War Drives Wedge Between Veteran Sons, Parents

CANTON, Ohio -- Two members of the Third Battalion, 25th Marines are still waiting to be welcomed home.

The unit came back to Ohio last month after losing 48 members in Iraq. But the parents of Jason and Johel Woodliff didn't come out for the homecoming.

Johel Woodliff said he begged his mother to greet him and his brother when they came back. He said his parents were upset with him when he turned down a college scholarship to enlist.

Jason Woodliff said he was kicked out of the house when he told his parents he wanted to join the Marines. He said he hasn't spoken with his father in five years.

http://www.wftv.com/news/5259201/detail.html

kids came back at all. :mad:

These folks need a long talk with Cindy Sheehan.

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

We've been there and done that, and it was a mistake the first time. Talk to a selection of Vietnam War vets, why don't you?

The veterans of this war -- alive, wounded, and dead, are all our kids. They are not Bush, Cheney and the rest of the Masters of War, who should be the ones fearing prison in this life and a warm welcome in the next.

Hekate

in-CHEAT.

:grr:

Thomas and Mia Woodliff are against war because they're Jehovah's Witnesses. They said they respect their sons' decision to enlist, but they can't reconcile it with their faith.

Standard practice is to place a "<snip>" to indicate that the poster has edited the material by skipping part of the story. This was not done by the OP and, unfortunately, it has given a spin to the story that it did not deserve.

they aren't even allowed to vote! They can't discuss politics or the war at all. :shrug:

No offense ... but that would drive me insane! :crazy:

JWs don't talk to former JWs, even their own children. I have known people who were the children of JWs, and who disagreed with JW religion, but were afraid to leave the religion because they knew it meant losing their entire families. Imagine losing your parents, grandparents, siblings, uncles and aunts and cousins, all because you disagreed with them about religion. This story plays out all the time, every day. The only twist on it is that the boys are soldiers.

JWs don't talk to former JWs, but they sure talk to many strangers to try and suck them in.
Knock, Knock
Whose there?
Jehovah
Jehovah who?
Jehovah Witness.
Go away, were not home.

My immediate family was JW when I was a kid. Growing up without Christmas or Birthdays sucked, but I never thought of it as a bad thing. My parents went around a lot of the rules and we still were spoiled brats (for the first part of my life anyway).

I can tell you that what you say is not always true. I still talk to and associate with some of the JW that my family was friends with back in the day. Sure, we don't associate as closely, but to act like they always ostracize former members is false.

At least in my neck o the woods.

The JWs, and former ones, I have known, have not had as easy a time with it. I suppose there are always people who will insist on carrying out to the last jot and tittle every rule, no matter how self defeating. I hope that more laid back JWs is something that will become widespread, since I have known way too many people made completely miserable by those who insist on completely cutting off the backsliders. To me, any religion that is nasty toward deconverts is one I would not even think of joining to start with.

I'm not impressed by these two, or by the headline. It's not the war that's the issue, per se, it's that these two decided to become Marines and by doing so split from their parents' faith.

The rift occurred before the war, when sons joined Marines. The parents are Jehovah Witness. Their sons chose to reject the JW faith by becoming Marines.

Shunning of JWs by other JWs for violating the tenents of the faith is standard practice. These two would obviously know this, and would also know that they had been shunned, and would continue to be shunned, so long as they chose to be Marines.

The reporting is trying to make these two into sympathetic characters, but really, they knew the deal with their family and their faith, long before they left for war.

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

How About These:

Adult Sons Break Family Apart By Choosing Warrior Path

Adult Sons Expect Parents to Set Aside Religious Practice So They Don't Feel Shame

Adult Sons Manipulate National Media in Attempt to Shame Parents into Abandoning Family's Religion

--fellow DUers, b4 you roast me, plz. note that I'm not JW, or even religious, at all, and I think shunning is a rotten awful thing to do to somebody else, and I hate that fundies try to force their religions down other people's throats, and I think a lot of rituals and practices are downright counterproductive, unkind and wholly unnecessary to living life as a good person.

My big issue with this rather innocuous story is that it smacks of media manipulation, and my impression is that these two men aren't accepting the obvious consequences of their decisions--they knew this would happen and they made a choice, and they are to this day making the same choice, but they don't fully accept the consequences.

Sad all the way around.

Why should pacifist parents support sons who go to war?

Parents should ALWAYS support their children. Always.

If they don't believe in war, they can't support warriors. It's a simple concept.

Do you have children?

edited for proper positing (above to below)

It's irrelevant to the discussion.

Let's be clear. This is not a subject on which the is issue is "do you have kids?" If it were, the parents of these two boys would see it as you do.

and it IS relevant.

It's very easy for people who don't have children of their own to claim that it's ok to love children CONDITIONALLY, which is what those parents are doing.

However, to address your argument...not all parents love their children unconditionally. Normally we Democrats judge such parents as unfit.

Do you have children?

take a huge dump all over her beliefs would be ridiculous.

Children should be loved unconditionally. Period.

Now, I don't believe the parents should have to attend any rah-rah war sessions, but meeting your child upon their return is basic parenting 101.

I wouldn't dream of not supporting my children, even if they did "take a huge dump" on my beliefs.

You wrote <snip> "meeting your child upon their return is basic parenting 101."

I agree, that for most people, and most families, that this is the standard, socially acceptable choice to make.

BUT, the parents are JWs, and these adult sons were JWs before they made the choice to become Marines. Because of that choice, these sons are being shunned by the JWs.

It's not a question of "basic parenting" of a child, at all.

JWs see shunning as a way to encourage those who stray to re-think their straying and return to the faith.

I actually disagree with shunning, and agree with your ideas of standard parenting practice here.

BUT, these are adults we're discussing, not children, and these adult men chose their path knowing full well the parents would shun them. What I have an issue with is the adult sons making a public media issue out of the shunning, knowing full well what the deal was and is with their religion when they, as adults, made the choices they did.

It's also basic parenting 101 to teach your children to anticipate, accept and deal with easily-anticipated consequences of their decisions and actions.

Especially the last line:

"It's also basic parenting 101 to teach your children to anticipate, accept and deal with easily-anticipated consequences of their decisions and actions."

I think you're absolutely right about that.

even if you have to deny yourself the pleasure of contact with them for however many years it takes for them to repent.

unconditional-
the condition being they perform/conform to your 'standard' or they rot-
You aren't 'denying yourself'- you are manipulating your CHILDREN for God's sake-

Its a sick, and sad cultic system.

It really is.

You don't show love by shunning.

So, what's to be done?

about what position you are taking in this debate.

It seems you have argued both sides in this post and the post I responded to. Are you just playing Devil's Advocate?

What is your opinion about these parents, exactly?

if you have to pretend or perform in order to be loved by your parent, then the love is pretty shallow.

I loved both my parents- and i believe in their own way they loved me- despite some pretty awful experiences on both our parts. They are dead now, and my only regret is never hearing my mother tell me she loved me. I make it a point to let my children know that while i may not like some of their choices, i will ALWAYS love them- no matter what.
Real love can't be turned on or off at will.

Loving someone does not obligate you to support them in their mistakes. In fact, loving someone requires that you oppose them in mistakes.

The problem is that too many people view opposition to their own folly as evidence of lack of love. This attitude leads to people being unwilling to change the error of their ways because they think that nobody who cares about them opposes their decisions.

But if what they do in life is repugnant to your beliefs, you can't accept them.

Suppose these sons were members of KKK and active in it. Would anyone have a problem with parents who rejected them? What if they had taken up a life of crime? Would anyone expect their parents to support them in that?

The moral solution is the one the parents have followed. By rejecting their sons, they are communicating the conviction of their beliefs.

have there been posts saying parents who withhold medical procedures from their children due to their religion don't have the right to do so?

There's a double standard.

A parent has a duty when their child is in their care under the law. Once that child is emancipated whether by marriage, enlisting in the military, turning 18 or 21 depending on the state of residence, moving out and supporting themselves or other means the parent is no longer obligated to provide support.

"obligated"...we're talking about right and wrong and unconditional love vs. I'm going to disown you if you don't live your life the way I want you to. :eyes:

I don't think I'd go so far, but if I were a JW, I sure would.

Would you still insist that their religious convictions justify their turning their backs on their own children?

And a nonsequitor.

There are plenty of homophobes who shun their children for being gay/lesbian.

Shunning for joining the military is just as bad.

You are attempting to make your personal opinion on this something more than it is. Put down your Crusade flag. It's just your opinion, nothing more.

Teaching a child to be a pacifist, and rejecting that child when he willfully engages in war is proper parenting. Some people have morals that transcend the Jerry Springer like prejudices of those who think they understand parenting better.

Sorry, I just don't need your approval to post my opinion repeatedly on this subject.

You didn't ask my approval to post yours repeatedly, and doing so doesn't make your opinion right, any more than it makes mine wrong.

As for the Jerry Springer swipe -- wow, that was funny. :rofl:

That's just about the best non-sequitor, nonsensical, golly I don't have any relevant comeback so I'll throw poo against the wall and see if it sticks post I've seen in a long time.

You win the prize. Enjoy.

You think because you're a mother you can devine how all parents should feel about their children, at every age, in every circumstance.

You have judged these parents unacceptable based upon one poorly written, inadequate article, which didn't explore the parents' point of view at all.

Good for you! You're better than them. At least in your head.

and to think you've never even met me. Most people spend a little time with me before they completely misjudge everything I stand for, think, and feel.

You, sir, have issues. One of them is reading comprehension (hint--react to only the words written, not what you hallucinate between the lines). Another is tolerance for those who dare disagree with you.

When you solve both of them we can discuss this rationally enough to agree to disagree.

Until then, you're really not worth my effort. Have a nice night.

shun or disassociate with any person who is gay, even if they don't practice their sexual orentation. Simply 'thinking' about sex is enough to cause excomunication.

Parents who kick their gay children out onto the streets do it in the name of religious convictions.

My point is that religious convictions are a lousy excuse for behaving inhumanely. The fact that these people's particular convictions happen to match yours in one way doesn't change that.

Joining the military is. That's an apples-oranges comparison.

Ridiculous, but there you have it. In the eyes of fundies, like these parents in the article, gay children are choosing to violate the religious convictions with which they were raised.

So it's still a bad comparison. ;)

...and in fact, Jehovah's Witnesses use exactly the same language when rejecting their gay children, their pregnant teenagers, people with alcohol/drug problems, or those who join the military: "lifestyle choice."

Anything that steps outside their religious belief system--and it can range from the major (adultery) to the minor (smoking) to the truly ludicrous (deciding to celebrate Christmas) to the medical (opting to accept a blood transfusion or a blood fraction/derivative)--is reason enough to shun.

If the person (whether adult or child) has been baptized into the faith, they are "disfellowshipped"--formally thrown out of the religion and shunned. If they have not been baptized, they are "disassociated"--and still shunned, including by the members of their immediate family, who are allowed to speak to them only on "matters of urgent family business."

Now, we can debate whether or not joining the military (or for that matter, taking a job in a police department) is the moral equivalent of committing adultery, or whether taking a blood transfusion is the same thing as being gay, but the bottom line is that Jehovah's Witnesses shun those who leave their religion. This includes family members, and it includes their children, and the reasons are *often* trivial.

While an adult who joins the Witnesses may be responsible for their own actions and have a "choice" in whether to remain a Witness or accept the consequences of leaving, children raised as Jehovah's Witnesses have a far more limited "choice": accept your parents' religion in its entirety, however crazy you may think it is, or be shunned by them.

Further, the shunning is *always* blamed on the person they shun.

Any way you look at it, and no matter what you think about the war, this is some sick crap. The only good thing about Jehovah's Witnesses is that, unlike other U.S. theo-cons, they don't vote.

Jankyn

in my view. The love of a parent for their child should ALWAYS trump the obedience to the dogma of religion. This religion would also have their sons die rather than allow them to have a blood transfusion, force them to avoid any holiday celebrations, or to vote in any elections. They discourage 'higher education' and believe women are to be submissive to men.

While we have the right to expose our children to the belief system of our choice, rejecting them because they don't embrace our 'view' makes a mockery of the concept of 'faith'- or 'love' or 'charity'.
And is not an example of healthy parenting.

I've seen many JW kids live through hell- Women and children are discouraged, and counseled AGAINST bringing documented sexual and physical abuse to the governing authorities, but are instructed instead to "let the elders" deal with it, which usually is to cover it up, and enable the abusive parent or adult to continue their behaviour while threatening anyone who might have the audacity to leave, or inform the authorities with excommunication, and being shunned or ostracized by their religious community, AND immediate family.- They also require witnesses to the actual abuse, other than those directly involved, which is a pretty ridiculous burden for a child, or victim to meet.

If indeed the reason for these parents to shun their sons, was because of their membership in the Watchtower Society, i have little respect or tolerance for them. I do hope they get a chance to redeem their relationship with their children before it is too late.

Quakers are pacifists. No war, period. Mennonites are pacifists. Same thing.

Jehovah's Witnesses are not against "godly" wars. They simply disapprove of "man-made" wars. They practice "neutrality," by which they do not take sides in wars that aren't directed by Jehovah God.

If the head-honchos of their faith (the Governing Body) got a message from Jehovah to participate in war, they'd be locking and loading.

Jankyn

It is the third paragraph of the story and it should appear right after the second paragraph of the OP's post. Here it is:

/didn't read the article

knocking on doors and handing out Watchtowers, so that their kids would ignore the very important rule of not getting involved with the state.

Period.

I don't think I could ever disown a family member because I didn't agree with the war they are in. I come from a family with 4 kids that were in the armed forces. None are currently enlisted but I have a brother in law in the Navy now who is currently working off the cost of Louisiana. He's done a couple tours at the beginning of the Iraq war. He doesn't agree with the war. I would never avoid going to his homecoming because he was fighting in a war.

impossible.

JW and Quakers have long standing traditions of "shunning".

I think that it probably breaks the parents hearts but what are they to do? They state that they repect their sons choice, but cannot support it. They are pacifists and war goes againt their beliefs.... I would not judge them so harshly.

It is truly sad.

than most do.

Why should a parent support a child who chooses war?

a child who chose not to believe in god at all-

If your love is based on your child living as YOU say they must, or no longer be acceptable to you, then you should never have children in the first place. For crying out loud, where is the 'freedom' to think, question and believe without being 'cast out' by those of your own flesh and blood???

(and i don't give a SHIT how old they are, my 22yr old is still my child, and so is my 12yr old)

I sincerly hope you think long and hard before becoming a parent- for the sake of you and your future children.

JWs use shunning as a way to get the "errant" person to reconsider and change their ways. Shunning is not disowing--there's a distinction.

These parents have not, at all, washed their hands of their adult sons, or disowned them at all. They have adult sons, and acknowldge this fact, and presumably love them very deeply, but because of their adult sons' choices to violate deeply held and explicit JW beliefs by becoming soliders for the government, the parents are not having social interactions with them at this time, in an attempt to have their sons reconsider their decisions.

These adult sons knew full well that they would be shunned by other JWs when they made the decisions that they did.

But did they have a choice about being raised as Jehovah's Witnesses? Did they ever share their parents' beliefs?

Your rationale for shunning them because they don't share their parents beliefs only makes sense if they opted to share those beliefs of their own free will. It's "blame the victim" crap.

If a child raised Catholic makes a decision as an adult to become an Episcopalian, will his Catholic parents refuse to talk to him? Because if a child raised as a Jehovah's Witness decides to become a Catholic, his parents will shun him, refusing to even share a meal with him.

Jankyn

Religious freaks and gung-ho idiots. This is below being worthy of attention. It's like the lies about soldiers being "spit on" after coming back from Vietnam. "Veterans were cast out by their own parents because of divisive liberal politics... booohoooo" The intended spin isn't even true. They were cast out because their parents are cultists and they are freepers!


:nopity: :nopity: :nopity: :nopity:

I am encouraging posters read up on the tenents of a faith b4 assuming political beliefs associated with different faiths.

This poster is incorrect that JWs have "freeper" political beliefs.

I think I misread the prior post and interpreted it as the poster asserting that JWs have "freeper" beliefs, instead of (properly) that these two Marines have "freeper" beliefs. Apologies...

I referred to the "JW's" as "religious freaks" and their errant sons as "freepers." Please keep my slurs straight!!!

JWs believe that everyone who doesn't share their beliefs will be destroyed by Jehovah at Armageddon.

Anyone who disagrees with them is either stupid, sinful or deceived by Satan.

Their entire belief system consists of parroting what they're told by their leaders; they change beliefs at the drop of a hat if someone in authority tells them to do so (1874, 1914, 1918, 1975...all predicted second-coming/end of the world dates).

They won't examine evidence that contradicts their beliefs.

And they're not "freepers" how?

Oh, wait--They don't vote (except that it's a "conscience matter" in some places now to avoid offending some governments--a nifty little change that most JWs don't even know about).

Jankyn

but I would not let that come between myself and family member.

I would obviously not agree with a son's decision to enlist, but it would be his decision, and I would respect his right to make it.

These folks should be glad their kids are still alive and show them as much love as possible, like the father of the Prodigial Son in the gospel. Cutting a kid off b/c you don't agree w/some of his life decisions is petty and hypocritical.

good parenting and unconditional love to me. Good for you.

We parents always hope our children will learn what we try to teach and follow the paths we imagine for them. When they don't, we have a choice between acting like a child ourselves (and demanding they do things our way or walk the highway), or being a good parent and loving them anyway.

I completely agree with the "petty and hypocritical" assessment.

We parents understand that loving our kids doesn't mean accepting everything they do.

Obviously, the parents of these two boys are parents, and they understand their beliefs and why they are important. If one doesn't support war, one should live that belief.

I believe it is the right of these parents to live their convictions, and that those convictions are admirable. They are telling their sons as strongly as they can that the sons need to look at their lives and what they are participating in. What is the US doing in Iraq? How is it doing it?

This is no small disagreement, and if a family is to be split, let it be over this.

I already have a stalker, but thanks anyway. ;-)

Parents who beat their kids and burn them with cigarettes and sexually abuse them and trade them for drugs disagree with me too. And I'm fine with that.

Now that you're talking nonsense, I'll discontinue talking to you.

Anyone so lame as to accuse another of stalking them is too trivial for my time and energy.

without a sense of humor? That's dangerous.

Since you're apparently new around here, I'll give you a hint. When somebody puts a winking smilie after a sentence, it's a joke. :eyes:

And when I put the rolling eyes smilie after a sentence, it means I feel like I shouldn't have to say what I just said.

Meanwhile, I am simply reponding to your posts. If you want to "get rid of me," you can either:

A. Stop responding (which is hard for guys with the "I must have the last word" complex); or

B. Wait till I leave the boards for the night (which will probably happen in 10 minutes when I go watch some TV with my hubby).

Again, have a nice night.

this family- like voting, being gay, celebrating a holiday, having any contact with a 'shunned' member- and then see if you still think this is an 'admirable' attitude for ANY parent to take-

Also look at the number of women who die in childbirth among the JW denomination. And how they handle child sexual abuse.

And how many shunned members go on to commit suicide.

THAT is not being a nurturing parent-

Nor is it being a person of compassion and integrety.

If a child kills, say, dad, then rapes his sister and enters into a five-year bloodbath across the country?

Still support him unconditionally? What's the high-water mark on this?

I go to the absurd lengths to point out belief systems are relative. :hi:

I frankly cannot imagine how a parent would feel if their child did such things. But I would hope that they would still love their child unconditionally.

Does that mean they have to visit the child in jail and pay their attorney fees? Probably not.

To be fair, I did say love unconditionally, rather than support unconditionally, but I think your question is valid anyway. I wouldn't equate your scenario with enlisting, but others might.

I also do tend to agree with you that belief systems are relative. But I also think the parents in the article have gone overboard with their response.

:hi: back at ya.

Want to know something?

As a gay man, who was thrown out of the house by his parents (but still stayed in school and stayed working)- and then moved back home after going without one for a couple wees, only to have them end up yanking funding for school out from under my feet....


you obviously have no idea how much pain this is causing these two. I could give a shit about the feelings of the parents; fuck 'em.

When you love someone, you do give them some sort of support, or acknowledgement, or emotion. You don't love someone you have refused to speak to for years. You can't say you love someone you refuse to have anything to do with. Saying such is more for your benefit than theirs; you seem to think it's okay if they never ever hear it.

In the first ten years after all that happened to me, my mother entered my abode- wherever it was- a total of fifteen times. My father I only recall being in my home twice; he was very sick, and later died, and I forgive him.

My mom, on the other hand, still refuses to get the piano tuned. I can bring that up because she promised exactly that in writing on my 18th or 19th birthday as an IOU in leiu of a birthday gift; she to this day refuses to make good on it.

That's not love; that's complete indifference, if not outright neglect and abuse.

I've been all over these parents for what I have labelled bad parenting and I've been getting beaten up for it.

I'm on your side. Read my other posts and see for yourself.

you might not visit them, or offer any help was what was being addressed. And from what you've written in this thread, I find it hard to believe that you'd treat you child with indifference- which is what is being done to these boys, and was to the person above-

And the reality is, the opposite of love isn't hate- it's indifference, or disconnection. THAT is what bothers those of us who do love our children (as i hear you do), especially when it is done with the claim that it is 'for their own good'-
It's NOT for their own good- its because they dared to reject the dogma of a religion that has rigid, and rather bizarre requirements-

I do believe the above poster mis-read your compassion for these boys- but i also believe they pointed out the main point. If 'loving' means pretending the person doesn't exist anymore, cutting them out of your life, and rejecting them, while saying 'we love you BUT...' that ain't love, that ain't even hate- it is rejection and abandonment. And it is wrong-

I'm surprised at those who say they'd do that to their kids on this board- but i'm still a dreamer at heart- even when i tell myself not to expect anything but MOTS.

peace,
blu

I think I get what you were saying now.

If my own child was the worst criminal ever, I still think I would offer them any help I could. They would still be my child after all. I do believe I love my children unconditionally, and I hope I pass whatever tests the universe throws at me in that regard.

In my previous posts, I was trying to be as accomodating as possible to other viewpoints while still making my point about unconditional love. I may have failed at that.

I actually feel pretty judgemental toward the parents in the article to tell you the truth. I've tried to tone it down in this thread, but I cannot understand the choices they are making at all. I cannot imagine following a religion that comes between you and your blood relations.

My husband's brother is Mormon (and one of 5 brothers total). When the brother married, NONE of us (no brothers and no wives/girlfriends) could attend the wedding because we weren't Mormon. The ceremony was held in some sacred temple place and only Mormons who were "blessed in the church" (or something like that) could watch. A decade later I still think that is wrong. What religion wants to exclude family members from such special occasions?

Cults.

When religion comes between parents and children, or siblings, that's a cult, plain and simple.

I hope I have not offended anyone by saying that. It is truly how I feel.

Thank you blu, for responding and explaining. Posting on these boards has been kinda rough at times lately. I appreciate you taking the time.

Peace,
tw

I *did* misread what you were saying. Cult, that's it exactly.

But what do you call it when religion is only involved as a means to make oneself "right"- especially when those people never worshipped in church during the whole time they were raising their kids?

