Military law isn't even handed in this case.  A heterosexual living in the baracks is allowed to put up pictures of his girlfriend/wife and children but a homosexual is NOT allowed to put up pictures of his boyfriend unless he covers it up saying that it is a close relative or something like that.  How is that fair or even-handed?

Again I ask why?  What unique circumstances are there that should deny someone to acknowledge who they are?  Because a heterosexual might be in a fox hole with a homosexual?  I doubt either of them are going to be contemplating the others sexuality while they are there as they are probably going to be more focused on repelling the enemy.

Exactly, open.  A heterosexual can take to his/her spouse or significant other on the phone and express their love for one another and opening talk with their commrads afterwards on who they were talking to, a homosexual can't do that.  A heterosexual can have their spouse or significant other present when they deploy and can even kiss them goodbye, a homosexual can't do that either.  That simply isn't right.

Why wouldn't they?  I can imagine some would be opposed but why would most of them?  It's another body and another gun to help them accomplish whatever mission they happen to be on.

Both are rooted in Marxism.  Although they are different they are still pretty close and have similar roots.

I deal with soldiers on a day to day basis (when they're not deployed) and I can say with certainty that there are openly gay people in the military. Women, mostly. Everybody they work with knows they are gay, but because of the rule, they just aren't supposed to mention it to their commanders--basically, don't bring your sexuality to work... which is something we should all do anyway, regardless of orientation. No soldier has ever said working with gay people is a problem (to me--I do realize that they don't tell me everything!).

mm posts:

AD POSTS:

mm posts# 16

ad posts #23

leauki posts:

So true, Leauki. Thank you.

ad posts:

AD,

Your understanding and judgment of both the Spanish Inquisition and the CC is incorrect.

It would do well for you to understand that the CC has never classified Judaism as a heresy or believing Jews as heretics. So, persons of Jewish parentage, who were Jews in the religious sense of the term, were not ever once subjected to the Inquisition.

The Inquisition in the CC passed judgment upon the actions of Catholics, that is, persons who through Baptism became subject to her principles and doctrines in faith and morals, whether they were born of Catholic, Jewish, Mohammedan, Pagan or athiest parents, NOT JEWS. Jews who professed Judaism were not subject to the inquisitional tribunals.

The Inquisition's task was to cleanse the Chruch of unorthodoxy and not merely to heretics, but also bigamists, adulterers, blasphemers, and other violators of the principles of the Church to which they, as baptized men and women, were obligated to be true.

History will confirm the conditions in the Iberian Peninsula during the centuries leading before the Inquisition was instituted that led up to the deportation of the Jews. The Mohammaden bearers of the Crescent against the Cross invaded Spain in 711... this invasion was made with the aid of the Jews who invited the Mohammadens to cross the 9 mile strip of water from Morocco to Gibraltar in order to take possession of the Catholic kingdom of Spain. The Moors joined the invasion. The Jewish encyclopedia records, "It remains a fact that the Jews, either directly or through their coreligionists in Africa, encouraged the Mohammadens to conquer Spain and that they greeted them as deliverers. ....After the battle of Jarex,  the cities of COrdova, Malaga, granada, Seville, and Toledo were placed in the charge of Jewish inhabitants, who had been armed by the Arabs." 

This was the beginning of an 800 year old conflict of the Spaniards as defeat meant the inroad of Mohammadanism throughout Christendom.  While the Jews furthered the battering of Spain from without, they also bored within, by infiltrating the Spanish government and court as well as the Church. Thousands of Jews submitted themselves to Baptism in order take advantage of opportunities conversion offered. These pseudo-converts to Catholicism in Spain in 1490 were called Marranos.

An Inquisition properly understood is a court, a tribunal of inquiry for the examination, reconciliation and punishment of persons charged with violating the principles and practices of the society that institutes the Inquisition. Inquisitions existed, by Divine right, in Jewry during the 1st centuries before the First Pentecost day when the Catholic Chruch began her public mission. Inquistions also existed in Protestantism as well as in Catholic Spain. Though not called inquisitions, courts of inquiry exist today in clubs, lodges, trade unions, and other secular societies, as well as in our US government.

Keep in mind that the US government is well within it rights to safeguard its integrity by bringing suspected enemies within its borders to account through inquisitorial bodies as the CIA and FBI, etc. 

Remember that Catholics hold, as did our Jewish forebears during the days when Judaism functioned as the religion of Almighty God that heresy is a violation of God's law; that persons who are heretics are more culpable than those who are guilty of treasonable action against a civil government.  This being so, then is it not perfectly legitimate for the CC to safeguard the integrity of her principles and practices and institute an Inquisition in Spain for the purpose of unearthing traitors within her borders (within the Church) who under the pretense of being Christian, operated in the interest of a foreign power (as did/do subersive Communists in our own country)?

