This sounds alarmist to me- military and faith question

[Whereneverever]

I keep seeing links like this across my feed- http://www.breitbart.com/Big-Peace/2013/05/01/Breaking-Pentagon-Confirms-Will-Court-Martial-Soldiers-Who-Share-Christian-Faith

 

The gist is tht the military is going to be court martialing soldiers, including chaplains, who share their faith. I can't find anything on it via a non foxnews type outlet, though.

 

Does anyone have an explanation or link I can post in response? I don't think this sounds plausible, but I guess I could be wrong.

 

Thanks!

[*lifeoftheparty*]

I shared this as well, and a friend of mine who served in the army with me, is a Christian, and works for the state department wrote an explanation for me. Give me a sec and I'll try to copy and paste it....

[Whereneverever]

I shared this as well, and a friend of mine who served in the army with me, is a Christian, and works for the state department wrote an explanation for me. Give me a sec and I'll try to copy and paste it....

 

 

Excellent, thanks!

[Heatherwith4]

I think it's alarmist.

[*lifeoftheparty*]

P.S. This is my friends opinion and not an official statement from any govt. agency. I feel like a complete dork for saying that, but I wouldn't want my friend to get in trouble somehow/someway, KWIM??

 

I trust him. He's older than me. Very sensible, doesn't lie or exaggerate, has lived all over the world, knows several languages, etc. In other words, he's not some crazy right or left wing nutter with an agenda ;)

 

 

 

"I looked this up in more detail. Although the Pentagon and those who rule it sound horrifically stupid and should be public relations-slapped for talking to who they did, the report sounds more like they talked to a nutty guy they should have known better than to talk to. Also (or as an extension of the same incident), they allowed a very offensive slide in a power point program by an outside contractor who basically conflated most religious groups we know into supporters of terrorism. If I understand correctly, breitbart is confusing an insane and troubling discussion with an actual policy outcome that the nut wanted, which would be a blunt policy violating first amendment freedoms and a displaying of equally stunning ignorance of history and of what might motivate many people to fight and die for their country. The nut reduces freedom of religion to freedom from religion. I can think of one instance in basic training where people were de facto pressured to volunteer to get proselytized. The solution, to ban this activity, would also take away the one rest day we got. I think (going on a ledge to surmise) we as a society still have the common sense to deal with things like that. That instance would by no means require a blunt instrument against all faith speech by anyone in the military. Too bad these people can't be put on their own island, or better yet a hapless small country between Germany and Russia 100 years ago, to see the result of their policies without harming the rest of us. To me this military briefing was more offensive than, say, someone's affair, however. Maybe everyone involved should be forced to resign. Or at least suddenly not recommended for promotion or assigned any plum jobs. After all, that's what happens to west point lecturers who allow contractors to speak."

[Freckles]

I'm anxiously awaiting for the details of this. My husband was an Army Chaplain. Did you know the Chaplaincy is older than the Army?

[Whereneverever]

I think it's alarmist.

 

 

I do, too, but I would like links to refute it, since my opinion won't do that.

[Whereneverever]

P.S. This is my friends opinion and not an official statement from any govt. agency. I feel like a complete dork for saying that, but I wouldn't want my friend to get in trouble somehow/someway, KWIM??

 

I trust him. He's older than me. Very sensible, doesn't lie or exaggerate, has lived all over the world, knows several languages, etc. In other words, he's not some crazy right or left wing nutter with an agenda ;)

 

 

 

"I looked this up in more detail. Although the Pentagon and those who rule it sound horrifically stupid and should be public relations-slapped for talking to who they did, the report sounds more like they talked to a nutty guy they should have known better than to talk to. Also (or as an extension of the same incident), they allowed a very offensive slide in a power point program by an outside contractor who basically conflated most religious groups we know into supporters of terrorism. If I understand correctly, breitbart is confusing an insane and troubling discussion with an actual policy outcome that the nut wanted, which would be a blunt policy violating first amendment freedoms and a displaying of equally stunning ignorance of history and of what might motivate many people to fight and die for their country. The nut reduces freedom of religion to freedom from religion. I can think of one instance in basic training where people were de facto pressured to volunteer to get proselytized. The solution, to ban this activity, would also take away the one rest day we got. I think (going on a ledge to surmise) we as a society still have the common sense to deal with things like that. That instance would by no means require a blunt instrument against all faith speech by anyone in the military. Too bad these people can't be put on their own island, or better yet a hapless small country between Germany and Russia 100 years ago, to see the result of their policies without harming the rest of us. To me this military briefing was more offensive than, say, someone's affair, however. Maybe everyone involved should be forced to resign. Or at least suddenly not recommended for promotion or assigned any plum jobs. After all, that's what happens to west point lecturers who allow contractors to speak."

