Eliminating fatherlessness

ADULTERy & Feminism

On Sat, 30 Jan 1999, Fathers' Manifesto wrote:

You know the Bible?  Do you believe "thou shalt not commit adultery"?

In our law Moses commanded that [adulteresses] must be stoned to death, John 8:5

YnrChyldzWyld replied:   "You judge according to the flesh, I judge no one..."   -- Jesus to the Pharisees, John 8:15.  The Bible, both Old and New Testaments, deal more kindly with harlots than YOU do...

  June, Rev. COAL

This person is not a "reverend".  She is a disgrace to the church, to God, and to the human race for even hinting that you think one of the most important of the Ten Commandments is invalidated by John 8:15.  It is "thinking" like this which inspired St. Paul to preclude women from speaking in church. She compounds her crime by claiming that the Bible deals "more kindly with harlots" than someone who suggests that existing adultery laws should be upheld.  Upholding existing adultery laws would lead at most to 5 year prison sentences, while BOTH the Old and New Testament demand stoning of adulteresses, to their deaths:

she shall be brought to the door of her father's house and there  
the men of her town shall stone her to death. She has done  
a disgraceful thing in Israel by being promiscuous while still  
in her father's house. You must purge the evil from among you.  
Deuteronomy 22:21

The New Testament contains numerous statements by Jesus that the law did not *change*:

Does this mean that we do away with the law by this faith? No, not at all; instead we uphold the law, Romans 3:31


And it is easier for heaven and earth to pass, than one tittle of the law to fail, Luke 16:17

He forgave one adulteress, period.  He said "go and sin no more".  If  she had committed adultery a second time, punishment would have been swift, as He demanded that all laws be upheld.

This article appeared in this morning's - Sunday 19 July 1998 San Diego Union Tribune By Andrew N. Urbanc M.D. @crash.cts.com

Military downgrading of adultery proposed by Steven Lee Myers
New York Times Service
Washington -- The Pentagon has proposed downgrading the crime of adultery in the military's justice system, a recognition that, in at least some ways, the military world should not really be so different from the civilian, officials said.
After a year of internal debate, a committee appointed by Defense Secretary William Cohen has drafted changes to the Manual for Courts Martial that would result in fewer prosecutions and impose a less-serious discharge upon convictions.
The proposed changes have stirred opposition within the armed services, where some officers view them as a direct challenge to military discipline, and the report could still be blocked.  After Pentagon General Counsel
Judith Miller outlined the proposals to representatives of the four armed services this month, The Marine Corps, in particular, objected strongly, officials said.
"A lot of people feel this sends the wrong signal," said one military officer who spoke, like the others, on condition of anonymity.  
Adultery would remain a crime under the Uniform Code of Military Justice, just as it remains a crime on the books in roughly half the states, but the proposed changes would clarify the circumstances in which adultery should be prosecuted.
Officers could still face dismissal if convicted by a court-martial, but new rules would urge commanders to file charges only when the adultery has disrupted the morale or smooth functioning of a military unit, officials said.  The rules would also discourage prosecutions for adulterous affairs
that occurred long ago and have no bearing on current service.  
For enlisted personnel, the maximum punishment for a conviction of adultery would be reduced to a bad conduct discharge, instead of the more serious dishonorable discharge, which revokes all benefits.  
Although military justice has unique rules, making comparisons inexact, the changes would be more or less like reducing adultery from a felony to a misdemeanor in the military's docket of misconduct.  
The proposed changes could create political problems for President Clinton, who must approve any changes in the Manual for Courts Martial.  The president
has had an uneasy relationship with the military, and he has had to confront a flurry of questions about his own sexual conduct.  
Pentagon spokesman Kenneth Bacon declined to discuss the committee's draft, saying only that Cohen had not considered the recommended changes.  
Presidential spokesman P.J. Crowley said, "Should the secretary feel a change is warranted, he'll make a recommendation to the president."  
The Manual for Courts Martial, which outlines the procedures for putting military personnel on trial, defines adultery as sexual intercourse with "a certain person" when "the accused or the other person was married to someone else."
By comparison, fraternization is defined by the military as an improper relationship between an enlisted person and an officer, or between a senior officer and a junior officer, though rules vary from service to service. Fraternization includes sexual relations, but it can also apply to "unduly familiar" relationships between anyone of either sex, like, for example, a business partnership.
Though adultery is by no means embraced in civilian society, it is often considered a private matter.  The military, by contrast, has held to more
traditional views of adultery as well as other types of behavior, as a stain on one's character and service.
The proposed changes, if approved, would bring the Army, Navy, Air Force, and Marine Corps much closer in line with the corporate world.  
"Propinquity" is the seed sown by the Pentagon ----- adultery is the crop. Dr. U.