Military and religion

[Robert A Whit]

Robert: For years, Don and I have spoken back and forth via e mail. We met on an AOL forum when Bill Clinton was president. Don served as a high ranking officer in the Air Force and retired to work as an executive for a company. Anyway Don has a guest column in the paper and I hope you all enjoy his words as much as I do.

This article appeared in Florida Today this morning.

God bless,


Don







http://floridatoday.fl.newsmemory.com/newsmemvol2/florida/floridatoday/20130524/5to0901a0524.pdf.0/img/Image_0.jpg
DON GILLELAND

GUEST COLUMNIST




Muzzling our military


Right to express religious beliefs should be sacrosanct



Is the U.S. government muzzling our military, despite First Amendment rights to free speech? There is considerable evidence it is. Historically, men and women in uniform have been expected to give up some of their basic rights. For instance, the government says they cannot participate in partisan politics while in uniform, because it implies government sanction of whatever party they endorse.

Confusing government pronouncements recently suggested those in uniform can’t share their religious beliefs with anyone. A Pentagon policy stated “religious proselytization is not permitted within the Department of Defense.” Another statement said, “Members are free to express their personal beliefs as long as it does not make others uncomfortable.”

Yet, the government does not explain where the line is between proselytization and sharing one’s beliefs. Uncomfortable is very subjective, and Tony Perkins’ Washington Update says evangelism is not included in the government’s definition of proselytization.

How is a service member to know what is and is not permissible? Perkins said the concerns stated by Christians in the military are the result of an environment of increasing religious hostility that has been created by restrictive regulations at the behest of activists such as Mikey Weinstein.

Weinstein, founder and president of the Military Religious Freedom Foundation, is believed to be a Pentagon consultant helping develop new policies on religious tolerance, including a policy for courtmartialing military chaplains who share the Christian Gospel while counseling American troops.

In a speech at a National Day of Prayer observance in Washington, D.C., Coast Guard Rear Adm. William Lee spoke about the growing religious hostility in the military and restrictive religious liberty regulations. He said: “I am not a chaplain. I wouldn’t even describe myself as a religious man. I am nothing more than a sinner in a sailor’s suit. But I am a man of deep and abiding faith, who happens to be wearing a uniform.”

He explained that military men and women do not give up their constitutional right to express their religious beliefs. “They expect us to check our religion at the door.” When faced with the need to counsel a young man who had earlier considered committing suicide, Lee said: “The rules said, send him to the chaplain. My heart said, give this young man a Bible.”

Senior leaders like Lee are vulnerable to political attacks for expressing their faith, for crossing an invisible line that makes them vulnerable to such attacks. Lee said he is glad he has crossed that line so many times. “I will not run from my right under the Constitution to tell a young man that there is hope,” Lee said, adding the Bible provides that hope.

He finished by asking the audience to pray for the right of military members to continue expressing their religious beliefs. He said it is not a religious issue; it is an American issue.

Gilleland, an Evangelical Christian, is retired and lives in Suntree.

[jimnyc]

Robert, in the future please leave a link to where you pasted the article from. This is to not run afoul of copyright for both the writer AND the website/paper who published it.

I found this one for you - http://www.floridatoday.com/article/20130524/COLUMNISTS0205/305240019/Guest-column-Muzzling-our-military

[Tyr-Ziu Saxnot]

This article appeared in Florida Today this morning.

God bless,


Don







http://floridatoday.fl.newsmemory.com/newsmemvol2/florida/floridatoday/20130524/5to0901a0524.pdf.0/img/Image_0.jpg
DON GILLELAND

GUEST COLUMNIST




Muzzling our military


Right to express religious beliefs should be sacrosanct



Is the U.S. government muzzling our military, despite First Amendment rights to free speech? There is considerable evidence it is.Historically, men and women in uniform have been expected to give up some of their basic rights. For instance, the government says they cannot participate in partisan politics while in uniform, because it implies government sanction of whatever party they endorse.

Confusing government pronouncements recently suggested those in uniform can’t share their religious beliefs with anyone. A Pentagon policy stated “religious proselytization is not permitted within the Department of Defense.” Another statement said, “Members are free to express their personal beliefs as long as it does not make others uncomfortable.”

