# Defense Department: The Bible, Constitution And Declaration Of Independence



## Murphy (Oct 9, 2014)

Pentagon: Bible, Constitution Perpetuate Sexism | The Daily Caller

Defense Department: The Bible, Constitution And Declaration Of Independence All Perpetuate Sexism

According to a Defense Department approved "sexism course," the Bible, the U.S. Constitution and the Declaration of Independence all contribute to modern sexism.

Those three cherished texts all count as "historical influences that allow sexism to continue," according to a presentation prepared by the Defense Equal Opportunity Management Institute, whose mission is to give a "world-class human relations education."

According to the course, the Bible has "quotes" which can be interpreted as sexist by readers.

The Declaration of Independence is also an historical cause of sexism, as the document refers only to "all men" -not "men and women."

And the Constitution, the Pentagon argues, is an historical source of sexism because "slaves and women were not included until later in history."

Of course, members of the Armed Forces take an oath to defend the Constitution - which is, according to the DEOMI course, an "historical influence that allows sexism to continue."


----------



## Protect this House (Aug 12, 2013)

I just seen this on the news. Glad I'm retired from the DoD!!!!


----------



## sideKahr (Oct 15, 2014)

The Constitution has been legally ammended for decades to include women into everything that matters. The Bible can be quoted to agree with almost any position when taken out of context. As for the Declaration, that's just the way they talked back then, you find it all through literature back to Shakespeare. Don't these people have any real work to do, like defending the country?


----------



## Salt-N-Pepper (Aug 18, 2014)

At the time of the writing of the Bible, women were property, flat out. It's the way it was. This was common in pretty much all ancient societies around the world, not just the children of Abraham. 

At the time of the writing of the Declaration and the Constitution, women's legal rights and status were not defined by either document. Rather, their legal rights and status were defined by the states that they lived in, and also by their marital status. For example, single women in every state could enter into contracts, whereas married women might or might not be able to, depending on where they lived. 

That these documents are "male centered" is beyond question, because that's the way the world was at the time. I am not condoning it, just stating fact. We, as a society, have generally come to accept that the words men and women are interchangeable in the declaration and the constitution. 

I make no comments about the Bible whatever, I am not discussing religious stuff on the internet any more, there's no point.


----------



## paraquack (Mar 1, 2013)

You don't think Obama has anything to do with this?

Edit: I guess they (liberals) subscribe to the philosophy 
that if you tell the same lie over and over and over again, 
eventually people will begin to believe the lie until it is 
accepted as gospel truth!


----------



## Kauboy (May 12, 2014)

The underlying motive behind this has nothing to do with sexism.
The goal is to tie these documents to a way of life that has long since passed, and to encourage new versions.
That way, we can rewrite all of them, and change all the bits we don't like, not just the gender bias.

(we=liberals)


----------



## ApexPredator (Aug 17, 2013)

Kauboy said:


> The underlying motive behind this has nothing to do with sexism.
> The goal is to tie these documents to a way of life that has long since past, and to encourage new versions.
> That way, we can rewrite all of them, and change all the bits we don't like, not just the gender bias.
> 
> (we=liberals)


Couldn't agree more just more erosion of our culture and values.


----------



## bigwheel (Sep 22, 2014)

Salt-N-Pepper said:


> At the time of the writing of the Bible, women were property, flat out. It's the way it was. This was common in pretty much all ancient societies around the world, not just the children of Abraham.
> 
> At the time of the writing of the Declaration and the Constitution, women's legal rights and status were not defined by either document. Rather, their legal rights and status were defined by the states that they lived in, and also by their marital status. For example, single women in every state could enter into contracts, whereas married women might or might not be able to, depending on where they lived.
> 
> ...


Where might the women being property passage be found in the Bible? You sure your not getting the Bible mixed up with the Koran? Good thing you dont like to discuss religious stuff. Best stick with the guns..lol.

Galatians 3:28
There is neither Jew nor Greek, there is neither bond nor free, there is neither male nor female: for ye are all one in Christ Jesus.


----------



## Sasquatch (Dec 12, 2014)

Would seem to me that this is just furthering the ground work to get rid of the constitution.


