Skip to comments.US to Discipline Top Pentagon Officers for Endorsing Christianity
Posted on 08/27/2007 11:28:31 AM PDT by F15Eagle
click here to read article
Yes, the Blackbird was darn near a spaceship...the gold course would come to a complete standstill while it taxi’d on to the runway and took off... I could not get enough of it!!!
I’ve never had the pleasure of seeing one take off. Now, unless I happen to spot the NASA birds (if they’re still being used) that will be my only chance. And that’s not too likely. :(
Polybius: “In other words, “The military is not NASCAR.”
Unless the commander says it can be?
Thats too bad :( It was one of the coolest sites I’ve ever witnessed.
“That’s irrelevant. You wouldn’t want to be enlisted under a Muslim commander who preaches his beliefs to you.”
First, I would not mind.
Second, that would be his constitutionally guaranteed right as an American, as long as he was fair when it came time for evaluations... I would lend him my own ideals if he thought bold enough to lend me his...lol
But, the current debate concerns military personnel being able to promote something they believe in while wearing their uniform.
It is already allowed with the commander or higher ups approval.
IOW’s it has to have the military’s approval.
As I have mentioned in previous replies this has and continues to go on regardless. I believe that the service member has a constitutional right to be able to promote as long as it deals with their religious conviction and not for profit (which I believe was the main intention of the directive...but I could be wrong on this count.)
In trying to control the image of how the military is viewed I believe they have crossed over the line with this so called “law.”
Plus, I might add that the military does not do a good job at all when it comes to their image... since women and children have been raped by men in and out of uniform I would never make the leap that the military endorses rape. It is ridiculous to not allow all members of the military the ability to show their personal faith while in uniform.
“.”4.0?” I didn’t see or sign any of those.”
I take it you wrote evaluations & those that you wrote them for were not up to snuff? 4.0 is the highest, the next on down was 3.8..then 3.6...
We didn’t use that kind of numbering system at all.
“I see where you’re coming from now.”
Well, I guess I just think the military has gone waaaay toooo P.C.... IMHO.
If people only knew how far left it is they would be boggled... from ‘90-’92 we were required to go to GMT (General Military Training) which taught us condom use (swear to God) and many things pertaining to sexual harassment in the work place, etc. Some of the info was ok...but alway leftward and P.C.
There is a gigantic leap in logic between raking in millions of dollars from endorsements and one lending their support of a religious organization while in uniform.
Whether it is free advertising or pay through the nose advertising, whether it is plugging Coca-Cola or plugging a non-profit organization, advertising is advertising and military regulations state that you will NOT ..... repeat ... you will NOT engage in advertising, ANY advertising, while wearing the uniform of any of the U.S. Armed Forces.
If you are in the military and you want to plug the American Cancer Society on camera, you had better change out of your military uniform before the cameras start rolling or you will be in hot water.
That goes for the Non-Profit Society to Save the Gay Whale and Cute, Furry Woodland Creatures too.
It's as simple as that.
I did not write the military regs.
I am just telling you what they are.
"Logic" has absolutely nothing to do with the matter.
Our country is going insane. Try to eliminate Christianity and leave the door wide open to the violent totalitarians of islam...
Exactly my point. Christianity retreats or is forced to retreat, secular or otherwise. And we pander to the moon gawd.
The Day approaches ...
Technically, for the uniform wearer.
"But, ummm ..... Colonel Snodgrass gave me permission to advertise McDonald's while in uniform."
"Not Guilty. Has a lot to learn, not much common sense but Not Guilty."
For Colonel Snodgrass, it would be a career ender and he would be very hot water for "poor judgment".
“advertising is advertising and military regulations state that you will NOT ..... repeat ... you will NOT engage in advertising, ANY advertising, while wearing the uniform of any of the U.S. Armed Forces.”
Unless the commander says so?
What constitutes advertising anyway? So no service member, without approval of their commander, may say I really support this or that...the United Way (which we were very coerced into giving to?) How, about Special Olympics? hmmm see I am coming at this from my experience and it is very very shaky ground constitutionally to say what one may or may not say via their commanders approval. This truly is hypochrisy in the highest order and nothing to do with military awareness.... It is simply bullying.
So then, you make no distinction concerning “advertising” and the exercising of ones own faith while in uniform?
“If you are in the military and you want to plug the American Cancer Society on camera, you had better change out of your military uniform before the cameras start rolling or you will be in hot water.”