Yet, the government does not explain where the line is between proselytization and sharing one’s beliefs. Uncomfortable is very subjective, and Tony Perkins’ Washington Update says evangelism is not included in the government’s definition of proselytization.

How is a service member to know what is and is not permissible? Perkins said the concerns stated by Christians in the military are the result of an environment of increasing religious hostility that has been created by restrictive regulations at the behest of activists such as Mikey Weinstein.

Weinstein, founder and president of the Military Religious Freedom Foundation, is believed to be a Pentagon consultant helping develop new policies on religious tolerance, including a policy for courtmartialing military chaplains who share the Christian Gospel while counseling American troops.

In a speech at a National Day of Prayer observance in Washington, D.C., Coast Guard Rear Adm. William Lee spoke about the growing religious hostility in the military and restrictive religious liberty regulations. He said: “I am not a chaplain. I wouldn’t even describe myself as a religious man. I am nothing more than a sinner in a sailor’s suit. But I am a man of deep and abiding faith, who happens to be wearing a uniform.”

He explained that military men and women do not give up their constitutional right to express their religious beliefs. “They expect us to check our religion at the door.” When faced with the need to counsel a young man who had earlier considered committing suicide, Lee said: “The rules said, send him to the chaplain. My heart said, give this young man a Bible.”

Senior leaders like Lee are vulnerable to political attacks for expressing their faith, for crossing an invisible line that makes them vulnerable to such attacks. Lee said he is glad he has crossed that line so many times. “I will not run from my right under the Constitution to tell a young man that there is hope,” Lee said, adding the Bible provides that hope.

He finished by asking the audience to pray for the right of military members to continue expressing their religious beliefs. He said it is not a religious issue; it is an American issue.

Gilleland, an Evangelical Christian, is retired and lives in Suntree.


Thanks for a truly great post!!!
Just as people have the right to have NO RELIGON, WE have the rigt to have ours and to speak about it to others. That is a double, freedom of religion and freedom of speech. Sure looks like they are trying to do way with both IMHO.
IF OUR MILITARY EVER GOES THAT PATH IT IS THE ENEMY OF EVERY PATRIOTIC AND DECENT AMERICAN ALIVE IMHO.
THE GOVERNMENT WANTS THAT BECAUSE SUCH A MILITARY WOULD HAVE NO QUALMS ABOUT FIRING UPON ITS OWN CITIZENS!!!
God forbid they ever get our military that ffed up....--Tyr

[Robert A Whit]

Thanks for a truly great post!!!
Just as people have the right to have NO RELIGON, WE have the rigt to have ours and to speak about it to others. That is a double, freedom of religion and freedom of speech. Sure looks like they are trying to do way with both IMHO.
IF OUR MILITARY EVER GOES THAT PATH IT IS THE ENEMY OF EVERY PATRIOTIC AND DECENT AMERICAN ALIVE IMHO.
THE GOVERNMENT WANTS THAT BECAUSE SUCH A MILITARY WOULD HAVE NO QUALMS ABOUT FIRING UPON ITS OWN CITIZENS!!!
God forbid they ever get our military that ffed up....--Tyr

If you want to say that to Don, mail him at Dgill000@aol.com

I think Don was a Colonel and was in the Air Force. Don mails me several times per week. Don retired to work for a defense company and about a dozen years ago put into the mail a lot of material about the M1-Abrams tank system. How many times will a poster pay postage on such a large package as he sent to me. i may still have it here someplace.

[jafar00]

Things like Soldiers In Afghanistan Given Bibles, Told To "Hunt People For Jesus" (http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2009/05/04/soldiers-in-afghanistan-g_n_195674.html) and

U.S. Army Orders Soldiers To Scrape Bible Verses Off Their Rifle Scopes… (http://weaselzippers.us/2013/04/22/u-s-army-orders-soldiers-to-scrape-bible-verses-off-their-rifle-scopes/) doesn't help matters much.

If they don't want to stop being seen as Christian crusader soldiers as they destroy and murder in Muslim lands, there should be a blanket ban on religion in your military.