 

 

Thanks!

[*lifeoftheparty*]

 

 

I do, too, but I would like links to refute it, since my opinion won't do that.

 

 

Sorry, he didn't give any links.

 

My dh will often research these things sent to him by family and give his opinion as well as facts to support it. (He also was in the military and works for the govt.) If he does, I'll pass it on ;)

 

As you can tell, when it comes to stuff like this, I'm clearly to lazy to investigate. I just leave that up to the incredibly smart people in my life, and take their word for for it ;) It's kinda like... I'm the President and they are my advisors ;)

[Ravin]

It sounds like alarmist nonsense to me. The religious rights of service members are protected. There are times where prostelyzing, even by a chaplain, is inappropriate. For example, I was sent to a chaplain for counseling at one point when I was upset over having to choose whether or not to extend my enlistment so tnat my new husband could accompany me to Japan. During such counseling was not a good time for the chaplain (Navy Commander rank and long in the service, with ordination in some evangelical and somewhat fundamentalist Christian denomination, I don't recall exactly which one) to inquire into my religious beliefs and, upon learning I'm a heathen, ASK ME IF I EAT BABIES.

 

Completely aside from how furious he made me (which did help solve my dilemma), it was extremely inappropriate. Chaplains are supposed to run services for their own faith community and help support the religious freedom/practice of all servicemen, even those they dislike.

 

Some kind of reprimand of behavior like that would be appropriate. Nor was it typical of my experiences with the chaplaincy in general.

 

I had some good times discussing religion with shipmates. Like a Bible study shared by a Mormon, a Catholic, a Mennonite, and my Heathen self. The boot camp thing isn't really pressure of a prostelyzing sort. At Great Lakes they had a wide variety of services, from mainline Protestant and Catholic to Buddhist and Pagan meetings, all on Sunday morning. Those who did not care to participate were allowed to stay in the barracks and chat, write letters home, pray or meditate privately, or shine their shoes. Being an introvert (and not learning about the Pagan service until week 6 of 8), I used the time to actually be alone with myself, and to write home.

[Pawz4me]

Consider the source.

 

And that's all I'm sayin' about that.

[Alte Veste Academy]

I can't roll my eyes hard enough.

 

:iagree: It's completely ridiculous. Completely and utterly ridiculous.

[LucyStoner]

Why do you need links/evidence to refute this? It's not like IT has any evidence or links. I wouldn't dignify this by trying to refute it. It refutes itself.

 

Consider the source applies, as does that good old fashioned BS meter.

 

[Whereneverever]

Good grief- look at the news source. I am so sick and tired of this type "news" spewed forth to rile up people. That mean old army.

Isn't this the same Breitbart news group that started the Acorn crap...then never took the time to go back and admit that the videos were edited? How professional is that?

I'm not sure if there's a place more ignorant than the Fox news channel, but the Breitbart site is neck and neck with them.

God, I long for the days of Walter Cronkite.

 

I don't know anything about Breitbart. Previous to this, I'd never heard of them. It didn't sound right to me and when I googled I couldn't find anything about it on news sites I trust. That's why I came here. :)

 

Why do you need links/evidence to refute this? It's not like IT has any evidence or links. I wouldn't dignify this by trying to refute it. It refutes itself.

Consider the source applies, as does that good old fashioned BS meter.

 

I think that is going to have to be how I look at it. Thanks. :)

[carriede]

I found this, but I know nothing about Commonweal besides seeing it on a magazine rack at the church I went to in college.

 

http://www.commonwealmagazine.org/blog/?p=26987

[PrincessMommy]

I'm so glad you asked. I saw it reposted on someone's blog and thought it sounded alarmist too, but didn't know where to begin to wade through the smoke and mirrors.

