Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

US to Discipline Top Pentagon Officers for Endorsing Christianity
Christianity Today ^ | Posted: Monday, August 27, 2007, 10:32 (BST) | by Ethan Cole, Christian Today US Correspondent

Posted on 08/27/2007 11:28:31 AM PDT by F15Eagle

click here to read article


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-5051-100101-150151-200201-202 next last
To: napscoordinator

napscoordinator: Everyone in the military knows about this rule. It is reiterated at least yearly.

- It does not matter how often it is “reiterated”

- What matters is whether this is an unconstitutional practice by the military which accepts some promotional issues and rejects others for whatever reason.

- There is no way that this regulation can be applied fairly. Just because the chain says does not make one thing right while denying the same privilege to other service members. These courageous men need to challenge this unconstitutional regulation.


151 posted on 08/28/2007 9:44:57 AM PDT by Hubenator (Evolution does not constitute scientific evidence, nor does it convey scientific knowledge.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 148 | View Replies]

To: napscoordinator

napscoordinator: “I am in the military and if they start allowing military folks to wear uniform anytime they want for any reason...”

- I suggest you go back and re-read my posts since you just started your rant and have allready gone off the deep end. I never said “for any reason”.

napscoordinator:”...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.”

- Yes, of course, and cats and dogs will start mating with squirrels...sheeeesh.

napscoordinator:” I think you are crazy!!!”

- I believe you do not have one logical bone in your body...not to mention a reading/comprehension issue.


152 posted on 08/28/2007 9:52:17 AM PDT by Hubenator (Evolution does not constitute scientific evidence, nor does it convey scientific knowledge.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 150 | View Replies]

To: Hubenator
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.

I don't understand your point. Servicemembers are allowed to worship (or not worship) in any way they see fit. When I was in the Army, I had Christians, Jews, athiests, Wiccans, native Americans, and everything else you could imagine in my units. I don't recall any muslims, but there might've been one.

Servicemembers can worship in any way they see fit, and I made as many accomodations as I could to enable them to worship -- regardless of their religion. Appearing in a fundraising video is generally not considered worship.

As a private citizen, I could support whatever organization I wanted, religious or not. I just couldn't do it under color of my office. I certainly couldn't do it without chain of command approval.

If you had officers who were ordering you to do 'unmilitary' things, then I blame your chain of command for not standing up to them.

Oh, and thank you for your service as well - sorry for not thanking you before. We were in at about the same time.

153 posted on 08/28/2007 9:53:55 AM PDT by Terabitten (Virginia Tech Corps of Cadets - E-Frat '94. Unity and Pride!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 149 | View Replies]

To: Hubenator

Look the bottom line is were they disobeying a law or not. Sure it could be unconstitutional but certainly there are other ways to fight that and certainly not showing up in uniform for some video making. They are not going to get kicked out of the military. At most they will most likely receive a nonpunitive letter of caution which will be shreaded when they leave the command.


154 posted on 08/28/2007 9:55:51 AM PDT by napscoordinator
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 152 | View Replies]

To: Terabitten

If you board a bus and sit down in the driver’s seat, drive the route, stopping along the way allowing passengers to board, you become responsible for the route they take. If the driver decides he isn’t responsible for his passengers and fails to allow them to exit on their own free will, he then is responsible for their disposition.

A commanding officer has a responsibility to insure his personnel are not impeded in their relationship with God through faith in Christ.

I’d encourage yourself to return to some basics in how to have a relationship with God and what is implied by the authority which has been afforded you in the past. All authority and all faith are from Him.


155 posted on 08/28/2007 10:01:38 AM PDT by Cvengr (The violence of evil is met with the violence of righteousness, justice, love and grace.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 145 | View Replies]

To: Cvengr
If you board a bus and sit down in the driver’s seat, drive the route, stopping along the way allowing passengers to board, you become responsible for the route they take.

True - but you do not become responsible for what they think.

A commanding officer has a responsibility to insure his personnel are not impeded in their relationship with God through faith in Christ.

You are almost correct. A commanding officer has a responsibility to insure his personnel are not impeded in their faith - whatever faith it is.

156 posted on 08/28/2007 10:08:58 AM PDT by Terabitten (Virginia Tech Corps of Cadets - E-Frat '94. Unity and Pride!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 155 | View Replies]

To: Terabitten

“If you had officers who were ordering you to do ‘unmilitary’ things, then I blame your chain of command for not standing up to them.”

That is why this regulation needs to go...the officers were not necessarily doing something “unmilitary” however, the regulation which is used partially (as opposed to impartially) will not be able to pass constitutional muster.

It is according to the chain of commands discretion which, in this particular case, crosses the line into unconstitutional waters by saying you are not able to freely give your opinion on a religious matter merely because you are in uniform. Now, the logic behind this regulation is clear concerning lucrative or commercial endorsements, but it breaks down at this level because it intrudes on the service members exercising of his/her faith by denying their ability to promote their faith through this ministry video. However, military members are allowed to do other promotions for other non-profs. That means that the military is making a distinction that they alone may choose what to endorse. I have no problem with this in and of itself...however, when this regulation is used to batter and bully others into some unconstitutional position (e.g., not being able to promote ones faith while in uniform) then it must be changed.


157 posted on 08/28/2007 10:10:21 AM PDT by Hubenator (Evolution does not constitute scientific evidence, nor does it convey scientific knowledge.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 153 | View Replies]

To: Hubenator
I do if it is unconstitutional.

I doubt it is unconstitutional. No one is telling them they can't express their views. They just can't wear the uniform while doing so unless they have permission first.

158 posted on 08/28/2007 10:16:28 AM PDT by MEGoody (Ye shall know the truth, and the truth shall make you free.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 84 | View Replies]

To: napscoordinator

“Look the bottom line is were they disobeying a law or not.”

- True, But if the “law” is unconstitutional then it should not be law or the law should be rewritten.

“Sure it could be unconstitutional but certainly there are other ways to fight that and certainly not showing up in uniform for some video making.”

- Not sure if that was really on their mind when they wore their uniform, but it certainly should be now. This law or regulation needs to change since it cannot be delegated fairly for some and not for others. It will not harm the military in any way or shape... Many military members go to bars and whorehouses, but I do say...wow the military must endorse this behavior.


159 posted on 08/28/2007 10:17:16 AM PDT by Hubenator (Evolution does not constitute scientific evidence, nor does it convey scientific knowledge.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 154 | View Replies]

To: MEGoody

“No one is telling them they can’t express their views.”

- Unless they are in uniform.

“They just can’t wear the uniform while doing so unless they have permission first.”

- Correct.

That is the way it is written now. However, it keeps any service memeber from promoting their faith in a simple promotional video which makes them no money. They do it for the love of their faith to encourage this organization to help or lead others to Christ.

Either the military will have to stop endorsing all charities or start allowing others to make their own decision on which non-prof they choose to support via their time, money while in uniform... just like they do now for their own appointed charities.


160 posted on 08/28/2007 10:25:08 AM PDT by Hubenator (Evolution does not constitute scientific evidence, nor does it convey scientific knowledge.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 158 | View Replies]

To: Terabitten

Thank you for your service, as well :)


161 posted on 08/28/2007 10:27:05 AM PDT by Hubenator (Evolution does not constitute scientific evidence, nor does it convey scientific knowledge.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 153 | View Replies]

To: Cvengr
They have been given authority over their juniors.

Only in military matters.

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.

Rubbish. Cite the UCMJ article that supports your opinion.

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.

That’s according to your personal religious beliefs; to which you, of course have a right. However, you have no right to inflict them on anyone else, especially under cover of authority. Again, cite the UCMJ article that states otherwise. Or do you claim to have a personal, direct pipeline to God? If so, prove it, and show me where in the UCMJ there's an exception for Cvengr's Personal Messages From the Almighty.

