Cross removed at base in Afghanistan

[jimnyc]

This is getting to be a bit ridiculous. Why do we never read stories of things being taken down that belong to other faiths? I don't see Christian/Catholics out there demanding removal of anything Muslim/Buddhist/Jewish/Atheist...

WHY are people so offended by crosses? As I stated in another thread, I see displays from other faiths/religions all the time and it doesn't bother me in the slightest. So long as nobody is pushing their faith on another, I don't see a problem.


A large cross that had been prominently displayed outside a chapel on an isolated military base in northern Afghanistan was taken down last week, prompting outrage from some American service members stationed there.

“We are here away from our families, and the chapel is the one place that feels like home,” a service member at Camp Marmal told POLITICO. “With the cross on the outside, it is a constant reminder for all of us that Jesus is here for us.”

“Not having it there is really upsetting,” added another. “I walk by the chapel daily on the way to chow and the gym, and seeing the cross is a daily reminder of my faith and what Jesus accomplished for me. It is daily inspiration and motivation for me to acknowledge my faith and stay on the right path.”

Camp Marmal is a German base that hosts NATO forces. The interfaith chapel in question is supervised by the U.S. Army.

The soldiers said they found great comfort in the chapel — and the cross visible outside. “Sometimes the Church and the ability to openly express religious views ultimately gets people through the deployments over here,” one told POLITICO by email.

The service member said he asked the base chaplain, a military officer, what had happened to the cross. “I had to take it down,” said the chaplain, according to the solider, without further explanation.

http://www.politico.com/news/stories/1111/69039.html

[red states rule]

Now CH can call you a right wing nutcase for getting all bent out of shape over something so stupid

Meanwile, chalk up another win for the PC, middle of the road, pro Muslim idiots

[Noir]

Wow, STOP THE PRESS!

Military base expected to follow military regulations shocker!

But surly Christians shouldn't be expected to follow the military code, right?

Some quotes left out of the OP...

Pentagon spokesperson Commander William Speaks confirmed the cross was removed and told POLITICO, “The removal was, in fact, in accordance with Army regulations” and pointed out that the Army chaplain manual prohibits permanent display of religious symbols.

“Distinctive religious symbols, such as crosses… will not be affixed or displayed permanently on the chapel interior, exterior or grounds,” reads the manual.

Speaks said the cross had been up since mid-October; the service members said it was longer.

The two characterized the removal of the cross as an attack on their religion and noted that there had been no complaints from Muslims — there are two mosques on the base — or Jews, who had recently conducted a service in the chapel without incident.



Read more: http://www.politico.com/news/stories/1111/69039.html#ixzz1eofAi24G

[Gunny]

This is getting to be a bit ridiculous. Why do we never read stories of things being taken down that belong to other faiths? I don't see Christian/Catholics out there demanding removal of anything Muslim/Buddhist/Jewish/Atheist...

WHY are people so offended by crosses? As I stated in another thread, I see displays from other faiths/religions all the time and it doesn't bother me in the slightest. So long as nobody is pushing their faith on another, I don't see a problem.



http://www.politico.com/news/stories/1111/69039.html

Fuck the DoD for caving to the tyranny of the minority.

[Gunny]

Wow, STOP THE PRESS!

Military base expected to follow military regulations shocker!

But surly Christians shouldn't be expected to follow the military code, right?

You don't know what you're talking about. You're just flapping your stupid little gums to hear your tongue rattle against the roof of your mouth.

[Noir]

You don't know what you're talking about. You're just flapping your stupid little gums to hear your tongue rattle against the roof of your mouth.

Have you bothered to read the whole story? The cross was against the regulations set up to cover vases like it. Pure and simple.

[jimnyc]

Wow, STOP THE PRESS!

Military base expected to follow military regulations shocker!

But surly Christians shouldn't be expected to follow the military code, right?

Some quotes left out of the OP...

And the military chaplain wears different symbols depending on which religion they are. Now, if it were a Muslim, and he was wearing a crescent moon - surely you would support the many Christians who would want it removed from the chaplains attire, no?

And don't act like it's no big deal. The Army field manual was just updated a few years ago to reflect these changes. And why do you think that is? Because Christians/Catholics don't want the cross? Or do you think it was changed to appease those complaining, like atheists or Muslims in a Muslim country?

[jimnyc]

Allow the salami sucking queers to serve OPENLY as it "shouldn't matter" - but it sure as hell matters if you are a Catholic or Christian! You can now revel in all your glory and tell stories about your abnormal and deviant sexual escapades, but don't even think of hanging a cross to honor your faith!

[Noir]

Allow the salami sucking queers to serve OPENLY as it "shouldn't matter" - but it sure as hell matters if you are a Catholic or Christian! You can now revel in all your glory and tell stories about your abnormal and deviant sexual escapades, but don't even think of hanging a cross to honor your faith!

Personally i've no problem with it along as the rule is the same. i.e. either all religious symbols can be shown or none can. As it stands at the minute none can.

[Gunny]

Have you bothered to read the whole story? The cross was against the regulations set up to cover vases like it. Pure and simple.

Punk, I KNOW the whole story. I spent the 1st 40 years of my life in the base chapel. Pure and simple.

Now let's try the First Amendment to the Constitution of the United States. It says "freedom OF religion" jackoff, not freedom FROM religion. NO law and/or US military regulation supercedes the Constitution of the United States.

You want to crawl back in your hole, or what?

[Noir]

Punk, I KNOW the whole story. I spent the 1st 40 years of my life in the base chapel. Pure and simple.

Now let's try the First Amendment to the Constitution of the United States. It says "freedom OF religion" jackoff, not freedom FROM religion. NO law and/or US military regulation supercedes the Constitution of the United States.

You want to crawl back in your hole, or what?

So you believe that the military code as it stands is unconstitutional?

[Mr. P]

This is a non issue for the military overall. Policy is..for a reason. Flaunt yer position you take fire, in this case flaunt yer religion you take more fire. Sometimes there is a method to what seems on it's face, unreasonable. Just sayin

[LuvRPgrl]

Have you bothered to read the whole story? The cross was against the regulations set up to cover vases like it. Pure and simple.

that doesnt matter in terms of those who think it is wrong. They simply think the rule is wrong also.
Whether it is the rule, or the enforcement, either one,or both are still indicitive of the prejudice against Christians, as that manual didnt have that regulation until recently

[Missileman]

that doesnt matter in terms of those who think it is wrong. They simply think the rule is wrong also.
Whether it is the rule, or the enforcement, either one,or both are still indicitive of the prejudice against Christians, as that manual didnt have that regulation until recently

How is a regulation that prohibits ANY religious symbols in front of the chapel prejudicial against the single religion of Christianity?

