First Amendment Under Attack

[Hemodoc]

A Fox news reporter is under investigation as a possible "co-conspirator" of leaked information from the State Department.

ERIC HOLDER'S JUSTICE DEPARTMENT, already under fire for seizing AP phone records, also obtained records pertaining to Fox News' chief Washington correspondent James Rosen's efforts to report leaked material, even calling Rosen a criminal 'co-conspirator' — a charge the news organization called 'chilling.'

http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2013/05/20/justice-department-obtained-records-fox-news-journalist/

Today, a commentator on a radio talk show noted that the IRS scandal is now resulting in fewer people willing to donate to the GOP since so many have been IRS targets including 15 who gave to Romney's campaign.

These are the steps of a tyrannical government moving towards one party rule. Welcome to the beginning of Obama's banana republic.

[Gerald Lively]

'Tis the law;  If you do not hold a clearance and possess classified material, you can have a free pass to the slammer.  For reasons unknown to me, the press usually gets a break but not always.  And don't come back with "How do you know?" or some similar, all of my military career was classified and I do know the rules.

[Hemodoc]

'Tis the law;  If you do not hold a clearance and possess classified material, you can have a free pass to the slammer.  For reasons unknown to me, the press usually gets a break but not always.  And don't come back with "How do you know?" or some similar, all of my military career was classified and I do know the rules.

No, not true Gerald. This was decided during Nixon and the famous/infamous Pentagon papers where the Supreme Court ruled that the NY times could publish then classified material.

http://www.nytimes.com/books/97/04/13/reviews/papers-final.html

[Gerald Lively]

I covered that.  You ignored that.

Perhaps that answer is in the Pentagon Papers themselves.

[Gerald Lively]

The Pentagon Papers, officially titled United States – Vietnam Relations, 1945–1967: A Study Prepared by the Department of Defense, is a United States Department of Defense history of the United States' political-military involvement in Vietnam from 1945 to 1967. The papers were first brought to the attention of the public on the front page of The New York Times in 1971.[1] A 1996 article in The New York Times said that the Pentagon Papers "demonstrated, among other things, that the Lyndon Baines Johnson Administration had systematically lied, not only to the public but also to Congress, about a subject of transcendent national interest and significance".[2] The report was declassified and publicly released in June 2011.
/////////////////////
The President lied so it was classified.  Since the papers were no more than a history, the court released them.

Gerald

[Hemodoc]

The Pentagon Papers, officially titled United States – Vietnam Relations, 1945–1967: A Study Prepared by the Department of Defense, is a United States Department of Defense history of the United States' political-military involvement in Vietnam from 1945 to 1967. The papers were first brought to the attention of the public on the front page of The New York Times in 1971.[1] A 1996 article in The New York Times said that the Pentagon Papers "demonstrated, among other things, that the Lyndon Baines Johnson Administration had systematically lied, not only to the public but also to Congress, about a subject of transcendent national interest and significance".[2] The report was declassified and publicly released in June 2011.
/////////////////////
The President lied so it was classified.  Since the papers were no more than a history, the court released them.

Gerald

Sorry, that was not the opinion of the Supreme Court since at that time they were classified. I remember those events quite well at the time.

The U.S. Supreme Court ruled 6–3 in New York Times Co. v. United States (1971) that the New York Times and the Washington Post could publish a classified study of U.S. involvement in the Vietnam War. The newspapers contended that allowing the government to halt the publication on matters of urgent public interest would constitute an invalid prior restraint on free expression. The government contended further publication of the study would compromise U.S. intelligence and endanger U.S troops. The six justices in the majority wrote a three-paragraph joint, unsigned opinion that noted that prior restraints are presumptively invalid and that the government failed to carry its burden that such a prior restraint was justified in this case. Three justices dissented, emphasizing that more time was needed to carefully evaluate the thousands of pages in the Pentagon Papers to determine if the government’s national security interests were compelling. All nine justices wrote separate opinions.

Read more: http://www.answers.com/topic/what-did-the-court-rule-in-the-pentagon-papers-case#ixzz2UcjzfWG5

[Gerald Lively]

You made my case.

[Hemodoc]

You made my case.

Sorry, but the dissenting justices disagree with your opinion. In any case, it is not illegal for a reporter to receive information, that culpability is on the part of those releasing the information as the SCOTUS judgement maintains.  This is a "chilling" effect on freedom of the press as many commentators have stated.