----------



## Ralph Rotten (Jun 25, 2014)

Yes, in its original form the Constitution was both sexist and racist (don;t forget the whole 3/5ths thing.) But as we learned in high school history, those shortcomings have been steadily affressed over the years through small events like Suffrage and the Civil Rights Movement.

Truth is, in its original form the constitution doesn't protect your right to own guns, or to gather peacably, or any of that civil rights jazz. That all came in the ammendments. Personally I thought they shoulda started with the ammendments, then written all that flowery stuff in the constitution.


----------



## Denton (Sep 18, 2012)

Stupid people.

I speak as I speak and harshly respond to the ignorant when they attempt to correct me with PC garbage. This incident, for instance, when I used the word, "chairman:"

"The proper term is chair_person_, or _chairs_, as women can hold the position, too."

"_Man_ is gender-neutral; that you are an idiot who has been brainwashed by other idiots doesn't mean I have to pretend to be brainwashed by any of you. Are you so stupid that you think the term mankind has always meant only women, too? Get away from me. Life is too short to waste time talking to stupid, brainwashed people."

As far as the idiot in the DoD who wrote that piece of garbage; they should be separated from their job.


----------



## Denton (Sep 18, 2012)

Ralph Rotten said:


> Yes, in its original form the Constitution was both sexist and racist (don;t forget the whole 3/5ths thing.) But as we learned in high school history, those shortcomings have been steadily affressed over the years through small events like Suffrage and the Civil Rights Movement.
> 
> Truth is, in its original form the constitution doesn't protect your right to own guns, or to gather peacably, or any of that civil rights jazz. That all came in the ammendments. Personally I thought they shoulda started with the ammendments, then written all that flowery stuff in the constitution.


The constitution is the framework for the government. The Bill of Rights came later so that the anti-federalists would agree to the constitution. The Bill of Rights specifically mentioned some, but not all of our God-given rights, as well as making it clear that the federal government is limited to specific authority while the rest lies with the states and the people.


----------



## Camel923 (Aug 13, 2014)

Anything to stir the pot. What's next? Catholics barred from service because they obey the Pope?


----------



## Kauboy (May 12, 2014)

Denton said:


> The constitution is the framework for the government. The Bill of Rights came later so that the anti-federalists would agree to the constitution. The Bill of Rights specifically mentioned some, but not all of our God-given rights, as well as making it clear that the federal government is limited to specific authority while the rest lies with the states and the people.


You beat me to it!


----------



## Salt-N-Pepper (Aug 18, 2014)

bigwheel said:


> Where might the women being property passage be found in the Bible? You sure your not getting the Bible mixed up with the Koran? Good thing you dont like to discuss religious stuff. Best stick with the guns..lol.
> 
> Galatians 3:28
> There is neither Jew nor Greek, there is neither bond nor free, there is neither male nor female: for ye are all one in Christ Jesus.


I will not discuss religion on the internet, there is no point in discussing it for me. Thank you.


----------



## Kauboy (May 12, 2014)

Salt-N-Pepper said:


> I will not discuss religion on the internet, there is no point in discussing it for me. Thank you.


To be fair, you made a statement about a holy book. That is a poor attempt at avoiding religious discussion.


----------



## Salt-N-Pepper (Aug 18, 2014)

Kauboy said:


> To be fair, you made a statement about a holy book. That is a poor attempt at avoiding religious discussion.


I said: "At the time of the writing of the Bible, women were property, flat out. It's the way it was. This was common in pretty much all ancient societies around the world, not just the children of Abraham."

I in no way referenced any biblical passage, I stated at the TIME of the bible, not anything IN the bible. The "children of Abraham" are a group of various peoples of the region, just like the various groups of Native Americans who were moving from the stone to metal age at about the same time (Eastern woodland timeline is 7,000 BCE to full metal working 4,000 BCE... which is earlier than it started in Europe, by the way).


----------



## PaulS (Mar 11, 2013)

"The time of the Bible" in Christian terms is around 320 CE (AD).
In Judaic terms the last rewriting of the Old Texts was completed around 95 CE (AD).
Scientifically any reference to "Biblical times" could mean any time from around 1500 BCE to 95 CE.
In the History of religion, prehistory begins at about 4500 BCE before the Sumerian culture. The people of Sumer were the first to have a written language. That is when history begins.