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.

That's nice. Where is it covered in the UCMJ?

This entire process is aided by the person with the spiritual gift of pastor-teacher.

1. Demonstrate the presence of this “gift” in a “pastor-teacher.”
2. Show how it is more efficacious, correct (from God's perspective), or beneficial than any other “gift” claimed by any other “pastor-teacher,” rabbi, imam, or priest.
3. Show me in the UCMJ where any of this has anything whatever to do with the job of an officer in the armed forces of the United States.

I will alternatively accept something from the oath an officer takes upon commission. I’m not interested in your religion or your interpretation of your religion, or your ideas about a life well lived. Explaining how right you are by citing a Bible verse (or verses), won’t cut it. Cite the law. Cite the UCMJ article.

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.

The Chaplain Corps has a worthy mission. I’m really, really sorry to hear it’s not meeting your standards. Perhaps you should communicate with the JCS on the matter. In any case, the mission of the Chaplain Corps does not include forcing religion on those members of the military who are uninterested, and who are in a poor position to stand up to an officer abusing his authority. (Hint, hint).

Unfortunately, many commanding officers of senior rank were grossly negligent in remaining humble before God Himself through faith in Christ,

Yeah. Take a look in the mirror.

… 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.

I'm not interested in your personal religious views. I'm interested in military regulation and the law. Cite the UCMJ article mandating your assertions.

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.

Prove it. Then cite the UCMJ article where this is to be required belief for all members of the military. Then cite the UCMJ article outlining enforcement and penalties for officers failing to enforce it.

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.

“Guts”? Hilarious. Cite the UCMJ article requiring forced religious instruction for junior personnel.

This does not imply that those under arms should only be Christian.

Well, isn’t that ecumenical of you! And here I thought it was “your way or Hell” when it came to religious matters.

On the contrary, national governance is a divinely established institution for man ...

Kind of like “the divine right of kings”?

... (if for no other reason than to keep mankind from wiping each other off the face of the planet)

Support this.

... and as a divinely established institution ...

You have no support for this.

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.

Forced religious instruction is outside of the legitimate authority of any government institution in a free society. (But if you can cite a UCMJ article to the contrary, I’ll drop the argument).

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.

This is arrant nonsense. Junior personnel are under legitimate authority (but not absolute authority; learn the difference), and must obey all lawful orders. No one in any position of authority can issue an illegal order and expect obedience. This business about "regardless if society holds him accountable or not," is an admission that I’m right, you’re wrong, and you know you’re wrong.

You’re just blowing smoke.

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.

Cite the UCMJ article on this!

Your arrogance is truly breathtaking. Any officer who would presume to “interject” himself between his juniors and God (as you have advised), is so utterly unworthy of the uniform that any officer doing so should cashiered out of the service at once. How dare you!

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.

Your inability to use the English language properly is consistent with your inability to reason. Cite a UCMJ requirement on your assertion.

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.

Feel free to cite examples of this and demonstrate that the reasons for disasters, military or otherwise, are the result of Divine wrath.

Be prepared to tell us how you know these things. It’s not just a matter of citing a few Bible verses – even Satan can do that – show us how you know which military failures can be laid to “stepping out of line with the most senior command authority” vis-à-vis God.

Most military officers I have met, generally have the ability to discern between rights and responsibility.

Vapor. Off topic.

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.

Who says the individual doesn't? And what about Jewish members of the service? You keep losing sight of them. I agree that everyone has a right continue “spiritual growth.” I don’t agree that anyone anywhere in the command structure has a right to force specific religious instruction on anyone.

Affording their juniors that opportunity isn’t forcing religion down their throat.

Are you now retreating from your previous position or are you trying to change the subject? You were talking about forced religious instruction before, and the responsibility of the command to force it. What else does this sentence from your post 35 mean? “FWIW, there is a moral imperative for commanders to mandate Christian exposure of their personnel on active duty.” It's still there, although I suppose you could get it pulled.

(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.

Try re-reading that sentence (you wrote it), a few thousand times. Maybe it will sink in. Then apply it to people who don’t believe in Christ the way you do. They have the same rights. Respect those while you’re at it.

Allowing someone the "free will" to ignore the religion you are forcing them to listen to won't cut it.

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.

I’m not sure what you’re getting at here, other than assuming your conclusion. I didn't say, and won't say that any officer should get in the way of the member’s exercise of religion (except as it may have a deleterious effect on military duties), but I do mean to say an officer has no business enforcing religious observance on anyone.

Your post reads as though written by a naval officer …

You mean it’s free from the syntactical train wrecks and logical fallacies plaguing your post? I’m surprised you noticed.

… 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.

Are you familiar with Lord Acton’s famous dictum, “Power corrupts. Absolute power corrupts absolutely.” It applies to you, too. Especially to you, it would seem. Your attitude of personal infallibility is not unique to the Marines, but unfortunately for the officer corps and especially for the enlisted unfortunates sentenced to serve under martinets, is all too common. That it extends to religion is perhaps the worst of all possible worlds (to adapt a line from Voltaire's "Candide").

In any case, Lord Acton’s observations on the separation of church and state are not part of the Constitution, the law of the land, or the UCMJ, and are therefore irrelevant. As I noted, logic does not appear to be your strong suit. I am sure, however, that the creases in your pants are sharp enough for a close shave and you've never, ever broken starch. We're all ever so proud.

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.

Cite the UCMJ article recognizing “God through faith in Christ,” and the requirement to inflict it on junior personnel.

Your last post has been nothing more than an extended bloviation on your personal religious beliefs. You’re entitled to them. You are not entitled to expect that anyone else of the face of the earth has to pay attention to them, much less act on them. Here’s my stock response to any more nattering about what you think God expects officers to do:

Cite the UCMJ article.

162 posted on 08/28/2007 10:42:44 AM PDT by Gumlegs
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 136 | View Replies]

To: Terabitten

You’re very kind; thank you.


163 posted on 08/28/2007 10:51:44 AM PDT by Gumlegs
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 145 | View Replies]

To: Hubenator

No definitely the military does not endorse this type of behavior (whore houses and protestution). lol. However, I believe the best way to change a policy is to do what we are doing and that is discuss it and let it be known. I am glad that you are getting the message out. Many rules and regulations have been changed by people like yourself.


164 posted on 08/28/2007 10:56:09 AM PDT by napscoordinator
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 159 | View Replies]

To: napscoordinator

Thank you for your kind words. Yes, this is the best way of doing it.


165 posted on 08/28/2007 1:40:03 PM PDT by Hubenator (Evolution does not constitute scientific evidence, nor does it convey scientific knowledge.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 164 | View Replies]

To: F15Eagle
This really pisses me off if Bush allows anything to go forward.

We are not a nation of Muslims and I am sick and tired of the pandering to minority cult religions whos main goal in life is to slaughter every man woman and child in America.

Do you hear what I am saying President Bush, put a stop to this crap, now.

166 posted on 08/28/2007 1:44:28 PM PDT by OKIEDOC (Kalifornia, a red state wannabe. I don't take Ex Lax I just read the New York Times.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Hubenator
However, it keeps any service memeber from promoting their faith in a simple promotional video which makes them no money.

They can do so. . .just not in their uniform.

Either the military will have to stop endorsing all charities or start allowing others to make their own decision on which non-prof they choose to support via their time, money while in uniform... just like they do now for their own appointed charities.