Reeeeeeeaaaallllly??? Wow. This was simply not the case when you watch t.v. in P’cola or some other military town when you see the captain in “front of the cameras rolling” saying we support the United Way and/or Special Olympics...lol! I am sure this continues....so save the regs it does not happen like you say...or think it does.
In FACT: they will say Captain or LT in front of their names while they are whereing uniforms and come to the reporter and give explicit approval and how the military supports the cause.
Oh, how about those marines in dress uniform collecting toys... I could go on all day...but I will not.
“For Colonel Snodgrass, it would be a career ender and he would be very hot water for “poor judgment”.
But toys for tots OK?
Look, It still goes on in military towns where the commander be it Colonel or Captain (Navy), both O-5’s have and do come on camera and promote many and I mean many charities... which of course is fine.
Now I would not equate expressing ones support for their personal faith or an organization the same as advertising for McDonalds.... but you do understand the reason as to why the regulation was put in place. However, it infringes on guaranteed rights of the military member to exercise some of their rights which do not impede the ability of the military to do their mission.
The regulation will either have to be re-written or dismissed outright to conform to the United States Constitution.
“Logic” has absolutely nothing to do with the matter.”
It apparently does not with this military regulation, but it most certainly does in this discussion.
I see. Army evaluations (for enlisted types, at least) were done with simpler designations (”satisfactory,” “go,” and the like), when I was in. Few in combat specialties saw “excellent” checked or written in comments about their performance.
Is there a list of the 10 accused?
In a promotional video?
Without approval of the chain of command?
So then, you make no distinction concerning advertising and the exercising of ones own faith while in uniform?
Going to Church in uniform and praying in uniform?
Appearing in uniform in a promotional video and plugging the Knights of Columbus or The 700 Club or Jewish Charities of America or the Islamic African Relief Agency - USA?
Reeeeeeeaaaallllly??? Wow. This was simply not the case when you watch t.v. in Pcola or some other military town when you see the captain in front of the cameras rolling saying we support the United Way and/or Special Olympics...lol!
Did the military chain command decide that it was acceptable?
Did an individual Captain decide to support a particular organization in uniform without clearing up the chain of command?
But toys for tots OK?
Has Toys for Tots been approved by the USMC chain of command?
Now I would not equate expressing ones support for their personal faith or an organization the same as advertising for McDonalds....
What does "personal faith" have to do with a promotional video for a particular organization?
Saying in uniform, "I am a Catholic and I believe in the teachings of the Catholic Church"?
Saying in a promotional video in uniform, without the approval of the chain of command, "I urge all of you to contribute to the Knights of Columbus Charities"?
It apparently does not with this military regulation, .....
By Jove, I think he's got it!
I have not seen a list of names.
Bull. Just who the hell do you think they are?
Unlike other scenarios in a free society, a military establishment mandates immediate obedience to orders from senior ranked officers and line officers in combat 24/7.
Exactly so. Which is why military officers have no business whatever "mandating" any religious exposure, Christian or otherwise, of their personnel. How do you propose forcing a Jewish officer to "expose" his troops to Christianity? Why should Jewish enlisted personnel listen to some crank, officer or otherwise, browbeat them with a Bible?
How, in a free society, could such a thing be even considered? the military may be apart from the rest of society, but military personel do not lose their religious rights upon entering the military. Indeed, their religious rights ought to be respected even more. Except, apparently, in your world.
The commanding officer therefore, has incurred a responsibility for his juniors to insure they are provided with an opportunity to be provided the Gospel if they are unbelievers and an opportunity to receive proper pastor-teacher guidance as believers while they are serving under the command of others.
Bull. The junior "unbelievers" may be indeed junior militarily, but an officer has no business whatever ordering religious observance of any kind. To suggest otherwise is utterly outrageous. Indeed, it would be conduct unbecoming an officer.
Both the gift of pastor-teach and the gift of evangelism are spiritual communication gifts given by God the Holy Spirit to certain believers.
Sez you. How about demonstrating they're right about religion before forcing it on their personnel?
The spiritual communication gift of pastor-teacher is given to a person to spiritually discern the appropriate part of the Word to be taught to the believers in his midst per Gods Plan, so that they are in the right place at the right time to perform by His Plan.
Demonstrate your version of your religion is right, and all others are wrong, and then convince everyone else in the country you're right. Until then you have no right whatever in forcing your religious beliefs upon anyone else, especially in the military.