[anabelneri]

Commonweal is a relatively decent Catholic magazine. It isn't one known for being particularly conservative, but it is Catholic (and not some weird branch). IME it tends to be read by the folks who run on the intellectual end of Catholicism, if that makes sense. I'm not sure how to express that any better, and I'm not trying to offend anyone, but it's not a magazine my Catholic grandmother would have read, but that I have found that many people with grad degrees in Catholic theology seem to read it. I would trust it more than a Fox news source.

[Mergath]

Definitely alarmist. I was in the Army, and the idea that they're going to court martial soldiers who talk about their beliefs is laughable. I don't know how many different Christian programs the Army had going every Sunday when I was in, and everyone was Christian. Openly, vocally Christian. Obviously, the Pentagon knows that if every soldier that talked about his or her faith was court martialed, they'd have no Army left.

 

Also, you can't be court martialed if you haven't committed a crime according to the UCMJ. And as far as I know, the UCMJ doesn't have any provisions banning soldiers from talking about religion. If it did, you can be sure the article would have included it.

[Uggyface]

This is what I read on Fox News .com yesterday concerning this. I hope this is what you were looking for. http://radio.foxnews.com/toddstarnes/top-stories/pentagon-religious-proselytizing-is-not-permitted.html

[poppy]

This is what I read on Fox News .com yesterday concerning this. I hope this is what you were looking for. http://radio.foxnews...-permitted.html

 

The hatred in the comments to that opinion piece tell me all I need to know about it.

[zoobie]

http://www.snopes.com/politics/military/proselytizing.asp

 

It's not a new policy. It's in place to protect people from being forced or brow beaten into conversion by superior officers. No one is going to get court martialed for being Christian or for sharing about faith when asked. This is more hyped up lunacy from the people who brought you the "war on Christmas" and etcetera.

[Tangerine]

I suggest you check out the US Army Chaplain Corps' Facebook status. Sorry I can't copy it on the iPad.

[El...]

I think some unfortunate military personnel met with a self-promoter with a really aggressive agenda, and then said self-promoter told the internet he was consulted by the government, and now all the Public Affairs personnel are cussing up a blue streak. Religious bullying in the military is a huge abuse of power and an ethical breach. That should be obvious; I was taught that. When I was in the military myself, I was able to stop a few instances of abuse, and it was not common. However, the guy my Facebook friends are all scared by is a straight-up nut, in my ever-so-humble opinion. Wow, I feel snarky about this! But as a veteran, this kind of uninformed pot-stirring reporting makes me nuts.

[MrsBasil]

Here is the entire statement from the US Army Chaplain Corp FB status:

 

OCCH has verified that this is the OSD statement in response to recent media and public query. Thank you for your concern and prayers:

 

"The U.S. Department of Defense has never and will never single out a particular religious group for persecution or prosecution. The Department makes reasonable accommodations for all religions and celebrates the religious diversity of our service members.

 

Service members can share their faith (evangelize), but must not force unwanted, intrusive attempts to convert others of any faith or no faith to one's beliefs (proselytization). If a service member harasses another member on the basis of race, color, sex, religion, national origin, age, or disability, then the commander takes action based on the gravity of the occurrence. Likewise, when religious harassment complaints are reported, commanders take action based on the gravity of the occurrence on a case by case basis.

 

The Department of Defense places a high value on the rights of members of the Military Services to observe the tenets of their respective religions and respects (and supports by its policy) the rights of others to their own religious beliefs, including the right to hold no beliefs. The Department does not endorse any one religion or religious organization, and provides free access of religion for all members of the military services.

 

We work to ensure that all service members are free to exercise their Constitutional right to practice their religion -- in a manner that is respectful of other individuals' rights to follow their own belief systems; and in ways that are conducive to good order and discipline; and that do not detract from accomplishing the military mission."

[Random]

The article is alarmist, but the appointment of Mikey Weinstein to some sort of civilian-military 'tolerance' committee (I can't remember the details and don't have time to look for them) is alarming.

 

Here is an article by Weinstein in the HuffPost. This is the guy leading the religious tolerance movement in the military?