The company I work for does not allow me to go to just any charity and make it appear as though I am endorsing them on behalf of the company. (For those employees who wear a uniform, that includes preventing them from wearing the uniform while doing things for charities that are not endorsed by the company.) The company does have certain charities they endorse, and I have the choice whether or not to participate in company-sponsored endorsements or fund raising.

While the military is a government entity rather than a private enterprise, I don't have a problem with them having a similar policy. The military is, after all, completely voluntary.

167 posted on 08/28/2007 3:52:58 PM PDT by MEGoody (Ye shall know the truth, and the truth shall make you free.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 160 | View Replies]

To: Non-Sequitur
“It is carved in stone, thou shalt not shill for an organization whilst in uniform without the permission of thy superiors.”

Most military personnel and veterans understand this. But may we ask you: What would be your opinion of them being open and upfront about their Christian associations had they obtained the permission required in the codes?

I will declare. To know about some Generals and Admirals and other high officials that promote a Christian world view (as did men like Douglas MacArthur) and who are not ashamed to be known as men of faith and prayer, as CHRISTIANS would be most refreshing and welcomed.

Okay, okay. Get permission from superiors before promoting a particular organization or its programs while in uniform and at the work place. Got it.

But thank God for ANY high ranking officers who feel they need God’s help and are not ashamed to go with other officers to a prayer meeting. Thank God for CHRISTIAN prayer meetings at the Pentagon!

168 posted on 08/28/2007 4:06:31 PM PDT by John Leland 1789
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies]

To: MEGoody

MEGoody: They can do so. . .just not in their uniform.”

So states the unconstitutional directive. As I stated before that ALL appearances (and giving for that matter via any base function) to charities will then need to stop while in uniform. You may not constitutionally single out most orgs in favor of others dependent on the command. It does not matter how long this unlawful practice has been going on. It needs to be entirely deleted or modified or all charities will no longer be selected nilly willy by the chain of command.

MEGoody: “While the military is a government entity rather than a private enterprise,...”

Yes! they will need to be held to a higher standard than most businesses that are private.

MEGoody: “I don’t have a problem with them having a similar policy. The military is, after all, completely voluntary.”

Well, I take it that it is fine with many in the military...but just because it is voluntary does not justify or make it right. This unconstitutionally practiced regulation needs to be handled by the courts and soon.


169 posted on 08/28/2007 6:20:10 PM PDT by Hubenator (Evolution does not constitute scientific evidence, nor does it convey scientific knowledge.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 167 | View Replies]

To: Gumlegs

The UCMJ doesn’t out-trump God.


170 posted on 08/29/2007 12:11:19 AM PDT by Cvengr (The violence of evil is met with the violence of righteousness, justice, love and grace.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 162 | View Replies]

To: Gumlegs

I suspect the main reason for your opposition to my original post is a simple lack of knowledge regarding the mechanics of how God has provided man with the ability to have a relationship with Him. This is not given as an insult or slant.

Another overwhelming reason appears to be an appeal to adversarial accusation rather than edification.

More than ample proof has already be given, not by myself, but by God, in regards to the issues you have called for proof. In regards to gifts of the Holy Spirit, their perception comes along with faith through Christ as He provides. Those out of fellowship or do not believe will not have that perception, but will tend to categorize the issue from a physical or soulish perspective, void of spiritual perception.

Every person without faith through Christ shall stand before the Great White Throne Judgment. That is not an issue between my belief and a third party unbeliever, that is an issue between God and the unbeliever.

It is possible to legitimately live by the Constitution of the US, through faith in Christ, perform as a military officer, and witness a faith in God through faith in Christ without permission from any other party.


171 posted on 08/29/2007 12:41:48 AM PDT by Cvengr (The violence of evil is met with the violence of righteousness, justice, love and grace.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 162 | View Replies]

To: F15Eagle
I don't think this would have been a problem, if it had happened before the clinton years.

Now Christianity has become something to be ridiculed and hidden from sight in our country.

Never mind that the whole basis for the nation is founded on Judeo-Christianity. Never mind that All the founding fathers were deeply religious men. Never mind that.

Hide Christianity. Remove it from every place. Bring on Islam though. That's ok.

Sadly, there is no one who will stand up to these efn Marxists hidden like an infestation of termites, in every aspect of our govt, tearing it down.

172 posted on 08/29/2007 12:53:28 AM PDT by Pajamajan (Pray for president Bush. Pray for our troops. Pray for congress, Pray for our nation.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Cvengr; Terabitten
Wow! I get to reply to two irrelevant posts in one! The increase in efficiency is welcome.

The UCMJ doesn’t out-trump God.

At least this answer has the advantage of brevity. It's also an admission that you have no authority whatever to use your uniform to evangelize among the poor wretches sentenced to serve under your command. If you ever try it, I sincerely hope one of them writes you up.

I suspect the main reason for your opposition to my original post is a simple lack of knowledge regarding the mechanics of how God has provided man with the ability to have a relationship with Him. This is not given as an insult or slant.

It's not taken as an insult, although it does appear to be your slant on the matter, to which you are entitled. It is, however, utterly irrelevant to the discussion.

Another overwhelming reason appears to be an appeal to adversarial accusation rather than edification.

Please pardon my lack of edification at your unsupported assertions. Conversely, if you meant (it's hard to tell), that I wasn't attempting sufficiently to edify you, you're right about that. I was merely trying to establish that if you had been doing what you've advocated here, you were abusing your office.

Your first post, and most of the second (the parts where you weren't backing off the first post), were about forcing your troops into some sort of religious indoctrination. This conduct on your part, if it actually occurred, would be reprehensible. I believe in religious liberty. Everyone's, not just yours. That's the basis of the objection.

I will temper my last statement with the note that if a religion or religious practice interferes with someone's ability to perform in the military, or gives cause for suspicion about that person's true allegiance, then that is cause for concern.

More than ample proof has already be given, not by myself, but by God, in regards to the issues you have called for proof.

Really?! I've called for proof that your version of your religion is right. God has provided that where? I've seen no evidence of it, you've offered none, and the continued existence of several hundred versions of Christianity alone would seem to indicate there's no agreement on the matter. (I omit for convenience the discussion of additional confounding evidence in the form of Judaism, Hinduism, Islam, and dozens of other religions currently practiced around the globe. They all have just one thing in common: they're all right). Have your military duties have interfered with your ability to get out your message that you're the only one who's got it right?

It's a conundrum. I suppose one could say "God can protect the nation while Cvenger protects God," but that would imply that God needs Cvenger's protection. Oddly, though, that's the distinct impression given by your stated need to hector your troops.

In regards to gifts of the Holy Spirit, their perception comes along with faith through Christ as He provides. Those out of fellowship or do not believe will not have that perception, but will tend to categorize the issue from a physical or soulish perspective, void of spiritual perception.

Or, they'll simply point out you're engaging in an extended apologetic for your religion and ignoring the rights of everyone else around you. You appear to be impervious to appeals to logic, the law, and the UCMJ. Your only reply is "I'm doing the Lord's work." Once again, you've assumed your conclusion. It's bad logic and worse leadership.

Every person without faith through Christ shall stand before the Great White Throne Judgment. That is not an issue between my belief and a third party unbeliever, that is an issue between God and the unbeliever.

Yet you appear to be incapable of leaving it at that. If you would leave it at that, there would be no objection. If you would leave it at "I do my best to help those in my command who seek a closer relationship to God," there would be no objection. The objection is due to your implication that you feel you must order specific religious practice. This latest post of yours is now exhibiting the same incoherence the second one did. "It's between God and X; I have nothing to do with it," but at the same time, you tell us you're compelled to bash everyone under your command with your religion.

It is possible to legitimately live by the Constitution of the US, through faith in Christ, perform as a military officer, and witness a faith in God through faith in Christ without permission from any other party.