How about respecting others' rights to their religion, or doesn't that concern you? How would you feel if you were ordered by your commanding officer to listen to lectures about religion that were diametrically opposed to your beliefs? You'd be in a poor position to object, because if you were ordered to listen, you'd have to obey orders, wouldn't you?
Likewise, the spiritual communication gift of evangelism is given to some believers to communicate to unbelievers.
Sez you ... again. "Gift"? What a joke. "Pestilence" is more like it. Next time, try a rhetorical trick that isn't so transparent.
Unlike the common citizen who incurs the responsibility to find his own pastor-teacher and continue obediently in faith through Christ in his daily studies, the military serviceman, is also under the legitimate authority of his commanding officer to obey 24/7 the orders of his seniors.
Which is why a military commander who attempted anything like what your suggesting would be courting a court-martial, and rightly so. How dare you suggest that members of the military be forced to endure forcible religious instruction.
Likewise, his seniors bear the responsibility to God to insure pastor-eachers are made available to the serviceman for their spiritual growth, only possibile through faith in Christ through daily intake of Bible doctrine by their appropriate pastor-teacher.
What utter trash. Has God ordained you to speak for Him? If so, please present your credentials. Until then, why not take Mark Twain's advice and be quiet and let others believe you an idiot rather than speak and remove all doubt.
Do you want to chase every Jewish serviceman/woman out of the military? That's the end result of what you're proposing. Please state it in so many words though. Then tell us why. You'll also drive out any service members who don't share your religious beliefs. I suspect that would be a majority of service members. But at least the 15 or 20 people remaining would be warriors in good standing with whatever it is you think God thinks.
Why is this not a military advantage?
Recent ecumenical perspectives fail to recognize the significance of God the Holy Spirit in the continuing sanctification of each and every believer, every day and moment of their lives.
Oh, no! Bad,Bad! ecumenicism! No doubt, YOU'LL save the day!
Nuts to you.
Many worldly officers believe they are able to substitute a worldly system of counterfeit belief independent of faith through Christ and still advance in good works.
It is not the business of officers to command religion. It is also not the business of officers to see that their men "advance in good works," whatever that may be. Where do you get this stuff?
Such thinking is good for nothingness, not only jeopardizing the sanctification and spiritual growth of their juniors, but also placing their commands at risk of divine discipline, being in the wrong place at the wrong time on the battlefield which is deadly.
Kindly show us where in the UCMJ, the oath an officer takes upon commission, or anywhere else, where "sanctification and spiritual growth of their(sic) juniors" is part of a commanding officer's job. Then demonstrate how only the most devout Christian officers have ever won battles. In light of the continuing existence of the State of Israel, this should be interesting."Stonewall" Jackson, perhaps the most devout officer ever in the U.S. or C.S. military was killed by friendly fire. Demonstrate how his death advanced his cause.
IMHO, if our commander-in-chief was remaining in fellowship through Christ in all things, he would relieve those in the chain of command who seek such counterfeit substitutes to Gods Plan and place the US armed forces at risk, without divine guidance through faith in Christ.
You're suggesting a religious purge of the military! Why not write your representatives in Congress and propose this?
I, on the other hand, suggest we all thank God you are in no position to put your ghastly notions into practice.
You might want to read up on the part of the Bill of Rights regarding "freedom of religion" and think about how your suggestions might run afoul of that. Then tell us why your judgment should be substituted for the Bill of Rights.
And just in case you're wondering, I was a commissioned officer in the U.S. Navy.
The US Navy has always been different from the other branches. Instead of MOS we have Rating w/ a number designation afterwards...like 9272. We would also have statements written concerning our performance, but only after the overall number. That was used to break any 4.0 ties... yada yada lol...
The snack area was “gedunk” figure that out...I cannot.
“Did an individual Captain decide to support a particular organization in uniform without clearing up the chain of command?”
A captain in the US Navy is an O-5 and most likely in control of the base. I understand that in other services like the AF a captain is a lowly O-3.
Anyway, you definitely have a constitutional problem which is exemplified by your post concerning the ability of a base commander getting to pick and choose for everyone involved concerning which is and is not permissible to endorse.
Obviously, you and I will not be the ones getting to decide the outcome of this unconstitutional regulation. However, the dictatorial nature of how it is used concerning the power one has over another service members life which has no bearing on military performance IS an issue.