[LuvRPgrl]

How is a regulation that prohibits ANY religious symbols in front of the chapel prejudicial against the single religion of Christianity?
1. I didnt say it was
2. I said "they think"
3. I wasnt making a point of whether it is right or wrong, simply that the arguement that it is the rule of law is basically just the same as if it wasnt, the situation would remain the same.
4. But I could explain it to you, but its gonna require some thinking;:laugh:

[ConHog]

This is getting to be a bit ridiculous. Why do we never read stories of things being taken down that belong to other faiths? I don't see Christian/Catholics out there demanding removal of anything Muslim/Buddhist/Jewish/Atheist...

WHY are people so offended by crosses? As I stated in another thread, I see displays from other faiths/religions all the time and it doesn't bother me in the slightest. So long as nobody is pushing their faith on another, I don't see a problem.



http://www.politico.com/news/stories/1111/69039.html

The reason is simple. We as humans just naturally like to group up against people who are different than us. It's a fact. You want proof get 20 people who are alike in any way together and introduce one person who is different than that group and you will quickly see the group ostracize that one person.

The US however has turned into a PC nightmare where for some odd reason the ONLY group it is acceptable to treat people like this is white Christians. Most probably b/c Christians don't raise a big enough stink about it.

It's just people being people and the government protecting some groups but not others. If that were MY base that cross would have came down all right, and been replaced by a bigger one.

[ConHog]

No CH can call you a right wing nutcase for getting all bent out of shape over something so stupid

Meanwile, chalk up another win for the PC, middle of the road, pro Muslim idiots

How about you go fuck yourself RSR. I'm about fed up with your trolling bullshit. Here's an idea why don't you grow up and accept that not only does everyone in the world not agree with you on every subject, they don't have to.

Sorry Jim, I know I said I would bite my tongue, but I've just had it, I defended RSR as much as he could be defended when certain idiots were calling him fat, and other such things, and all the while he's the biggest name caller and stalker around.

Grow up RSR.

[ConHog]

So you believe that the military code as it stands is unconstitutional?

Hey civvie. The UCMJ is entirely unconstitutional. But guess what, you've agreed to live under it when you join the military. Yes absolutely the UCMJ supersedes the COTUS in terms of military members.

Don't believe me? Ask ANY military MP if they have EVER mirandized someone they arrested.

[LuvRPgrl]

How about you go fuck yourself RSR. I'm about fed up with your trolling bullshit. Here's an idea why don't you grow up and accept that not only does everyone in the world not agree with you on every subject, they don't have to.

Sorry Jim, I know I said I would bite my tongue, but I've just had it, I defended RSR as much as he could be defended when certain idiots were calling him fat, and other such things, and all the while he's the biggest name caller and stalker around.

Grow up RSR.

I dont see RSR calling you any names there.
He also doesnt need any help if someone is calling him names,
as
and most assurdly even if you did, that doesnt mean he owes you something and gives you the right to attack him.
plus, RSR doesnt troll, he is the most prolific poster here, because he finds topics and uses them to start threads, you know his post count was at ...

the top of the list even before you ever came here, so you can call him a lot of things, but a troller aint one (although I do have a few choice ones for him myself) :laugh:

[Noir]

Hey civvie. The UCMJ is entirely unconstitutional. But guess what, you've agreed to live under it when you join the military. Yes absolutely the UCMJ supersedes the COTUS in terms of military members.

Don't believe me? Ask ANY military MP if they have EVER mirandized someone they arrested.

Mewonders what " NO law and/or US military regulation supercedes the Constitution of the United States." Gunny thinks of that...

[ConHog]

I dont see RSR calling you any names there.
He also doesnt need any help if someone is calling him names,
as
and most assurdly even if you did, that doesnt mean he owes you something and gives you the right to attack him.
plus, RSR doesnt troll, he is the most prolific poster here, because he finds topics and uses them to start threads, you know his post count was at ...

the top of the list even before you ever came here, so you can call him a lot of things, but a troller aint one (although I do have a few choice ones for him myself) :laugh:

You MAY be right in that I am incorrectly using the word troll, but in terms of internet troll that has a million definitions anyway.

I didn't say he owed me anything. I just find it absurd that a guy would lash out at others for behaving the same way he behaves.

[ConHog]

Mewonders what " NO law and/or US military regulation supercedes the Constitution of the United States." Gunny thinks of that...

egads Gunny made a mistake, better get him Noir.

Hey should you start the steel cage thread, or do you want me to start it and you can pile on?

[LuvRPgrl]

Mewonders what " NO law and/or US military regulation supercedes the Constitution of the United States." Gunny thinks of that...

hey, even a broken clock is right two times a day.
CH is right on this. I remember a soldier trying to sue the military for using him , unknowingly, as a guinne pig to test drugs like LSD, the judge ruled that when ;you join the military, your rights are altered radically

[ConHog]

hey, even a broken clock is right two times a day.
Ch is right on this as he usually is. i remember a soldier trying to sue the military for using him , unknowingly, as a guinne pig to test drugs like lsd, the judge ruled that when ;you join the military, your rights are altered radically

i fify

[red states rule]

How about you go fuck yourself RSR. I'm about fed up with your trolling bullshit. Here's an idea why don't you grow up and accept that not only does everyone in the world not agree with you on every subject, they don't have to.

Sorry Jim, I know I said I would bite my tongue, but I've just had it, I defended RSR as much as he could be defended when certain idiots were calling him fat, and other such things, and all the while he's the biggest name caller and stalker around.

Grow up RSR.

Take it easy Mr Middle of the Roader. I based my post on a response you posted on another thread




http://www.debatepolicy.com/images/debate_policy/misc/quote_icon.png Originally Posted by red states rule http://www.debatepolicy.com/images/debate_policy/buttons/viewpost-right.png (http://www.debatepolicy.com/showthread.php?p=506285#post506285)
Since the core belief of atheists is that there is no God, why are so infatuated with God? Why do they want all public references to God removed? Why do they feel so intimated by God? And why do they put so much time, effort, and money trying to remove God fromt he public view?






Why? Because you're going to believe what THEY believe goddamit.

Which is exactly why I get disgusted when conservatives start to show the same sort of behavior. Let THEM act that way.





So I guess you are now disgusted with Jim right?

[ConHog]

Take it easy Mr Middle of the Roader. I based my post on a response you posted on another thread



So I guess you are now disgusted with Jim right?

What? So now you're trying to start a row between me and Jim? Grow up dude.

[LuvRPgrl]

i fify

I guess Im not as good at internet protocal as you, but, what the hell does that post and quote of mine mean?

[red states rule]

What? So now you're trying to start a row between me and Jim? Grow up dude.

Sorry if your own post offends you CH.

Same topic but being a middle of the roader I guess you changed sides once again

[Missileman]

1. I didnt say it was
2. I said "they think"
3. I wasnt making a point of whether it is right or wrong, simply that the arguement that it is the rule of law is basically just the same as if it wasnt, the situation would remain the same.
4. But I could explain it to you, but its gonna require some thinking;:laugh:

1. I didn't say you said anything, I asked a question.
2. Do you think the regulation is prejudicial against Christians?

[Abbey Marie]

Someone help me out here- the article mentions there are 2 mosques on this base. Plus this "Interfaith Chapel", which Jews have used as well. Are there no dedicated Churches?

America is over 80% christian, and I assume the demographics of the armed services reflect that percentage. Please tell me that there are more churches on this base than mosques, regardless of the location. Is it possible that Muslims get their own buildings, and everyone else has to share? If so, we have a bigger issue than the cross. And I say that even if the mosques are used by locals.

[Missileman]

Someone help me out here- the article mentions there are 2 mosques on this base. Plus this "Interfaith Chapel", which Jews have used as well. Are there no dedicated Churches?

America is over 80% christian, and I assume the demographics of the armed services reflect that percentage. Please tell me that there are more churches on this base than mosques, regardless of the location. Is it possible that Muslims get their own buildings, and everyone else has to share? If so, we have a bigger issue than the cross. And I say that even if the mosques are used by locals.

Can you imagine trying to have a separate place of worship for each and every sect of each and every religion? It's not feasible. As for the mosques, I would imagine one is Sunni and one Shiite. From what I've seen in photos, mosques are large empty rooms with carpets on the floor, unsuitable for Christian services. Having to constantly remove seating in the Chapel to accomodate Muslim services wouldn't be practical either.

[Gunny]

Can you imagine trying to have a separate place of worship for each and every sect of each and every religion? It's not feasible. As for the mosques, I would imagine one is Sunni and one Shiite. From what I've seen in photos, mosques are large empty rooms with carpets on the floor, unsuitable for Christian services. Having to constantly remove seating in the Chapel to accomodate Muslim services wouldn't be practical either.

Can you imagine those people who allegedly "don't believe" acting like it and just minding their own business?

[Noir]

Someone help me out here- the article mentions there are 2 mosques on this base. Plus this "Interfaith Chapel", which Jews have used as well. Are there no dedicated Churches?

America is over 80% christian, and I assume the demographics of the armed services reflect that percentage. Please tell me that there are more churches on this base than mosques, regardless of the location. Is it possible that Muslims get their own buildings, and everyone else has to share? If so, we have a bigger issue than the cross. And I say that even if the mosques are used by locals.

From the way I read it, there is an interfaith chapel, for Christians, that has also been used by Jews. And one for each of the Muslim sects.

It's also worthy of note that while the majority of US troops based there will prob be Christian, we don't know how many Afghan (probably Muslim) troops are based there. And on the whole I think Muslims tend to take there faith more seriously than Jews and Christians...

[Gunny]

So you believe that the military code as it stands is unconstitutional?

Go back and read what I posted. Do you just spend your life trying to twist everything out of whack?

[Gunny]

This is a non issue for the military overall. Policy is..for a reason. Flaunt yer position you take fire, in this case flaunt yer religion you take more fire. Sometimes there is a method to what seems on it's face, unreasonable. Just sayin

I disagree. It is not a non-issue. Other than the fact the military can order its personnel to make it one, just as they cave to every other ACLU/name your fringe element minority group's whining little cries.

It SHOULDN'T be an issue to the American Atheists Organization (but they aren't a "religion"). If they don't believe, they can just ignore it.

[Noir]

Go back and read what I posted. Do you just spend your life trying to twist everything out of whack?

I said displaying the cross was against regulations.

You quoted the 1st amendment to me and said "NO law and/or US military regulation supercedes the Constitution of the United States."

Which could only mean the military code I refered to was attempting to supersede the constitution.

And thus would be unconstitutional.

But I guess that's just me twisting it, so what did you actually mean?

[Abbey Marie]

Can you imagine trying to have a separate place of worship for each and every sect of each and every religion? It's not feasible. As for the mosques, I would imagine one is Sunni and one Shiite. From what I've seen in photos, mosques are large empty rooms with carpets on the floor, unsuitable for Christian services. Having to constantly remove seating in the Chapel to accomodate Muslim services wouldn't be practical either.

I suspect the problem is that Muslims do not want "infidels" in their places of worship, whereas Christians tend to be more, shall we say, accepting?

In any event, there is no reason why there should be dedicated mosques, plural, and not one single dedicated Christian church. I didn't know such things were going on, and am appalled.

[Missileman]

Can you imagine those people who allegedly "don't believe" acting like it and just minding their own business?

Unless I post something off topic, I suggest you mind you own business. :slap:

[Gunny]

I said displaying the cross was against regulations.

You quoted the 1st amendment to me and said "NO law and/or US military regulation supercedes the Constitution of the United States."

Which could only mean the military code I refered to was attempting to supersede the constitution.

And thus would be unconstitutional.

But I guess that's just me twisting it, so what did you actually mean?

Really. Try again. Might also want to ask what that emblem Chaplains wear in their collars is while your "I wish I knew it all" ass is at it.

A religious symbol is the only authorized piece of jewelry for Marines to wear besides wedding ring (another religious emblem), a college/Marine Corps ring, and a watch.

Odd (not really for you) that you would think it's okay to deny Marines the very Constitutional Rights they fight for. You're just another loser trying to force your beliefs on others behind the facetious smokescreen that we're doing it to you.

[Gunny]

Unless I post something off topic, I suggest you mind you own business. :slap:

Let me see ... how did that go? I'll post what the f*ck I want, when and where I want. If you don't like it, don't read it and/or respond to it.

As it stands, I don't recall asking YOUR opinion but you had to flap your gums anyway. See how that works?

[Missileman]

Let me see ... how did that go? I'll post what the f*ck I want, when and where I want. If you don't like it, don't read it and/or respond to it.

As it stands, I don't recall asking YOUR opinion but you had to flap your gums anyway. See how that works?

That has to be the most non-sequitur post I've ever seen...are you drunk?

[Gunny]

That has to be the most non-sequitur post I've ever seen...are you drunk?

I would ask you the same being as my post was in direct response to yours while YOURS was the most non sequitur post you've ever seen.

[Abbey Marie]

Methinks you two are misunderterpretstanding each other. :salute:

[jimnyc]

Can you imagine trying to have a separate place of worship for each and every sect of each and every religion? It's not feasible. As for the mosques, I would imagine one is Sunni and one Shiite. From what I've seen in photos, mosques are large empty rooms with carpets on the floor, unsuitable for Christian services. Having to constantly remove seating in the Chapel to accomodate Muslim services wouldn't be practical either.


From the way I read it, there is an interfaith chapel, for Christians, that has also been used by Jews. And one for each of the Muslim sects.

It's also worthy of note that while the majority of US troops based there will prob be Christian, we don't know how many Afghan (probably Muslim) troops are based there. And on the whole I think Muslims tend to take there faith more seriously than Jews and Christians...

So, regardless of reason, you guys think it's ok to have a building dedicated to just one faith, and all others must share a single building? No crosses allowed, but no problem with an entire building for a single faith? And you 2 find a way to defend this and are the first 2 to also defend the removal of the cross. Odd.

[fj1200]

Hey civvie. The UCMJ is entirely unconstitutional. But guess what, you've agreed to live under it when you join the military. Yes absolutely the UCMJ supersedes the COTUS in terms of military members.

Don't believe me? Ask ANY military MP if they have EVER mirandized someone they arrested.

How do you figure the constitution can be superseded? Seems to me it's authorized under Article I, Section 8:


To constitute Tribunals inferior to the supreme Court;...
To make Rules for the Government and Regulation of the land and naval Forces;
...
To provide for organizing, arming, and disciplining, the Militia, and for governing such Part of them as may be employed in the Service of the United States, reserving to the States respectively, the Appointment of the Officers, and the Authority of training the Militia according to the discipline prescribed by Congress;

[Gunny]

Methinks you two are misunderterpretstanding each other. :salute:

Oh I understand him. He's a hypocrite that stands for everything I despise in this nation. Atheists who truly don't believe, don't care. MM and his ilk have turned "not believing" into a belief. What's religion? Belief. These God-less pukes want to superimpose their will -- their belief/religion -- over everyone else's.

Why? Because you have to answer to God, and God is the Supreme Being. While these pukes don't want to be held accountable for their behavior. Easiest way to do that is deny the existence of God. They think Man is the supreme being; which, is a joke.

His post here is just proof of what I have stated. Can't be a thread that mentions religion without his lame ass running his mouth with his stupid beliefs in it. I mean let's be real ... how many threads other than religious ones have you seen him post in? Over the years, there may have been a hit or miss every once in awhile. Otherwise, he trolls religious threads.

[Gunny]

So, regardless of reason, you guys think it's ok to have a building dedicated to just one faith, and all others must share a single building? No crosses allowed, but no problem with an entire building for a single faith? And you 2 find a way to defend this and are the first 2 to also defend the removal of the cross. Odd.

Not odd. It's just typical of the hypocrisy of their religion.

[Missileman]

So, regardless of reason, you guys think it's ok to have a building dedicated to just one faith, and all others must share a single building? No crosses allowed, but no problem with an entire building for a single faith? And you 2 find a way to defend this and are the first 2 to also defend the removal of the cross. Odd.

I didn't say anything about the cross. I asked a question about the regulation. As for the designated facilities, think of it like this...you don't play soccer or football on a baseball field, but you can play kickball, softball or baseball on one. Do you really think Christians would be okay holding their services in a large empty room with no seating? I'd venture NOT. If the facilities weren't so totally different, there would be an argument for making everyone use the same.

[jimnyc]

I didn't say anything about the cross. I asked a question about the regulation. As for the designated facilities, think of it like this...you don't play soccer or football on a baseball field, but you can play kickball, softball or baseball on one. Do you really think Christians would be okay holding their services in a large empty room with no seating? I'd venture NOT. If the facilities weren't so totally different, there would be an argument for making everyone use the same.

As Noir stated earlier - treat ALL of them equally.

As for Muslims and their prayers, they can simply put up chairs for the other religions and take them down for the Muslims. All that is required for Muslims is their OWN prayer rug and to be able to face Mecca. My friend prays 5 times a day at a gas station, in the bays on a dirty floor, of course on his rug.

There is NO REASON why all can't be treated equally. Either they all share with no symbols, or people need to STFU about a cross.

[Missileman]

Oh I understand him. He's a hypocrite that stands for everything I despise in this nation. Atheists who truly don't believe, don't care. MM and his ilk have turned "not believing" into a belief. What's religion? Belief. These God-less pukes want to superimpose their will -- their belief/religion -- over everyone else's.

Why? Because you have to answer to God, and God is the Supreme Being. While these pukes don't want to be held accountable for their behavior. Easiest way to do that is deny the existence of God. They think Man is the supreme being; which, is a joke.

His post here is just proof of what I have stated. Can't be a thread that mentions religion without his lame ass running his mouth with his stupid beliefs in it. I mean let's be real ... how many threads other than religious ones have you seen him post in? Over the years, there may have been a hit or miss every once in awhile. Otherwise, he trolls religious threads.

This is a current event thread about military policy, FUCKHEAD!

As for the rest of your stupid rant, look at the behavior of those who claim to believe in a supreme being as compared to those who don't. THERE"S NO DIFFERENCE! Guess that makes YOUR belief a steaming pile of shit as much as you claim mine is.

[Gunny]

This is a current event thread about military policy, FUCKHEAD!

As for the rest of your stupid rant, look at the behavior of those who claim to believe in a supreme being as compared to those who don't. THERE"S NO DIFFERENCE! Guess that makes YOUR belief a steaming pile of shit as much as you claim mine is.

Yeah right. Nice try, fuckwit. It's a thread about religion and your flapping little suck had to stick itself right in with your hypocrisy and bullshit. Try your bullshit and lies on someone else, huh? You're as obvious as the f*cking sun.

[Missileman]

As Noir stated earlier - treat ALL of them equally.

As for Muslims and their prayers, they can simply put up chairs for the other religions and take them down for the Muslims. All that is required for Muslims is their OWN prayer rug and to be able to face Mecca. My friend prays 5 times a day at a gas station, in the bays on a dirty floor, of course on his rug.

There is NO REASON why all can't be treated equally. Either they all share with no symbols, or people need to STFU about a cross.

If the mosques are displaying a religious symbol outside their building, it should come down, but I didn't see that in the article. Sunnis and Shiites from what I gather aren't capable of worshipping together, think Catholics and Protestants in Northern Ireland.

[Gunny]

If the mosques are displaying a religious symbol outside their building, it should come down, but I didn't see that in the article. Sunnis and Shiites from what I gather aren't capable of worshipping together, think Catholics and Protestants in Northern Ireland.

A mosque IS a religious symbol in and of itself. Give your intellectual dishonesty a rest, huh?

[Missileman]

Yeah right. Nice try, fuckwit. It's a thread about religion and your flapping little suck had to stick itself right in with your hypocrisy and bullshit. Try your bullshit and lies on someone else, huh? You're as obvious as the f*cking sun.

What about the behavior? How about pulling your head out of your mangina and taking a shot at debating the issue. You claim you can whoop my ass at will...time to prove it, pussy!

[Missileman]

A mosque IS a religious symbol in and of itself. Give your intellectual dishonesty a rest, huh?

So's a chapel...do you have a point to make?

[shattered]

This is a current event thread about military policy, FUCKHEAD!

As for the rest of your stupid rant, look at the behavior of those who claim to believe in a supreme being as compared to those who don't. THERE"S NO DIFFERENCE! Guess that makes YOUR belief a steaming pile of shit as much as you claim mine is.

There's no difference in the extremes.

True Christians hold their beliefs in their hearts, and live their lives accordingly. They don't hound, preach, and condemn others for not believing as they do.

True atheists just don't give a crap either way, and are content to live and let live. (me)

Extremists, however (you), behave as you are now.

[jimnyc]

If the mosques are displaying a religious symbol outside their building, it should come down, but I didn't see that in the article. Sunnis and Shiites from what I gather aren't capable of worshipping together, think Catholics and Protestants in Northern Ireland.

So it's OK to cater to Sunnis and Shiites, but not to other religions? Why can't a single building offer services at different times? This IS a military base and not Baghdad or Taliban Central...

But anyway, so you're all for the military building several churches then to accommodate Catholics/Christians so long as their are no symbols on the building? I say it's a non-issue then. Take down the cross and build 3 or 4 churches to host the Catholics/Christians then and the problem is somewhat solved. Let the Muslims and other faiths decide what they will, but at least we know those upset with the cross coming down will have their space to practice their faith.

[Gunny]

So's a chapel...do you have a point to make?

That you're a hypocritical liar. You have no problem with a mosque, but Lord don't let there be a cross on a chapel. You're an idiot. That can't get fixed.

[Gunny]

There's no difference in the extremes.

True Christians hold their beliefs in their hearts, and live their lives accordingly. They don't hound, preach, and condemn others for not believing as they do.

True atheists just don't give a crap either way, and are content to live and let live. (me)

Extremists, however (you), behave as you are now.

I completely agree. I'm well aware of what true atheists believe. You haven't heard me say a damned thing about any one of them. I'm talking about the hypocrites that believe in disbelief so much, they have no less a religion than anyone else. I know quite a few atheists on this board ... they aren't in this thread. Just the hypocrites who demand the right to do what they are accusing Christians of doing -- forcing their beliefs onto everyone else.

[Missileman]

There's no difference in the extremes.

True Christians hold their beliefs in their hearts, and live their lives accordingly. They don't hound, preach, and condemn others for not believing as they do.

True atheists just don't give a crap either way, and are content to live and let live. (me)

Extremists, however (you), behave as you are now.

I'm not an extremist. I posted a reasonable question and reasonable comments and then got jumped by Gunny with his bullshit. I'm answering his accusation with a truth he'll deny.

How many true Christians might you suppose there are using your criteria?

[Gunny]

So it's OK to cater to Sunnis and Shiites, but not to other religions? Why can't a single building offer services at different times? This IS a military base and not Baghdad or Taliban Central...

But anyway, so you're all for the military building several churches then to accommodate Catholics/Christians so long as their are no symbols on the building? I say it's a non-issue then. Take down the cross and build 3 or 4 churches to host the Catholics/Christians then and the problem is somewhat solved. Let the Muslims and other faiths decide what they will, but at least we know those upset with the cross coming down will have their space to practice their faith.

The fact is, base chapels offer religious services for everyone.

[jimnyc]

The fact is, base chapels offer religious services for everyone.

That's what I thought when I did further reading from the manual, but then left scratching my head as to why they are so stringent against other religions and then cater to Muslims. There's no legit excuse to treat ANY religion different than others.

[Noir]

So, regardless of reason, you guys think it's ok to have a building dedicated to just one faith, and all others must share a single building? No crosses allowed, but no problem with an entire building for a single faith? And you 2 find a way to defend this and are the first 2 to also defend the removal of the cross. Odd.

I wouldn't care if all the faith groups meet in one building, or if they all had their own, or if each group doubled up so there were two per building etc. Whatever works for them and the space they have/need etc.

[Missileman]

So it's OK to cater to Sunnis and Shiites, but not to other religions? Why can't a single building offer services at different times? This IS a military base and not Baghdad or Taliban Central...

But anyway, so you're all for the military building several churches then to accommodate Catholics/Christians so long as their are no symbols on the building? I say it's a non-issue then. Take down the cross and build 3 or 4 churches to host the Catholics/Christians then and the problem is somewhat solved. Let the Muslims and other faiths decide what they will, but at least we know those upset with the cross coming down will have their space to practice their faith.