Red herring. We've been talking about your post 35, which didn't advocate what this last paragraph says, it advocated the forced religious indoctrination of military personnel.

173 posted on 08/29/2007 8:13:36 AM PDT by Gumlegs
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 171 | View Replies]

To: Gumlegs

You do not understand the meaning of evangelize.


174 posted on 08/29/2007 8:48:48 AM PDT by Cvengr (The violence of evil is met with the violence of righteousness, justice, love and grace.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 173 | View Replies]

To: Gumlegs

Prohibiting junior personnel from access to their pastor-teacher is illegitimate religious indoctrination which violates the 1st Amendment.

On the contrary, there is nothing illegitimate in communicating the Gospel to all personnel as it does not establish a religion, but makes the information available to one’s juniors to consider. Accordingly, denial of that information to those of lessor rank, including omission of its message is in violation of the 1st Amendment of the Constitution.

Additionally, within the intent of the founding fathers, such a message would not foster one denomination over another. Cultic practices were not considered to be part of beliefs referred to as ‘religion’ from the early second Millenium through the early 1900s. The inclusion of cults, atheism and witchcraft as comparative ‘religion’ has only arisen in Western culture in about the last 30 years from highly antiChristian perspectives.

Once again, I reiterate, your confusion as to the meaning of my posts originates from your lack of cognizance of the human spirit through faith in Christ. As a result, you have marvelously manifest the common reaction of those who attempt to live by worldly standards, attempting to explain all things in terms of body and soul, void of that understanding and missing more eternal truth.

BTW, your original post to me implied Jews would be intimidated by such practice and you sought to know even one believer who might be studied as an example in military history. Try the most accomplished battlefield tactician and commander the world will ever know, our Lord and Savior Christ Jesus. He Himself is Jewish and in fact King of the Jews. All His enemies will become a footstool beneath his feet.


175 posted on 08/29/2007 9:07:11 AM PDT by Cvengr (The violence of evil is met with the violence of righteousness, justice, love and grace.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 173 | View Replies]

To: Hubenator
So states the unconstitutional directive.

Do you also state that an employer would be violating an employee's constitutional rights if that employer denies permission to an employee to appear in a video for a charity in the company uniform? If not, then why would you claim that it is different for the military?

As I stated before that ALL appearances (and giving for that matter via any base function) to charities will then need to stop while in uniform.

I have no problem with the military offering the option to members to appear in uniform to support some charity or another. I would have a problem if it was required.

You may not constitutionally single out most orgs in favor of others dependent on the command.

Other than the freedom of religion clause, what else in the constitution would forbid 'singling out' charities? (Please note I did say they needed to apply their rules even-handedly. That means if one religion's charities are forbidden, they all must be.)

Yes! they will need to be held to a higher standard than most businesses that are private.

According to what clause in the constitution?

Well, I take it that it is fine with many in the military...but just because it is voluntary does not justify or make it right.

The fact that it is voluntary rather than mandatory will likely have an impact on the court's decision.

176 posted on 08/29/2007 9:58:34 AM PDT by MEGoody (Ye shall know the truth, and the truth shall make you free.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 169 | View Replies]

To: MEGoody

“Do you also state that an employer would be violating an employee’s constitutional rights if that employer denies permission to an employee to appear in a video for a charity in the company uniform? If not, then why would you claim that it is different for the military?”

- Employers have no right to dictate whether or not military personnel can or cannot appear in uniform regardless of anything. What gives them this right?

“I have no problem with the military offering the option to members to appear in uniform to support some charity or another. I would have a problem if it was required.”

- I agree with you, but I go a step further and would allow service members to wear their uniform to any charity or religious non-prof they wanted rather than being allowed ONLY what the chain of command says they can appear in ... My guess is that this regulation was written before the “establishment” problem broke out and was meant to keep members from either profiting from wearing their uniform or supporting corporations, businesses, etc.

“Other than the freedom of religion clause, what else in the constitution would forbid ‘singling out’ charities?”

- Good question. At this time I could not personally quote something directly from the constitution that would apply here.

Hubenator:Yes! they will need to be held to a higher standard than most businesses that are private.”
MEGoody:”According to what clause in the constitution?”

- Traditionally, the Government has always been the first to adopt rules of “fairness” (I use this term loosely dealing w/ their interpretation of fairness) e.g., good policies non-discriminatory polices pertaining to race, creed, religion, etc. and even bad policies Affirmative Action (although I do not know if the Feds are totally on board with this policy as of yet.).

MEGoody: The fact that it is voluntary rather than mandatory will likely have an impact on the court’s decision.”

- I do not think this can impact one way or another. The military was correct to forbid certain practices based on race like the segregation that took place after WWII. To say something to the effect...”well, if you don’t like it then do not join” would not be helpful in dealing with a constitutional issue IMHO.


177 posted on 08/29/2007 11:02:00 AM PDT by Hubenator (Evolution does not constitute scientific evidence, nor does it convey scientific knowledge.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 176 | View Replies]

To: Cvengr
No one is talking about "prohibiting" junior personnel from access to anyone. Except you, as a red herring.

I'm not interested in your interpretation of your religion, therefore, most of your post is beside the point. I'm not interested in your smoke screen about "evangelizing," because you earlier posted that junior personnel should be forced to listen to whatever it is you feel compelled to vomit up. Remember your claim about the necessity to interpose yourself between juniors and God? That is the sort of thing currently demanded by the worst of the Islamic Theocracies.

That's what is objectionable, yet you seem unable to grasp it. You're so caught up in the fever swamp of Your Own Personal Divine Inspiration that you've lost sight of the manifest fact that people disagree on religion and have the right to their own without browbeating by you.

I am interested in pursuing your earlier post about God's word trumping the UCMJ, though. Let's consider two possibilities: A female superior officer gives you a lawful order. Do you feel entitled to ignore it on Biblical grounds that women should be subservient to men?

One of your personnel is subject to NJP (non-judicial punishment for you observers). Will you ignore the punishment specified and use a rod as specified in the Bible? If the member punished by the use of the rod dies as a result, but after the period specified in the Bible, will you claim innocence on the grounds that what you did was Biblically sanctioned and therefore "trumps" anything in the UCMJ?

Inquiring minds want to know.

178 posted on 08/29/2007 11:04:15 AM PDT by Gumlegs
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 175 | View Replies]

To: Gumlegs

If given a legitimate order by an officer of senior rank it would be the responsibility and duty of the junior to immediately obey. That officer also incurs responsibility for their consequences of their orders and for the well being of their juniors in the accomplishment of the mission.

Scripture does not disallow women from all aspects of life. On the contrary, the Biblical view gives more power and authority to women than the culture of the time in which it was written.

It appears you didn’t read the original posts correctly. Nowhere did I advocate junior personnel being forced to whatever I feel compelled to vomit up.

We are to obey legitimate authority and consequences of disobedience to such authority is frequently a loss of freedom. One such authority is the Great Commission. It is possible to communicate the Gospel without establishing a religion. That communication is incumbant upon any person who places themselves in a position of authority between man and God. If not respected, the person who attempts to intervene or substitute their authority for His will find themselves having to answer to Him for that substitution. Don’t take my word for it, take His, study it, understand it as He provides it for you through the study from your local pastor-teacher.

In response to your second question, we live in an age of grace where all things are allowed for the believer through faith in Christ, but not all things are profitable. NJP will vary greatly from case to case, and deadly force is not legitimate as a part of NJP.