[BillyBob]

If they don't want to stop being seen as Christian crusader soldiers as they destroy and murder in Muslim lands, there should be a blanket ban on religion in your military.


I have no problem with this being considered part of the Crusades, this is the only way to defeat the muslim horde. Besides, the muslims started it.

[Robert A Whit]

Things like Soldiers In Afghanistan Given Bibles, Told To "Hunt People For Jesus" (http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2009/05/04/soldiers-in-afghanistan-g_n_195674.html) and

U.S. Army Orders Soldiers To Scrape Bible Verses Off Their Rifle Scopes… (http://weaselzippers.us/2013/04/22/u-s-army-orders-soldiers-to-scrape-bible-verses-off-their-rifle-scopes/) doesn't help matters much.

If they don't want to stop being seen as Christian crusader soldiers as they destroy and murder in Muslim lands, there should be a blanket ban on religion in your military.

I get a kick out of how hard you try to defend those who use explosives on their person to eliminate as many innocents as they can.

You are almost making me weep over the problems your side has.

We have had many men and women lose legs and arms and much more due to those explosives.

I believe that in Iraq, the problems our guys had would not have happened but for the misuse of a religion we call Islam.

Do you blame any Muslim for how they specify the religion as they wage war?

[aboutime]

Obviously, jafar has never been in a position of being a member of any military where an enemy is trying to attack him. As the old, world war One expression stated...."There are no Atheists in Foxholes" WHEN bullets, bombs, or rockets are coming your way.

[Gaffer]

Things like Soldiers In Afghanistan Given Bibles, Told To "Hunt People For Jesus" (http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2009/05/04/soldiers-in-afghanistan-g_n_195674.html) and

U.S. Army Orders Soldiers To Scrape Bible Verses Off Their Rifle Scopes… (http://weaselzippers.us/2013/04/22/u-s-army-orders-soldiers-to-scrape-bible-verses-off-their-rifle-scopes/) doesn't help matters much.

If they don't want to stop being seen as Christian crusader soldiers as they destroy and murder in Muslim lands, there should be a blanket ban on religion in your military.

Let's start with banning islam, as that's who/what we are at war with.

[gabosaurus]

Robert, in the future please leave a link to where you pasted the article from. This is to not run afoul of copyright for both the writer AND the website/paper who published it.

I found this one for you - http://www.floridatoday.com/article/20130524/COLUMNISTS0205/305240019/Guest-column-Muzzling-our-military

Some people don't know how to read. They only parrot what is sent to them.

[Robert A Whit]

http://www.debatepolicy.com/images/debate_policy/misc/quote_icon.png Originally Posted by jimnyc http://www.debatepolicy.com/images/debate_policy/buttons/viewpost-right.png (http://www.debatepolicy.com/showthread.php?p=641424#post641424)
Robert, in the future please leave a link to where you pasted the article from. This is to not run afoul of copyright for both the writer AND the website/paper who published it.

I found this one for you - http://www.floridatoday.com/article/...g-our-military (http://www.floridatoday.com/article/20130524/COLUMNISTS0205/305240019/Guest-column-Muzzling-our-military)


Some people don't know how to read. They only parrot what is sent to them.

Don specified where his article was posted. Besides, why open my mail account to people on this forum?

Don mailed his article to me and I believe I explained that.

Say Gabby; had you actually read the article, you would understand Don mailed it to me so I took it from my personal mail and put it here. Don stated where it was published. I did not think his comments were parroting but not altering at all on my part. See Gabby, had you read, you could comprehend. Don has a guest spot in that paper so naturally the paper wants people to read it. BTW, Don did not claim it was copyrighted.

[Kathianne]

Don specified where his article was posted. Besides, why open my mail account to people on this forum?

Don mailed his article to me and I believe I explained that.

Say Gabby; had you actually read the article, you would understand Don mailed it to me so I took it from my personal mail and put it here. Don stated where it was published. I did not think his comments were parroting but not altering at all on my part. See Gabby, had you read, you could comprehend. Don has a guest spot in that paper so naturally the paper wants people to read it. BTW, Don did not claim it was copyrighted.