Aren't there strict times that need to be followed by both Sunnis and Shiites for Muslim prayers? How could they offer different times for that?

Are you going to hire a separate Chaplain for each denomination, or get the one a Pope-mobile to run from one building to the next?

[Gunny]

That's what I thought when I did further reading from the manual, but then left scratching my head as to why they are so stringent against other religions and then cater to Muslims. There's no legit excuse to treat ANY religion different than others.

The military is the US government's social experimental group because they can force everyone to follow stupid, PC rules designed to support the tyranny of the minority and no one can refuse to disobey.

[shattered]

I'm not an extremist. I posted a reasonable question and reasonable comments and then got jumped by Gunny with his bullshit. I'm answering his accusation with a truth he'll deny.

How many true Christians might you suppose there are using your criteria?

Quite a few, actually. The extremists on both sides are simply louder. However, if you jumpat a Christian, you can damn well believe they're going to jump right back. That isn't being extremist - that is defending oneself.

And for someone that is not an extremist, you sure are behaving as one.

[Missileman]

Quite a few, actually. The extremists on both sides are simply louder. However, if you jumpat a Christian, you can damn well believe they're going to jump right back. That isn't being extremist - that is defending oneself.

And for someone that is not an extremist, you sure are behaving as one.

In what way?

[jimnyc]

Aren't there strict times that need to be followed by both Sunnis and Shiites for Muslim prayers? How could they offer different times for that?

Are you going to hire a separate Chaplain for each denomination, or get the one a Pope-mobile to run from one building to the next?

As a result of "timing", you are for giving special treatment for Sunni/Shiite.

So you should have no problem with EVERY faith having an appropriate amount of buildings built by the military to allow those to practice their faith within, no? So long as there is no outwardly religious symbols, correct? Surely if we can cater to the Shiite/Sunni to avoid problems, we can cater to the rest to avoid them too, no? And yes, having *gasp* 5-10 different chaplains won't exactly stretch the limits of the military.

[Missileman]

As a result of "timing", you are for giving special treatment for Sunni/Shiite.

So you should have no problem with EVERY faith having an appropriate amount of buildings built by the military to allow those to practice their faith within, no? So long as there is no outwardly religious symbols, correct? Surely if we can cater to the Shiite/Sunni to avoid problems, we can cater to the rest to avoid them too, no? And yes, having *gasp* 5-10 different chaplains won't exactly stretch the limits of the military.

I have no problem with a cross outside the building, never said I did. Might even work to put up a symbol of each religion that services are offered for. That said, I still say it's impractical to make a separate building and have a separate Chaplain for each denomination. You'd build a church and have clergy to accomodate a single person if it worked out that way?

[jimnyc]

I have no problem with a cross outside the building, never said I did. Might even work to put up a symbol of each religion that services are offered for. That said, I still say it's impractical to make a separate building and have a separate Chaplain for each denomination. You'd build a church and have clergy to accomodate a single person if it worked out that way?

Either do it the way I stated, cater to each and every religion - or leave the cross up and others on the base should lobby FOR their own religion instead of AGAINST others. As it stands right now, ONE religion is being catered to while others use a shared environment. They don't call it a "church" because it is shared by multiple faiths - but it's ok to have a "Mosque".

[ConHog]

Aren't there strict times that need to be followed by both Sunnis and Shiites for Muslim prayers? How could they offer different times for that?

Are you going to hire a separate Chaplain for each denomination, or get the one a Pope-mobile to run from one building to the next?

Most large bases have more than one chapel goof ball. And generally speaking the chapels kind of get used predominantly by one religion, but not always, and there is no hard and fast rule. I believe that is all that was being said.

You will not ever find a synagogue or a mosque on a military base, but they are provided a building to worship in should they desire one. Same as any other religeon that has another followers to justify such.

[Missileman]

Most large bases have more than one chapel goof ball. And generally speaking the chapels kind of get used predominantly by one religion, but not always, and there is no hard and fast rule. I believe that is all that was being said.

You will not ever find a synagogue or a mosque on a military base, but they are provided a building to worship in should they desire one. Same as any other religeon that has another followers to justify such.

Name a base that has 15 chapels and Chaplains, Gomer. That was a solution proposed by another poster.

[jimnyc]

Name a base that has 15 chapels and Chaplains, Gomer. That was a solution proposed by another poster.

As opposed to the solution being the catering to one religion. If it were Christians being catered to - you and Noir would be going nuts. In this case it is Muslims being catered to, and you are making excuses as to why it's necessary and why it wouldn't be prudent to try and cater to any other religion.

[Abbey Marie]

As opposed to the solution being the catering to one religion. If it were Christians being catered to - you and Noir would be going nuts. In this case it is Muslims being catered to, and you are making excuses as to why it's necessary and why it wouldn't be prudent to try and cater to any other religion.

And that is it in a nutshell. :clap:

[jimnyc]

And that is it in a nutshell. :clap:

I'd bet everything I have that if there was one huge tent for all religions, and a separate tent for Christians, there would be a HUGE backlash and bitching like you've never seen before. But as it is, it's no big deal to cater to Muslims as it's "easier" to do so. In all likelihood, NO excuse whatsoever would work in telling some that Christians needed their own Church. The hypocrisy and transparency is extremely obvious.

Either treat them all the same or cater to all. But when I suggested similar treatment be given to other religions and whether that would be ok, my point was almost entirely ignored.

Give an ENTIRE BUILDING to one faith, and that's ok, then DON'T bitch about a cross, as a mosque IS one huge religious symbol - but that's oddly not a problem.

[Noir]

As opposed to the solution being the catering to one religion. If it were Christians being catered to - you and Noir would be going nuts. In this case it is Muslims being catered to, and you are making excuses as to why it's necessary and why it wouldn't be prudent to try and cater to any other religion.

I think i've already made my stance on the issue pretty clear (and indeed you 'thanked' the very post), but hey, just disregard that and post what you'd rather my opinion was for the sake of your post...

[jimnyc]

I think i've already made my stance on the issue pretty clear (and indeed you 'thanked' the very post), but hey, just disregard that and post what you'd rather my opinion was for the sake of your post...

Do you read properly?

So you wouldn't take issue if other religions were held to one standard, but Christians were catered to and given their own place? You wouldn't say a word if this were the case?

