The Army Silenced Chaplains Last Sunday

The Nation is on this dangerous pathway of silencing voices of the churches of this land. When New York State passed gay marriage last June, the agenda was much bigger than gay marriages. In a recent meeting with ministers in the Capital Region, I learned that the total number of gay marriages have been few. What has happened though is that this new legal position on marriage has been used to challenge individual Christians and churches in a variety of ways. Not too long ago, the governor said that people who still refuse the idea of same marriage are not patriotic New Yorkers. Right now, churches in Manhattan are being told that they must vacate public school properties later this month. The argument behind this is that churches hold views like the one against homosexuality and this comes into enough conflict with society that they should not be allowed to use public school facility. The ACLU lawyers defending this action even believe that there is no room anywhere else in our cities and towns for these churches to meet because they are hurting our society with their radical beliefs.

This is the new America that is emerging. The pastors and people need to be aware of what is going on.

If you have the time and means to link to some articles about these things happening in New York, I would like to get that information out to others here on the other side of the country. Thanks, brother.

[Pastor Joe Roof] The Nation is on this dangerous pathway of silencing voices of the churches of this land. When New York State passed gay marriage last June, the agenda was much bigger than gay marriages. In a recent meeting with ministers in the Capital Region, I learned that the total number of gay marriages have been few. What has happened though is that this new legal position on marriage has been used to challenge individual Christians and churches in a variety of ways. Not too long ago, the governor said that people who still refuse the idea of same marriage are not patriotic New Yorkers. Right now, churches in Manhattan are being told that they must vacate public school properties later this month. The argument behind this is that churches hold views like the one against homosexuality and this comes into enough conflict with society that they should not be allowed to use public school facility. The ACLU lawyers defending this action even believe that there is no room anywhere else in our cities and towns for these churches to meet because they are hurting our society with their radical beliefs.

This is the new America that is emerging. The pastors and people need to be aware of what is going on.

Founded, financed, run by Jews, has an overtly anti-Christian agenda, which it has been very successful at implementing for decades, and has huge, broad support in the Jewish community. If it was a Muslim outfit, we’d all know about it and classify it as creeping sharia or something like that … it would be talked about by all the “conservative” and “Christian” organizations and leaders. But since ACLU is Jewish and not Muslim, it just gets called a liberal group (despite MANY of the ACLU’s Jewish supporters not being liberal; lots of Conservative and Orthodox Jews are members of, support and contribute to the ACLU) with no reference to the Jewish angle.

Of course, the mainstream media will never mention the true nature of the ACLU - because they are on the ACLU’s side - but you’d think that the “Christian political leaders” would. But they don’t, just like these same leaders never tell the truth about the Republican Party.

[JobK] Founded, financed, run by Jews, has an overtly anti-Christian agenda, which it has been very successful at implementing for decades, and has huge, broad support in the Jewish community. If it was a Muslim outfit, we’d all know about it and classify it as creeping sharia or something like that … it would be talked about by all the “conservative” and “Christian” organizations and leaders. But since ACLU is Jewish and not Muslim, it just gets called a liberal group (despite MANY of the ACLU’s Jewish supporters not being liberal; lots of Conservative and Orthodox Jews are members of, support and contribute to the ACLU) with no reference to the Jewish angle..

Please provide documentation to support the underlined above.

@JobK, even if ACLU was 100% funded and operated by Jews (which I doubt), the ideas it usually fights for are as abhorrent to traditional Jews as they are to traditional Christians.
Their problem is not their place on an ethnic scale or even on a Jewish vs. Christian ideological scale. Rather, their problem is the place they occupy on a traditional vs. modernist scale—in other words, a conservative vs. liberal scale. So “liberal” is the real problem and the right term.

The term liberal has two recent meanings. Most basically it means generous or favoring liberty. In the development of western thought there was a liberalism that we all agree with (rights to due process, voting rights, etc.). But with the advent of the French radicals and their egalitarian (and ultimately socialist) revolution, you have a different kind of liberalism.
But my point is that liberalism is a set of ideas and the ACLU has a track record of passionate devotion to these ideas.

On the other hand, the two conservative magazines I read on a regular basis are strongly Jewish in character (and heavily represented in leadership and writers—or so it seems. I haven’t really added up the numbers). Oddly enough, they do not promote Jewish religion at all. They promote traditional Jewish values (which—what a coincidence—tend to also be traditional Christian values). The religious themes in these publications tend to be broadly (and vaguely) pro-Christian.

(At root, this is because in this day, “Jewish” is mostly an ethnicity and cultural tradition and “Christian” is far less so—at least in the US. In much of the world, you can be a Jew and not be religious at all. But it’s far less common to be a “Christian” and not be religious at all. Sadly there are places where “Christian” is also nothing more than a cultural term, but still not really an ethnic one.)

I support the ACLU about 50% of the time. They’re one of the most morally schizophrenic organizations I can think of. That doesn’t mean I’m 50% Jewish, or that they’re 50% wrong (or that I’m 100% right). Very few political views are always wrong all the time.

It appears to me that the ACLU is on the wrong side of most issues. Every now and then they will support a decent cause. They are like a broken clock–right twice a day by default. The ACLU has been an opponent of Christianity and a proponent of morally objectionable issues as is the case with accessing pornography at the public library. If the ACLU had its way public displays of Christianity would mostly be illegal.

http://www.aclufightsforchristians.com/ THE ACLU FIGHTS FOR CHRISTIANS

Disputing Mike Hardings point:

It appears to me that the ACLU is on the wrong side of most issues

To answer Mike’s assertion—either to counter it or support it—what we’d need is a list of all the battles they’ve fought, divide them into pro-Christian vs. anti-Christian vs. other.
…and then also weigh the impact of these cases. A dozen low profile pro-Christian cases would barely balance out one high-impact anti-Christian case.

I really think the general perception that ACLU is liberal/anti-traditional is well founded.

The person who maintains the “ACLU Fights for Christians” website is Allen Asch, a.k.a. LiberalViewer, who repeatedly takes aim at FoxNews and the Republican Party. He posted those ACLU cases to try and show that “the right” should not criticize the ACLU. However, if you look at those cases, it is simply the ACLU fighting for the rights of free speech for people who happen to be Christians. The ACLU will fight for free speech for everyone. Yet, Mike Harding is correct, when it comes to moral issues, the ACLU does not fight for the Christian view whether it be regarding abortion, pornography, etc.

From FoxNews’ http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2012/02/07/military-chaplains-told-not-… Homepage today -

Army chaplains have been told not to read a letter in Masses on Sunday that expresses disapproval of a new regulation in the Obama administration’s health care law because the language in the letter speaks too strongly against the commander in chief.

According to a senior Army official, Chief of Chaplains Donald Rutherford was asked not to let chaplains read the Jan. 26 letter sent by Archbishop Timothy P. Broglio because of the sentence that states: “We cannot — we will not — comply with this unjust law.”

“There was a worry that would be a call for civil disobedience,” said a senior Army official.

In the letter, Broglio writes to pastors telling them that the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services rule that requires coverage of sterilization, abortifacients and contraception be included in virtually all health plans is a direct violation of the First Amendment allowing religious liberty.