Actually it was you bragging that the author finds you a 'special mate.' Jim had no problem finding the link you could easily have added to your OP. You didn't, to show your 'specialness.' Better to have said that the author was a friend of yours, sending in email, but 'here is the link.' Twit. (Not to be confused with, 'word.')

[aboutime]

Personally. As a veteran. I really could care less what some of my fellow Americans say, or think when they declare there should be a separation of CHURCH and STATE.

By the way. Those words do not appear in the Constitution, or the First Amendment.
So, when you declare such a thing. You are barking at the moon.



Now. As I began to say.

There has never been a DAY, or NIGHT during the 30 years I served ALL OF YOU...if you are Americans. That I did not
remember to thank My GOD for keeping me safe, and for protecting my wife, and children.

If anyone doesn't like that. Too bad. I don't care if you insist there is NO GOD.

The GOD I worship still loves you.

FOR THOSE WHO INSIST I AM WRONG:
"Separation of church and state" (sometimes "wall of separation between church and state") is a phrase used by Thomas Jefferson (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thomas_Jefferson) and others expressing an understanding of the intent and function of the Establishment Clause (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Establishment_Clause) and Free Exercise Clause (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Free_Exercise_Clause) of the First Amendment to the Constitution of the United States (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/First_Amendment_to_the_Constitution_of_the_United_ States). The phrase has since been repeatedly used by the Supreme Court of the United States (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Supreme_Court_of_the_United_States).
The First Amendment to the United States Constitution (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/First_Amendment_to_the_United_States_Constitution) provides that "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof ...." and Article VI (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Article_Six_of_the_United_States_Constitution) specifies that "no religious Test shall ever be required (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/No_Religious_Test_Clause) as a Qualification to any Office or public Trust under the United States." The modern concept of a wholly secular government is sometimes credited to the writings of English philosopher John Locke (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_Locke), but the phrase "separation of church and state" in this context is generally traced to aJanuary 1, 1802 letter (http://en.wikisource.org/wiki/Letter_to_the_Danbury_Baptists_-_January_1,_1802) by Thomas Jefferson (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thomas_Jefferson), addressed to the Danbury Baptist Association (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Danbury_Baptists) in Connecticut (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Connecticut), and published in a Massachusetts newspaper.
Echoing the language of the founder of the first Baptist church in America, Roger Williams (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Roger_Williams_(theologian))—who had written in 1644 of "[A] hedge or wall of separation between the garden of the church and the wilderness of the world"— Jefferson wrote, "I contemplate with sovereign reverence that act of the whole American people which declared that their legislature should 'make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof,' thus building a wall of separation between Church & State."[1] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Separation_of_church_and_state_in_the_United_State s#cite_note-1)
Jefferson's metaphor of a wall of separation has been cited repeatedly by the U.S. Supreme Court. In Reynolds v. United States (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reynolds_v._United_States) (1879) the Court wrote that Jefferson's comments "may be accepted almost as an authoritative declaration of the scope and effect of the [First] Amendment." In Everson v. Board of Education (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Everson_v._Board_of_Education) (1947), Justice Hugo Black (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hugo_Black) wrote: "In the words of Thomas Jefferson, the clause against establishment of religion by law was intended to erect a wall of separation between church and state."[2] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Separation_of_church_and_state_in_the_United_State s#cite_note-2)
However, the Court has not always interpreted the constitutional principle as absolute, and the proper extent of separation between government and religion in the U.S. remains an ongoing subject of impassioned debate.[3] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Separation_of_church_and_state_in_the_United_State s#cite_note-3)[4] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Separation_of_church_and_state_in_the_United_State s#cite_note-4)[5] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Separation_of_church_and_state_in_the_United_State s#cite_note-5)[6] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Separation_of_church_and_state_in_the_United_State s#cite_note-6)

[jafar00]

I have no problem with this being considered part of the Crusades, this is the only way to defeat the muslim horde. Besides, the muslims started it.

Did we now?


I get a kick out of how hard you try to defend those who use explosives on their person to eliminate as many innocents as they can.

You are almost making me weep over the problems your side has.

We have had many men and women lose legs and arms and much more due to those explosives.