I "thanked" you for a post where you stated ALL should be treated equally. Now I'm saying that you would bitch if Christians were catered to. Am I wrong? Are these not 2 different scenarios?

[ConHog]

I'd bet everything I have that if there was one huge tent for all religions, and a separate tent for Christians, there would be a HUGE backlash and bitching like you've never seen before. But as it is, it's no big deal to cater to Muslims as it's "easier" to do so. In all likelihood, NO excuse whatsoever would work in telling some that Christians needed their own Church. The hypocrisy and transparency is extremely obvious.

Either treat them all the same or cater to all. But when I suggested similar treatment be given to other religions and whether that would be ok, my point was almost entirely ignored.

Give an ENTIRE BUILDING to one faith, and that's ok, then DON'T bitch about a cross, as a mosque IS one huge religious symbol - but that's oddly not a problem.

Who'd make that bet?

[jimnyc]

Who'd make that bet?

No one, as everyone knows I am correct!

[ConHog]

Name a base that has 15 chapels and Chaplains, Gomer. That was a solution proposed by another poster.

Name a base that NEEDS that many .Oh, that's right there isn't one. The largest base I've ever served at was Ft Benning and to the best of my memory they had worship services for Catholics, Jews, Muslims, and Christians (not catholic Christians I mean of course.) That's 4 religions, which other 9 do you think are represented in numbers to justify chapel services?

[ConHog]

No one, as everyone knows I am correct!

Maybe if Christianity became the religion of peace and Christians started killing everyone who opposed them people would stop opposing them.


That's sarcasm by the way people.

[Noir]

Do you read properly?

So you wouldn't take issue if other religions were held to one standard, but Christians were catered to and given their own place? You wouldn't say a word if this were the case?

I "thanked" you for a post where you stated ALL should be treated equally. Now I'm saying that you would bitch if Christians were catered to. Am I wrong? Are these not 2 different scenarios?

I said in the post that i wouldn't care how many buildings were devoted to whatever gods or how they were shared (or not) along as it suited the spacial/fincncial requirements of the base.

[jimnyc]

I said in the post that i wouldn't care how many buildings were devoted to whatever gods or how they were shared (or not) along as it suited the spacial/fincncial requirements of the base.

Answer my question - if EVERY other religion was expected to share one building, and not a symbol was allowed to hang outside the building - but an entire Church was devoted to the Catholics - would you or would you not have a problem with this. It's a simple yes/no answer, and we know your answer without asking, but humor me.

[ConHog]

Answer my question - if EVERY other religion was expected to share one building, and not a symbol was allowed to hang outside the building - but an entire Church was devoted to the Catholics - would you or would you not have a problem with this. It's a simple yes/no answer, and we know your answer without asking, but humor me.

He's not going to answer for precisely the reason you cited. We know the answer, and he won't go on record with his hypocrisy.

[Noir]

Answer my question - if EVERY other religion was expected to share one building, and not a symbol was allowed to hang outside the building - but an entire Church was devoted to the Catholics - would you or would you not have a problem with this. It's a simple yes/no answer, and we know your answer without asking, but humor me.

No. I would not have a problem with that.
That is my answer, No.
My simple yes/no answer is no.
Clear?

Though i had already stated this twice previously in the thread by saying

"I wouldn't care if all the faith groups meet in one building, or if they all had their own, or if each group doubled up so there were two per building etc. Whatever works for them and the space they have/need etc."

and

"I said in the post that i wouldn't care how many buildings were devoted to whatever gods or how they were shared (or not) along as it suited the spacial/fincncial requirements of the base."

But once again for clarity - No.

[jimnyc]

No. I would not have a problem with that.
That is my answer, No.
My simple yes/no answer is no.
Clear?

Though i had already stated this twice previously in the thread by saying

"I wouldn't care if all the faith groups meet in one building, or if they all had their own, or if each group doubled up so there were two per building etc. Whatever works for them and the space they have/need etc."

and

"I said in the post that i wouldn't care how many buildings were devoted to whatever gods or how they were shared (or not) along as it suited the spacial/fincncial requirements of the base."

But once again for clarity - No.

You've whined about every little detail every time anything Christian/Catholic has been brought up on this board, from the day you've been a member. Now you expect us to believe that you wouldn't care if they were given preferential treatment? I call bullshit, and I'm unsure if anyone else that has witnessed your anti-Christian crusades will disagree.

If that be the case, I think they should have as many Churches setup as necessary, even if it means dismantling the Mosque to make room, and the Muslims can just share the building set aside for everyone else that isn't Christian or Catholic.

[Noir]

You've whined about every little detail every time anything Christian/Catholic has been brought up on this board, from the day you've been a member. Now you expect us to believe that you wouldn't care if they were given preferential treatment? I call bullshit, and I'm unsure if anyone else that has witnessed your anti-Christian crusades will disagree.

If that be the case, I think they should have as many Churches setup as necessary, even if it means dismantling the Mosque to make room, and the Muslims can just share the building set aside for everyone else that isn't Christian or Catholic.

I don't see how its preferential along as each/any group has their place to pray.

If for example 80% of the religious people there were Cathoics and 20% of other faiths and you had 3 buildings to use. It would make sense to have 2 buildings for the Catholics and one for the others (40/40/20 split) if the numbers were different it may make sense to have one Catholic, on Muslim, and one for the rest etc.

The only way there could be a "preference" would be if only certain groups ware allowed to have buildings. i.e. there could be no faith rooms for Jews or Muslims, only Christians etc. But that is not the case. All are allowed, and from that on you need only apply common sense as to how to use what buildings you have for whatever purpose.

[ConHog]

I don't see how its preferential along as each/any group has their place to pray.

If for example 80% of the religious people there were Cathoics and 20% of other faiths and you had 3 buildings to use. It would make sense to have 2 buildings for the Catholics and one for the others (40/40/20 split) if the numbers were different it may make sense to have one Catholic, on Muslim, and one for the rest etc.

The only way there could be a "preference" would be if only certain groups ware allowed to have buildings. i.e. there could be no faith rooms for Jews or Muslims, only Christians etc. But that is not the case. All are allowed, and from that on you need only apply common sense as to how to use what buildings you have for whatever purpose.

