Former POW, Senator Accused Kerry of Treason
Posted By John Moore on March 10, 2004
Former Vietnam POW and Senator Jeremiah Denton has publicly accused John Kerry of actions which constitute treason. He also described Kerry’s voting pattern as “consistently detrimental to our national security.”
Knowing that I served in the U.S. Senate with John Kerry and that, like him, I am a veteran of the Vietnam War, many people have asked me what I think of him, particularly now that he’s the apparent presidential nominee of the Democratic Party.
When Kerry joined me in the Senate, I already knew about his record of defamatory remarks and behavior criticizing U.S. policy in Vietnam and the conduct of our military personnel there. I had learned in North Vietnamese prisons how much harm such statements caused.
To me, his remarks and behavior amounted to giving aid and comfort to our Vietnamese and Soviet enemies. So I was not surprised when his subsequent overall voting pattern in the Senate was consistently detrimental to our national security.
Considering his demonstrated popularity during the Democratic primaries, I earnestly hope the American people will soberly consider Kerry’s qualifications for the presidency in light of his position and record on both our cultural war at home and on national security issues.
To put it bluntly, John Kerry exemplifies the very reasons that I switched to the Republican Party. Like the majority in his political party, he has proven by his words and actions that his list of priorities — his ideas on what most needs to be done to improve this country — are almost opposite to my own.
Here are two issue areas that I consider top priorities: the war over the soul of America, and national security.
Top priority should be placed on an effort to recover our most fundamental founding belief that our national objectives, policies and laws should reflect obedience to the will of Almighty God. Our Declaration of Independence, our national Constitution and each of the states’ constitutions stress that basic American national principle.
For about 200 years, the entire country, both parties and all branches of government understood that principle and tried to follow it, if imperfectly.
For some 50 years, our nation’s opinion-makers, our courts and, gradually, our politicians have been abandoning our historical effort to be “one nation under God” in favor of becoming “one nation without God,” with glaringly unfavorable results.
I believe our political leaders, educational system, parents and opinion-makers must all return to teaching the truth most emphasized by our Founding Fathers.
George Washington called religious belief indispensable to the prosperity of our democracy. William Penn said, “Men must choose to be governed by God or condemn themselves to be ruled by tyrants.” And when asked what caused the Civil War, President Lincoln said, “We have forgotten God.”
In these days we have not only forgotten God, we are by our new standards of government and culture rejecting him as the acknowledged creator and as the endower of our rights.
As a result, we are suffering cultural decay and human unhappiness. The decline of the institution of the family is the most obvious result.
Perhaps the current movie, “The Passion of the Christ,” will help many to come to realize the cost of the redemption of our sins, and the destructiveness of sin.
Let’s remember that over 95 percent of Americans during our founding days were Christians, and though our Founding Fathers stipulated that no one was to be compelled to believe in any religion, and also stipulated that there would be no single Christian denomina tion installed as a national religion, there was no question that our laws were to be firmly based on the Judean Ten Commandments and on Christ’s mandate to love your neighbor as you love yourself.
That setup brought us amazing success as a nation, lifting us from our humble beginnings, through crisis after crisis, to become the leading nation of the world.
Now, though, we are throwing away the very source of our strength and greatness. Yet I am not giving up on our country. I am encouraged at the stand and the attitude of our president, and inspired by his courage. There are many more of his stripe in Washington now.
Though Rome and other empires have decayed and fallen, the cultural war in the United States can and should be won by the majority of Americans — a majority to whom Kerry and the Democrats disdainfully refer to as the “far right.” They are people who believe in God and in the original concept of “one nation under God.”
As a nation, we are now at the point of no return. The good guys are finally angry enough to join the fray, and I pray we are not too late.
John Kerry is not among the good guys. The Democratic Party isn’t, either.
Indeed, on the subject of national security, John Kerry epitomizes a fatal weakness in the Democratic Party.
During the decisive days of the Cold War, after the Democratic Party changed during the mid-1960s, the party was on the wrong side of every strategic debate on policy regarding Vietnam and the USSR, and is now generally on the wrong side in the war on terrorism.
The truth is that the Cold War was barely won by a narrow margin — a victory and a margin determined by the political choices made by our government regarding suitable steps to deter Soviet attack and finally win the Cold War.
If the U.S. had followed the Democratic Party line, the Cold War would have concluded with the U.S. having to surrender without a fight, or the U.S. would have been defeated in a nuclear war with acceptable losses to the USSR.
It was not Johnson and Carter and the Democrats; it was Nixon, Reagan, George Bush and the Republicans who led us to victory in the Cold War.
And George W. Bush and the Republican majority — not John Kerry and the Democrats — can lead us to victory in the war on terrorism.
Jeremiah Denton is a retired Navy admiral who served in the U.S. Senate from 1981 to 1987. Readers can phone him at 473-1010, send e-mail to transff1@aol.com, or log on to his Web site at www.nff.org.
Great. Another religious zealot.
When you bring God into the argument you weaken your case with those of us who don’t have religion as a central part of our lives. Yet I care about the morals and values the Admiral espouses. I just am turned off by his repeated references to the religion that brought us the inquisition and witch burnings.
Don’t get me wrong, I truly believe that electing John Kerry is a terrible idea and I believe what the Admiral says about Kerry’s record and the harm he has done. I just want an argument I can use on my liberal friends without having to edit it first.
You have to play the cards as they are dealt.
Most Americans do not share your opinion of religion. But I often have the same problem as you do, having to delete religion from things when discussion with some of the numerous anti-religious people I know.
I suspect that one reason that Admiral Denton was able to survive and do his duty was his religion. He’s earned the right to talk about it. Edit it and go to your liberal friends, if that’s what you want to do.
Let me also comment…
Not everyone who expresses religious sentiment is a religious “zealot.” You use zealot as a pejorative, which is unfair to the admiral. Why do you feel the need to attack this honorable man, just because of his religious beliefs?
I do indeed honor the man and am grateful for his service, hence the use of his rank (capitalized) in my post. I absolutely do not attack the Admiral — merely his use of God in his argument. The problem I have with religion in political arguments is that it is unanswerable. Just as my father in law tells me he is sure that creationism should be taught in schools because evolution is “just a theory.” Where do I start to answer that? His mind is closed.
Religious fundamentalism is what drives our enemies in al Queda. I want us (the people of the US) to be better than that.
Yes, some religious arguments are unanswerable. That is the nature of religion. But those also tend to be arguments that are also unanswerable except by religion. But when they impinge on politics in the United States, unless someone claims a religious commandment to make certain laws, they can be answered in the political realm. Christianity, unlike Islam, does not require religion to control the state.
For example, Catholicism prohibits abortion. That is a moral position. One does NOT have to be religious at all to believe that abortion is unwise or even criminal. Science cannot answer the ethical question of when the product of conception becomes a human being deserving of equal protection under the laws. It can tells us all about the characteristics of a blastocyst or an embryo or whatever, but it cannot answer the ethical question.
Denton derives his moral views from his religion. And he is correct in his observation that until 50 years ago, anti-religious bigotry was not part of our government. Equally critical is that religion didn’t control our government. Religion provides a basis for religious people to make moral judgements. And laws must be based on some sort of moral basis, regardless of how it is derived.
As to your father’s argument, it is an ignorance of science that is his real problem. If he understood science, he would understand why creationism can be taught in churches but does not belong is science courses. It would be harder to convince him that “Intelligent Design” should not be taught, as it uses the trappings of science to sneak in. And if your father understands the Constitution, he should understand why creationism should not be taught in public schools any more than some Native American creation story, but that private schools should be free to teach it.
If you understand the history of the United States, then you know that religion has been part of our public life since the very start, but lately an anti-religious movement has sought to remove any trace of it from public life, not through democratic means, but through courts reversing long held doctrine. This undemocratic attack has, naturally, produced a tremendous backlash. The abortion issue, for example, was on the way to being decided by a political process which, no doubt, would have led to a solution neither side liked, as that is the nature of democracy. But the Supreme Court discovered an absolute right to abortion that, in a truly amazing manner, had apparently been overlooked by all of their predecessors for 200 years. The result, the most extreme abortion policy in the west was imposed by judicial dictat.
Furthermore, please be careful with the term “religious fundamentalism” and comparing Denton’s Christian beliefs with those of Al Qaeda. Modern Christianity does not command violence (quite the opposite). It does not command conversion by force. And not everyone who expresses belief is a fundamentalist.
Science itself grew out of the Catholic church, which had a belief that it was mankind’s duty to understand God’s creation. Hence they encouraged (in the misnamed “dark ages”) scholasticism, with the creation of universities which had academic freedom. In those days, academics were so honored that they could cross between warring states with the equivalent of diplomatic immunity. Given the tenor of the times, in a situation long since corrected, the Church also held temporal power and was able to punish heresy.
Galileo was a Christian all of his life, was the founder of the Vatican Academy of Science, and was not attacked for heliocentrism, but rather for claiming that a particular passage in the Bible was wrong (which was theologically incorrect reasoning, put forth in an offensive manner). Of course, in those days the Church did have tremendous power in some countries, and they did persecute him (house arrest) for that. He remained a faithful Catholic believer throughout. But there is no danger of that today, in the United States.
The Spanish Inquisition, by the way, was part of the battle against Islam. It got out of hand, as such things tend to do, but so did the worship of reason, as can be seen in the orgy of violence after the French Revolution, or the 100 million people killed by “scientific Marxism.”
So when people cite the Inquisition, they are really citing an example of the nature of human beings, not the nature of the Church or religion in general. Non-religious movements have many times proved at least as cruel (North Korea is not a religious country, Stalin wasn’t religious, Hitler and his cronies revived a long dead pagan religion, Pol Pot wasn’t religious.
John, Thank you for taking the time to give me your insight. I appreciate your blog and the level of discourse here. I suppose we’ll just have to disagree on the God issue. I am firmly of the belief that religious discussion has no more place in politics than it does at the the dinner table.
If it’s any consolation, a friend informed me (during a very pleasant discussion about religion over dinner one night) that because I am not Catholic like her, when I die I am going straight to Hell.
Andrew
I agree that Catholics appear to be very dogmatic in their religious beliefs. I am married to a former Catholic who believes that the Pope is the Antichrist. I wouldn’t use them as a generic reflection of Christianity.
However, using the teachings of Christianity and the New Testament as a foundation for moral values is what the most admirable Christians reflect. “Religion” is not what Christianity is about. Too many people think it is. Christianity is faith in the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit as related in the Bible. The message there is about love. Most of the Ten Commandments have their foundation in love of God and others.
While you say you are not “religious”, I don’t think you would appear to have a problem with a core but ideal concept of true love for others. While we all fail in maintaining the Commandments and the ideal of love (only one person ever did, Jesus Christ), the world would be much better off if we did.
Sammy,
Catholics make up the majority of Christians, at 1 billion. My wife is a devout Catholic with a very deep understanding of history, the history of Catholicism and Catholic doctrine.
I think if she were answering you, she would ask “what is religion without dogma?” and I would agree. When evaluating Catholicism, however, one must carefully differentiate between the fundamental beliefs that make one a Catholic, the general pronouncements of Church officials (including the Pope – his statements only become part of the dogma when he is speaking ex-Cathedra, which as I understand it is very rare), and the behavior and personal beliefs of Catholics including priests and nuns.
At its core, Catholicism is no more dogmatic than most protestant sects, except that today many of those sects (other than the Evangelicals, Fundamentalists and a few other ‘ists) have dropped much of their teachings, leaving them rather shallow. I was raised a Presbyterian and the one of the early tenets of Presbyterianism (Calvinism in general) was predestination, and yet it was almost never mentioned.
Many Catholics believe that everything that comes out of the church is part of the dogma. However, this is not correct.
I resent having to censor the religion that i naturally use in plain speech, simply to be heard.
Today i had to write that “anal sex” was against the laws of “Mother Nature”
When “Sodomy is an insult to the Creator” would have worked just fine…
But no, you anti-religious just shoot the messenger whenever that happens.
The message is the same, whether you beleive in God or not.
I’ll wade into this one. I’m not a bible-banger, but I do believe in God. The Passion of Christ was the best movie I ever saw. However, I avoid references to religion or God in my arguments, since religion, like ethics and morals are unprovable. I choose to argue merits or de-merits of a proposal, rather than make an argument based on what someone “should,” “ought,” or “must” do.
Furthermore, I believe that “intelligent creationism” is probably just as valid as Darwin’s theory of evolution. However, for those who believe Darwin correct, please explain, for example, the survival value confered by the proposed homosexuality gene(s). If there is no reproductive advantage to a gene (i.e., “favorable variation(s)”), it will pass out of the genetic pool (i.e., “it will be exterminated”), according to Darwin’s theory.
Or, as another example, I have heard the argument that alcoholism, like homosexuality, has a genetic basis. Well, I ended up in Beech Hill Hospital 22 years ago. I could not bear the withdrawal pains and needed a drink. I asked my counsellor what to do: She proposed I go right upstair, kneel at my bed and pray for relief. The thought seemed so ludicrous to me, I laughed right out loud, but then said: I will do it. It seemed so ludicrous. However, as soon as I asked God for relief, I felt as if a hundred pound sand bag was lifted from my shoulders. Haven’t had a drink since that moment. Haven’t desired a drink since then.
It is easier for me to believe that devine intervention led to my sobriety than that my genetic code spontaneously switched to some other program.
When I consider that most Democrats I know readily adhere to the maxim: “From each according to their ability, to each according to their need,” I am thankful when some of these Democrats still have their old time religion to differentiate them from Marxists.
As long as they aren’t hurting anyone else, I say, let people have their religion, even if they do go around talking about it to others.
Paul
Linky Love
Every so often I have what I call a “dry” day – a day where I can think of nothing profound, funny, or personal to…
I see that people here are offended when someone mentions God.
Does not everyone have some sort of God?
Everyone lives by some sort of standard, and we do so because we believe that a certain type of behaviour fits our moral values.
If we didn’t have this, we would just lie down and die, and that is what some people do, it is called depression, an suicide results from this.
Others work a lot for money, so that one day they will have enough to enjoy live before they die.
No matter what you do, you live by your beliefs.
Entire wars in which millions of people have died were fought because of different beliefs.
My answer to this is; you reap what you sow, set your mind on having fun and getting drunk, you will reap the fruits of that kind of behaviour. If you set your mind on sexuality, you will also reap the fruit of that.
So there are different kinds of “gods”, each with its own type of “worship”(getting drunk, sick with AIDS, etc).
There is however a kind of behaviour that will produce good fruit, sow love, harvest peace.
Who is YOUR god?
Even though Jesus may be a made-up figure to you, or some other kind of guy, I have chosen to be like Him!(sort of like reading a superman comic and pretending to be superman afterward)
I read about Jesus in the bible, and I think that that is the ideal example of a human being.
You will have to read about him, though, in order to be like Him, and there are a lot of people out there saying a lot of things about Him that just is not true.
So, my question to the reader of this text is, am I a whimp?Or did I do the right thing?
Duco,
As the one who set off this discussion on religion, I want to be the first to say that I think you did do the right thing. As long as it works for you it’s fine with me and should be for anyone. I too try to live according to what the bible says. I just don’t happen to take it all literally and I’m not even sure I believe in a higher power. That doesn’t change the way I choose to live.
My main reason for bringing up the topic of religion is that John Kerry scares me. I sincerely believe that he will do a terrible job if he is elected president. In this next election we need to convince as many people as possible that Kerry is not the man. GWB is going to get the votes of the religious right anyway but many on the left who are open-minded enough to listen to both sides of the issues are very turned off by the fact that religion enters into and plays such a big part of the conservative message.
Many of Bush’s supporters and Bush himself are overtly religious.
So is the vast majority of America.
I know people who are unhappy be expressions of religion, but that is simply a bias that we have to live with. You will notice that conservative politicans rarely mix religion into their pronouncements. Admiral Denton is first a Christian and second a Vietnam POW Veteran.
Frankly, the anti-religious feelings surprise me. On the most important issues religion is simply not part of this administrationis decision making process. On some other issues, it is: abortion, same sex marriage, although one need not be religions to oppose both, and same sex marriage is being promoted through undemocratic practices long detested by conservatives, religious or not.
Denotn wrote what he believes, and I posted it as he wrote it.
After going through the discussion on religion, it seems that the point about Kerry’s character has been completely overlooked. This man has voted against our intellegence agencies on a constant basis. He has voted against a strong defense on a constant basis. He voted against funding that was to bring equipment to the men on the battlefield, equipment like vests like the one that saved my son’s life in Iraq. This man also, after voting against funding for the military and for the intellegence agencies, voted for a gigantic increase in the US controbutions to the UN. He is a Socialist, One World Government supporter who, based on the things he himself has said, would wait until we are attacked to launch an attack against those who are in the process of preparing to attack us. He is one who would require support by the UN to protect ourselves from a threat against us by a proven enemy. Kerry and Hanoi Jain are both makings of a dung-heap in my book.
A Vietnam Vet.
I just happened upon this thread – too late perhaps for this discussion. Andrew Burton’s first comments on “the religion that brought us the inquisition and witch burnings” reminded me of anti-Christian rhetoric I have seen on bumper stickers and bulletin boards. I am tired of the piety of secularists who suppose that faith – and Christianity in particular – have no place in public discourse.
Every person has a belief system, whether by default or by deliberation. Even the atheist, if intellectually honest, must admit that even his belief system – his worldview – is based on a set of presuppositions – what some people call “faith.”
Consider this: How many have been MURDERED by people fronting for the following belief systems?
CHRISTIANITY
Shooting of abortion doctors – 2 or 3?
“Witch Burnings” – Hundreds
The Crusades – Thousands
The Inquisitions – Thousands
SECULARISM / ATHEISM
National Socialism – Tens of Millions
Abortion – 42 Million and counting
Communism – Hundreds of Millions
The question is not whether Christian faith should be allowed in the marketplace of ideas. The real question is this: If you remove Christian faith as the foundation of our society, with what will you replace it?
Whether you are a person of faith or not, the rights afforded us by the Constitution of the United States are the rights of all Americans. And if the religious lose their rights to freedom of speech, the non-religious will lose theirs as well.
The non-religious get their “seperation of church and state” idea from the first amendment. In reality, the first amendment bars the “State” from making any law restricting the free excercise of one’s faith. Therefore, the burden is on the State and not the individual. One needs to remember that the Constitution of the United States serves to define and limit the power of the government, not the people.
Any attempt to use it to restrict the rights and power of the people has met with disaster. For example, Prohibition was a total failure. That is why, even though I am against abortion and gay marriage, I cannot support a Constitutional amendment to restrict either. That is a job for each state and the courts to decide.