (10) Defense Working Capital Funds; (11) the Defense Health Program; (12) drug interdiction and counter-drug activities; (13) the Joint Improvised Explosive Device Defeat Fund; and (14) the Office of the Inspector General.

our military may not get paid, but Congress and the President won't miss a meal...

ode on a broken urn

If you consider that there has been an average of 160,000 troops in the Iraq theatre of operations during the past 22 months, and a total of 2112 deaths, that gives a firearm death rate of 60 per 100,000 soldiers.

The firearm death rate in Washington DC is 80.6 per 100,000 for the same period.

That means that you are about 25 per cent more likely to be shot and killed in the US capital, which has some of the strictest gun control laws in the US, than you are in Iraq.

Conclusion? The US should pull out of Washington.

SSAA - Australian Shooter magazine (Oct, 2006)

while the statistics are dubious (at best), i thought it was a logical argument to make... what are the troop levels versus the mortality rate of those troops?... how does this compare to our nation's capital, Washington D.C.?... moreover, what conclusions can you make regarding these facts?... so, i did some (very) quick research... i thought i would share my findings.

Operation Enduring Freedom - Afghanistan
US soldiers killed = 1,503 (via Casualties by year and nationality - 2001-2011 )
US soldiers in theater = average 36,530 (via Average Monthly Boots On the Ground FY2002-2012 )
Deaths per 100,000 = 411

Homicide Rates - Washington, D.C.
Persons killed by homicide = 2,057 (via Metropolitan Police Department - Washington, D.C. )
Median population = 582,049 (via Google Public Data from U.S. Census Bureau )
Deaths per 100,000 = 35

so, what does this tell us?... two conclusions are clear to me.

#1 - figures don't lie, but liars often figure.

#2 - i'm not visiting either Afghanistan or Washington, D.C.

Don't ask, don't tell - what's your option

here's a subject i'm loath to discuss... homosexuals... it's not that i have issues for or against them... but it always becomes a personal discussion where feelings get hurt and no resolution is found... but this is becoming the topic of many mainstream issues, and i feel this needs some light put upon it...

today's topic is "gays in the military"... again, a sensitive subject for many on both sides... "straights" oppose it for various reasons, many of them of personal nature... gays support it for opposite reasons, but these reasons are also very personal... so, let's discuss one portion of the issue, without trying to get off into any quasi-moral or religious debates... let's discuss fraternization.

fraternization: fraternus - "brotherly"; to associate on friendly terms; mingle, consort, mix
Dictionary: fraternization

the military has a severe dislike of fraternization... typically, it is meant to discourage favoritism or discord between officers and enlisted personnel... however, with the introduction of females into the military, fraternization has taken on a much broader meaning... members of equal rank, but opposite sexes, are segregated... while their MOS may be the same, and they may work hand-in-hand, they do not mingle, mix, or consort with one another (fraternize) outside their work scopes... in more plain terms, they don't bunk together...

this is not to say they don't date... members of equal rank may see one another socially... however, the military does not promote by social-group... if you are promoted to a rank above your significant other, you have placed yourself in a position where favoritism may be shown, one to another... this is natural between partners; this is illegal to the UCMJ... what yesterday was harmless, today is a court-marshaling offense...

fraternization between equals can still cause disorder and havoc in a military regiment... there is nothing wrong with well qualified women being in front-line positions... if they can do the job, let them do it... but how do you handle the known issue of fraternization?... by placing two (assuming heterosexual) people of the same gender in life-or-death situations, they naturally form a strong bond... what happens to that bond when they are opposite gender in the same situation?... that bond can easily progress to more... and then decisions of the two are compromised... they are no longer soldiers, but lovers... loyalties can get confused...

the simple solution to such a complex issue is to keep the genders separate... but what can the military do when gender is removed?... what do you do when your brigade has GBLT members?... at what point does the personal choices of some become greater than the good of the whole?... i'm not going to argue whether it's a personal choice or not... let's assume for this argument that it is a genetic/physical manifestation... fine... what do you do about having homosexuals serving in quarters?... working/fighting/bunking together?... do you attempt separation, like they do with male/female soldiers?... is there a "gay brigade"?... (a horrible term, but it keeps bouncing around in my head)...

separation doesn't solve the problem of fraternization... it actually compounds it... it places soldiers in a situation where fraternization is difficult to escape... where, at some point, it may become "normal"... the military unit is no longer fighting for God and Country, but for each other... it breeds dissension in the ranks of the unit... will a sargent send his/her lover out on point, or to charge a fortification, or first into a tunnel?... when does fraternization between individuals endanger others?...

and to touch on the "personal choice" issue for a moment, at what point does the Transgender get introduced?... i'm not talking those who have medically reconstructed themselves... but those who have decided that they prefer the garb of the opposite gender... do they get special treatment?... do we issue unisex uniforms?... and if we do, does that mean that the heterosexual females give up their right to their femininity?... or do we put the men in kilts and have a Scottish Brigade?...

the issue at hand is greater than even what i've discussed here... it's all well and good that homosexuals want to be treated equally and fairly, but what do the rest of us have to lose to give them this modicium of equality?...

and where do we stop?