I, for one, think you're full of shit. I believe if there were a thread started about any perceived preferential treatment Christians were receiving you would be on that thread bitching faster than revfarts could accuse those soldiers of being war criminals.

[Missileman]

As opposed to the solution being the catering to one religion. If it were Christians being catered to - you and Noir would be going nuts. In this case it is Muslims being catered to, and you are making excuses as to why it's necessary and why it wouldn't be prudent to try and cater to any other religion.

As it appears to anyone who can read, you and the other Christians are the ones going nuts over the arrangements, not me. I offered VALID reasons why separate mosques are necessary and practical.

[Missileman]

Name a base that NEEDS that many .Oh, that's right there isn't one. The largest base I've ever served at was Ft Benning and to the best of my memory they had worship services for Catholics, Jews, Muslims, and Christians (not catholic Christians I mean of course.) That's 4 religions, which other 9 do you think are represented in numbers to justify chapel services?

You'd have to ask the bright boy who thinks separate arrangements for every Christian denomination is required to "even things up".

[jimnyc]

As it appears to anyone who can read, you and the other Christians are the ones going nuts over the arrangements, not me. I offered VALID reasons why separate mosques are necessary and practical.


You'd have to ask the bright boy who thinks separate arrangements for every Christian denomination is required to "even things up".

I might stand by what I believe in, and be passionate about it - but where have I drawn you into a flamefest by calling you names or inferring anything about your intelligence? I think I've discussed my stance like an adult, but if you choose to move towards the gutter, I can oblige you.

[jimnyc]

Suppose I offer reasons as to why Christians should be catered to, MM... Would they automatically be "valid"? Or does that depend on who is offering reasons? These are fucking soldiers, and soldiers, whether Sunni or Shiite, should be able to share the same building/tent. Or are you implying that people that don't like one another is a good enough reason to separate people? Hmmm... I guess we should have just set aside queers like yourself into separate buildings then instead of making such a ruckus over don't ask don't tell. Would separating you from the real men have been ok with you?

[Missileman]

Suppose I offer reasons as to why Christians should be catered to, MM... Would they automatically be "valid"? Or does that depend on who is offering reasons? These are fucking soldiers, and soldiers, whether Sunni or Shiite, should be able to share the same building/tent. Or are you implying that people that don't like one another is a good enough reason to separate people? Hmmm... I guess we should have just set aside queers like yourself into separate buildings then instead of making such a ruckus over don't ask don't tell. Would separating you from the real men have been ok with you?

As yet, you haven't offered any logical reason at all for your position, just whining about the mosques.

BTW, did the bullshit insinuation make you feel better?

[jimnyc]

As yet, you haven't offered any logical reason at all for your position, just whining about the mosques.

BTW, did the bullshit insinuation make you feel better?

Probably made me feel about as good as your unprovoked and lame comments towards me. Only you look like the usual asshole for starting shit where there was no problem.

[Missileman]

Probably made me feel about as good as your unprovoked and lame comments towards me. Only you look like the usual asshole for starting shit where there was no problem.

:beer:

[jimnyc]

:beer:

Fair enough :beer:

[Gunny]

What about the behavior? How about pulling your head out of your mangina and taking a shot at debating the issue. You claim you can whoop my ass at will...time to prove it, pussy!


So's a chapel...do you have a point to make?

Fuck off, loser.

[Gunny]

I'm not an extremist. I posted a reasonable question and reasonable comments and then got jumped by Gunny with his bullshit. I'm answering his accusation with a truth he'll deny.

How many true Christians might you suppose there are using your criteria?

You're the definition of extremist, oh delusional one.

[Missileman]

Fuck off, loser.

So much easier than making a rational argument, but it is your MO. As a matter of fact, that's ALL you ever post.

[Gunny]

That's what I thought when I did further reading from the manual, but then left scratching my head as to why they are so stringent against other religions and then cater to Muslims. There's no legit excuse to treat ANY religion different than others.

They cater to Muslims because the military is forced to be PC by command. They have no choice. Our society and government caters to pissant, minority extremists at the expense of the majority. Hence, your answer.

[Kathianne]

Fuck off, loser.

Sorry Gunny, we need to treat all posters like they are guests. Stop it. Really. Can't just have one whiner benefiting from the majority rules.

[Missileman]

You're the definition of extremist, oh delusional one.

Sure I am...quote a single post in this thread that's an extreme atheist position. :slap: DIPSHIT!

[Kathianne]

Sure I am...quote a single post in this thread that's an extreme atheist position. :slap: DIPSHIT!

You need to ally with a mod, sorry, I'm not available. That makes all the difference in treatment. At least to this point.

[Kathianne]

Sorry Gunny, we need to treat all posters like they are guests. Stop it. Really. Can't just have one whiner benefiting from the majority rules.

It shouldn't be thus, seems to me whining or not, all should be equal. But you can bash on MM; others bash on gays; I think it should be that all should be able to write what is reasonable and take the payback.

[Kathianne]

It shouldn't be thus, seems to me whining or not, all should be equal. But you can bash on MM; others bash on gays; I think it should be that all should be able to write what is reasonable and take the payback.

Yet there are some that snivel, grovel, and pm lots of folks, looking for special treatment. They are the same that slam and call themselves great folks in their names for busting others. ;)

[Missileman]

You need to ally with a mod, sorry, I'm not available. That makes all the difference in treatment. At least to this point.

I'm not concerned about treatment. I need no ally to best a dub like Gunny.

[Noir]

@Kathianne, am I missing something or was there a method behind quoting your own posts? idgi

[Kathianne]

@Kathianne, am I missing something or was there a method behind quoting your own posts? idgi

I'm sorry. Temper has gotten the better of common sense.

[Noir]

I'm sorry. Temper has gotten the better of common sense.

Mkays, well I have no idea what's going on, but I can't help but feel that dancing would help, let's waltz! =D

[Kathianne]

Mkays, well I have no idea what's going on, but I can't help but feel that dancing would help, let's waltz! =D

You're probably correct! I am going to a charity dance on Saturday-woot! Taking the night off at Walgreen's. A friend's husband is playing matchmaker for one of his colleagues. He bought a table and invited several couples that are mutual friends of ours, then me and this guy. Should be fun, all Christmas decorations and all.

You'd approve the charity: "No kill pet shelter." His daughter, my godchild, is running the fundraiser.