Posted on 05/03/2013 6:13:45 AM PDT by Freeport
Does anyone have a link to the ctual DoD statement on this topic?
I have seen a lot of critical reports citing excerpts or paraphrasing the press release but have not seen the actual document itself. It certainly is not on the main DoD website:
New definition of pentagon: a political gun having five angles on every fact and fives sides to every story
“I’ve always thought the rules were pretty straightforward, but the Pentagon is making a mess of it. As a Christian in the military, I could not discriminate against anyone based on their religion (to include treating atheists differently than fellow Christians), and I could not use my authority to force my subordinates to participate in religious activities. On the other hand, I could freely discuss my religious beliefs to anyone I wanted.”
Interesting. I thought the same thing, from 83-08. My own rule was that I tried to avoid discussing politics, religion and sex in the office. None of those helped me or others get the job done. Outside the office, I could share what I believed as long as I didn’t IMPOSE what I believed. And in 25 years, I never ran into anyone who didn’t understand or thought it unfair.
I would not have a problem with this if it were also acceptable for Christians to seek the conversion of Muslims. Remember, however, under Shariah law it is a crime punishable by death for a Muslim to convert to Christianity.
Hey Travis, I attended your memorial thread the other day. I thought you were dead. ;-)
BTW I saw your boat on that thread. Did you happen to name it “The Busted Flush”?
I would have no problem with that. It is all part of existing under a Constitution that guarantees freedom of speech and religion.
When I was in the Army, if someone bugged me about changing my faith to theirs, I would have been pissed. The regulation isn’t trying to silence anyones beliefs or stopping them from talking about their beliefs. It says troops can’t try to CONVERT others to their beliefs. You think it’s ok for a commanding officer to try to convert those in his command to his beliefs? I don’t. What if the troops in his command don’t want to and he gets pissed off. He could make things miserable for them.
It the regulation singles out religious conversion speedh as opposed to any other type of attempts to change people's views, then the regulation is clearly and unequivocally unconstitutional. It becomes a "content based" restriction on both the free exercise of religion and the exercise of free speech. This regulation would allow one to try to convert someone to a different political belief, but not a different religious belief. It would allow attempts at conversion in regard to philosophy but not religion.
When I was in the Army, if someone bugged me about changing my faith to theirs, I would have been pissed.
I guess you are one of those liberal types that think you should have the government make regulations so that you are not offended by the beliefs and practices of others? Your right not to be "pissed" overrides everyone else's right not to piss you off? Is that it?
Do you not realize the slippery slope you are sliding down? It is the "I have a right not to be offended" philosophy which permeates today's progressive liberal agendas.
You think it’s ok for a commanding officer to try to convert those in his command to his beliefs?
As long as it is not done under color of authority and as long as he does not give preferential treatment to those who convert or who believe as he does, then I don't see a problem with it.
What if the troops in his command don’t want to and he gets pissed off.
If he gets pissed off over that, then he is not fit for command. If it is reflected in his command decisions, then he should be removed from command.
He could make things miserable for them.
And if he is engaging in religious discrimination, then those he discriminates against could make things miserable for him.
The bottom line, WE DON'T NEED THIS STINKING REGULATION!
A Jewish soldier is required to by his faith to do many thingst. He is required to observe Sabbath, kosher, festivals, etc.
A Muslim soldier must pray to Mecca, observer dietary laws, observe Ramadan, and a host of other things.
Would you deny them the right to observe their religious practices?
A Jewish soldier is required to by his faith to do many thingst. He is required to observe Sabbath, kosher, festivals, etc.
A Muslim soldier must pray to Mecca, observer dietary laws, observe Ramadan, and a host of other things.
Would you deny them the right to observe their religious practices?
What has any of that have to do with attempting to convert others to your faith? Soldiers who are Christian have a duty to convert others? The military is a fighting force, not a missionary whose job is to spread Christianity around the world.
It was summarized best by Pope John Paul II: "No believer in Christ, no institution of the Church can avoid this supreme duty: to proclaim Christ to all people."
It is a Christian duty to tell others that Christ died for their sin, that He rose from the dead, and this was proven by many eyewitness. What is the Gospel we're to proclaim:
"I Corinthians 15: 1 Now, brothers, I want to remind you of the gospel I preached to you, which you received and on which you have taken your stand. 2 By this gospel you are saved, if you hold firmly to the word I preached to you. Otherwise, you have believed in vain. 3 For what I received I passed on to you as of first importance: that Christ died for our sins according to the Scriptures, 4 that he was buried, that he was raised on the third day according to the Scriptures, 5 and that he appeared to Peter, and then to the Twelve. 6 After that, he appeared to more than five hundred of the brothers at the same time, most of whom are still living, though some have fallen asleep. 7 Then he appeared to James, then to all the apostles, 8 and last of all he appeared to me also, as to one abnormally born."