----------



## Salt-N-Pepper (Aug 18, 2014)

PaulS said:


> "The time of the Bible" in Christian terms is around 320 CE (AD).
> In Judaic terms the last rewriting of the Old Texts was completed around 95 CE (AD).
> Scientifically any reference to "Biblical times" could mean any time from around 1500 BCE to 95 CE.
> In the History of religion, prehistory begins at about 4500 BCE before the Sumerian culture. The people of Sumer were the first to have a written language. That is when history begins.


To me, the "time of the bible" means, specifically, anywhere between about 6,500ish BCE up until the end of the writing of the last of the books that are included in the canon, somewhere around 100ish CE plus or minus some years... basically the time frame of the beginning of the events that are portrayed in the bible through the early church years that are included in the new testament. I may be wrong, but since Christians who believe in the young earth creation say the planet is 6,500ish years old, I consider that a reasonable way of describing this time frame so my "time of the bible" comments were referencing 6,500ish BCE to 100ish CE.

Anyway, that's the time period I was referencing, whether I used it accurately or no.


----------



## Murphy (Oct 9, 2014)

BCE and CE...WTF 

its BC and AD

what significant event happened that it changed from BCE to CE?


----------



## sideKahr (Oct 15, 2014)

Murphy said:


> BCE and CE...WTF
> 
> its BC and AD
> 
> what significant event happened that it changed from BCE to CE?


You're right. They want to take Christ out of the dating schema, yet they refer dates in the new systen to before and after Christ.

21st century schizoid man.


----------



## Salt-N-Pepper (Aug 18, 2014)

Murphy said:


> BCE and CE...WTF
> 
> its BC and AD
> 
> what significant event happened that it changed from BCE to CE?


Those of us who are trying not to discuss religion on the internet use the "generic" or "non-religious" dating system.

CE/BCE is not new, it's been in use for over 100 years.


----------



## Slippy (Nov 14, 2013)

I'm with you Murph and SideKahr,

I never even knew that someone changed it from AD which I was taught that meant "Anno Domini" in Latin or "the year of the Lord" in English. And BC which I was taught that meant "before Christ".

Who changes this stuff and why don't they ever ask me?


----------



## sideKahr (Oct 15, 2014)

Salt-N-Pepper said:


> Those of us who are trying not to discuss religion on the internet use the "generic" or "non-religious" dating system.
> 
> CE/BCE is not new, it's been in use for over 100 years.


I know it's not new, I minored in history. I'm just saying that if they want a "non-religious" dating system, then choose a date or event to reference to that is non-religious. At least be honest about what happened on that date. Everyone in history probably belonged to some type of religion, why single out Christ for special treatment?


----------



## Salt-N-Pepper (Aug 18, 2014)

sideKahr said:


> I know it's not new, I minored in history. I'm just saying that if they want a "non-religious" dating system, then choose a date or event to reference to that is non-religious. At least be honest about what happened on that date. Everyone in history probably belonged to some type of religion, why single out Christ for special treatment?


I am so done with this stuff.


----------



## sideKahr (Oct 15, 2014)

Salt-N-Pepper said:


> OK, from now on I am using astronomical dates. I am so done with this stuff.


I'm sorry. Just trying to have some fun. Religion doesn't have to be all serious and stuff.

Mayan calendar, maybe?


----------



## Salt-N-Pepper (Aug 18, 2014)

sideKahr said:


> I'm sorry. Just trying to have some fun. Religion doesn't have to be all serious and stuff.
> 
> Mayan calendar, maybe?


I am going with the Sun Yat-sen Chinese calendar from here on out for all posts that have a date it in. It's based upon imperial ascension as well as astronomical modifiers and is ENTIRELY secular.

Today's date is 24-11-4667. That works for me.


----------



## Denton (Sep 18, 2012)

Salt-N-Pepper said:


> I am going with the Sun Yat-sen Chinese calendar from here on out for all posts that have a date it in. It's based upon imperial ascension as well as astronomical modifiers and is ENTIRELY secular.
> 
> Today's date is 24-11-4667. That works for me.


And, you'll not be understood by those of us in the West.

