Please turn on javascript in your browser to play chess.
Debates Forum

Debates Forum

  1. 01 May '13 17:29
    Here is leftist policy gone wild

    http://www.breitbart.com/Big-Peace/2013/05/01/Breaking-Pentagon-Confirms-Will-Court-Martial-Soldiers-Who-Share-Christian-Faith

    From our earlier report: Weinstein is the head of the Military Religious Freedom Foundation, and says Christians--including chaplains--sharing the gospel of Jesus Christ in the military are guilty of “treason,” and of committing an act of “spiritual rape” as serious a crime as “sexual assault.” He also asserted that Christians sharing their faith in the military are “enemies of the Constitution.”


    Individuals must give up their freedom of speech and freedom of religion to follow the Constitution? Leftist nut jobs, they must think the Communist Manifesto is the Constitution.
  2. 01 May '13 17:41
    Originally posted by Eladar
    Here is leftist policy gone wild

    http://www.breitbart.com/Big-Peace/2013/05/01/Breaking-Pentagon-Confirms-Will-Court-Martial-Soldiers-Who-Share-Christian-Faith

    [b]From our earlier report: Weinstein is the head of the Military Religious Freedom Foundation, and says Christians--including chaplains--sharing the gospel of Jesus Christ in the military are gu ...[text shortened]... he Constitution? Leftist nut jobs, they must think the Communist Manifesto is the Constitution.
    ""Religious proselytization is not permitted within the Department of Defense...Court martials and non-judicial punishments are decided on a case-by-case basis...”. "

    I believe when you join the military, you are informed that you do not have the same rights to free speech in its facilities as you have in non-military public spaces. At present, military service is voluntary.
  3. 01 May '13 17:42
    So do you think there is a point at which the government can go too far? Or do you believe the government can do whatever it wishes in this case?
  4. 01 May '13 17:52
    Originally posted by Eladar
    So do you think there is a point at which the government can go too far? Or do you believe the government can do whatever it wishes in this case?
    What do you think I think? Try to be sensible on this.
  5. 01 May '13 17:52
    Originally posted by Eladar
    Here is leftist policy gone wild

    http://www.breitbart.com/Big-Peace/2013/05/01/Breaking-Pentagon-Confirms-Will-Court-Martial-Soldiers-Who-Share-Christian-Faith

    [b]From our earlier report: Weinstein is the head of the Military Religious Freedom Foundation, and says Christians--including chaplains--sharing the gospel of Jesus Christ in the military are gu ...[text shortened]... he Constitution? Leftist nut jobs, they must think the Communist Manifesto is the Constitution.
    There's a difference between simply talking about your faith and proselytizing.
  6. 01 May '13 17:57
    Originally posted by PsychoPawn
    There's a difference between simply talking about your faith and proselytizing.
    Who gets to make the distinction?
  7. 01 May '13 17:57
    Originally posted by JS357
    What do you think I think? Try to be sensible on this.
    I think that anything that supports leftist points of view will be allowed and anything that supports traditional American values will be outlawed.
  8. 01 May '13 17:59 / 1 edit
    Originally posted by Eladar
    Who gets to make the distinction?
    In this case, the institution you signed an enlistment agreement with.

    " I understand that many laws, regulations, and military customs
    will govern my conduct and require me to do things under this
    agreement that a civilian does not have to do. "

    http://www.dtic.mil/whs/directives/infomgt/forms/eforms/dd0004.pdf
  9. 01 May '13 18:00
    Originally posted by Eladar
    I think that anything that supports leftist points of view will be allowed and anything that supports traditional American values will be outlawed.
    Of course you do. That certainly makes opinion formation simple and fast for you.
  10. 01 May '13 18:01
    Originally posted by Eladar
    Who gets to make the distinction?
    It would be the commanding officers I imagine that would hear the complaints. I'm not sure what the organization of the military in this respects is.
  11. 01 May '13 18:26
    Originally posted by JS357
    In this case, the institution you signed an enlistment agreement with.

    " I understand that many laws, regulations, and military customs
    will govern my conduct and require me to do things under this
    agreement that a civilian does not have to do. "

    http://www.dtic.mil/whs/directives/infomgt/forms/eforms/dd0004.pdf
    I don't see anything in that quote that says the government has the right to take away a person's Constitutional rights to freedom of religion and freedom of speech.
  12. 01 May '13 18:28
    Originally posted by PsychoPawn
    It would be the commanding officers I imagine that would hear the complaints. I'm not sure what the organization of the military in this respects is.
    It would be the military lawyers that determine which cases will be prosecuted.

    As long as Obama is in office those lawyers will have a view consistent with the Communist Manifesto.
  13. 01 May '13 19:27
    At first blush, I think the law aims at prohibiting situations like this:

    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SQtFtyrZ-IA

    The First Amendment states that "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion." Granting superiors the authority to coerce their subordinates to pray would violate the Establishment Clause.

    Moreover, the government has to maintain neutrality in respect to religion; that is to say, it cannot endorse or disapprove of religion. I don't think a reasonable soldier with knowledge would think that superiors who are merely talking about their personal beliefs to soldiers in a voluntary setting are endorsing the government's position on religion.

    Anyways, this seems to be the regulation, although if anyone has the official reg, please share:
    After demands from Weinstein, the Air Forced published, but has yet to distribute, a 27- page document, which includes a cover sheet that states: "COMPLIANCE WITH THIS PUBLICATION IS MANDATORY."
    "Leaders at all levels, "the document says, "must avoid the actual or apparent use of their position to promote their personal religious beliefs to their subordinates or to extend preferential treatment for any religion." It even suggested that noncompliance could result in court-martial.

    http://www.militaryreligiousfreedom.org/press-releases/2013/WAPost_TARA_4-26-13.html
  14. 01 May '13 19:33
    Originally posted by Eladar
    I don't see anything in that quote that says the government has the right to take away a person's Constitutional rights to freedom of religion and freedom of speech.
    Correct. Did you look at the link I gave you, page 2, left hand side? It's not a blanket permit.

    But if you want to mock-trial the quartmarshall on this forum, which you seem to have already done in your Elador forum, we will need people having time and interest to perform discovery, to begin with.
  15. 01 May '13 19:34
    Originally posted by Eladar
    It would be the military lawyers that determine which cases will be prosecuted.

    As long as Obama is in office those lawyers will have a view consistent with the Communist Manifesto.
    Thank you for this QED on what drives your opinions -- Obama being in office.