I believe that in Iraq, the problems our guys had would not have happened but for the misuse of a religion we call Islam.

Do you blame any Muslim for how they specify the religion as they wage war?

Since when have I offered anything but condemnation for terrorist acts including suicide bombs?


Let's start with banning islam, as that's who/what we are at war with.

Really? Are you? Here's the headlines. You couldn't ban Islam if you tried.

[BillyBob]

Did we now?

Yes.





Really? Are you? Here's the headlines. You couldn't ban Islam if you tried.


We could, no doubt about it. But maybe we'll let some of you live. After killing the majority of you we'll give the few remaining survivors some crappy section of government land somewhere in the desert and let you sell cigarettes and run casinos....if you behave.

[Tyr-Ziu Saxnot]

Yes.






We could, no doubt about it. But maybe we'll let some of you live. After killing the majority of you we'll give the few remaining survivors some crappy section of government land somewhere in the desert and let you sell cigarettes and run casinos....if you behave.

We have the technology and the arms to destroy them all. Allah doesnt have a damn thing to do with it as their Allah is nothing but imagination. A character made up by Mohammad to justify his lifestyle of debauchery, child molestation, rape, murder and robbery.


We could and most likely should justt nuke Mecca and Medina simply to show them how we could destroy all of them now.
That we do not shows our morality and greatness as compared to their cowardly savagery.

I'd push that button this minute were it my choice! The lives lost by doing so would be nothing compared to vast number of lives they will murder in the future--(likely many hundreds of millions)!!-Tyr

[BillyBob]

We have the technology and the arms to destroy them all. Allah doesnt have a damn thing to do with it as their Allah is nothing but imagination. A character made up by Mohammad to justify his lifestyle of debauchery, child molestation, rape, murder and robbery.


We could and most likely should justt nuke Mecca and Medina simply to show them how we could destroy all of them now.
That we do not shows our morality and greatness as compared to their cowardly savagery.

I'd push that button this minute were it my choice! The lives lost by doing so would be nothing compared to vast number of lives they will murder in the future--(likely many hundreds of millions)!!-Tyr


The muzzies certainly wouldn't hesitate to murder all of us if they could.

[Tyr-Ziu Saxnot]

The muzzies certainly wouldn't hesitate to murder all of us if they could.

Tis' why they are getting the nukes.. Tis why obama is helping them get the nukes and abandoning our ally Israel. Tis why obama was installed. Tis why we are being destroyed as a powerful nation by obama and his handlers.
Tis why our future very likely holds a revolution if we are to survive.-Tyr

[BillyBob]

Tis' why they are getting the nukes.. Tis why obama is helping them get the nukes and abandoning our ally Israel. Tis why obama was installed. Tis why we are being destroyed as a powerful nation by obama and his handlers.
Tis why our future very likely holds a revolution if we are to survive.-Tyr


I fully stand behind Israel if they tell Obama to go fuck himself and handle the muzzies on their own. 'Yes' on the revolt. The sooner the better.

[aboutime]

Did we now?



Since when have I offered anything but condemnation for terrorist acts including suicide bombs?



Really? Are you? Here's the headlines. You couldn't ban Islam if you tried.


SPOKEN by the one member who DENIES, and makes EXCUSES????

Thank you jafar. You may EXTRACT YOUR FOOT from your mouth now.

[jafar00]

We could, no doubt about it. But maybe we'll let some of you live. After killing the majority of you we'll give the few remaining survivors some crappy section of government land somewhere in the desert and let you sell cigarettes and run casinos....if you behave.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Final_Solution for us?


I fully stand behind Israel if they tell Obama to go fuck himself and handle the muzzies on their own. 'Yes' on the revolt. The sooner the better.

But would Israel stand behind a goy like you?

[BillyBob]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Final_Solution for us?

http://www.debatepolicy.com/showthread.php?41065-Things-Muslims-Didn-t-Invent-but-Pretend-They-Did-Anyway




But would Israel stand behind a goy like you?

Doesn't matter. Hey, did you see this thread?


http://www.debatepolicy.com/showthread.php?41065-Things-Muslims-Didn-t-Invent-but-Pretend-They-Did-Anyway