[Rerun]

So, if we ALL agree that it is not illegal.... then why is the Fox news reporter under fire.  He didn't do anything illegal..

[Jean]

Probably because he works for Fox news!!

[Rerun]

Yeah.  What was I thinking.   

[Hemodoc]

Here is another aspect of the first amendment under attack, freedom of religion.

http://radio.foxnews.com/toddstarnes/top-stories/san-antonio-proposal-could-bar-christians-from-city-council.html

[doberose]

Our coinage and legal tender  have the phrase "In God we trust" on them.
I have no objection to people having freedom to practice their religion, but as a non-believer, I do object to having those religious beliefs given priority and imposed upon me by law.
It takes away my religious freedom of non-belief.
If you believe in a God, I am sorry for your affliction -- get help.

[Hemodoc]

Our coinage and legal tender  have the phrase "In God we trust" on them.
I have no objection to people having freedom to practice their religion, but as a non-believer, I do object to having those religious beliefs given priority and imposed upon me by law.
It takes away my religious freedom of non-belief.
If you believe in a God, I am sorry for your affliction -- get help.

No not at all my friend. Since there is no way to prove that there is no God (Do you know even half of what is in this universe?) atheism is actually a form of religion because you have to believe that there is no God. You can never prove that. Thus, your freedom to believe what you wish is also protected under the first amendment as well.

Have a great day, but I will pass on your diagnosis of my religion. I hope and pray you find that God is real in the here and now.

Take care,

Peter

[Simon Dog]

Our coinage and legal tender  have the phrase "In God we trust" on them.
I have no objection to people having freedom to practice their religion, but as a non-believer, I do object to having those religious beliefs given priority and imposed upon me by law.
It takes away my religious freedom of non-belief.
If you believe in a God, I am sorry for your affliction -- get help.

It is short for "in God we trust, all others pay cash".

While SCOTUS has refused to recognize things like the motto, and the pledge as govt sanction of religion, history shows "under God" was added during the red scare to show where were not "godless" like the commies.

Just try buying alcohol on the sabbath in many states (in NY sales are only restricted during traditional church hours - Sunday AM)

[Hemodoc]

Here is a blind vet still in the Army, the only officer who is on active duty who is blind who is told he can't wear a uniform to church or political meetings, yet gay servicemen are allowed to wear a uniform in gay rights parades.

http://video.foxnews.com/v/2600565716001/christians-in-the-military-barred-from-expressing-faith/?intcmp=obnetwork

The military was once one of most vocal supporter of first amendment rights but today it is leading the bandwagon against Christians expressing their faith while a muslim extremist who killed over a dozen soldiers is allowed to grow a beard in expression of his religious faith.

[rocker]

Here is a blind vet still in the Army, the only officer who is on active duty who is blind who is told he can't wear a uniform to church or political meetings, yet gay servicemen are allowed to wear a uniform in gay rights parades.

Isn't pretty much any veteran allowed to wear his/her uniform in a parade?  Goodness knows, I've seen enough uniformed veterans in parades to suspect that isn't illegal for anyone.

Unless you're contending that "being gay" is a religion? Or perhaps a political position?

[Hemodoc]

Here is a blind vet still in the Army, the only officer who is on active duty who is blind who is told he can't wear a uniform to church or political meetings, yet gay servicemen are allowed to wear a uniform in gay rights parades.

Isn't pretty much any veteran allowed to wear his/her uniform in a parade?  Goodness knows, I've seen enough uniformed veterans in parades to suspect that isn't illegal for anyone.

Unless you're contending that "being gay" is a religion? Or perhaps a political position?

You can go to church expressing your lifestyle, no uniform. Go to a gay rights parade expressing your lifestyle, uniform is OK. BTW, this is a new change that was NOT in effect while I was an Army officer for 9 years.

The Ft. Hood murderer is allowed to express his religious beliefs by growing a beard against military regulations. Christians are not allowed to have a Bible on their desk. Sorry you can't see the obvious discriminatory practices against Christians in today's military under Obama. No matter, Jesus spent his entire life in a country oppressed by the Romans. But, God shall have the last say in this and all issues.

[rocker]

You can go to church expressing your lifestyle, no uniform.

I've never heard anyone compare being Christian to being gay before.

[Hemodoc]

You can go to church expressing your lifestyle, no uniform.

I've never heard anyone compare being Christian to being gay before.

WHAT???