(It only happened once, but I was struck by how lame and totally transparent it was.)

you said it perfectly-

Sons, Parents". It's about their being Jehova's Witness, isn't it?

If they were to join up to fight behind these lies I could not accept it ever. That decision would put a huge wedge between us and I do not believe I could ever look them in the face for going along with a lie this huge and killing innocent people over seas or putting themselves at risk to die for the lie.

:kick:

... but I couldn't accept what they were doing with their life.

It does matter what a person chooses to do as an adult. In 2001, shortly after 9/11, I had to have that talk with my adult boys, who were old enough to join, and young enough to believe it was the right thing to do.

I had done it, why shouldn't they?

I then told them how it would really be, at least if they had a conscience. I told them that no matter what the cause they thought we had, by the time they were trained, they would fighting wherever George Bush decided to attack next. I told them they would be killing men who, like them, wanted to serve their greater good. I told them they would be sent to a foreign country to kill people they didn't know, and it would be a black mark on their soul forever.

I told them I felt the same way in 1968, but no one told me it was morally wrong. No one explained to me that it was a huge pile of bullshit, wrapped in lies, all for nefarious ends posed as patriotic. No one told the part about never being forgiven.

Thank god they listened, and instead of being in Iraq in 2004, they were in Florida, and instead of helping Bush, they were working for Kerry, not unlike I have done so many times since becoming an anti-war veteran for McGovern.

I am not a pacifist, but I have to salute those who are.

if it came down to a choice between my child or my religion, religion would lose. There are a lot of religions - one of which will support my child in the legal, law-abiding decisions they make. The time spent "shunning" my child I will never get back. I could be at another church the next Sunday.

... I happened to www.nascar.com last week and they have a banner ad proclaiming 'PARENTS: what can the Army do for your child ?' with a link to an "army parents Q&A" or some such drivel.

WTF ???? :wtf: Now they're trying to strong-arm Jethro and Billy Bob Sixpack to push their kids into the Army 'cause it's the NASCAR thing to do ?? :mad:

I wish there was a comment board associated with it, cause I wanted so desperately to post a photo of all the empty boots, and some of the flag draped 'transfer units' that are returning from Iraq and Afghanistan ... that's about the only thing the Army can do for these kids.

I was reminded of one of the opening scenes of 'Platoon' -- when the new boys were arriving, and they cross paths with the grizzled and shocked soldiers who are coming back from battle, along with rows and rows of body bags ... :(

DAMMIT !!!

If some of the NASCAR demographic started joining the military rather than being gung-ho chickenhawks, they might start taking a serious second-look at Shrub.

It was strongly against their beliefs for people to be unmarried mothers, and they were convinced their friends would despise them for having an unmarried mother for a daughter.

So my children grew up without any extended family and when my daughter went to my father's funeral last week and saw my 6 brothers each given time to go up the front and say their piece she pushed her way up and (politely) said her piece in my place. I was very proud when she told me how she'd managed in front of a church full of strangers who had mostly believed I had died at 19. And the ones who knew the truth hated her for being there.

There is not really any difference. Just one more set of parents who believe they should not associate with an offspring who does not tailor his/her life to their beliefs.

I think the only person in my family who actually cried for my father was my handicapped son, who is loving and trusting and always forgave my parents for refusing to have anything to do with him, and regularly sent them pictures he would draw. (He can't write.) I had to make sure I collected the mail so he wouldn't know they were returned unopened.

and to think someone throws them out of their life is inconceivable to me.

Bad parents...SICK take on religion.

The next jw that comes to my door is gonna be THROWN off my property.

This is just as bad as the god damned mormons tossing all the boys in the street so the elder men can fuck the young girls.

FUCK religious fanatics.

be extremely disappointed if my son enlisted in the Marines and I would tell him that. But then I would tell him I loved him and supported him and I would never mention my disappointment again.

neither side deserves sympathy: the two sons go off to kill foreign people in their own country, willingly participating in a lie and the parents disown them for not following their repugnant religion.

too?

Man, who pissed in your Wheaties today?

but nice try even though it missed.