BTW, God not only judges by individuals, but also by groups. One of the most dangerous places to be is in combat with a group of believers who have fallen out of fellowship with God and refuse to return to Him. Slightly less risky is to be amongst unbelievers in a battle touching upon an issue in His Divine Plan. Neither is a situation into which a responsible officer should ever allow his juniors to enter. For this reason, a healthy training plan for any operational unit shall include time for study and growth by His standards.


179 posted on 08/29/2007 11:49:02 AM PDT by Cvengr (The violence of evil is met with the violence of righteousness, justice, love and grace.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 178 | View Replies]

To: Hubenator
Employers have no right to dictate whether or not military personnel can or cannot appear in uniform regardless of anything. What gives them this right?

Go back and read what I wrote. You copied and pasted it, so you know I didn't say anything about companies forbidding anything regarding military uniforms. Why are you trying to appear so dense? What purpose does it serve you? It sure doesn't bolster your position.

I agree with you, but I go a step further and would allow service members to wear their uniform to any charity or religious non-prof they wanted rather than being allowed ONLY what the chain of command says they can appear in

I don't agree. The military is their employer, and as such, the employer has the right to make rules. If you don't like the rules the employer has set down, find another job.

Traditionally, the Government has always been the first to adopt rules of “fairness”

I don't think it is fair to remove the right of an employer to set rules for what employees can do while wearing the company uniform. The military is an employer.

To say something to the effect...”well, if you don’t like it then do not join” would not be helpful in dealing with a constitutional issue IMHO.

However, the fact that the military is volunteer and not mandatory may have an impact on whether the judge even views it as a constitutional issue in the first place.

180 posted on 08/29/2007 2:32:05 PM PDT by MEGoody (Ye shall know the truth, and the truth shall make you free.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 177 | View Replies]

To: MEGoody

MEGoody: “Go back and read what I wrote. You copied and pasted it, so you know I didn’t say anything about companies forbidding anything regarding military uniforms. Why are you trying to appear so dense? What purpose does it serve you? It sure doesn’t bolster your position.”

- You are correct. Sorry about the misunderstanding.

“I don’t agree. The military is their employer, and as such, the employer has the right to make rules. If you don’t like the rules the employer has set down, find another job.”

- No. The Government cannot decide to make rules that are unconstitutional.

- To say “if you do not like it, do not join” seems to indicate a bland cop out to those who have served and are serving in the military.

“I don’t think it is fair to remove the right of an employer to set rules for what employees can do while wearing the company uniform. The military is an employer.”

- One is a Government entity with enormous rules for the participant that do not afford the member to just quit. The other is a private endeavor where the employer can quit. The two cannot really be compared equally.

“However, the fact that the military is volunteer and not mandatory may have an impact on whether the judge even views it as a constitutional issue in the first place.”

- It may come into play along those lines in the debate, but again, constitutionally it should not matter. There are rules that even employers have to abide by even if they do not like it...albeit they may try to skirt around the laws of equality based on race, religion, etc. Another difficulty with this position is that it would become moot if the draft were to somehow become activated. I just do not think the argument of volunteer military would even come into play w/o being logically torpedoed from the get go...


181 posted on 08/29/2007 5:28:58 PM PDT by Hubenator (Evolution does not constitute scientific evidence, nor does it convey scientific knowledge.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 180 | View Replies]

To: MEGoody

Nobody needs to request permission to perform responsibly and accountably as they already have the institution of free will. On the contrary, those who seek to counterfeit faith through Christ are likely to seek their juniors receive their blessing before they ‘allow’ them to render such faith. Such is the mechanism of an Adversary to attempt to place himself before God.


182 posted on 08/29/2007 7:40:35 PM PDT by Cvengr (The violence of evil is met with the violence of righteousness, justice, love and grace.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 158 | View Replies]

To: Gumlegs

“I am interested in pursuing your earlier post about God’s word trumping the UCMJ,”

Uh, that is a FACT. If anything the UCMJ stated came into conflict with what God’s Word stated then that would be a no brainer.

Have you ever heard of M*A*S*H? Your posts kinda remind me of one of those officers that were not too popular.


183 posted on 08/29/2007 9:07:03 PM PDT by Hubenator (Evolution does not constitute scientific evidence, nor does it convey scientific knowledge.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 178 | View Replies]

To: Cvengr; jagusafr; Terabitten; Junior
If given a legitimate order by an officer of senior rank it would be the responsibility and duty of the junior to immediately obey. That officer also incurs responsibility for their consequences of their orders and for the well being of their juniors in the accomplishment of the mission.

Scripture does not disallow women from all aspects of life.

Condoleezza Rice will be relieved to know this.

… On the contrary, the Biblical view gives more power and authority to women than the culture of the time in which it was written.

Well, it’s good to know the Bible’s views of women were advanced for (roughly), 2,000 to 6,000 years ago. The chain of command is safe. But I notice you’re now doing some picking and choosing among Bible verses. Interesting. I guess when you know you are God’s Chosen One you know which Bible verses are mandatory, which are suggestions, and which may be ignored entirely, because, after all, you are God’s Chosen One and you know this sort of thing.

Other posters, right here on FR, are, according to themselves, also God’s Chosen One. They appear to have some doctrinal differences with you. Don’t you feel an obligation to get together with them and sort these differences out? To fail to do so might lead to … schism.

It appears you didn’t read the original posts correctly. Nowhere did I advocate junior personnel being forced to[sic] whatever I feel compelled to vomit up.

Let’s see: Who wrote the following in post 35 in this thread to jagusafr?

FWIW, there is a moral imperative for commanders to mandate Christian exposure of their personnel on active duty.

That “mandate” word, to those of us who have studied and taught the English language, is pretty strong. It means things like, "order," "compel," "require," and "FORCE." That would infringe on the religious liberty of anyone who doesn’t share your particular brand of Christianity.

In your seemingly-Clintonian world, does “advocate” not mean “posting”? Or did some minion of Satan change your post?

Here’s another gem from post 35, doubtless not what you advocate, but it’s what you posted:

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.

How is this “incurred responsibility” to insure Christian exposure not forced religion, especially when you specifically direct it at unbelievers? What else can it possibly mean? Who decides who’s a proper pastor-teacher? Who decides who is and who isn’t a “believer”? Wait! Let me guess … YOU!!!

More from post 35:

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. 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.
So according to what you posted … I’m trying to be careful here; you didn’t advocate it, you only posted it, no Jewish person can ever, in any way “advance in good works,” no matter what that person might do, no matter how many thousands of lives that person might save.

Who gets to decide what is and isn’t “counterfeit belief”? Perhaps the disinterested observer can understand my concern for those service members who aren’t members of your peculiar sect. People in hundreds of other Christian churches, Jews, Hindus, Muslims, etc., all would be subject your demand for “Christian exposure.” But it’s not mandatory. Riiiiiiiight.

And, you inform us, Divine discipline will be inflicted on commands that don’t measure up to your lofty standards. In other words, God will smite anyone who doesn't believe as you believe. My, my. I’m glad there’s nothing forced, obligatory, or mandatory about this.

But enough of post 35, parts of which, like the proverbial curate’s egg, were excellent (the excellent parts being the spaces between the words, in case you were wondering). Now let’s look at post 136 to this thread. It was addressed to me. Perhaps you’d like to explain how the following does not require coercion:

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.
“Assumed responsibility.” Your words. One who has responsibility must act on that responsibility, and, according to you, irrespective of qualification. This appears to apply to any officer at sea who has an E-2 from, say, Des Moines. And further, that officer must act “in a fashion which God has provided.”

Let’s all try and guess who gets to decide what that fashion might be.

