The progressive war on Christmas/Christianity

[mmmjvpssm]

There is no war on Christmas

 

[mmmjvpssm]

Has anybody ever noticed that Breitbart uses itself as a source? Seems very strange to me

 

[numan]

'

I have lived in a country where Christmas is not celebrated. I found it quite pleasant and restful not to have its nonsense and commercialism intruding into my consciousness.
.

 

[koshergrl]

So you should stay there.

 

[mmmjvpssm]

No, it's about sharing your faith, and it puts the kabosh to voluntary discussion.

It's also a way to phase out chaplains.

It's not about sharing your faith and chaplains aren't being phased out

By Jim Garamone
American Forces Press Service
WASHINGTON, May 4, 2009 – A report broadcast by the Arab news network Al Jazeera about U.S. servicemembers proselytizing in Afghanistan is just plain wrong, Pentagon officials said today.
The Al Jazeera story showed an evangelical religious service on Bagram Airfield in Afghanistan and a discussion about distributing Bibles that had been translated into Dari and Pashtu – the two major languages of Afghanistan.

“American servicemembers are allowed to hold religious services,” a Defense Department official speaking on background said. “The clip shows one of those services with an American chaplain leading a religious service for American servicemembers. In it, he spoke generically about the evangelical faith. That’s all there was to it.”

The chaplain did not urge servicemembers to go among the Afghan people and attempt to gain converts to Christianity, the official said.

In the second instance, a young sergeant received a shipment of Bibles translated into Dari and Pashtu from his church in the United States. The film showed a discussion about the Bibles. “What it did not show was the chaplain counseling the young sergeant that distributing the Bibles was against U.S. Central Command’s General Order No. 1,” the official said. The chaplain confiscated the Bibles. “As far as we know, none ever got off base.”

Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff Navy Adm. Mike Mullen was asked about the incident – which happened in May 2008 – during a Pentagon news conference today. “It certainly is – from the United States military’s perspective – not our position to ever push any specific kind of religion, period,” Mullen said.

There is no indication disciplinary action was taken against the young servicemember. “The counseling sufficed,” the official said.

General Order No. 1 specifically forbids “proselytizing of any faith, religion or practice.”
Defense.gov News Article: Officials Reject Allegations of Proselytizing in Afghanistan

 

[numan]

The US military USED to be the most noble and honorable institution in America. It isn't any more. What it is is an atheist playground and a gay meat market.

Odd. I would have thought that its most salient characteristic is that it is the most crazed, destructive murder-machine to have disgraced the human race since the time of the Nazi Wehrmacht.
.

 

[Mr. Shaman]

Nazis hated Christianity too.

Go figure. Another similarity.

Not surprising, since Nazis were progressives.

May 2, 2013

From: U.S. Military - To: Jesus-Freaks
HIT THE FUCKIN' ROAD!!!​

"In the bizarro world of the Christian right, Christianity is under siege everywhere, including the military. The reality is that those in the military, who feel that they are under siege from proselytizing evangelical Christians, are pushing back which, of course, generates that sense of victimization in which right wing Christians revel."

​

 

[bodecea]

No, it's about sharing your faith, and it puts the kabosh to voluntary discussion.

It's also a way to phase out chaplains.

Bullshit. But I'm not surprised that you lie about our great military to try to advance your bigoted agenda.

 

[koshergrl]

Look at all the whackos populating the thread.

Go figure. Dancing little jigs and such.

 

[Seawytch]

I'll try to make it simple for Kosher and company:

Saying you are gay...okay
Hitting on someone continuously that is not gay and does not want your attention...sexual harassment and not okay.

Saying you are Christian...okay
Trying to convert people to your religion...not okay.

 

[koshergrl]

Yeah, cuz being gay and Christianity are EXACTLY THE SAME THING.

Like I said, look who comes to gloat. It says a lot about what's going on.

 

[Seawytch]

Yeah, cuz being gay and Christianity are EXACTLY THE SAME THING.

Like I said, look who comes to gloat. It says a lot about what's going on.

No, they aren't the same...you choose to be Christian.

 

[Agit8r]

Pentagon Defends Unconstitutional Policy Against Soldiers Sharing Faith​

by Ken Klukowski 3 May 2013

Pentagon personnel responded to Breitbart News’ report about court-martialing service members who share their faith in the military, which the Pentagon confirmed on May 1, and the Air Force on May 2 separately confirmed a second time.

Now the Pentagon claims the opposite. But these new statements instead only compound the problem, as the Pentagon’s new definitions for terms squarely contradict what the dictionary says those terms mean. All this has taken place as the first flag officer in the military has stepped forward to defy the unconstitutional policy.

