Lt. Gen. Thomas P. Bostick calls Christian soldiers "bigots."

La Salette Journey ^ | 9/20/2010 | Paul Melanson

[markomalley]

The Washington Times is reporting that Lt. Gen. Thomas P. Bostick, the Army's deputy chief of staff in charge of personnel matters who spoke about "Don't Ask, Don't Tell" before several hundred troops at the European Command headquarters in Stuttgart, Germany, said: "Unfortunately, we have a minority of service members who are still racists and bigoted and you will never be able to get rid of all of them...But these people opposing this new policy will need to get with the program, and if they can't, they need to get out. No matter how much training and education of those in opposition, you're always going to have those that oppose this on moral and religious grounds just like you still have racists today." Full article here.

Ironically, General Bostick's commentary reveals that he is guilty of the very charge which he levels against Christians who oppose homosexuality. In Slouching Towards Gomorrah, Robert H. Bork writes, "Moral objection to homosexual practices is not the same thing as animus, unless all disapprovals based on morality are to be disallowed as mere animus. Modern liberalism tends to classify all moral distinctions it does not accept as hateful and invalid. Moral views about sexual practices are particularly suspect.." (p. 113).

As I said in a previous post: "..the same radical homosexual activists who continually cry for more "tolerance" are anything but tolerant. This is a spiritual war. The homosexual movement is not a civil rights movement. It is an attempt at moral revolution. An attempt to change people's view of homosexuality.

Writing in the Chicago Free Press, even homosexual activist Paul Varnell admitted this. He wrote, "The fundamental controverted issue about homosexuality is not discrimination, hate crimes or domestic partnerships, but the morality of homosexuality. Even if gays obtain non-discrimination laws, hate crimes law and domestic partnership benefits, those can do little to counter the underlying moral condemnation which will continue to fester beneath the law and generate hostility, fuel hate crimes, support conversion therapies, encourage gay youth suicide and inhibit the full social acceptance that is our goal. On the other hand, if we convince people that homosexuality is fully moral, then all their inclination to discriminate, engage in gay-bashing or oppose gay marriage disappears. Gay youths and adults could readily accept themselves. So the gay movement, whether we acknowledge it or not, is not a civil rights movement, not even a sexual liberation movement, but a moral revolution aimed at changing people's view of homosexuality." (Paul Varnell, "Defending Our Morality," Chicago Free Press, Aug 16, 2000, See here).

Related reading here.

[rwilson99]

Where is the logic in a movement that tells boys who want to be girls they can change... But tells those who struggle with same sex attraction that they were born that way... And therefore can not change.

Tragic... The withdrawal of the hope is the biggest contributing factor to the psychology of suicide... And these ‘advocates’ promote that loss of hope.

Sad.

[dsc]

“politically correct Powerpoint commandos”

Good one.

[dsc]

“Regarding the combat experience, he is wearing a patch on his blues...I don’t know what that indicates.”

He’s wearing the 1st Cav patch on his right shoulder. He’s not entitled to do that unless he’s been in combat with them.

[Nickname]

No doubt, and homosexual activists in the military would target the chaplains first by demanding communion, couples counseling, etc.

[Cvengr]

Interesting quote from Varnell. I guess this explains why homosexuals began forming their own ‘churches’ about 10 years ago and began to rewrite the Bible to fit their agenda.

Their objective: “So the gay movement, whether we acknowledge it or not, is not a civil rights movement, not even a sexual liberation movement, but a moral revolution aimed at changing people’s view of homosexuality.”

[Northern Yankee]

Unfortunately we have a general who has no idea what the hell he is talking about, and continues to be ignorant about the moral philsophy of most Christians.

[Northern Yankee]

Amen, brother.

I hear even Chaplains are not allowed to mention God anymore? I hope that's not the case.

[MrB]

What would our military be without them?

Just exactly what the left intends for them to be - an instrument of oppression.

[LomanBill]

>>Where is the logic in a movement

 

THE HOMOSEXUAL ROOTS OF THE NAZI PARTY

[Altura Ct.]

You will obey or we will destroy you.

‘They hate us for our freedoms’. What country was that again?

[Altura Ct.]

‘Civil rights’ destroying our nation one brick at a time.

[AnalogReigns]

Homosexual “rights” and religious liberty are NOT compatible, period.

[LomanBill]

>>What country was that again?

 

The one that was deceived by into confusing Fatal Liberality  with Liberty.

[AnalogReigns]

Maybe Christians should avoid the military.

I think the time is coming when, like the Christians of the Roman empire, we should.

Roman soldiers were required to perform worship to the Emperor as proof of loyalty. Hence Christians avoided going into the Roman military.

Similarly too, the Democrats are trying to force Christians to perform worship at the altar of sexual perversion...as proof of our "loyalty."

If Christians are forced out of the military due to our moral stance, let's see how long our Republic will last...

[MSF BU]

I understand that, technically he was in a hazardous fire zone. I have 58 months of that, but it doesn’t mean I was actually in combat. There is a huge difference between the combat seen by Congressman Hunter and the ‘combat’ seen by Congressman Mark Kirk. Hunter led men on the ground under fire, Kirk happened to be in the area.

[MSF BU]

Sadly, the way you characterize Bostick may be correct. Compare him with a real leader like General Pace.

[dsc]

“continues to be ignorant about the moral philsophy of most Christians.”

Given that he’s an affirmative-action general, I doubt that he has the candlepower to understand these arguments. I think he’s just parroting arguments that were handed to him.

Probably in a PowerPoint presentation.

[POWERSBOOTHEFAN]

One indivudual,whose daughter is a lesbian,said “who’s to say the gays are wrong and that we are right?” I said nothing because I didn’t want to start any trouble. I was the only person in the class (there were 5 of us)who was against homosexuality. There was a gayer-than-gay student (we were enrolled in a beauty school)who would come in for facials on a regular basis. I don’t think he even paid for them! We could only get so many before we had to start paying for them.At any rate he carried a suede purse with those fringes that hang off the side,and he wore make-up. During one of those many facials he’d get he said “I never thought I could enjoy being touched by a woman.” Everone else laughed but I rolled my eyes.He even said that he pees sitting down! When I asked why he said “it’s the girl in me”Give me a break.

[LomanBill]

>>“who’s to say the gays are wrong and that we are right?”

 

 
"I KNOW BUT ONE CODE OF MORALITY FOR MEN WHETHER ACTING SINGLY OR COLLECTIVELY" -- Thomas Jefferson

 

Nature is to say.

 

It's a simple matter of reproductive fitness.   Fitness being measured via multiple generations of viable offspring.

 

Without technology or surrogate assistance, the reproductive fitness of homosexuals is ZERO.

[mckenzie7]

If all Christians were to not enlist or re-enlist, who would fight Obama’s war?