Sorry, simple analogy of lifestyle choices and moral choices my friend. If you are gay, go tell it on the mountain in your uniform. If you are a Christian, you are not allowed to wear a uniform or proclaim your faith by even having a Bible on your desk.

If you are a Muslim accused of murdering your fellow soldiers, how dare we prevent their religious expression including wearing a beard which is not allowed in the Army, not even a mustache.

Sorry, if you cannot see the contrary manner in which Christians are now treated in uniform, I probably cannot help you.

[Hemodoc]

Here is another soldier relieved of his command because he disagreed with gay marriage due to his Christian beliefs. WOW. What is happening in our military???

http://radio.foxnews.com/toddstarnes/top-stories/airmen-punished-for-objecting-to-gay-marriage.html

[Zach]

As in Life, the pendulum swings.

http://forward.com/articles/3506/scandal-over-proselytizing-hits-air-force/

News
Scandal Over Proselytizing Hits Air Force

By Jennifer Siegel and E.B. Solomont
Published May 20, 2005, issue of May 20, 2005.

The U.S. Air Force Academy is embroiled in a growing scandal over alleged religious coercion, following an investigation triggered by complaints from a Jewish student distressed over evangelical Christian proselytizing.

Earlier this year, Americans United for Separation of Church and State, a Washington-based advocacy group launched an investigation. Its report alleges that academy leaders, including faculty, chaplains and senior cadets, have created an environment inhospitable to those who are not evangelical Christians.

The release of the group’s report April 28 prompted a nationwide furor, with Jewish organizations demanding a congressional investigation of the academy. The Air Force has launched its own investigation of the events, due to be released next week, but critics claim the process is flawed. Such concerns intensified last week, after a liberal Christian chaplain at the academy was transferred overseas — a move some said was in retaliation for the chaplain helping investigators examine issues of religious intolerance at the elite institution.

The swirl of allegations has pushed the Air Force Academy back into the limelight of controversy. In 2003, an investigation of the academy’s general treatment of women, as well as allegations of sexual assault, led to the dismissal of four top officers in the Air Force. The current charges, insiders say, show an institutional pattern of religious intolerance and a breach of the First Amendment’s prohibition of state-sponsored religion.

“We did find a poisoned atmosphere of discrimination,” said Barry W. Lynn, executive director of Americans United. “Whether they were non-believers, Jews or mainstream Christians, there seemed to be a pervasive sense at the academy that there was only one way to heaven and, by extension, one way for you to advance your career, and that was to get with Jesus.”

The report alleges that while Christian cadets are routinely given special permission to attend off-campus prayers services on Sundays, Jews and other Saturday Sabbath observers are not given similar dispensations, and are forced instead to attend training exercises, parades and football games scheduled as official Saturday activities. It also alleges that some of the academy’s senior leadership have insinuated their faith, which is often a form of evangelical Christianity, into their professional duties: A number of faculty members, it claims, have introduced themselves to their classes as born-again Christians and encouraged students to become born-again. Officials have allegedly opened mandatory meals, trainings and ceremonies with prayer.

One of the more specific charges is that Johnny Weida, commandant of cadets, routinely initiates the call-and-response chant — “Airpower! … Rock Sir!” — which the report claims is based on the New Testament’s parable of building one’s life on the rock-hard foundation of Jesus. Another is that senior officials allowed students to advertise a showing of “The Passion of the Christ” as an academy-sponsored event and to put fliers for the event on every plate in the dining hall.
“It was really not a good situation,” said Casey Weinstein, 22, who touched off the Americans United investigation when he shared such stories with his father, Mikey, an attorney who served in the Reagan administration. “The best way I can put it is that a large vocal minority had their way at the academy with nobody to hold them in check from crossing the line between church and state.”

In a conversation with the Forward, a spokesperson at the academy said leaders are facing issues of religious intolerance head on by asking students to come forward with complaints, and by mandating that all cadets and staff watch a 50-minute video on diverse values and beliefs. The video was produced last year after the academy surveyed cadets about these issues and found that over half had heard derogatory comments or jokes of a religious nature. The 16-person task force deployed by the Air Force to assess the academy’s religious issues is expected to present its findings to acting Air Force Secretary Michael Dominguez on May 23.
Despite these efforts, critics of the Air Force Academy say that its attempts at reform are disingenuous. The Americans United report asserts that last fall, weeks after the academy began the religious sensitivity program, head football coach Fisher DeBerry hung a banner in the locker room that read, “I am a Christian first and last; I am a member of Team Jesus Christ.” The report also alleges that the very officer in charge of the academy’s equal-opportunity office, Captain Joseph Bland, refused to recognize the complaint of a self-described atheist cadet and instead attempted to proselytize the student into Catholicism.