“Appearing in uniform in a promotional video and plugging the Knights of Columbus or The 700 Club or Jewish Charities of America or the Islamic African Relief Agency - USA?
And hence the need for it to be changed.
Hubenator: Reeeeeeeaaaallllly??? Wow. This was simply not the case when you watch t.v. in Pcola or some other military town when you see the captain in front of the cameras rolling saying we support the United Way and/or Special Olympics...lol!
Polybius: “Did the military chain command decide that it was acceptable?
I see that you have no problem with the regulation. even though it cannot be used fairly or impartially.
The regulation, I believe, would not be allowed to continue if someone brought it before the Supreme Court.
Polybius: “Has Toys for Tots been approved by the USMC chain of command?
You do not see a problem with this??? Constitutionally? Prohibiting certain things dictated by the chain of command and allowing others personal area of their life? Then we will definitely never see eye to eye.
The wicked shall be turned into hell, and all the nations that forget God.
“What does “personal faith” have to do with a promotional video for a particular organization?”
Quite a bit concerning this organization which hopes to help service members.
Polybius: Saying in a promotional video in uniform, without the approval of the chain of command, “I urge all of you to contribute to the Knights of Columbus Charities”?
Problem? With you perhaps...and this exemplifies the problem with this regulation and the light of the constitution.
I have noticed now that you have switched your position earlier and now say that a service member does not need to take off his or her uniform if they have permission from the chain of command.
“It would be nice if he would show the same concern for Christians.”
I totally agree with you. He has remained silent on issues like this and it needs to be addressed.
They have been given authority over their juniors. As soon as they direct their juniors into a situation away from that junior personnel’s local pastor-teacher, they also have assumed responsibility for the spiritual development of that person in a fashion which God has provided, regardless if they are qualified or not.
God provides for the spiritual development and continuing sanctification of his believers by the daily inculcation of the Word of God into the soul of the believer. God the Holy Spirit is free then to make that Word understood by the believer in their human spirit, then academically understood in the soul of the believer, and with continued fellowship through faith in Christ, it is then developed by God the Holy Spirit in the believer’s heart, where it may be tested in the believer’s outward life.
This entire process is aided by the person with the spiritual gift of pastor-teacher. As soon as a person removes his fellow man from the guidance of that pastor-teacher, he inherits responsibility to God himself to provide that mechanism to his personnel.
In the past, this was provided by the establishment of a Chaplain’s Corps, with efforts to ensure those who staff such ranks were qualified to perform such tasks.
Unfortunately, many commanding officers of senior rank were grossly negligent in remaining humble before God Himself through faith in Christ, believing their worldly authority and defending a free society had absolved them of such responsibility or in worse situations felt the Chaplain was a substitute for a psychiatrist or mother’s shoulder for those with less intestinal fortitude. Such mistaken notions do not absolve their responsibility nor their accountability before God Himself.
There is only one God and He has already provided a solution for man to have a relationship with Him, for Jew and Gentile alike.
If a Jewish officer or Gentile hasn’t had the guts to learn Scripture, (because they have been exposed to it in OCS if no other place) then as a responsible officer they should make arrangements so that those so qualified are available to provide that guidance to their juniors.
This does not imply that those under arms should only be Christian. On the contrary, national governance is a divinely established institution for man, (if for no other reason than to keep mankind from wiping each other off the face of the planet) and as a divinely established institution it was created for believer and unbeliever alike. Both are able to enjoy the fruits of that institution freely, provided they abide within legitimate authority of that institution.
The defense of that institution by members of the nation may indeed imply servicemen are placed under the legitimate authority of their seniors 24/7 and with obligation to perform with immediate obedience to orders. In return for such obedience, the officer incurs a responsibility to provide for his juniors, regardless if society holds him accountable or not.
Of all the responsibilities an officer has, his interjection between the relationship between his juniors and God is of foremost importance for him to grasp. Even more directly, a unit under his command stepping out of line with the most senior command authority, when about to go into combat, exposes themselves to harm’s way without the most powerful supporting arm imaginable, namely the power of God Himself. They also might inadvertently blunder into the wake of His wrath when nations undergo divine discipline resulting in the some of the most devastating of consequences.