But this is the sentence, also from post 136 and written by you or that minion of Satan who keeps changing your posts, that takes the cake:

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.
Absolutely breathtaking! Here’s a blast for you: any officer who interposes himself between God and a subordinate is acting in a coercive manner by the mere fact of acting as you suggest. By so acting, that officer is using his uniform as a weapon to bludgeon the junior on matters of religious belief. It should not need to be said, but obviously must, that unless you have a specific request from a service member regarding religious instruction, it's none of your damned business! You should be ashamed to post such a thing. You should be even more ashamed to assert it isn’t coercive. What’s difficult for me to grasp is that any living American would be so breathtakingly arrogant as to suggest doing as you suggest.

We are to obey legitimate authority and consequences of disobedience to such authority is frequently a loss of freedom. One such authority is the Great Commission. It is possible to communicate the Gospel without establishing a religion. That communication is incumbent[sic] upon any person who places themselves in a position of authority between man and God.

You advocate infringing on the rights others. You’ve already stated “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.” Are you now going to tell us you are so well versed in every version of Christianity on earth that you are uniquely qualified to teach all of them? And let’s not forget those members of the service who aren’t Christian. Be a sport … fill us in on what Ganesh expects.

I’m not talking about establishing a religion, another red herring you’ve thrown into the mix. I’m talking about the freedom of everyone else to be free of you.

If not respected, the person who attempts to intervene or substitute their authority for His will find themselves having to answer to Him for that substitution. Don’t take my word for it, take His, study it, understand it as He provides it for you through the study from your local pastor-teacher.

I won’t take your word for anything on the matter. You’ve asserted that officers “interject” themselves into the religious lives of their subordinates, and yet you post “the person who attempts to intervene or substitute their authority for His will find themselves having to answer to Him for that substitution.” Physician, heal thyself.

Please.

If I were still in the military, and some pompous jerk kept trying to interject himself in my relationship with the Almighty, I wouldn’t wait for Him to judge, I’d report the arrogant s.o.b. all the way up the chain of command.

In response to your second question, we live in an age of grace …

A quality of which you are devoid, as it relates to your fellow man’s religious views.

…where all things are allowed for the believer through faith in Christ, but not all things are profitable. NJP will vary greatly from case to case, and deadly force is not legitimate as a part of NJP.

But you said previously that God’s word trumps the UCMJ! But now, God’s word doesn’t trump the UCMJ because NJP is part of the UCMJ. So which is it? You evaded the question. No surprise there.

BTW, God not only judges by individuals, but also by groups. One of the most dangerous places to be is in combat with a group of believers who have fallen out of fellowship with God and refuse to return to Him.

Easy to assert; impossible to prove. It’s a most unimpressive statement.

Slightly less risky is to be amongst unbelievers in a battle touching upon an issue in His Divine Plan.

And you’re qualified to ascertain which battles touch “upon an issue in His Divine Plan.” While you're posting, please tell us the secret that keeps you so humble.

Neither is a situation into which a responsible officer should ever allow his juniors to enter. For this reason, a healthy training plan for any operational unit shall include time for study and growth by His standards.

Who judges the “growth” by “His standards”? Let me guess … YOU!!! However do you know? It wouldn’t be because the troops are smart enough to repeat whatever drivel you’ve pounded into them, would it? Oh, wait, you’ve already told us! You have The GiftTM.The problem is that not everyone believes you. Not everyone mistakes you for God, although to be on the safe side, your subordinates may be shining you on about it just the teensiest bit. You know … to get you the hell out of their face.

Using your proposed measurement, you must think God was pretty fond of Genghis Khan.

And you just said again you would force religious training on your subordinates. Do you think about what you post? Do you read it? And again, you’d force religious indoctrination under cover of authority, but this time it would be to insure command victory in battle. What a ghastly, ghastly way to run a military in a free society.

The God you describe, judging groups, is as abhorrent as your ideas, and, indeed, is a reflection of nothing more than your ideas. You’d have us believe that God would think, “Charley over there doesn’t love Me just right, so I’m going to wipe out an armored division,” and that This is the loving and merciful God you pretend to love and serve. I don’t believe in your idea of God for an instant. The God you describe is indistinguishable from an insecure, vengeful Bronze Age despot with a severe ego problem … or an overblown martinet who can’t distinguish between his and God’s will.

In summation, you haven’t convinced me of anything … except your own overweening sense of self-importance. Please do our men and women in uniform a great favor and leave the serviceat once. Join an order of monks that devote themselves to good deeds and perpetual silence.

184 posted on 08/29/2007 9:41:22 PM PDT by Gumlegs
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 179 | View Replies]

To: Hubenator
Have you ever heard of M*A*S*H? Your posts kinda remind me of one of those officers that were not too popular.

My posts remind you of Frank Burns?

Before taking a sentence out of context, why not consider the point? Just for novelty's sake.

185 posted on 08/29/2007 9:44:21 PM PDT by Gumlegs
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 183 | View Replies]

To: Cvengr

If anyone tried to ‘evangelize’ me, I’d tell him to FOAD. My faith is my business, not someone else’s.


186 posted on 08/30/2007 5:44:53 AM PDT by doc30 (Democrats are to morals what an Etch-A-Sketch is to Art.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 35 | View Replies]

To: Frwy

And where is that in the Constitution?


187 posted on 08/30/2007 5:48:33 AM PDT by doc30 (Democrats are to morals what an Etch-A-Sketch is to Art.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 133 | View Replies]

To: Gumlegs
That would infringe on the religious liberty of anyone who doesn’t share your particular brand of Christianity.

Nobody has suggested to read into Scripture their own flavor of a religion. Instead, the moral imperative for commanders to mandate Christian exposure of their personnel on active duty could be simply met by exposing his juniors to the Gospel. Simply reading the Word of God would be a nice introduction for those who have never had the opportunity. Simply reading the Word, though, isn't a substitute for the gift of pastor-teacher He has provided. The CO, who is now in his junior's chain of command, now has a moral imperative to provide for his junior where he has denied his junior that authority when he assumed it. The particular authority being discussed which that command has assumed, is the provision of the pastor-teacher for the believer or an evangelist for the unbeliever, regardless if the commander is cognizant of that duty or not. Each of these two qualifications are spiritual gifts only given by God the Holy Spirit to some believers upon their initial saving faith. Academic training is likely to accompany such gifts, but such gifts do not require academic training, nor is academic training a substitute for those gifts. These are issues any junior officer should know prior to assuming command, but if he hasn't been exposed to it, then his seniors are equally accountable for having failed to properly prepare them for their future duties. Most of these issues stem back to the fundamental social contract between officer and enlisted, whereupon the enlisted party agrees to perform to the immediate obedience of orders from senior ranking personnel, with the return that such authority also assumes responsibility for his juniors. WRT your queries as to who is qualified to determine who is qualified as a pastor-teacher/evangelist, the simple answer is God Himself. Remain in faith through Christ in all things and He will handle the situation just fine. Deny Him and attempt to counterfeit His Plan by another mechanism and one will fail every time. It is the business of an officer to make sure his juniors have sufficient provisions to perform their duties in the accomplishment of their mission. When an officer commands in combat, there are likely decisions being made determining the life and death of his juniors and other personnel, including his enemies. If a person has not come to accept a belief in God through faith in Christ prior to the first death, there is no further opportunity for that man, than to later be sentenced to eternal damnation. An officer dedicated to the goodwill of his juniors as well as the accomplishment of his unit's mission shall make sure his juniors are cognizant of how they might have eternal life through faith in Christ. Those who don't, simply by glaring omission have failed to even direct them in a responsible fashion. This doesn't imply one browbeats or attempts to force their belief. Every man has volition and that is not infringed upon by simple communication of the Gospel. WRT to Jews, of course Jews are able to perform good works by divine standards. That is what Christianity is all about, namely the righteousness of one Jew who through faith remained in faith with the Father even to the point of having the sins of all mankind from eternity past to eternity future imputed upon Him and his death on the Cross. Every work he performed while in faith with God by His Plan counted for good work. What better example to afford those going into harm's way, with threat of physical force removing their physical life than to recognize that through faith in Christ, although every man will suffer the first death, there still remains a very real eternal life available through faith in Christ. Christ, the First Fruits, was raised three days after he died on the Cross and was very much alive in body, soul and spirit in a resurrection body on earth for 40 days prior to ascending physically into the heavens, where he was later seated at the right hand of the Father. Adversity in life and in death is inevitable, but through faith in Christ, stress is optional. BTW, the issue isn't about what I have to say, but rather the communication of His Word to those junior in rank to their commanding officers. It isn't about religion, it is about keeping responsibility, authority and accountability commensurate. When a command assumes the authority over its juniors 24/7, it also assumes the responsibility for the provision of those relationships upon which it has intervened. The command is responsible for the families it has disrupted, the marriages, and the provision of pastor-teachers and evangelists who are spiritually gifted to communicate the Word of God to believers and unbelievers. The command is not responsible for the decision of the person hearing the Word, but may be liable if it prevents its juniors from hearing the Word or from growing in the Word through faith in Christ. The entire issue isn't about myself or any other individual communicating the Gospel, other than God Himself. So you are very correct in understanding the issue isn't about me. Instead, the issue focuses upon God through faith in Christ and understanding exactly what that means. That understanding comes only through God by faith in Christ and is available to every man, again through faith in Christ.