Yes, I didn't mean to include the inquisition as based in Marxism.  Careless error.

So they say but what exactly did they do differently?

He should have picked Carolyn Kennedy as his running mate, then they would have bored the nation to sleep with the Umms and Uhhhs and You Knows.

It's the difference between the people running the concentration camps and the people sitting in them.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kurt_Schumacher

The socialists and communists were the only parties who voted against Hitler in the German parliament.

Probably the most famous socialist of the 20th century was Willy Brandt:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Willy_Brandt

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Warschauer_Kniefall

Do you want to tell me that you cannot see the difference between those men and the Nazis?

I don't understand how it can still be puzzling after I explained (just above) how the apparent paradox appears.

Jews favour socialism because Jews are a stick-together kind of bunch. Jews can be good businessmen and support socialism. And why wouldn't it make sense? Many Zionists worked very hard in their businesses in order to support the JNF to buy land in Israel, land that was then owned by all Jews, not private land owners.

Many of Israel's politicians traditionally came from the kibbutzim, collective communities. Kibbutzniks (people who live or lived on a kibbutz) are the archetype of Israeli. Kibbutzim were sometimes religions but most often secular, yet they revived Biblical holidays long no more celebrated by religious or secular Jews. And they did it in the spirit of togetherness, of socialism.

The reason Israel eventually gave up socialism was purely for economic reasons, not because Jews specifically suffered under it or rejected it for ideological reasons.

(Judaism does reject communism, except in the Messianic sense, but not every form of socialism.)

Hmm, here are some quotes I found and links too!  They don't say what you say.

Here's a quote from JewishEncyclopedia.com:

The New or Spanish Inquisition, introduced into the united kingdoms of Castile, Aragon, and Navarre by Ferdinand V. and Isabella the Catholic, was directed chiefly against converted Jews and against Jews and Moors. During the cruel persecutions of 1391 many thousands of Jewish families accepted baptism in order to save their lives. These converts, called "Conversos," "Neo-Christians" ("Christaõs Novos"). or "Maranos," preserved their love for Judaism, and secretly observed the Jewish law and Jewish customs.

LINK -> First paragraph from "The New Inquisition" Article. 

Here's another quote from JE.com

Several months after the fall of Granada an edict of expulsion was issued against the Jews of Spain by Ferdinand and Isabella (March 31, 1492). It ordered all Jews and Jewesses of whatever age to leave the kingdom by the last day of July, but permitted them to remove their property provided it was not in gold, silver, or money.

LINK -> First paragraph from "Edict of Expulsion" Article.

BTW, I'm not ignoring your post, just taking the time to read and respond.

lula posts:

This quote is found in Vol. II, page 485.

Lula posts: 37

Dr. Baron's quote is found in Vol. 21, pages 58-60.

Check out the 15th century political conditions in the Americana and Britannica Encyclopedias....you'll see their historians look at the Spanish Inquisition as more political than religious.

History shows that Catholic Spain was in continual warfare for 800 years against the Mohammadens. Spain was in a fight for nationhood from 711, when the fanatical Arabs, with Jews in their ranks, invaded Spain until the capture of Granada in 1491.  The 800 year conflict ended with the exile of an estimated 165,000 Jews (JE Vol. 11, page 501). This was deemed necessary for maintainence of SPanish unity....for it's no secret that the Moors and the Jews who professed to be Catholics and loyal Spaniards, while inwardly they despised both Catholicism and Spain.

Spain's victory meant the end of the inroads of Mohammedism into Christianity which in turn freed up funds, men and supplies and gave Christopher Columbus (another Catholic) Spain's permission and financing to sail the ocean blue in 1492.

Do you know that this method of dealing with people thought to be detrimental to a nation's well being is a part of Jewish history as well?  History tells us of the Jewish High Priest John Hyreanus subduing the Edomites, and giving them the choice of either becoming Jews, through circumcision, or being deported. Check out the Jewish Encyclopedia Vol 6.

And it if hadn't been for Alexander, the Phoenicians under Iranian rule would have likely reached America much earlier, around 2000 years ago and 1500 years before Columbus.

The Greeks and Romans really set the world back a bit.

Yes, but Israel didn't torture those Edomites that were suspected of following their old religion.

Yes, in post 46, I quoted from The Jewish Encyclopedia volume 11, page 485 and 501. 

What was...was.

Again, even Jewish history recounts that the traiterous actions of the Morranos were a gross injustice. Through false conversion, these Marranos who took Christianity on their lips (false oath..."Kol Nidre") but kept Judaism in their heart, took advantage of the Chruch in an attempt to infiltrate Spanish government. The Spanish Inquisition was instituted at the request of King Ferdinand and Queen Isabella who caught on to the heretical conduct which was both a sin, a violation of God's law, and considered a crime, which is an act against the state and considered worthy of punishment.