Essentially, these rules are telling Christians they are not permitted to practice their religion and do what they are instructed to do by God.
So, let me tell you, Chessplayer, that Christ died for your sins, that He resurrected, and that this was proven by many eyewitnesses.
Since this is a PRO-GOD forum, do you feel uncomfortable around those of us who use the forum to, among other things, witness for Christ and try to convert the lost to Christ (as we are commanded by Jesus)? Does that "piss you off"?
Do you admit that you are a sinner?
Are your sorry for your sins?
Would you be willing to repent of your sins and have eternal life?
Did you know that Jesus died for your sins so that you may have eternal life?
Would you consider asking Jesus to be your Lord and Savior?
Or would you prefer to use the power of the State to avoid having to hear such questions?
THE WHITEHOUSE - WASHINGTON
January 25, 1941
To the Armed Forces:
As Commander-in-Chief, I take pleasure in commending the reading of the Bible to all who serve in the armed forces of the United States. Throughout the centuries men of many faiths and diverse origins have found in the Sacred Book words of wisdom, counsel and inspiration. It is a fountain of strength and now, as always, an aid in attaining the highest aspirations of the human soul.
Very sincerely yours,
Franklin D. Roosevelt. 
MESSAGE CONTENT
Dear Friends,I’m going to be upfront and honest with you:
This situation is rapidly changing. In the course of about 24 hours, we’ve witnessed a series of three statements from two different military spokesmen on the official position on the religious liberty of service members.
It all started when the first spokesman made a written statement that “[r]eligious proselytization is not permitted within the Department of Defense” and could be punishable by court martial.
You read it right: A court martial.
What does the spokesman mean?
If all he means is that military commanders shouldn’t be using their position to pressure subordinates to adopt their religious views, of course that’s right.
But if he means that the government can punish service men and women for talking to one another about their religious faith, he couldn’t be more wrong.
Hopefully this spokesperson was a victim of bureaucratic confusion and misspoke.
Perhaps that’s what happened because another statement was issued by the same spokesman the next day. This one, seeking to clarify, tried to explain how the military dealt with racism and sexual harassment and then compared it to how it would treat something the spokesperson called “religious harassment.”
What religious harassment is, he didn’t explain.
In any case, the unconstitutional goal of these bumbling efforts is chilling: the leadership of the military forces is threatening to suppress freedom of speech and freedom of religion, even if they can't figure out quite how to say it.
I will keep you updated on this situation. It’s something we will be watching very closely. Men and women don’t shed their religious liberty when they don the uniform of the U.S. Armed Forces.
For those unfamiliar with the Becket Fund, they are currently handling the Hobby Lobby vs Sibelius case, along with several others.
Freepmail wagglebee to subscribe or unsubscribe from the moral absolutes ping list.
FreeRepublic moral absolutes keyword search
Read NYer's comment about the Becket Fund, good that they (and hopefully other organizations) are on top of this. I just thought of another reason besides the three I mentioned in my recent ping out of another article about this: They want to have a military free of any Christian (and most likely religious Jewish) influence, so as to more easily use the military for nefarious purposes.
The other three, copied in case people reading this aren't on my ping list:
This is, IMHO, due to a few things: The insidious infiltration of Islam in our military and government, generalized atheistic communism/socialism, and the homosexual agenda. I have no doubt that observant Jews will be next to be discriminated against. Note that Weinstein said elsewhere (I didn't see it in this article) that he's never seen a fundamentalist Moslem. I wonder if this will be enough for those who've taken oaths to seriously consider them.
Anyone wanting on/off either ping list, FREEPMAIL me.
It happens now.
Wow. People in here actually believe it’s the miltary’s job to convert people to Christianity,,,at the point of a gun, no less.
If you don’t want to convert you don’t have to. Your commander has no right to make life miserable for you if you don’t convert, but he has every right to convert you if you choose to convert.
Christian need guns to defend ourselves from those who would forcefully prevent us from voluntarily converting those who want to convert.
Shocking that such support for Obama's anti-Christian jihad exists here at FR.
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.