 

I did not view these YouTube Videos of Weistein, but here is Mr. Tolerance, himself. (Warning...crude and rude with foul language. Lots of f-bombs)

 

Whenever I'm trying to decide if a person is being 'extreme' I substitute another race/religion/nationality into the sentences he/she is speaking. For instance, when Weinstein shrieks out, "F---- Christianity!" and labels all Christians as 'bloody monsters,' I think he's probably not the right man to develop a policy on religious tolerance. Just insert muslim, jew, blacks, asians, or whatever, and it's pretty obvious the guy is a whackadoodle.

 

I really hope the outcry will cause the current administration to rethink appointing Mr. Weinstein.

[JuanitaL]

Here is the entire statement from the US Army Chaplain Corp FB status:

 

OCCH has verified that this is the OSD statement in response to recent media and public query. Thank you for your concern and prayers:

 

"The U.S. Department of Defense has never and will never single out a particular religious group for persecution or prosecution. The Department makes reasonable accommodations for all religions and celebrates the religious diversity of our service members.

 

Service members can share their faith (evangelize), but must not force unwanted, intrusive attempts to convert others of any faith or no faith to one's beliefs (proselytization). If a service member harasses another member on the basis of race, color, sex, religion, national origin, age, or disability, then the commander takes action based on the gravity of the occurrence. Likewise, when religious harassment complaints are reported, commanders take action based on the gravity of the occurrence on a case by case basis.

 

The Department of Defense places a high value on the rights of members of the Military Services to observe the tenets of their respective religions and respects (and supports by its policy) the rights of others to their own religious beliefs, including the right to hold no beliefs. The Department does not endorse any one religion or religious organization, and provides free access of religion for all members of the military services.

 

We work to ensure that all service members are free to exercise their Constitutional right to practice their religion -- in a manner that is respectful of other individuals' rights to follow their own belief systems; and in ways that are conducive to good order and discipline; and that do not detract from accomplishing the military mission."

Excellent!

[Whereneverever]

Here is the entire statement from the US Army Chaplain Corp FB status:

 

OCCH has verified that this is the OSD statement in response to recent media and public query. Thank you for your concern and prayers:

 

"The U.S. Department of Defense has never and will never single out a particular religious group for persecution or prosecution. The Department makes reasonable accommodations for all religions and celebrates the religious diversity of our service members.

 

Service members can share their faith (evangelize), but must not force unwanted, intrusive attempts to convert others of any faith or no faith to one's beliefs (proselytization). If a service member harasses another member on the basis of race, color, sex, religion, national origin, age, or disability, then the commander takes action based on the gravity of the occurrence. Likewise, when religious harassment complaints are reported, commanders take action based on the gravity of the occurrence on a case by case basis.

 

The Department of Defense places a high value on the rights of members of the Military Services to observe the tenets of their respective religions and respects (and supports by its policy) the rights of others to their own religious beliefs, including the right to hold no beliefs. The Department does not endorse any one religion or religious organization, and provides free access of religion for all members of the military services.

 

We work to ensure that all service members are free to exercise their Constitutional right to practice their religion -- in a manner that is respectful of other individuals' rights to follow their own belief systems; and in ways that are conducive to good order and discipline; and that do not detract from accomplishing the military mission."

 

Thanks!!

[AFwife Claire]

The article is alarmist, but the appointment of Mikey Weinstein to some sort of civilian-military 'tolerance' committee (I can't remember the details and don't have time to look for them) is alarming.

 

Here is an article by Weinstein in the HuffPost. This is the guy leading the religious tolerance movement in the military?

 

I did not view these YouTube Videos of Weistein, but here is Mr. Tolerance, himself. (Warning...crude and rude with foul language. Lots of f-bombs)

 

Whenever I'm trying to decide if a person is being 'extreme' I substitute another race/religion/nationality into the sentences he/she is speaking. For instance, when Weinstein shrieks out, "F---- Christianity!" and labels all Christians as 'bloody monsters,' I think he's probably not the right man to develop a policy on religious tolerance. Just insert muslim, jew, blacks, asians, or whatever, and it's pretty obvious the guy is a whackadoodle.

 

I really hope the outcry will cause the current administration to rethink appointing Mr. Weinstein.

 

Yes, I agree with this. It is easy to dismiss Weinstein as a nut (because he totally is, LOL), but in fact, he had a lot of influence on the Air Force Academy officials during the time we were stationed there. So for all you people thinking this is totally ridiculous and it could never go anywhere--I hope not, but you never know. He never ever gives up, and he hates anyone with any sort of religious bent at all, but especially Christians. He is definitely of the "freedom from religion, not freedom of religion" opinion. Also, he totally and completely misrepresents groups like the Officers Christian Fellowship (which we've been involved in for over 20 years) to make it sound like the military is peppered with rabid, Bible-thumping soldiers who harangue you until you convert. There have been occasional instances where people or even chaplains have over-stepped (sorry to hear your experience, Ravin--crazy!!!), but in general, that is totally not happening.

[mamaraby]

Yes, I agree with this. It is easy to dismiss Weinstein as a nut (because he totally is, LOL), but in fact, he had a lot of influence on the Air Force Academy officials during the time we were stationed there. So for all you people thinking this is totally ridiculous and it could never go anywhere--I hope not, but you never know. He never ever gives up, and he hates anyone with any sort of religious bent at all, but especially Christians. He is definitely of the "freedom from religion, not freedom of religion" opinion. Also, he totally and completely misrepresents groups like the Officers Christian Fellowship (which we've been involved in for over 20 years) to make it sound like the military is peppered with rabid, Bible-thumping soldiers who harangue you until you convert. There have been occasional instances where people or even chaplains have over-stepped (sorry to hear your experience, Ravin--crazy!!!), but in general, that is totally not happening.

 

Ummmm...that's not an accurate portrayl considering that many of the folks who have sought help from the MRFF have been people of faith (especially non-Evangelicals and minority faiths) and that one of their advisory board members is a former US Army Chaplain.

[TravelingChris]

Well there are two reasons for the alarm. One, is the wackiness of Mickey Weinstein and anyone thinking that he should be on a tolerance committee. Second, the military is saying that proseletyzing is illegal but they use the word in a different fashion than it is defined in dictionaries. They mean you can't be harassing someone religiously. Okay- no problem with that- that has been a policy for decades- certainly as long as my dh has been in the USAF-26 years. What you are allowed to do is evangelize- which means ask someone to go to service, whether they want a Bible, etc. Those kinds of things which is what both service people and chaplains have done for ages. But the confusion and alarm has been both with Mikey Weinstein association with the Pentagon and also with the confusion over terms. After all, when some countries don't allow proseletyzing, they arrest you for offering a Bible or holding a church service.

 

Breitbart and Fox News are legitimate news services. Do they make mistakes at times? Sure. But so did CNN during the Boston Marathon Bombing week when they said a Saudi was the bomber and he was arrested. Fox didn't jump the gun and report any such allegation. It led to them having the highest ratings of people watching the arrest of the second suspect.

[TravelingChris]

Actually, there are more members than that. There was at least one other uncle and probably cousins, etc. And why we are letting in immigrants to this country who turn around and try to or actually do bomb us is a relevant news story, at least for us who care about terrorism. The Tsarnaev brothers are not the first immigrants/terrorists we had. The Times Square bomber was another. There were some others who tried to bomb Fort Dix using their pizza delivery trucks. Then there was another who had a plan for bombing JFK or setting it on fire. There was some immigrant family in Co that had a son who planned to bomb the Washington Bridge into NYC. This is just some of them.

 

As to the Katie Couric jokes, I never saw that (not that I watch all that much anyway) but Fox news has many types of shows- some are plain news (the midday hours), some are sort of fluff news, (morning show- some real news most not). some are not news at all (Bill O'Reilly, Hannity, ) some are comedy (I don't know if there is any other than Red Eye but that is in the wee hours, and comedy like you might expect in the wee hours).

[Whereneverever]

Can we please not devolve into an argument about Fox News? 😕 Some of these posts are great and instructive and I'd hate it to be deleted for politics.

[zoobie]

Actually, there are more members than that. There was at least one other uncle and probably cousins, etc. And why we are letting in immigrants to this country who turn around and try to or actually do bomb us is a relevant news story, at least for us who care about terrorism. The Tsarnaev brothers are not the first immigrants/terrorists we had. The Times Square bomber was another. There were some others who tried to bomb Fort Dix using their pizza delivery trucks. Then there was another who had a plan for bombing JFK or setting it on fire. There was some immigrant family in Co that had a son who planned to bomb the Washington Bridge into NYC. This is just some of them.

 

When stuff like this comes up around my husband, he says, "I'm part Cherokee. Tell me about it." Then just stares silently.

 

There's going to be a risk of psychopathy inherent in any population. No one is "letting in these people" with advance knowledge. Do you want us to close the borders entirely? Fence in the US? No international travelers? We don't need tourists. It's not as if business is international these days. Students? Nah. Or maybe we could require our citizens to carry papers and mark the "immigrants" somehow...

[TravelingChris]

This is not psychopathy. It is called terrorism and it is because of their belief that killing infidels is the thing to do. Certainly most Muslims aren't terrorists. I am not for closing borders to tourists and yes, it can be difficult to figure our who is a terrorist in the making. However, when two different country's intelligence services warn us about someone, maybe we could stop giving them welfare and simply kick them out. That lovely terrorist family was collecting all kinds of aid. Now that does make me mad. WHy are we paying aid to non citizens while citizens are suffering? What kind of phony asylum claim did this clan have when, after all, they were going back to that country with the same government as when they supposedly left in fear? I have known people from Africa who had true fear of their lives- coming from the areas where the genocides have happened. None of them are returning to the areas where those issues are still ongoing. None of them are becoming terrorists either. ONe is working now with gang members and kids at risk of joining gangs to try to persuade them that there is more to life than gangs. All of them were working- not taking welfare.

[VeritasMama]

There is an is an "us vs. them" gpong on, whether we want to acknowledge it or not. There are terrorists who want to blow up civilian Americans for simply being American. People don't want to admit it because it isn't a nice feeling, having a sworn enemy. But they have declared you their eny whether you acknowledge it or not.

 

Now, it doesn't need to follow that we hate our enemies, or that we judge all people who may have something in common with our enies (religion, language, culture, race) as being enemies as well. But, if we don't clearly know who the enemy is, we won't be able to prevent them from blowing up eight year old little boys like the one that was killed in Boston.

 

Trying to stop terrorism by admitting that terrorists exist is not racist, or xenophobic, or closed minded. It is a decent thing to do, as it is right and proper to try to prevent the slaughter of innocent people. There are many terrorist organizations that have declared war on US civilians and are recruiting young people to carry out attacks. They are at war with you, whether you want to be at war or not.

[Mergath]

Actually, there are more members than that. There was at least one other uncle and probably cousins, etc.

 

Oh, are we kicking out anyone related to a criminal now?

 

My dh's uncle used to be a state legislator. Until he was caught in the woods one night having an intimate moment with a teenage boy. Should I start packing my bags?

[Joker]

 

Yes, I agree with this. It is easy to dismiss Weinstein as a nut (because he totally is, LOL), but in fact, he had a lot of influence on the Air Force Academy officials during the time we were stationed there. So for all you people thinking this is totally ridiculous and it could never go anywhere--I hope not, but you never know. He never ever gives up, and he hates anyone with any sort of religious bent at all, but especially Christians. He is definitely of the "freedom from religion, not freedom of religion" opinion. Also, he totally and completely misrepresents groups like the Officers Christian Fellowship (which we've been involved in for over 20 years) to make it sound like the military is peppered with rabid, Bible-thumping soldiers who harangue you until you convert. There have been occasional instances where people or even chaplains have over-stepped (sorry to hear your experience, Ravin--crazy!!!), but in general, that is totally not happening.

 

I'm Christian and my dh is atheist. Dh was in the Marines and his first set of dog tags identified him as atheist. He was told in no uncertain terms that he had to have them changed or there would be consequences. He changed them. He changed them because he felt ordered/threatened to do so. I think it happens more frequently than some think. Dh's dad retired as a chaplain so it's not like we don't see both sides, but I/we don't think what happened to dh (and several others he knew) is ok.

[Shahrazad]

Also, should someone point out that the younger brother IS an American citizen? Shall we start diffrentiating between 'real' citizens and immigrants becoming citizens so we know who our "true" people are?

 

And McVeigh, Holmes, Lanza, and any of the American terrorists, what country should we have sent them back to?

 

I have posted here at length about how much I hate people who claim that their terrorism has something to do with Islam but I think 'they hate us because we're free' and the like is a rather simplistic view of what motivates these people.

[El...]

Horton, that is messed up. I'm sorry that happened to your husband. (Why, oh why, can't I make this thing stop underlining!)

[GWOB]

Terrorism and "dark-skinned Muslim guy" are not synonymous. Previous posters have mentioned a few light-skinned Christian-ish terrorists. I would even stick out my neck and say people like the original "source" are practicing a form or terrorism by instilling fear in a large number of people. Yes, there are people of all shades, nationalities, and religious/anti-religious backgrounds that hate Christians. But let's get real/logical for a moment. Americans have a constitutional right to practice their religion-any religion. I really, honestly, truly do not believe any government agency/private agency/ whackadoodle is for real trying to take away my right to practice my Christian faith. Not forcing Christian beliefs on everyone does not in fact equal generalized Christian persecution.

 

Signed- an unabashedly Christian gal.

[MrsBasil]

Terrorism and "dark-skinned Muslim guy" are not synonymous. Previous posters have mentioned a few light-skinned Christian-ish terrorists. I would even stick out my neck and say people like the original "source" are practicing a form or terrorism by instilling fear in a large number of people. Yes, there are people of all shades, nationalities, and religious/anti-religious backgrounds that hate Christians. But let's get real/logical for a moment. Americans have a constitutional right to practice their religion-any religion. I really, honestly, truly do not believe any government agency/private agency/ whackadoodle is for real trying to take away my right to practice my Christian faith. Not forcing Christian beliefs on everyone does not in fact equal generalized Christian persecution.

 

Signed- an unabashedly Christian gal.

 

:001_wub:

[Murphy101]

Bah!!

 

This is getting as bad as my thread about whether it's okay to teach Arabic in a charter school. :-/

 

I am fully able to believe their are those in our govt of the freedom from religion bent who make life a PITA for our fighting men and women, Christians or nonchristian alike.

 

I have a nephew who has Wiccan dogtags. Yeahhhh. It took him a long time to find friends.

 

I have a problem with it regardless of which religion.

[QueenCat]

I keep seeing links like this across my feed- http://www.breitbart...Christian-Faith

 

The gist is tht the military is going to be court martialing soldiers, including chaplains, who share their faith. I can't find anything on it via a non foxnews type outlet, though.

 

Does anyone have an explanation or link I can post in response? I don't think this sounds plausible, but I guess I could be wrong.

 

Thanks!

 

The article you reference has a lot of wrong info. The Pentagon issued info here: Pentagon: Reports of Christian purge are wrong

[Whereneverever]

 

 

The article you reference has a lot of wrong info. The Pentagon issued info here: Pentagon: Reports of Christian purge are wrong

 

 

Thank you!! That's exactly what I wanted. You guys rock. :)

[albeto]

Related and excellent.

 

Thanks for this.

 

"Through the evaluation of the works of Christian authors, many with military

experience, the preponderance of evidence reveals that six factors motivated evangelical

Christians to evangelize the military. These include: evangelism as an essential element

of the Christian faith, the comfort that it provides to military personnel, the desire to

follow biblical examples of evangelism to the military, assurance of a successful life,

spirituality as a trait of good leadership, and the advocacy of Christianity as a central part

of the U.S. government."

 

The Spiritual Fitness Test is a good example of the systematic evangelization that does happen in the U.S. Military. When people are punished for not participating in christian events, there's a problem that needs to be addressed. Ultimately, we're talking about a secular military serving a secular government. Individual religious belief needs to be just that - individual.

[Mrs Mungo]

Brietbart is a partisan political site that *regularly* misrepresents issues and/or tells outright lies. It is not a legitimate news source. Legitimate news sources do NOT manufacture fake news stories.

 

I find stories on both sides that have been presented in this thread to be a little dubious.

[VeritasMama]

Also, should someone point out that the younger brother IS an American citizen? Shall we start diffrentiating between 'real' citizens and immigrants becoming citizens so we know who our "true" people are?

 

And McVeigh, Holmes, Lanza, and any of the American terrorists, what country should we have sent them back to?

 

I have posted here at length about how much I hate people who claim that their terrorism has something to do with Islam but I think 'they hate us because we're free' and the like is a rather simplistic view of what motivates these people.

 

I never said they hate us because we are free. I never said anything about immigrants, or whether we should be deporting people. I said that there are people who target American civilians and try to kill them simply because they are American, this is what happened in Boston.

 

Acting like Americans who recognize the threats that terrorist organizations routinely make towards American citizens are alarmist, or racist, or xenophobic is quite insulting to all the rational, intelligent, and compassionate people who are not racist or xenophobic but who still recognize the threat for what it is. People like my family members who serve in the military.

[VeritasMama]

But you are STILL conflating terrorists with ONLY people who you (erroneously) think want to kill Americans "just for being Americans."

 

Americans are not the only people terrorized.

So-called Islamic extremists are not the only people terrorizing Americans. Or anyone of other nationalities.

 

ETA-- think of gang wars within the US. Those people are SWORN ENEMIES. But study after study after study has borne out (and just plain empathetic common sense) that if they are allowed economic upward mobility and a safe environment to live--the xenophobic and racially fueled violence is gone in one generation. ONE lifetime, it's gone. Think of that on a large scale. And count your lucky stars that you are not personally a mother who is raising her kids knowing the evil gangs could claim him, for he has very little else to look forward to in his adult life.

 

I'm going to be honest and just say I'm losing my patience here. So I have to go (from this thread) lest I slip into an ungraceful moment. Just THINK think think think you guys, geez. Per the original question: Read original sources. And as this is the WTM board (per the discussion that somehow evolved from the op): brush up on the cycles of history, and the tools those in power utilize to get those not in power to do what they want. And take a great, big, deep breath and remember how freaking blessed Americans are.

 

^^requests...pleas...not bossy orders ha.

 

I did not conflate anything, that is a false statement.

 

I NEVER stated that the only type of terrorists are "so called Islamic terroritsts." You are putting words in my mouth, it is dishonest and insulting.

 

I did not say that terrorism=Islam, or that Islam=terrorism. TERRORISM DOES NOT EQUAL ISLAM, ISLAM DOES NOT EQUAL TERROISM.

 

I stated that there are terrorist organizations that want to kill American civilians, they have stated so themselves, and they are succeeding, the people killed and maimed in Boston were targeted for because they are American citizens. Regardless of what types of American policies are in place or whether you want to blame American military policy abroad, they weren't attacking policy makers or the military, they attacked a little boy enjoying a race. That little boy was innocent.

 

I never said that this is the only type of terrorism that exists, or that this is our only threat. I never said that terrorism doesn't happen all over the world, it does.

 

I am saying that you need to specifically know an enemy, no matter what or who enemy that is, in order to defeat said enemy. The fact is that there are terrorists who have declared war on American citizens, and they are killing innocent people. You need to acknowledge this fact in order to deal with the threat, if you want to prevent further innocent people from being killed.

 

The fact that other types of terrorists exist is true, I never said it wasn't. It also needs to be dealt with, but you don't deal with one by bringing up the other. That isn't effective. You need to face each threat for what it is and deal with each threat accordingly and seperately.

 

It seems to me that you are the one trying to conflate different terrorist groups to make them seem as though they are all the same. All types of terrorism is abhorent and evil, but the groups that perpetrate this evil are not all the same. You need to understand each threat for what it truly is in order to effectively diffuse it.

 

Terrorist groups all have different tactics, goals, ways of operating, leadership models, etc. If you don't know how these groups operate and what their motivation is, or who they truly are, you won't be able to stop them. This is true whether it is a radical jihadist group or a militant anti-government extremist group, or a radical anarchist group.

 

I have no ill will towards Muslims, and nothing in my original post should have led anyone to assume so. I simply see the need to stop terrorists, no matter what their nationality, beliefs, race, creed, or affiliation. But, we need to know our enemies in order to defeat them, and I would say anyone who tries to kill innocent civilians is an enemy, it seems like we should all be able to agree on that.