188 posted on 08/30/2007 6:43:03 AM PDT by Cvengr (The violence of evil is met with the violence of righteousness, justice, love and grace.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 184 | View Replies]

To: Cvengr
Nobody needs to request permission to perform responsibly and accountably as they already have the institution of free will.

And the responsible thing to do is obey the rules and NOT wear the uniform when you do endorsements unless permission has been given.

On the contrary, those who seek to counterfeit faith through Christ are likely to seek their juniors receive their blessing before they ‘allow’ them to render such faith.

This doesn't have anything to do with 'rendering faith'. It has to do with the rules about whether one can endorse a charity or not while wearing a military uniform.

Such is the mechanism of an Adversary to attempt to place himself before God.

The person who refuses to abide by the rules is the one placing himself before God, because God has commanded us to obey the masters he has set us under. And since there's nothing in God's word to command the wearing of a military uniform while endorsing a charity, trying to say that God's law trumps man's won't work on this one.

189 posted on 08/30/2007 7:45:04 AM PDT by MEGoody (Ye shall know the truth, and the truth shall make you free.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 182 | View Replies]

To: Hubenator
No. The Government cannot decide to make rules that are unconstitutional.

I do not believe it is unconstitutional to tell someone they can't do something while wearing the uniform. It would be to say they can't ever do it. There's the difference. Guess we'll see what the court says.

One is a Government entity with enormous rules for the participant that do not afford the member to just quit. The other is a private endeavor where the employer can quit. The two cannot really be compared equally.

I've heard of people leaving the military on general discharge in the middle of a 'term'. No, you can't just quit the same day, but, at least in some cases, you still can quit. Everyone knows how restrictive the rules are on military personnel, so the ideal thing would be for someone who can't live with those rules not to join in the first place.

It may come into play along those lines in the debate, but again, constitutionally it should not matter.

Guess we'll see what the judge has to say.

There are rules that even employers have to abide by even if they do not like it.

That's true, but I'm not aware of anyone ever winning a case against an employer who forbid their employees from doing something while wearing the company uniform. Obviously, that's not a rule that has been deemed unconstitutional at this point.

Another difficulty with this position is that it would become moot if the draft were to somehow become activated.

I concur.

I just do not think the argument of volunteer military would even come into play w/o being logically torpedoed from the get go.

I guess we'll see.

190 posted on 08/30/2007 7:54:52 AM PDT by MEGoody (Ye shall know the truth, and the truth shall make you free.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 181 | View Replies]

To: Hubenator
Yes, of course, and cats and dogs will start mating with squirrels.

Actually, naps has a point. If we must allow all expressions of 'religious faith' even to promoting a charity while in uniform, then there's nothing to suggest they can stiffle political speech while wearing the uniform. Therefore, having people march in gay pride parades while wearing the uniform is not out of the question at all.

191 posted on 08/30/2007 7:57:27 AM PDT by MEGoody (Ye shall know the truth, and the truth shall make you free.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 152 | View Replies]

To: Cvengr
Did you forget how to format?

Your entire block is nothing but obfuscation, denial of your previous points, self-justification, and the overpowering sense of your own religious perfection.

Your first sentence, "Nobody has suggested to read into Scripture their own flavor of a religion," flies in the face of your previous postings.

I see you've attempted to soften the impression you're making by posting that a commander could merely "expose" his juniors" to the Bible. How? Would it be a requirement? Is what the Gideons do enough? Meeting the religious needs of service members is why we have a Chaplain Corps. It's why every base in the country has a chapel. I'm beginning to doubt you're actually in the military. This doubt is tempered by your unmatched ability to ignore what you don't like, so perhaps you've missed all the Chaplains and chapels because they don't meet your standards.

But most of the chapels were there before you were, so give the military a break. They simply had no idea how imperfect they were until you arrived.

The incoherence in most of your post makes it impossible to parse and I'm a little pressed for time right now. Suffice it to say, that although you're still attempting to deny coercion, it's what you expect. You still haven't made anything remotely like a rational case for a superior interjecting himself into junior's relationship with God How would you like a Greek Orthodox General hectoring you night and day with your doctrinal errors? The forced lectures would be voluntary on your part, of course, but the person who'll be writing your evals is the one freely giving them. Be sure and appear properly grateful.

Your statement that "God decides" who is and isn't qualified to teach religion is an open invitation to abuse. How do I know this? God told me. He said you're hopelessly confused about religion, and He's really, really fed up with your hubris. As a last chance for you and because He's merciful and loving, however, He's asked me to inform you that you're the one who's in for it when you meet Him.

Feel free to disprove what I just posted.

And in case anyone is still wondering just exactly how self-centered your religious pieties are, you're still carrying on about "faith in Christ," "faith through Christ," and several other variations on the theme. Nothing about respect or accommodation for anyone who doesn't believe as you do, even thought I've been bringing up other Christians, Jews, Mulsims, Hindus, etc., nearly every time I post to you. All you provide is your prideful (Pride ... rings a bell. A "deadly" something or other, IIRC), boast that you are right with God because God told you're right with God.

192 posted on 08/30/2007 8:38:26 AM PDT by Gumlegs
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 188 | View Replies]

To: doc30

“If anyone tried to ‘evangelize’ me, I’d tell him to FOAD. My faith is my business, not someone else’s.”

Evangelism is a large part of the Christian faith.

You have to right to say what you want to, but a simple no thanks would also work.


193 posted on 08/30/2007 10:39:49 AM PDT by Hubenator (Evolution does not constitute scientific evidence, nor does it convey scientific knowledge.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 186 | View Replies]

To: MEGoody

“Therefore, having people march in gay pride parades while wearing the uniform is not out of the question at all.”

Yes, I suppose this could certainly happen if the don’t ask don’t tell policy is removed.


194 posted on 08/30/2007 10:42:05 AM PDT by Hubenator (Evolution does not constitute scientific evidence, nor does it convey scientific knowledge.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 191 | View Replies]

To: MEGoody

“Guess we’ll see what the court says.”

Yes, I agree.