Several observers contacted by the Forward connected the rise in religious intolerance at the Air Force Academy to the increasing numbers of evangelical Christians within its leadership, as well as to the growth of the movement’s overall size and political muscle. A central tenet of evangelical sects is the belief in proselytizing nonbelievers.

“Evangelical Christians and those who are affiliated with the religious right have been gaining a great deal of confidence in various political activities and pushing their agenda on the cultural front,” said Randall Balmer, a Columbia University professor of religion. “They have a real sense that they have enough clout to force real change.”

Colorado Springs, the hometown of the Air Force Academy, is the stronghold of America’s best-known evangelical organizations, including Focus on the Family and the 11,000-member New Life Church. Both institutions are located across the highway from the academy and interact with faculty and students. Cadets often invite evangelical leaders to Bible study programs on campus, while the New Life Church deploys vans to transport between 100 and 200 cadets who attend Friday night services there, according to pastor Aaron Stern. Students are encouraged to pass out fliers and to recruit their friends to come, he said.

The academy’s leaders extend that kind of proactive approach to proselytizing cadets, according to MeLinda Morton, 48, the Lutheran chaplain allegedly pushed out of her executive position as a captain at the academy after another critical report, conducted with a Yale Divinity School professor, was released last month. “In their training and their practice [they] find it very hard to reach across the denomination line and appropriately minister to people who come to them from a nonevangelical perspective,” she said.

Jewish leaders have reacted strongly to the recent allegations. Last week, Anti-Defamation League National Director Abraham Foxman called on the Pentagon to freeze its recommended promotion of Weida, as reported in The Jewish Week, while the American Jewish Committee called for an independent congressional investigation.

Morton also said she has little faith in the Air Force-appointed task force, which she criticized for not contacting her despite her crucial role in identifying signs of religious coercion on campus. She also reported a “significant” number of new grievances brought to her attention since the Americans United report was released last month.

The academy “doesn’t seem to be really interested in seeing what’s going on,” she said. “Even when I called them on a purely perfunctory matter, and asked did they need information from me, their answer was no.”
# # #

Forward Association, Inc. All Rights Reserved.

[rocker]

Here is another soldier relieved of his command because he disagreed with gay marriage due to his Christian beliefs. WOW. What is happening in our military???

Just out of curiosity - what would your reaction be if a soldier was relieved of his command if he disagreed with white and black soldiers serving together, due to his Christian beliefs?

[Hemodoc]

Here is another soldier relieved of his command because he disagreed with gay marriage due to his Christian beliefs. WOW. What is happening in our military???

Just out of curiosity - what would your reaction be if a soldier was relieved of his command if he disagreed with white and black soldiers serving together, due to his Christian beliefs?

Rocker, that is NOT a Christian belief. The Bible states ALL men are of one blood. We already settled the issue of race in the military a long time ago my friend.

[rocker]

Here is another soldier relieved of his command because he disagreed with gay marriage due to his Christian beliefs. WOW. What is happening in our military???

Just out of curiosity - what would your reaction be if a soldier was relieved of his command if he disagreed with white and black soldiers serving together, due to his Christian beliefs?

Rocker, that is NOT a Christian belief. The Bible states ALL men are of one blood. We already settled the issue of race in the military a long time ago my friend.

I would suggest you look up the history of slavery in the US.  Almost all of the justifications were Bible-based (as well as the objections).  Specifically, Leviticus 25:44-46 states that you may enslave "foreigners", though not your countrymen.  Although Exodus 21:7 does give guidance on selling your daughter into slavery, so who knows. Surely you've heard of the "curse of Ham"?  How about the mark of Cain?  It was often argued that the only 'mark' that Cain could have that everyone could see at a distance was dark skin.

And of course, many good Christians have no problem with gay marriage. They argue that resistance to gay marriage is NOT a Christian belief.

But ok, if you want to use the criterion of what is "settled"?  The issue of gay marriage in the military has been settled a long time ago, my friend.  If this guy can't get with the program and obey orders from above, well, the military is not the place for him, is it?  You don't get to pick and choose which orders to follow, no matter how strong your opinion is.