Most military officers I have met, generally have the ability to discern between rights and responsibility. The individual person removed from the place or even opportunity to be taught by their pastor-teacher, nevertheless has a right to continue their spiritual growth through faith in Christ. Affording their juniors that opportunity isn’t forcing religion down their throat. (Besides, even if one wanted to force religion down another’s throat, God has established another institution known as volition or as free-will, which must be exercised by the believer before they can have a relationship with Him through faith in Christ. The function of both evangelist or pastor-teacher is voided by those who think they can force it upon anyone.) This doesn’t mean that an officer who finds himself in between the mechanics of that relationship, can’t manage his resources accountably and as a good steward provide access between such personnel. On the contrary, it is incumbent upon the officer to ensure such opportunity and exposure exists.
Your post reads as though written by a naval officer, though I also have observed how such jealousy works, as an officer of Marines. You might want to read some of the earlier letters of Lord Acton regarding the separation of Church and State. Its origin had more to do with recognizing God through faith in Christ and how the authority of the State should not interfere between different denominations, rather than equivocating any occultic practice as being ‘religious’ and of equal value in the eyes of society.
Agreed my friend. Since 9/11, the National Stockholm Syndrome bends over backwards, time and again, to accommodate the moon gawd cult, when they openly talk of destruction, of killing the Jew, praising terrorists.
But some Christians make a misstep, it’s hammer time.
Instead he kisses up to the islamites’ cult as “the religion of peace”.
Bearing the attitudes prevalent against Christianity today, there is no way I’d encourage the enlistment of men and women in the US armed services.
America is one more step down the path of sure destruction.
That is interesting. Maybe it's because OCF (of which I was a member also, way back when) restricts its membership solely to the military, and so there's no danger of an appearance of a military endorsement?
Community service organizations like Special Olympics are non-profits, and do not promote any one religion over another. The difference should be obvious.
Re-read the article to realize it was essentially a mosque on a military base... just like there are Christian churches and Jewish synagogues on military bases, all over the world.
Thank you for giving me, my wife, and my children a free country to grow up in.
Agreed. We’ve got to make some sort of stand. Inch-by-inch they’re trying to destroy any Christian opposition in this country. I don’t know how this “incident” got escalated, but regardless, we’ve got to keep fighting the push to squash anything Christian.
Hopefully this will all get worked out. Guess we’ll have to follow the story.
There are chapel facilities which offer services to different religious persuasions in the same facility at different times. I can’t recall a single military synagogue or cathedral anywhere I’ve been stationed or attached. Even the USAFA Chapel does services for all faiths.
Thank you for responding to that idiot post in #35. As a former Army infantry officer (and a Christian, I might add), I agree with *your* post 100%.
A Navy Captain is an O-6, unless he/she is in command of a ship, in which case he is referred to as "Captain" regardless of actual rank.
You were in the Navy and you don't know that?
Terabitten: “Community service organizations like Special Olympics are non-profits, and do not promote any one religion over another. The difference should be obvious.”
- Read the context of this statement in which it was placed to Polybius.
- He had stated, in no uncertain terms, that nobody for any reason was able to wear an uniform and appear before cameras for any reason to promote anything.
- His position later changed to one that said it was ok as long as the service member had permission from the chain of command.
* Obvious? Oh yes, this regulation needs to die...and will if it is properly scrutinized. I cannot agree with your assessment that because its “religious” that one may give up his right to personally promote a religious organization while wearing their uniform.
Was he wearing a uniform? No he wasn’t. If these Generals had just gone in civilian clothes this would not be an issue. Everyone in the military knows about this rule. It is reiterated at least yearly. I just don’t know what they were thinking. I guess they took a risk. I am sorry that they were so selfish to take away the actual reason for the video that could have been researched by the population. Now it is all about them.
“You were in the Navy and you don’t know that?”
You are correct that a Captain in the US Navy is an 0-6. However, being out since ‘92 I made a mistake and said 0-5. The point is still valid since other captains in the military are 0-3...
Again, your ideas governing religion in the military are very restrictive. The unconstitutional regulation overlaps into something that infringes upon the service members right to support something that in no way hinders or harms the military.
Oh, and your welcome for your freedom.
No doubt, I could have guessed this by how you were defending the way things are in the military. Some old things die hard and this regulation needs to die.
I hope it does not die. I am in the military and if they start allowing military folks to wear uniform anytime they want for any reason than I guess you will see servicemembers walking in uniform in gay pride parades. You can’t really punish the many military females who posed in playboy in uniform because really it is their right to do so according to you. Oh the military islamic religious group is no problem for people in the military wearing uniform according to your reasoning. I think you are crazy!!!