http://www.breitbart.com/Big-Peace/2013/05/01/Breaking-Pentagon-Confirms-Will-Court-Martial-Soldiers-Who-Share-Christian-Faith It should be noted that I can't seem to find any instance of this "report" being reported anywhere outside of Christian websites, so the overall veracity and tone of the story are questionable. However, at the very least it appears that the Pentagon is considering prohibiting proselytizing by military personnel. Discuss.
Seems like stirring up trouble. I think the armed forces shouldn't have to hear sermons if they don't want to, but should be able to hear them if they do want to hear it.
proselytizing is trying to convert people to your faith, not expressing your love for your faith or even sharing your views on your faith. It's a fine line, but an important one.
Looking further, it seems that everything stems from a document published last year called "Air Force Culture, Air Force Standards". The section the guy from the MRFF is referring to specifically references people using their leadership positions in order to unduly influence subordinates. The document itself is innocuous, but it does seem like Weinstein is really trying to overreach.
It's what the mormons do intruding on your privacy uninvited and hari Krishnas hassling you at the airport. It's what vacuum cleaner salesmen do.
yeah, but in the military there's the clause that you have to refrain from things that are "prejudicial to good order and discipline." I'm a certified Protestant Lay Leader, and there's a large (and enforceable) difference between answering a question someone asks you ("Why do you believe in God, sir?"), inviting someone to a church service, and "proselytizing". The first two are acceptable, the third is not. Especially from someone in a perceived or actual position of higher rank or authority.
Breitbart has a history of making shit up. The operative word being shit. There is a reason why you don't find this on any credible news source. It's crap. What he is saying is that since the military's policy against discrimination now includes sexual orientation, that the ranks and officers can't abuse/discriminate/bully/assault other military personnel for being gay and say that their "Christian" faith dictates that gays are an abomination so their actions are justified. Breitbart thinks NOT being able to openly hate gays is discrimination against "Christians", in quotes since by no means all Christians feel that way. The "rape and treason" like all the rest are products of his fertile imagination. There has also been problems, not related to gays, with coercive proselytizing; officers telling enlisted personnel they must attend Christian services or that non believers have no place in their units. There have been some legal actions, not against Christian worship but against religious coercion. Again, people like Breitbart think that they have a god given right to oppress and discriminate against others and if anyone tells them no, they are being oppressed. In sum, take everything Bretibart says with a whole barrel of salt. Better yet, look for real news sources. Here is a good summary.
Non issue. When I was in the military (8 years) people who shared their faith (regardless of what it was) were met with 10% approval, 10% disapproval and 80% indifference. I doubt it's changed much. In general, the military judges people of faith by the quality as a military person more so than anything else.
Unlike CBS. Or NBC. http://www.theblaze.com/stories/201...ads-to-multiple-embarrassments-for-nbc-msnbc/ Life as one of the ignorant sheeple can't be fun.
Not sure what that is supposed to be Papa G? Changing the subject? The post was about Breitbart. I mentioned 1) his history and 2) his distortion of the issue at hand. Dragging in irrelevancies to cover Breitbart's ass? Like Denny in the thread about requiring parents who refuse vaccine to get educational material on vaccines, dragging in jack booted thugs taking away children, which was (obviously) never proposed.
You are aware that Breitbart's dead? His website lives on, but I don't think covering Breitbart's ass would accomplish much since it's already covered with six feet of soil...well, assuming he wasn't cremated. As for the original report on that website, it gives an incorrect twist to the story by co-mingling the report's findings with the statements about it by Mikey Weinstein. Here's an article about what the report actually says: http://www.stripes.com/news/pentagon-ok-to-talk-about-faith-but-not-to-push-beliefs-on-others-1.219261 Seems reasonable, but of course, the devil is in the details of enforcement.
Yes, e_blazer I am aware Breitbart is dead, although his bad spirit lives on. I was speaking metaphorically. Mikey Weinstein, IMO, spoke ill-advisedly on two grounds. First, the Constitutional definition of treason is very limited and I think should be kept that way. Second, I get irritated, in fact I get sick to my stomach when men use "rape" to mean any not nice thing. Sort of like saying everyone with whom you disagree is "just like Hitler". Because if every not nice thing is "just like rape" than real rape isn't anything unique or even really awful, just another not nice thing. And I agree with Stephen Colbert, can we decide that no one but Hitler is "just like Hitler"? Of course these were merely Weinstein's somewhat overstated personal opinions, not any policy and certainly not anything Obama proposed. I agree "devil is in the detail" but like other forms of harassment we should be able to apply the "reasonable" standard. Would a reasonable person in this situation feel he/she was being harassed, pressured, etc.?