“I’ve heard of people leaving the military on general discharge in the middle of a ‘term’. No, you can’t just quit the same day, but, at least in some cases, you still can quit. Everyone knows how restrictive the rules are on military personnel, so the ideal thing would be for someone who can’t live with those rules not to join in the first place.”

This seems to be one of the issues than a solution to the problem. If you do not accept, leaving your faith at the door, leave?

We’ll have to let the courts deal w/ this lol.


195 posted on 08/30/2007 10:53:29 AM PDT by Hubenator (Evolution does not constitute scientific evidence, nor does it convey scientific knowledge.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 190 | View Replies]

To: Hubenator

Don’t be fooled by polyester evangelism,..that isn’t what God tells us about evangelism.

Evangelism is simply a communication of what God has provided so we can understand and receive the faith He provides. Nobody has faith which He recognizes for righteousness without it having originated from Him.

Evangelism is a form of a spiritual gift, which is a communication gift intended to communicate to unbelievers. Not everybody has it, and there’s a good chance that somebody who claims to be an evangelist doesn’t have it or isn’t exercising it if he is inflating his own worth.

Its counterpart, a communication gift to communicate to believers is referred to as the spiritual gift of pastor-teacher. Faith, once formed, still needs daily growth for our residence in it.

All faith is from God, but not all thinking called such is faith. The Greek words in the New Testament for faith (PISTIS) is also used for trustworthiness, doctrine, and belief. For example when we hear, Believe in our Lord Christ Jesus and you will be saved, the word for believe is derived from the same Greek word PISTIS (PISTEO) as is used when we read passages such as, “we are saved by faith alone, lest any man should boast”. That faith is actually provided by God Himself to us, including the unbeliever, and it is for the person receiving it to either reject or accept.

Even if somebody wanted to change your faith, they do not have that ability. Only God can provide faith and only the individual person given that opportunity by His grace can either reject it or accept it.

It’s amazing how God Himself can come down in the flesh, provide all that is necessary to have a relationship with Him, receive all the sins of mankind for eternity past through eternity future, be judged for them Himself, although no fault his own, suffer our punishment for us, die on a Cross, go to Hades and rise up again three days later, still witness to men for 40 days, ascend to Heaven, be placed on the right hand of the Father, and the only task we are given is simply to tell our fellow man about Him, and yet people get so bent out of shape to even hear anything about Him.

You are also very correct to think your faith is indeed your business. God has made it your business and available for your acceptance. Once accepted, we are merely tasked to tell others about Him. He does all the work. He provides all that is necessary for salvation.


196 posted on 08/30/2007 2:19:55 PM PDT by Cvengr (The violence of evil is met with the violence of righteousness, justice, love and grace.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 193 | View Replies]

To: Cvengr; Gumlegs
My apologies Gumlegs, I thought I had formatted post #188, here is the same post formatted in paragraphs.

That would infringe on the religious liberty of anyone who doesn’t share your particular brand of Christianity.

I haven't suggested to read into Scripture somebody's own flavor of a religion.

Instead, the moral imperative for commanders to mandate Christian exposure of their personnel on active duty could be simply met by exposing his juniors to the Gospel. Simply reading the Word of God would be a nice introduction for those who have never had the opportunity.

Simply reading the Word, though, isn't a substitute for the gift of pastor-teacher He has provided.

The CO, who is now in his junior's chain of command, now has a moral imperative to provide for his junior where he has denied his junior that authority when he assumed it.

The particular authority being discussed which that command has assumed, is the provision of the pastor-teacher for the believer or an evangelist for the unbeliever, regardless if the commander is cognizant of that duty or not. Each of these two qualifications are spiritual gifts only given by God the Holy Spirit to some believers upon their initial saving faith. Academic training is likely to accompany such gifts, but such gifts do not require academic training, nor is academic training a substitute for those gifts. These are issues any junior officer should know prior to assuming command, but if he hasn't been exposed to it, then his seniors are equally accountable for having failed to properly prepare them for their future duties.

Most of these issues stem back to the fundamental social contract between officer and enlisted, whereupon the enlisted party agrees to perform to the immediate obedience of orders from senior ranking personnel, with the return that such authority also assumes responsibility for his juniors.

WRT your queries as to who is qualified to determine who is qualified as a pastor-teacher/evangelist, the simple answer is God Himself. Remain in faith through Christ in all things and He will handle the situation just fine. Deny Him and attempt to counterfeit His Plan by another mechanism and one will fail every time.

It is the business of an officer to make sure his juniors have sufficient provisions to perform their duties in the accomplishment of their mission. When an officer commands in combat, there are likely decisions being made determining the life and death of his juniors and other personnel, including his enemies.

If a person has not come to accept a belief in God through faith in Christ prior to the first death, there is no further opportunity for that man, than to later be sentenced to eternal damnation. An officer dedicated to the goodwill of his juniors, as well as the accomplishment of his unit's mission, shall make sure his juniors are cognizant of how they might have eternal life through faith in Christ. Those who don't, simply by glaring omission, have failed to even direct them in a responsible fashion.

This doesn't imply one browbeats or attempts to force their belief. Every man has volition and that is not infringed upon by simple communication of the Gospel.

WRT to Jews, of course Jews are able to perform good works by divine standards. That is what Christianity is all about, namely the righteousness of one Jew, who through faith remained in faith with the Father, even to the point of having the sins of all mankind from eternity past to eternity future imputed upon Him and his death on the Cross. Every work he performed while in faith with God by His Plan counted for good work.

What better example to afford those going into harm's way, with threat of physical force removing their physical life, than to recognize that through faith in Christ, although every man will suffer the first death, there still remains a very real eternal life available through faith in Christ?

Christ, the First Fruits, was raised three days after he died on the Cross and was very much alive in body, soul and spirit in a resurrection body on earth for 40 days prior to ascending physically into the heavens, where he was later seated at the right hand of the Father.

Adversity in life and in death is inevitable, but through faith in Christ, stress is optional.

BTW, the issue isn't about what I have to say, but rather the communication of His Word to those junior in rank to their commanding officers. It isn't about religion, it is about keeping responsibility, authority and accountability commensurate. When a command assumes the authority over its juniors 24/7, it also assumes the responsibility for the provision of those relationships upon which it has intervened.

The command is responsible for the families it has disrupted, the marriages, and the provision of pastor-teachers and evangelists who are spiritually gifted to communicate the Word of God to believers and unbelievers.

The command is not responsible for the decision of the person hearing the Word, but may be liable if it prevents its juniors from hearing the Word or from growing in the Word through faith in Christ.

The entire issue isn't about myself or any other individual communicating the Gospel, other than God Himself. So you are very correct in understanding the issue isn't about me. Instead, the issue focuses upon God through faith in Christ and understanding exactly what that means.

That understanding comes only through God by faith in Christ and is available to every man, again through faith in Christ.

197 posted on 08/30/2007 3:28:28 PM PDT by Cvengr (The violence of evil is met with the violence of righteousness, justice, love and grace.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 188 | View Replies]

To: Hubenator; doc30

My apologies, Hubernator, ...I thought you were responding to myself. My response #194 was intended primarily to doc30.


198 posted on 08/30/2007 3:37:45 PM PDT by Cvengr (The violence of evil is met with the violence of righteousness, justice, love and grace.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 193 | View Replies]

To: doc30

Hint: Where did your quote come from about rendering unto Caesar what is Caesar’s.


199 posted on 08/30/2007 4:08:57 PM PDT by Frwy (Proud member of the vast right wing conspiracy.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 187 | View Replies]

To: Cvengr

Thanks for the formatting. My response remains the same.


200 posted on 08/30/2007 7:15:00 PM PDT by Gumlegs
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 197 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-5051-100101-150151-200201-202 next last

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson