Be a soldier and a Christian. Share your faith. Get court martialed

If these fundamentalist Christian monsters of human degradation, marginalization, humiliation and tyranny cannot broker or barter your acceptance of their putrid theology, then they crave for your universal silence in the face of their rapacious reign of theocratic terror. Indeed, they ceaselessly lust, ache, and pine for you to do absolutely nothing to thwart their oppression. Comply, my friends, and you, too, become as monstrously savage as are they. I beg you, do not feed these hideous monsters with your stoic lethargy, callousness and neutrality. Do not lubricate the path of their racism, bigotry, and prejudice. Doing so directly threatens the national security of our beautiful nation.

Skeptical wrote:

If these fundamentalist Christian monsters of human degradation, marginalization, humiliation and tyranny cannot broker or barter your acceptance of their putrid theology, then they crave for your universal silence in the face of their rapacious reign of theocratic terror. Indeed, they ceaselessly lust, ache, and pine for you to do absolutely nothing to thwart their oppression. Comply, my friends, and you, too, become as monstrously savage as are they. I beg you, do not feed these hideous monsters with your stoic lethargy, callousness and neutrality. Do not lubricate the path of their racism, bigotry, and prejudice. Doing so directly threatens the national security of our beautiful nation.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/michael-l-weinstein/fundamentalist-christian-_b_3072651.html

No wonder the liberals/progressives/socialists/LGBT crowd idolize him.

Today, we face incredibly well-funded gangs of fundamentalist Christian monsters who terrorize their fellow Americans by forcing their weaponized and twisted version of Christianity upon their helpless subordinates in our nation's armed forces. Oh my, my, my, how "Papa's got a brand new bag."

Freedom Forever wrote:

Skeptical wrote:

If these fundamentalist Christian monsters of human degradation, marginalization, humiliation and tyranny cannot broker or barter your acceptance of their putrid theology, then they crave for your universal silence in the face of their rapacious reign of theocratic terror. Indeed, they ceaselessly lust, ache, and pine for you to do absolutely nothing to thwart their oppression. Comply, my friends, and you, too, become as monstrously savage as are they. I beg you, do not feed these hideous monsters with your stoic lethargy, callousness and neutrality. Do not lubricate the path of their racism, bigotry, and prejudice. Doing so directly threatens the national security of our beautiful nation.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/michael-l-weinstein/fundamentalist-christian-_b_3072651.html

No wonder the liberals/progressives/socialists/LGBT crowd idolize him.

Today, we face incredibly well-funded gangs of fundamentalist Christian monsters who terrorize their fellow Americans by forcing their weaponized and twisted version of Christianity upon their helpless subordinates in our nation's armed forces. Oh my, my, my, how "Papa's got a brand new bag."

Sounds like a reasonable guy.

RedWhiteBlue wrote:

Freedom Forever wrote:

Skeptical wrote:

If these fundamentalist Christian monsters of human degradation, marginalization, humiliation and tyranny cannot broker or barter your acceptance of their putrid theology, then they crave for your universal silence in the face of their rapacious reign of theocratic terror. Indeed, they ceaselessly lust, ache, and pine for you to do absolutely nothing to thwart their oppression. Comply, my friends, and you, too, become as monstrously savage as are they. I beg you, do not feed these hideous monsters with your stoic lethargy, callousness and neutrality. Do not lubricate the path of their racism, bigotry, and prejudice. Doing so directly threatens the national security of our beautiful nation.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/michael-l-weinstein/fundamentalist-christian-_b_3072651.html

No wonder the liberals/progressives/socialists/LGBT crowd idolize him.

Today, we face incredibly well-funded gangs of fundamentalist Christian monsters who terrorize their fellow Americans by forcing their weaponized and twisted version of Christianity upon their helpless subordinates in our nation's armed forces. Oh my, my, my, how "Papa's got a brand new bag."

Sounds like a reasonable guy.

It's republicans like him that give everybody a bad name. And to think that he was the Reagan administration's legal counsel. The Ross Perot deal doesn't really surprise me.

Freedom Forever wrote:

RedWhiteBlue wrote:

Freedom Forever wrote:

Skeptical wrote:

If these fundamentalist Christian monsters of human degradation, marginalization, humiliation and tyranny cannot broker or barter your acceptance of their putrid theology, then they crave for your universal silence in the face of their rapacious reign of theocratic terror. Indeed, they ceaselessly lust, ache, and pine for you to do absolutely nothing to thwart their oppression. Comply, my friends, and you, too, become as monstrously savage as are they. I beg you, do not feed these hideous monsters with your stoic lethargy, callousness and neutrality. Do not lubricate the path of their racism, bigotry, and prejudice. Doing so directly threatens the national security of our beautiful nation.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/michael-l-weinstein/fundamentalist-christian-_b_3072651.html

No wonder the liberals/progressives/socialists/LGBT crowd idolize him.

Today, we face incredibly well-funded gangs of fundamentalist Christian monsters who terrorize their fellow Americans by forcing their weaponized and twisted version of Christianity upon their helpless subordinates in our nation's armed forces. Oh my, my, my, how "Papa's got a brand new bag."

Sounds like a reasonable guy.

It's republicans like him that give everybody a bad name. And to think that he was the Reagan administration's legal counsel. The Ross Perot deal doesn't really surprise me.

Agreed, I glad I'm not one. republican that is

RedWhiteBlue wrote:

Freedom Forever wrote:

RedWhiteBlue wrote:

Freedom Forever wrote:

Skeptical wrote:

If these fundamentalist Christian monsters of human degradation, marginalization, humiliation and tyranny cannot broker or barter your acceptance of their putrid theology, then they crave for your universal silence in the face of their rapacious reign of theocratic terror. Indeed, they ceaselessly lust, ache, and pine for you to do absolutely nothing to thwart their oppression. Comply, my friends, and you, too, become as monstrously savage as are they. I beg you, do not feed these hideous monsters with your stoic lethargy, callousness and neutrality. Do not lubricate the path of their racism, bigotry, and prejudice. Doing so directly threatens the national security of our beautiful nation.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/michael-l-weinstein/fundamentalist-christian-_b_3072651.html

No wonder the liberals/progressives/socialists/LGBT crowd idolize him.

WTH are you talking about. I'm for freedom of religion and I'm not a repube. OK. Every heard of the Constitution Party?

Today, we face incredibly well-funded gangs of fundamentalist Christian monsters who terrorize their fellow Americans by forcing their weaponized and twisted version of Christianity upon their helpless subordinates in our nation's armed forces. Oh my, my, my, how "Papa's got a brand new bag."

Sounds like a reasonable guy.

It's republicans like him that give everybody a bad name. And to think that he was the Reagan administration's legal counsel. The Ross Perot deal doesn't really surprise me.

Agreed, I glad I'm not one. republican that is

Yup. That was obvious when you came out against Freedom of Religion.
Are you with any political party? That is, any one party in this country?

RedWhiteBlue wrote:Freedom, this was my question: "Do you really want hinduism-buddhism-judaism-islam-etc. to be proselytized on soldiers by anybody?"

On May 3, you answered it with:
"Under freedom of religion, I would have to answer YES."

Answering "YES" is in direct contradiction to Freedom of Religion.
(I posted the definition of "proselytized" earlier, so I know you know what it means.)

BTW, Don't you members of the Constitution Party even believe in the US Constitution? What constitution do you follow?

Freedom Forever wrote:

RedWhiteBlue wrote:Freedom, this was my question: "Do you really want hinduism-buddhism-judaism-islam-etc. to be proselytized on soldiers by anybody?"

On May 3, you answered it with:
"Under freedom of religion, I would have to answer YES."

Answering "YES" is in direct contradiction to Freedom of Religion.
(I posted the definition of "proselytized" earlier, so I know you know what it means.)

BTW, Don't you members of the Constitution Party even believe in the US Constitution? What constitution do you follow?

Thanks for restating your question, as I thought you were trying to twist my words.
Under freedom of religion it is my understanding that sharing your faith and or religion is permitted. How that plays out in the military I don't know, but I am for freedom of religion even though I don't believe or accept the others.

proselytize; is another matter all together. Freedom of, or from religion should not be forced on anyone. I don't know where you draw the line at sharing vs inducing your beliefs.

RedWhiteBlue wrote:

Freedom Forever wrote:

RedWhiteBlue wrote:Freedom, this was my question: "Do you really want hinduism-buddhism-judaism-islam-etc. to be proselytized on soldiers by anybody?"

On May 3, you answered it with:
"Under freedom of religion, I would have to answer YES."

Answering "YES" is in direct contradiction to Freedom of Religion.
(I posted the definition of "proselytized" earlier, so I know you know what it means.)

BTW, Don't you members of the Constitution Party even believe in the US Constitution? What constitution do you follow?

Thanks for restating your question, as I thought you were trying to twist my words.
Under freedom of religion it is my understanding that sharing your faith and or religion is permitted. How that plays out in the military I don't know, but I am for freedom of religion even though I don't believe or accept the others.

proselytize; is another matter all together. Freedom of, or from religion should not be forced on anyone. I don't know where you draw the line at sharing vs inducing your beliefs.

Thank you. That's exactly what the proposed legislation is for - to prevent that type of proselytization in the military.

Blade's opening post, with the fear mongering link, was premature over-reacting.
As I said before: "The predatory proselytization goes both ways, ya know. It protects Christians as well. Also protects that impressionable young Baptist from the Catholic priest."
Primarily, it prevents superior officers from forcing any religion on subordinates.

Again: "IMO - Military members should also have the right to keep their own religious tradition and not be subjected to religious intrusion, harassment, intimidation, and exploitative and predatory proselytization."

A few posters here suggesting (early in thread) that Obama is somehow trying to destroy religion via this is ridiculous.

Freedom Forever wrote:

RedWhiteBlue wrote:

Freedom Forever wrote:

RedWhiteBlue wrote:Freedom, this was my question: "Do you really want hinduism-buddhism-judaism-islam-etc. to be proselytized on soldiers by anybody?"

On May 3, you answered it with:
"Under freedom of religion, I would have to answer YES."

Answering "YES" is in direct contradiction to Freedom of Religion.
(I posted the definition of "proselytized" earlier, so I know you know what it means.)

BTW, Don't you members of the Constitution Party even believe in the US Constitution? What constitution do you follow?

Thanks for restating your question, as I thought you were trying to twist my words.
Under freedom of religion it is my understanding that sharing your faith and or religion is permitted. How that plays out in the military I don't know, but I am for freedom of religion even though I don't believe or accept the others.

proselytize; is another matter all together. Freedom of, or from religion should not be forced on anyone. I don't know where you draw the line at sharing vs inducing your beliefs.

Thank you. That's exactly what the proposed legislation is for - to prevent that type of proselytization in the military.

Blade's opening post, with the fear mongering link, was premature over-reacting.
As I said before: "The predatory proselytization goes both ways, ya know. It protects Christians as well. Also protects that impressionable young Baptist from the Catholic priest."
Primarily, it prevents superior officers from forcing any religion on subordinates.

Again: "IMO - Military members should also have the right to keep their own religious tradition and not be subjected to religious intrusion, harassment, intimidation, and exploitative and predatory proselytization."

A few posters here suggesting (early in thread) that Obama is somehow trying to destroy religion via this is ridiculous.

I would be very surprise if this type of activity is even happening. If it is not, why fix it. We seem to be fixing a lot of non issues these days, while ignoring other issues. IMO

RedWhiteBlue wrote:

Freedom Forever wrote:

RedWhiteBlue wrote:

Freedom Forever wrote:

RedWhiteBlue wrote:Freedom, this was my question: "Do you really want hinduism-buddhism-judaism-islam-etc. to be proselytized on soldiers by anybody?"

On May 3, you answered it with:
"Under freedom of religion, I would have to answer YES."

Answering "YES" is in direct contradiction to Freedom of Religion.
(I posted the definition of "proselytized" earlier, so I know you know what it means.)

BTW, Don't you members of the Constitution Party even believe in the US Constitution? What constitution do you follow?

Thanks for restating your question, as I thought you were trying to twist my words.
Under freedom of religion it is my understanding that sharing your faith and or religion is permitted. How that plays out in the military I don't know, but I am for freedom of religion even though I don't believe or accept the others.

proselytize; is another matter all together. Freedom of, or from religion should not be forced on anyone. I don't know where you draw the line at sharing vs inducing your beliefs.

Thank you. That's exactly what the proposed legislation is for - to prevent that type of proselytization in the military.

Blade's opening post, with the fear mongering link, was premature over-reacting.
As I said before: "The predatory proselytization goes both ways, ya know. It protects Christians as well. Also protects that impressionable young Baptist from the Catholic priest."
Primarily, it prevents superior officers from forcing any religion on subordinates.

Again: "IMO - Military members should also have the right to keep their own religious tradition and not be subjected to religious intrusion, harassment, intimidation, and exploitative and predatory proselytization."

A few posters here suggesting (early in thread) that Obama is somehow trying to destroy religion via this is ridiculous.

I would be very surprise if this type of activity is even happening. If it is not, why fix it. We seem to be fixing a lot of non issues these days, while ignoring other issues. IMO

Exactly. Nothing is being fixed.
Blade's heading of this thread is completely false. Look at the source he links. No credibility at all. That entire column is wild supposition and simply promotes fear. No basis in fact.

RedWhiteBlue wrote:

Freedom Forever wrote:

RedWhiteBlue wrote:

Freedom Forever wrote:

RedWhiteBlue wrote:Freedom, this was my question: "Do you really want hinduism-buddhism-judaism-islam-etc. to be proselytized on soldiers by anybody?"

On May 3, you answered it with:
"Under freedom of religion, I would have to answer YES."

Answering "YES" is in direct contradiction to Freedom of Religion.
(I posted the definition of "proselytized" earlier, so I know you know what it means.)

BTW, Don't you members of the Constitution Party even believe in the US Constitution? What constitution do you follow?

Thanks for restating your question, as I thought you were trying to twist my words.
Under freedom of religion it is my understanding that sharing your faith and or religion is permitted. How that plays out in the military I don't know, but I am for freedom of religion even though I don't believe or accept the others.

proselytize; is another matter all together. Freedom of, or from religion should not be forced on anyone. I don't know where you draw the line at sharing vs inducing your beliefs.

Thank you. That's exactly what the proposed legislation is for - to prevent that type of proselytization in the military.

Blade's opening post, with the fear mongering link, was premature over-reacting.
As I said before: "The predatory proselytization goes both ways, ya know. It protects Christians as well. Also protects that impressionable young Baptist from the Catholic priest."
Primarily, it prevents superior officers from forcing any religion on subordinates.

Again: "IMO - Military members should also have the right to keep their own religious tradition and not be subjected to religious intrusion, harassment, intimidation, and exploitative and predatory proselytization."

A few posters here suggesting (early in thread) that Obama is somehow trying to destroy religion via this is ridiculous.

I would be very surprise if this type of activity is even happening. If it is not, why fix it. We seem to be fixing a lot of non issues these days, while ignoring other issues. IMO

Exactly. Nothing is being fixed.
Blade's heading of this thread is completely false. Look at the source he links. No credibility at all. That entire column is wild supposition and simply promotes fear. No basis in fact.

So President Barack Obama’s civilian appointees who lead the Pentagon are confirming that the military will make it a crime--possibly resulting in imprisonment--for those in uniform to share their faith. This would include chaplains—military officers who are ordained clergymen of their faith (mostly Christian pastors or priests, or Jewish rabbis)--whose duty since the founding of the U.S. military under George Washington is to teach their faith and minister to the spiritual needs of troops who come to them for counsel, instruction, or comfort.

Freedom Forever wrote:

RedWhiteBlue wrote:

Freedom Forever wrote:

RedWhiteBlue wrote:

Freedom Forever wrote:

RedWhiteBlue wrote:Freedom, this was my question: "Do you really want hinduism-buddhism-judaism-islam-etc. to be proselytized on soldiers by anybody?"

On May 3, you answered it with:
"Under freedom of religion, I would have to answer YES."

Answering "YES" is in direct contradiction to Freedom of Religion.
(I posted the definition of "proselytized" earlier, so I know you know what it means.)

BTW, Don't you members of the Constitution Party even believe in the US Constitution? What constitution do you follow?

Thanks for restating your question, as I thought you were trying to twist my words.
Under freedom of religion it is my understanding that sharing your faith and or religion is permitted. How that plays out in the military I don't know, but I am for freedom of religion even though I don't believe or accept the others.

proselytize; is another matter all together. Freedom of, or from religion should not be forced on anyone. I don't know where you draw the line at sharing vs inducing your beliefs.

Thank you. That's exactly what the proposed legislation is for - to prevent that type of proselytization in the military.

Blade's opening post, with the fear mongering link, was premature over-reacting.
As I said before: "The predatory proselytization goes both ways, ya know. It protects Christians as well. Also protects that impressionable young Baptist from the Catholic priest."
Primarily, it prevents superior officers from forcing any religion on subordinates.

Again: "IMO - Military members should also have the right to keep their own religious tradition and not be subjected to religious intrusion, harassment, intimidation, and exploitative and predatory proselytization."

A few posters here suggesting (early in thread) that Obama is somehow trying to destroy religion via this is ridiculous.

I would be very surprise if this type of activity is even happening. If it is not, why fix it. We seem to be fixing a lot of non issues these days, while ignoring other issues. IMO

Exactly. Nothing is being fixed.
Blade's heading of this thread is completely false. Look at the source he links. No credibility at all. That entire column is wild supposition and simply promotes fear. No basis in fact.

So President Barack Obama’s civilian appointees who lead the Pentagon are confirming that the military will make it a crime--possibly resulting in imprisonment--for those in uniform to share their faith. This would include chaplains—military officers who are ordained clergymen of their faith (mostly Christian pastors or priests, or Jewish rabbis)--whose duty since the founding of the U.S. military under George Washington is to teach their faith and minister to the spiritual needs of troops who come to them for counsel, instruction, or comfort.

So then why are they trying to fix a non issue?

Freedom Forever wrote:http://www.frc.org/alert/pentagon-consultant-no-gospel-witness-for-chaplains

Freedom Forever wrote:http://www.frc.org/alert/pentagon-consultant-no-gospel-witness-for-chaplains

RedWhiteBlue wrote:

Freedom Forever wrote:http://www.frc.org/alert/pentagon-consultant-no-gospel-witness-for-chaplains

That link is actually from a link within the original false column. Just internet rumors perpetuated by "Mikey" (read up on him for entertainment). There are some credible sources on this, including the actual Defense Department:

From the DOD:
"Internet posts are attributing a statement that superior officers who try to convert those under their command should face court-martial to Mikey Weinstein, president of the Albuquerque, N.M.-based Military Religious Freedom Foundation, and are identifying him as a Pentagon advisor, Christensen noted. “Mr. Weinstein is not part of any DOD advisory group or committee, nor is he a consultant to the Defense Department regarding religious matters,” Christensen said."

Freedom Forever wrote:

RedWhiteBlue wrote:

Freedom Forever wrote:http://www.frc.org/alert/pentagon-consultant-no-gospel-witness-for-chaplains

That link is actually from a link within the original false column. Just internet rumors perpetuated by "Mikey" (read up on him for entertainment). There are some credible sources on this, including the actual Defense Department:

From the DOD:
"Internet posts are attributing a statement that superior officers who try to convert those under their command should face court-martial to Mikey Weinstein, president of the Albuquerque, N.M.-based Military Religious Freedom Foundation, and are identifying him as a Pentagon advisor, Christensen noted. “Mr. Weinstein is not part of any DOD advisory group or committee, nor is he a consultant to the Defense Department regarding religious matters,” Christensen said."

I've notice you don't believe a lot of the links posted here. That's fine. But shouldn't you be providing links to support your claims. Or do I just say Your DOD quote is a false claim? And now we're done.