Obama delivers anti-Memorial Day speech in Hiroshima

With Memorial Day just beyond the weekend, President Obama spoke in Hiroshima about the atom bombing that ended World War II and saved the lives of countless Americans and Japanese.

This is the slap in the face he delivered to those veterans who are the parents and grandparents for so many Americans alive today: “Nations arise telling a story that binds people together in sacrifice and cooperation, allowing for remarkable feats. But those same stories have so often been used to oppress and dehumanize those who are different.”

Instead of a memorial, he delivers an admonishment about oppression and dehumanizing without distinguishing who did what. He recalls the devastation of Hiroshima and Nagasaki but makes no mention of Pearl Harbor — where my father was stationed at the time — or the Death March of Bataan or the Rape of Nanking or the many bloody battles across the Pacific Front.

He made a generic mention of what happened without ever mentioning who the perpetrators were and who the heroes were: “In the span of a few years, some 60 million people would die. Men, women, children, no different than us. Shot, beaten, marched, bombed, jailed, starved, gassed to death. There are many sites around the world that chronicle this war, memorials that tell stories of courage and heroism, graves and empty camps that echo of unspeakable depravity.”

He once again made a sweeping condemnation of all religions, making them out to be morally equivalent and all equally to blame: “Every great religion promises a pathway to love and peace and righteousness, and yet no religion has been spared from believers who have claimed their faith as a license to kill.”

At least when he spoke about the Hiroshima bombing President Truman mentioned the number of Japanese lives saved, “It was to spare the Japanese people from utter destruction that the ultimatum of July 26 was issued at Potsdam. Their leaders promptly rejected that ultimatum. If they do not now accept our terms they may expect a rain of ruin from the air, the like of which has never been seen on this earth. Behind this air attack will follow sea and land forces in such number that and power as they have not yet seen and with the fighting skill of which they are already well aware.”

He did not mention that the U.S. had only one more such bomb, not that those American and allied sea and land forces would have suffered huge casualties.

But Obama concluded his speech without a hint of understanding of the momentous decision that was made 71 years ago by Truman that saved countless lives and ended that unspeakable depravity:

Those who died, they are like us. Ordinary people understand this, I think. They do not want more war. They would rather that the wonders of science be focused on improving life and not eliminating it. When the choices made by nations, when the choices made by leaders, reflect this simple wisdom, then the lesson of Hiroshima is done.

The world was forever changed here, but today the children of this city will go through their day in peace. What a precious thing that is. It is worth protecting, and then extending to every child. That is a future we can choose, a future in which Hiroshima and Nagasaki are known not as the dawn of atomic warfare but as the start of our own moral awakening.

Our moral awakening? He made a sweeping indictment of humankind, ignoring the heroes who fought to save the American ideal.

Obama at Hiroshima. (NY Times photo)

 

Advertisements

87 comments on “Obama delivers anti-Memorial Day speech in Hiroshima

  1. Bruce Feher says:

    I am offended by this “man” Many in my family served in WWII. I served at a later time and this ego manic has insulted us all.

  2. iShrug says:

    One would think that having been born in Hawaii, our Apologist in Chief would be visiting Pearl Harbor, instead of the nation that savagely attacked us. He lectures about science and technology for the purpose of improving and protecting life, especially for children. Yet, he takes every action possible to ensure that the lives of children in the womb are snuffed out.

  3. Bill says:

    Hypocrisy, thy name is Obama. Is this not the man who negotiated an agreement with Iran to guarantee that they obtain a nuclear weapon? We have a president, a product of the worst of the 60s…kneejerk liberalism and someone who reflexively rejects any signs of patriotism or national pride, lest it be considered jingoistic. Perhaps he should not have inhaled so much.

  4. Patrick says:

    I must have missed the actual statements (as opposed to the exaggeration) made by the president that are objectionable.

    As usual, President Obama spoke for the entire country here in expressing sorrow over the lives of innocent people lost, and the hope that it would never happen again. Well done Mr. President!

  5. Excellent point about the Iran deal, Bill.

  6. Those stories of “remarkable feats” — such as saving the world from tyranny – “have so often been used to oppress and dehumanize those who are different.”

    That is a slap in the face for all veterans.

  7. Patrick says:

    To each his own I guess.

    Seems completely unoffensive to this former vet.

    Doesn’t even seem applicable since, in my opinion, the comment was more about how nations like Germany were bound together because of certain (maybe even positive) things before the war, which were twisted by their leader into something dark to be used against “others”.

  8. Steve says:

    There is no such thing as a “former vet”

  9. Patrick says:

    Hey…check out the blind squirrel.

  10. Steve says:

    Veterans know what veterans are….you are a phony, wannabe, wordsmith.

  11. Patrick says:

    Let’s make a wager Stevetard. I prove it, and you stop posting here and on the RJ.

    Or I would accept a wager of say $10,000.00 (or any amount above that you choose)

    And if I can’t prove it, you decide.

  12. Steve says:

    Empty words from the empty posts of the empty sham plea.

    The very word “veteran” means former member.

    But you, of course, know that because you served honorably.

    You also know anonymous posts by anonymous people are inherently beyond proof or even reality.

    Specially in your case, you thin skinned, coward, gov spox.

  13. Patrick says:

    As I suspected. Stevetard.

    Not only as you truly dumb, you are a coward.

  14. Steve says:

    You prove your veteran status, liar.

  15. Patrick says:

    And agree that, once I do, you will pay me $10,000.00 or never post here or on the RJ under any screename.

    Once we get that taken care of we can agree to have an independent arbitrator (like Thomas maybe) to decide whether the evidence I offer constitutes proof. By the way it will be a copy of my passport and my DD-214.

    Let me know, Stevetard which option you choose.

  16. Steve says:

    You are such a liar.

  17. Patrick says:

    And this is your chance to prove that you are something more than just a dumb coward; make the bet.

    (Just so you know, I’d prefer you agree to stop posting rather than the $10,000.00 cause the money won’t make a difference to my lifestyle, but if it’s more worth it to you to continue babbling your nonsense here and at the RJ so be it.)

  18. Steve says:

    Yup, you just proved it.
    Your real goal is to stop people who call you out for your ignorance.

  19. Patrick says:

    Well then Stevetard, if you’re so confident, make the bet.

  20. Steve says:

    “former vet”

    laugh

  21. Patrick says:

    “As a former veteran, I understand the needs of veterans, and have been clear – we will work together, stand together with the Administration, but we will also question their policies when they shortchange veterans and military retirees. Solomon Ortiz
    Read more at: http://www.brainyquote.com/quotes/quotes/s/solomonort346230.html

    https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Solomon_P._Ortiz

    US Army vet

  22. Steve says:

    So you hunted for another one who said the same silly thing you did….and it turned out to be a Democrat from Texas…..

    I love coincidence. So telling.

  23. Winston Smith says:

    Exactly when does one become a former veteran? Two weeks? Two months? Two years?

    Obama was speaking as a globalist, not an American. Nothing new there for lots of our politicians, left and right…

  24. Rincon says:

    Obama’s message seems pretty simple to me. War is hell. Let’s try to avoid it in the future as we and Japan have done for 71 years. You seem to believe that Obama should have starkly stated who the aggressors were as if nobody else knew. And that we killed a couple hundred thousand Japanese for their own good. Perhaps a jab to Mr. Abe’s eye would have been suitable as well?

    From the information I have, I believe it was the right decision, but at the time and ever since, the decision to drop the bombs was controversial (as would have been a decision NOT to drop them). Rather than being grateful that Obama refused to acknowledge the views of those criticizing the decision, you’re angry that he failed to present only the view of fire breathing Conservatives. Had he done so, he would have been a small man, indeed. Consider that only 14% of the Japanese people believe the bombings were justified and that even in America, only 56% do. And Obama is supposed to use the visit as an excuse to open old wounds?

    He did what a good statesman should do. He mourned the loss and expressed the hope that we have learned as a species how to better avoid war. Let the historians do the finger pointing.

  25. Damn it, he accused my father of using the war victory to “oppress and dehumanize those who are different …” If so, how the hell did Japan and Germany become allies?

    And pay not heed whatsoever to the fact his deal with Iran places them on a path to build a nuke.

  26. Winston Smith says:

    Here’s the thing: If any other participant in WWII had developed the bomb first, we’d probably be speaking that language now, including England and France. As far as my understanding of history goes, the U.S. has been about the most bucolic conqueror ever, even going to the extreme to financially aid every other participant, friend or foe.

    Rest of the world should be glad about the outcome, no apologies necessary…

  27. New book details Allied efforts to stop German efforts to build an atom bomb.
    http://www.wsj.com/articles/defusing-the-nazi-bomb-1464367461

  28. Patrick says:

    “Nations arise telling a story that binds people together in sacrifice and cooperation, allowing for remarkable feats. But those same stories have so often been used to oppress and dehumanize those who are different.”

    In the years leading up to 1939, Germany (well Hitler) told the German people that the world powers wanted to destroy that country evidenced by the hardships he claimed were foisted on Germany by Jewish bankers among others. This bound the German people together and they “rose together in sacrifice and cooperation” to “remarkable feats” but those same stories were then used to “oppress and dehumanize” others.

    The same was true of Japan, and Russia which countries, and their leaders, were infamous for oppressing and dehumanizing all people considered “different”.

    The presidents use of the word “often” was correct and intended, in my opinion, to make subtle reference to the actions of the Japanese, without humiliating the current generation while he was standing in their country.

    “A man convinced against his will (being) of the same opinion still” and all, I don’t expect to change your mind Thomas, but this is how I understood the president.

  29. Steve says:

    Selective “understanding”

  30. Nyp says:

    I am grooving on all the faux outrage here.

  31. Steve says:

    As it opposes the faux support.

  32. “The scientific revolution that led to the splitting of an atom requires a moral revolution as well.” — Obama

    This level of sophomoric naivete is incredibly dangerous in a world he has made more dangerous by alienating our allies and emboldening our enemies.

  33. Patrick says:

    “”The time has come now, when man must give up war. It is no longer rational to solve international problems by resorting to war. Now that an atomic bomb, such as the bombs exploded at Hiroshima and Nagasaki, can destroy a city, kill all the people in a city, a small city the size of Minneapolis, say, we can see that we must now make use of man’s powers of reason, in order to settle disputes between nations.”

    Albert Einstein

    President Obama is in pretty good company I’d say.

  34. Patrick says:

    “Brigadier General T.F. Farrell described the moment he saw the blast of the first atomic bomb: The effects could well be called unprecedented, magnificent, beautiful, stupendous, and terrifying. No man-made phenomenon of such tremendous power had ever occurred before. The lighting effects beggared description. The whole country was lighted by a searing light with the intensity many times that of the midday sun. It was golden, purple, violet, gray and blue. It lighted every peak, crevasse and ridge of the nearby mountain range with a clarity and beauty that cannot be described and must be seen to be imagined. Seconds after the explosion came, first, the air blast pressing hard against the people, to be followed almost immediately by the strong, sustained awesome roar which warned of doomsday and made us feel we puny things were blasphemous to dare tamper with the forces heretofore reserved for the Almighty.”

  35. Patrick says:

    “George Kennan, the distinguished American diplomat who originated the Cold War containment policy toward the Soviet Union, said: The readiness to use nuclear weapons against other human beings – against people we do not know, whom we have never seen, and whose guilt or innocence is not for us to establish – and, in doing so, to place in jeopardy the natural structure upon which all civilization rests, as though the safety and perceived interests of our own generation were more important than everything that has taken place or could take place in civilization: this is nothing less than a presumption, a blasphemy, an indignity – an indignity of monstrous dimensions – offered to God!”

  36. Patrick says:

    “General Omar Bradley stated,
    “We live in an age of nuclear giants and ethical infants, in a world
    that has achieved brilliance without wisdom, power without conscience.
    We have solved the mystery of the atom and forgotten the
    lessons of the Sermon on the Mount. We know more about war
    than we know about peace, more about dying than we know about living.”

  37. That’s my point. And there is nothing in Obama’s fantasies that will change that.

  38. Bill says:

    Regrettably, we will never achieve that utopian dream of a world filled with peace, love and concern for all of humanity. It is a wonderful dream but a dream nonetheless. How can we expect nations or cultures to peaceably co-exist? Compound the ordinary disagreements by such beliefs that all that do not ascribe to the sane god or method of worship of such God deserve to be put to death and you have a situation that can only be resolved as all human conflicts have been from time immemorial. That is, that behaviors have consequences. In order to impose consequences it is necessary to have the ability to impose and enforce such consequences. If we had not developed the atomic bomb Japan or Germany would have. That is simply a fact. Having it, there is nothing in their conduct of the conventional war that they waged that they would have been constrained by any humanitarian motives. In our world today, It is of littloe use to appeal to an irrational nation, culture, religion, group or individual with speeches or platitudes. Remember, every one today is a victim, with perhaps the exception of those who are from a European culture. I am always amused by apologists who read things into what they want to believe somewone said (or sell an interpretaion to others) as I am equally amused by those antitheticals who are equally adept at reading rhetorical tea leaves. I am not particularf amused however by what I see too much of today and that is name calling and an unwillingness to listen to or even hear an opposing or unwelcome point of view. The fact remains that in the view of many, the visit to Hroshima by a sitting American President was inappropriate both in fact and as a symbol and if Obama truly believed what he pontificated upon, why then a the Iranian nuclear Arms deal? It is difficult to answer that using logic. If it was some weird theory that to give Iran a nuclear capability it would provide them entry to the nuclear weapon world that has been curtailed by the doctrine of mutual destruction, it makes no sense when Iran is a theocracy led by Muslim fanatics dedicated to the destruction of the Western World and the United States in particular.

  39. Patrick says:

    “Against the dark background of the atomic bomb, the United States does not wish merely to present strength, but also the desire and the hope for peace.

    The coming months will be fraught with fateful decisions. In this Assembly; in the
    capitals and military headquarters of the world; in the hearts of men everywhere, be they
    governed or governors, may they be the decisions which will lead this world out of fear and
    into peace.

    To the making of these fateful decisions, the United States pledges before you–and
    therefore before the world–its determination to help solve the fearful atomic dilemma–to
    devote its entire heart and mind to find the way by which the miraculous inventiveness of
    man shall not be dedicated to his death, but consecrated to his life.”

    Dwight D. Eisenhower

  40. All appeals to humanity and morality were proven base and futile when 19 hijackers killed themselves and thousands of others on 9/11.

  41. Patrick says:

    President Obama did what leaders are supposed to do; lead. Just as other leaders have done. From the men who established this country professing the right of men (well most men, and obviously not women) to be treated equally under the law, and to their freedom and liberty, in a world that didn’t necessarily agree, and in the face of some who would have suggested those words like “Give me Liberty or give me death” were mere pontificating by a naive person dreaming possible dreams. To the “pontificating” of other dreamers that all men were created equally (including black men, even if not necessarily black women) and deserved the trappings of liberty this country offered.

    Later, other “dreamers and pontificators” spoke of seeing black and men and white men (and their children) actually playing together and eating at lunch counters and drinking at the same water fountains.

    So many examples it’s not even possible to list them all. All of whom were identified as “naive” and “dreamers” and yes even “pontificators” who LEAD the world to a better place because what they said was right.

    Obama did just what so many others did and he obviously will get the same abuse that the founding fathers, Abraham Lincoln, Martin Luther King and many others got from people that just don’t have the same vision.

  42. WSJ: “Meanwhile, Mr. Obama has outlined plans to spend nearly $1 trillion in 30 years to modernize and upgrade the U.S. nuclear arsenal.”

  43. Steve says:

    This is, yet another, time I should point out the problems with Patricks’ latest post….
    However, even though Patrick loves to point out every little spelling or fat finger others make, I (in the spirit of peace and harmonious relations) will not retaliate in kind this time.
    Nor will I point out the other flaws in his latest statement.

    All I ask is people enjoy the three day weekend and think about those who no longer have that option as a direct result of volunteering to defend and support our country and its constitution.

  44. Patrick says:

    Thomas are you suggesting that 30 Billion dollars per year to keep our nuclear arsenal updated is too much?

  45. Rincon says:

    “I am always amused by apologists who read things into what they want to believe somewone said (or sell an interpretaion to others) as I am equally amused by those antitheticals who are equally adept at reading rhetorical tea leaves. I am not particularf amused however by what I see too much of today and that is name calling and an unwillingness to listen to or even hear an opposing or unwelcome point of view.”

    Are you referring to Conservatives or Liberals here? Seems that it could apply to both.

  46. Rincon says:

    “All appeals to humanity and morality were proven base and futile when 19 hijackers killed themselves and thousands of others on 9/11.”

    Exactly the reaction the terrorists desire.

  47. Steve says:

    “Exactly the reaction the terrorists desire.”

    Nope

    They want people to cower and shiver. They don’t want people who stand up looking to get more than even.

  48. Bill says:

    Conservative, liberal or any other appellation you with to categorize people with, it t is an equal opportunity vice. Having read my last post, I apologize for poor proofreading.

  49. As I frequently lament…January 20, 2017 can’t come soon enough for two MAJOR reasons…saying sayonara to the first half black failure of a President and the bumbling stumbling bum Senator from Searchlight!

  50. Rincon says:

    They might want people to cower and shiver, but I’m sure they don’t expect it. Their only chance is for us to convince Muslims all over the world that we are their enemy. By invading Iraq, failing our mission in Afghanistan, and overreacting to everything Muslim as Conservatives do, we are doing just that.

  51. Steve says:

    They most certainly expect it, that is how they gain and hold power where they live now.

    And the west has shown them we are as susceptible to fear tactics as their own people are.

    I worked for a Romanian immigrant for 12 years. He was very clear on his opinion of Muslims and it was from experience.

  52. Steve says:

    Oh yes,,what’s not to love about Muslims….

    Here you go, Rincon. Defend this.

    http://www.newser.com/story/225835/law-would-require-husbands-to-beat-wives-who-refuse-sex.html

  53. I wonder how they treat LGBTs? … multiculturalism indeed.

  54. Bill says:

    Thomas, your last point about how they treat LGBTs was well taken. You might also add women, homosexuals and non-believers. I have never quite understood why it is desirable to promote multi-culturism to a point that it destroy a nation’s culture. The last time I was in London I couldn’t find any English, Scots, Welsh or Irish. France and Germany and some of the Scandianavian countries seem to have embarked upon the same course that some Historians relate as the cause of the fall of the Roman Empire. I understand the arguments, made In the name of compassion and political correctness, that we should permit unfettered immigration, legal or illegal and I understand the utopian dream of a world without borders. However, without borders you are not a nation. You become a world of tribes. For us to permit mass immigration (legal or illegal) to our nation, particularly as it relates to those who are not willing to be assimilated into our culture is sheer madness. For the most part, past migrants to the U.S. while retaining separate cultural differences, assimilated and adopted the laws, mores and morals of our society. Today the problem is a bit different. Look at the teaching of the Muslim religion and some of the particular practices in many Muslim countries that are abhorrent to our Western Civilization. The way that homosexuals, LGBT’s and women are treated in most Muslim countries would be a violation of our laws, both civil and criminal. Now, I am sure that upon posting, there will be cries or Islamophobia, but I am concerned because I rather like our Judeo/Christian/Common Law Constitution and for the most part it has served us and mankind well. So, at the risk of being pejoratively castigated, I must object to those who stand about spouting platitudes and knee jerk responses in the face of those who would come here and gladly impose Sharai Law and a Muslim theocracy upon us and I can’t yet get used to the idea of a Caliphate. .

  55. Patrick says:

    Shall we turn to Jewish Law now? I wonder how the Torah calls for handling these situations? Stoning anyone?

  56. nyp says:

    “The indefensibility of the atomic bombing of Hiroshima is becoming a part of the national conservative creed.” — National Review.
    http://tinyurl.com/levlz7q

  57. Steve says:

    Torah is a religious book.
    Pakistan wants to pass a secular law that would cover everyone in their country.

    Wannabe lawyer comes up with another sham plea.

  58. Patrick says:

    “Orthodox Jews believe the entire Torah – that is, the “written law” (i.e. the five books of Moses) given by God at Sinai, which remains authoritative for modern life in its entirety. Orthodox Jews also hold to the “oral law” (i.e. the Talmud).”

    http://www.religionfacts.com/orthodox-judaism

  59. Rincon says:

    “Oh yes,,what’s not to love about Muslims….
    Here you go, Rincon. Defend this.”

    Come back to reality, Steve. Where do you come up with these thoughts? I don’t think I like or admire Muslim societies any more than you do. Our chief difference is that the only approach to the problem that you seem to advocate is a direct frontal assault. Most generals over the centuries that routinely used that strategy weren’t terribly successful. It’s wiser to use your enemys’ weaknesses against them.

  60. Bill says:

    The Torah does not prohibit homosexuality although, there is an argument that it prohibits homosexual acts. Israel, which is fairly close to being a theocratic democracy has no laws against homosexuality and LGBT’s. In fact the original laws that they had against buggery were inherited from the Brits. Steve’s point is right on point. The Torah is a religious book just as the bible and Koran are. Regrettably, too many in the Muslim world want religious law to be the secular law as well. Fortunately, in our Judeo/Christian based society, our forefathers had the foresght to enact the inalienable right to freedom of religion, including no religion whatsoever.

  61. Steve says:

    More sham from Patrick…it’s still religion, not law, you try to use.

    Rincon, I have to quote the Romanian I worked for, again. Muslims are scum even gypsies are better people. He lived it, under communist control.

  62. Patrick says:

    The Torah IS the law according to Jewish tradition and the beliefs of Orthodox Jews.

    And according to the Torah, homosexuality IS an “abomination” punishable by death. “No where” in the Torah is homosexuality condoned.

    http://www.lookstein.org/resources/homosexuality_amsel.pdf

  63. Patrick says:

    “If a community’s respected religious leaders preach, over and over again, that gay people deserve to be killed, isn’t it inevitable that someone will try to kill them?
    That’s one of the lessons from today’s stabbing of six people at the Jerusalem Pride Parade. Of course, it was also the lesson ten years ago at the same parade, when the same criminal did the same thing, with the encouragement of some of the same rabbis.”

    Read more: http://forward.com/opinion/318250/6-ways-to-prevent-another-jerusalem-gay-pride-stabbing/#ixzz4ACXrRuRB

  64. Patrick says:

    Definition Torah

    The law on which Judaism is founded (torah is Hebrew for “law”). This law is contained in the first five books of the Bible (Genesis, Exodus, Leviticus, Numbers, and Deuteronomy). Torah can also refer to the entire body of Jewish law and wisdom, including what is contained in oral tradition.

    http://www.dictionary.com/browse/torah

  65. Steve says:

    Still religion, not secular law, shammy.

  66. Patrick says:

    “Sharia, Islamic sharia or Islamic law (Arabic: شريعة‎‎ (IPA: [ʃaˈriːʕa]) for law) is the religious legal system governing the members of the Islamic faith. It is derived from the religious precepts of Islam, particularly the Quran and the Hadith.”

  67. Patrick says:

    “Is sharia used in U.S. courts any differently than other foreign or religious systems of law? 


    No, it is utilized the same way as Jewish law or canon law or any other law.

    A lot of critics of sharia have cited a case in New Jersey in which a husband cited sharia to argue that he did not rape his wife. What happened in that case? 


    The case is S.D. v. M.J.R. It’s not about sharia as much as it is about a state court judge who failed to follow New Jersey law. In this case, the plaintiff-wife sought a restraining order against her husband, alleging that his nonconsensual action constituted physical abuse. She testified that her husband told her repeatedly that, according to his religion, she was obligated to submit to his sexual requests.