The very roots of our understanding of individual liberty is so hated...


----------



## Kauboy (May 12, 2014)

I'll be using stardates from now on.
This time and date is now stardate 68748.6. (no seriously, it really is, I used a fancy Star Trek calendar calculator)
I hope you'll all forgive any confusion, and accept this new standard.

Resistance is futile. You will be assimilated.


----------



## Slippy (Nov 14, 2013)

Denton,
Have you seen the film "Monumental" by Kirk Cameron? 
Monumental » Kirk Cameron


----------



## Prepared One (Nov 5, 2014)

What a load of crap. I can't believ anyone ove at the DoD allowed this. Don't they have better things to spend thier time and our money on?


----------



## Salt-N-Pepper (Aug 18, 2014)

Prepared One said:


> What a load of crap. I can't believ anyone ove at the DoD allowed this. Don't they have better things to spend thier time and our money on?


Sure they do. They have new planes to build that don't fly, new tanks that even our Army says they don't need to receive, bases that server no practical purpose under the sun except to maintain jobs in important politicians districts to run, programs that DO make sense like the A-10 to shut down, 110 countries (who should be paying for their own defense) to defend, dictators and thugs to prop up, there's all kinds of stuff the political masters and the "brains" of the DOD are doing to keep busy.

This is just a little "side business" of imbecility.


----------



## Denton (Sep 18, 2012)

Slippy said:


> Denton,
> Have you seen the film "Monumental" by Kirk Cameron?
> Monumental » Kirk Cameron


No, sir. I will watch it.


----------



## PaulS (Mar 11, 2013)

What was the event that triggered the change from BC and AD to BCE and CE?

It was about the controversy over the date of the death of Christ. AD is the initials for the Latin term "Anno Domini" which directly translates to "After Death" and the other controversy over the birth date of Christ. There is also the missing 33 years of His life between the two dates. CE is "Common Era which is the beginning of the "standard" calendar that is corrected for leap years and leap seconds, minutes and hours. BCE is the time before the adoption of the standard calendar correct as though there was only a zero second between the two - no year zero.

The year 1 AD would be 34 CE if it were taken in context (assuming that AD begins at the death of Christ and BC at His birth). The day before Christ's birth would be in the year 1 BC and 1 BCE. The scientific community needed an accurate dating system without the controversies over the dates so it was established as an international dating system based on the currently accepted calendar. It is not a conspiracy to remove religion from our lives - just a more accurate way to place dates. I'm sure it will change in the future as we find and get to know other intelligent life in the universe and adapt to a "universal" calendar system - perhaps based on the age of the universe or some other undiscovered beginning point.


----------



## Anthonyx (Mar 14, 2015)

pssst - anno domini means "year of the lord".


----------



## Smitty901 (Nov 16, 2012)

They are only following The kings lead, doing as he has instructed. This is what you voted for when you voted for Obama and it is not stopping when he is gone.
Obama 2 back with vengeance Hilary. And millions of new voters being imported for the elections.


----------



## alterego (Jan 27, 2013)

What perpetuates sex ism is the fact that there are different sexes. Idiots who can not recognize this simple fact of nature are doomed to fail.

A little story.

I seen a mid 20s brunette in tractor supply the other day being lead around by her man. What a wonderful thing.

As they went buy she was talking and said.

I was thinking that you need to decide for me what I should plant in my parents garden.

A true young woman and a true young man.

Not gender neutrality.


----------



## Slippy (Nov 14, 2013)

Slippy said:


> I'm with you Murph and SideKahr,
> 
> I never even knew that someone changed it from AD which I was taught that meant "Anno Domini" in Latin or "the year of the Lord" in English. And BC which I was taught that meant "before Christ".
> 
> Who changes this stuff and why don't they ever ask me?





Anthonyx said:


> pssst - anno domini means "year of the lord".


We are like brothers Anthonyx!


----------



## Anthonyx (Mar 14, 2015)

I knew that 2 years of Latin would come in handy someday.


----------



## Kauboy (May 12, 2014)

Slippy said:


> We are like brothers Anthonyx!


I can no longer associate with you, Slip...


----------



## Anthonyx (Mar 14, 2015)

:rofl3:


----------