    The trial judge refused to issue the restraining order, finding that the defendant was operating under a religious belief that he was entitled to have marital relations with his wife whenever he wanted. Thus, he did not form the criminal intent to commit domestic violence. But, of course, the appellate court reversed the trial court decision, holding that the defendant’s nonconsensual sexual intercourse with his wife was “unquestionably knowing, regardless of his view that his religion permitted him to act as he did.” The appellate ruling is consistent with Islamic law, which prohibits spousal abuse, including nonconsensual sexual relations. A minority of Muslims mistakenly believe that a husband can discipline his wife with physical force in the interest of saving the marriage and avoiding divorce.

    http://www.salon.com/2011/02/26/sharia_the_real_story/

  68. Patrick says:

    An interesting discussion regarding the use of Jewish law/Torah, in Rabbinical Courts in the United States, and Sharia Law utilized by some practicing Muslims.

    http://www.nylslawreview.com/wp-content/uploads/sites/16/2012/11/NYLS_Law_Review_Volume-57-2.Broyde.pdf

  69. Steve says:

    Still not applied to all in a secular, legislated, law.
    Sham pleas will get you tossed out in court.

  70. Patrick says:

    From a republican candidate for the US House of Representatives no less.

    “The maintenance of civil order in society rests on the foundation of family discipline. Therefore, a child who disrespects his parents must be permanently removed from society in a way that gives an example to all other children of the importance of respect for parents. The death penalty for rebellious children is not something to be taken lightly. The guidelines for administering the death penalty to rebellious children are given in Deut 21:18-21:
    If a man have a stubborn and rebellious son, which will not obey the voice of his father, or the voice of his mother, and that, when they have chastened him, will not hearken unto them:Then shall his father and his mother lay hold on him, and bring him out unto the elders of his city, and unto the gate of his place; And they shall say unto the elders of his city, This our son is stubborn and rebellious, he will not obey our voice; he is a glutton, and a drunkard. And all the men of his city shall stone him with stones, that he die: so shalt thou put evil away from among you; and all Israel shall hear, and fear.”

    So, a republican insisting that the law of the Jews be the law of the land in the US.

    – See more at: http://www.patheos.com/blogs/lovejoyfeminism/2012/10/shall-we-stone-rebellious-children-a-look-at-dominionism.html#sthash.wHg7kbgV.dpuf

  71. Steve says:

    Still isn’t law.
    Not even proposed.
    The “candidate” lost.

  72. Patrick says:

    Not in Pakistan either.

    “The Punjab Commission on the Status of Women (PCSW) on Monday rejected the Council of Islamic Ideology’s (CII) proposed ‘model’ bill for the protection of women.

    In a press statement, the commission said that the CII’s proposal contravened fundamental rights available to women in the Constitution. “It violates international laws and treaties Pakistan has signed and is bound by. In light of Article 25 of the Constitution that upholds equality of all citizens before the law, the proposed bill adds no value to the rights of women,” the statement said.”

    http://tribune.com.pk/story/1113177/concerns-pcsw-rejects-ciis-model-women-protection-bill/

    In fact, even the suggesting was roundly condemned by…”the Muslims”

    http://dailytimes.com.pk/islamabad/31-May-16/aurat-foundation-rejects-cii-proposed-bill

  73. Patrick says:

    Course, the problem apparently was in misconstruing what these well meaning mullahs meant.

    http://www.pakistantoday.com.pk/2016/05/30/national/cii-backs-out-of-light-beating-remarks-by-sheerani/

    But hey, they only represent the same small bunch on lunatics as guys lke Ted Cruz do in the US so, who care what they say.

    Seven Mountains Dominions anyone?

  74. Bill says:

    According to the Torah and as the Christians call it, the Old Testament, the homosexual act is condemned and in Leviticus 20:13, it is written: “And if a man cohabits with a male as with a woman, both of them have done an abominable thing; they shall be put to death; their blood falls back upon them.” But, the Torah is not the sole Jewish law for Jews just as the Old Testament is not the sole law for Christians. I don’t think that you can find either in the Bible or the Torah an expressed dislike for the homosexuals, just the act. God, after all, of both the Old and New Testament is a God of Love. But, I am getting over my head in scriptural interpretation. Fair to say that none but the most literal and fanatical of any denomination would expect or try to carry out the punishment set forth in Leviticus nor insofar as I know, no civilized society prescribes or would permit such draconian punishment which was set forth in a writing in a religious text..
    .

  75. Steve says:

    Yep, Pakistan has moderates who can overcome their crazies.
    Trouble is, moderate in the Muslim world is bat shit crazy in the western world.

    That proposal would never have made it to the floor in this country as Patrick proved so aptly (though not his intention) when he insisted “So, a republican insisting that the law of the Jews be the law of the land in the US.”
    Which was, again, a sham.

    The only place that ever considered such vile law was the Muslim world Patrick is trying so hard to make it seem like they are reasonable people.
    Truth is the only way they are reasonable is when they are controlled by despots of their own choosing. treat them well and they will bite you, hard. 9/11 remember?

  76. Patrick says:

    “In 1987, in the Amazon state capital of Porto Velho, Domingos Sales Lemos covered his girlfriend with alcohol and set her afire after she ended their three-month romance. The woman, Maria Celsa de Conceicao, was burned over most of her body.

    Lemos was acquitted after his lawyer argued that men had a “natural right” over women.”

    http://articles.latimes.com/1991-03-24/news/mn-1305_1_legal-defense

  77. Steve says:

    Still not a law.
    Just a really ignorant lawyer shamming an even more ignorant judge.

    Don’t be those guys, shammy.

  78. Rincon says:

    So Leviticus says to put to death men who are caught having sex. Anyone know if that is overturned anywhere else in the Bible? If not, then why don’t Christians follow the directive of their own book?

  79. Steve says:

    Because they aren’t laws, Rincon.

    They are guides, only guides.

  80. Anonymous says:

    Rincon:

    “For truly I tell you, until heaven and earth disappear, not the smallest letter, not the least stroke of a pen, will by any means disappear from the Law until everything is accomplished.”

    Jesus expanded the law further however than that which was given to Moses and told his disciples that even thinking about a sin (like divorce or adultery was effectively committing the sin)

    “You have heard that it was said, ‘Do not commit adultery.’ But I tell you that anyone who looks at a woman to lust after her has already committed adultery with her in his heart. If your right eye causes you to sin, gouge it out and throw it away. It is better for you to lose one part of your body than for your whole body to be thrown into hell.…”

    Matthew 5:28

    The law handed down has not, and does not change, until every proficy is fulfilled.

  81. Steve says:

    And the great spaghetti monster will smite you for eating corn bread!

  82. Bill says:

    No…nor just sex but homosexual sex and like progressive Jews and Muslims, Christians have moved beyond that point….and don’t forget, as it relates to the Christians, that Leviticus is the Old Testament. But, the real question is not past practices nor ancient religious tracts but rather what about the religious practices today.

  83. Steve says:

    No one enforces it, that’s the difference.

    A law is enforced.
    Patrick is being like Muslims, trying to make a point that all religion is like Muslim society. Because they use religion and law almost as one and the same. Christians stopped doing that a long time ago.

    He’s simply wrong and he will continue to be wrong as long as he goes down this sham path.

  84. Rincon says:

    So we all get to pick and choose what parts of the Bible we want to follow and they think God is all right with that? Am I correct to say then, that Christians who condemn homosexual sex have no moral basis for their claim except for their own opinions? Would the same would apply to humane euthanasia?

  85. deleted says:

    Here’s the way some “Christians” want to treat gays:

    ““I wish the government would round them all up, put them up against a firing wall, put a firing squad in front of them, and blow their brains out,” Jimenez said during his Sunday sermon, which Verity Baptist posted on its website under the title “the Christian response to the Orlando murders.”

    This guy applauded the terrorist (although I don’t think this Christian would have called him a terrorist).

    https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/acts-of-faith/wp/2016/06/14/pastor-refuses-to-mourn-orlando-victims-the-tragedy-is-that-more-of-them-didnt-die/

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s