...

And this week it began. Rear Adm. William D. Lee of the Coast Guard said that he will “defy any efforts to stop military personnel from openly sharing their Christian faith.” Told that sharing the gospel is crossing the line, Lee said, “I’m so glad we’ve crossed that line so many times.” He then pledged to exercise his “right under the Constitution to tell a young man that there is hope.”

The U.S. military is the most noble and honorable institution in America. Officers like Rear Adm. Lee are an essential part of making it so. Congress should step forward to enact whatever legislation is needed to safeguard their rights, as they continue to protect ours.

Hagel's Pentagon Defends Unconstitutional Policy Against Soldiers Sharing Faith

Could there be anything more absurd than to assume that all the constitutional protections that apply to civilian citizen also apply to those serving military duty?

Does one have the unlimited right to say what one wants when one wants as during the course of military service?

...to bear arms at one's own discretion?

...to enjoy a sphere of privacy?

...to the due process of law?

...to a speedy and public trial by a jury of one's peers?

...to do what one wants wants when one wants even when the right to do so is not enumerated in the constitutional document?

 

[boilermaker55]

When reading some of this individuals posts on those chosen to post on, it is quite apparent of the lack of knowledge about anything. Only name calling and insulting.

No, it's about sharing your faith, and it puts the kabosh to voluntary discussion.

It's also a way to phase out chaplains.

Bullshit. But I'm not surprised that you lie about our great military to try to advance your bigoted agenda.

 

[C_Clayton_Jones]

It is a fundamental right of citizens of the US that they are allowed to express themselves in public domains, and share ideas and beliefs freely.

If you don't understand that, you don't deserve to be an American citizen.

No one has stated otherwise, which makes the notion of a ‘progressive war on Christmas/Christianity’ that much more idiotic.

If you and other theists feel somehow ‘threatened’ by Establishment Clause jurisprudence, then that’s solely a consequence of your own ignorance.

If you're too stupid to understand the free practice clause AND the establishment clause, you must be a wacko anti-religious liberal.

When the federal government declares a national religion, the establishment clause will have been violated.

Until then, stop nattering.

It’s the Free Exercise Clause.

And Establishment Clause jurisprudence applies to both state and local governments, not just the Federal government.

Consider refraining calling people ‘stupid’ in the context of exhibiting your own ignorance.

 

[Lakhota]

Fox Falsely Claims Obama Administration Leading "Christian Cleansing" Of Military

 

[C_Clayton_Jones]

Pentagon Defends Unconstitutional Policy Against Soldiers Sharing Faith​

by Ken Klukowski 3 May 2013

Pentagon personnel responded to Breitbart News’ report about court-martialing service members who share their faith in the military, which the Pentagon confirmed on May 1, and the Air Force on May 2 separately confirmed a second time.

Now the Pentagon claims the opposite. But these new statements instead only compound the problem, as the Pentagon’s new definitions for terms squarely contradict what the dictionary says those terms mean. All this has taken place as the first flag officer in the military has stepped forward to defy the unconstitutional policy.

...

And this week it began. Rear Adm. William D. Lee of the Coast Guard said that he will “defy any efforts to stop military personnel from openly sharing their Christian faith.” Told that sharing the gospel is crossing the line, Lee said, “I’m so glad we’ve crossed that line so many times.” He then pledged to exercise his “right under the Constitution to tell a young man that there is hope.”

The U.S. military is the most noble and honorable institution in America. Officers like Rear Adm. Lee are an essential part of making it so. Congress should step forward to enact whatever legislation is needed to safeguard their rights, as they continue to protect ours.

Hagel's Pentagon Defends Unconstitutional Policy Against Soldiers Sharing Faith

Unsurprisingly, the above post is a lie. And the OP proved once again to be a liar.

Members of the military are free to share their faith as long as they don't harass others, the Department of Defense said in a prepared statement Thursday.

A Pentagon ban on proselytizing had caused an uproar in social media this week. Conservative activists claimed that service members could face court martial for talking about Jesus.

But a Defense Department spokesman said that evangelizing is allowed, as long as it is not disruptive.

"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)," said Navy Lt. Cmdr. Nate Christensen, a Pentagon spokesman, in an email.

Military clarifies policy on faith-sharing | wbir.com

Such a policy is perfectly Constitutional, as it prohibits no religious practice, and addresses only the issue of harassment.

 

[t_polkow]

Pentagon Defends Unconstitutional Policy Against Soldiers Sharing Faith​

by Ken Klukowski 3 May 2013

Pentagon personnel responded to Breitbart News’ report about court-martialing service members who share their faith in the military, which the Pentagon confirmed on May 1, and the Air Force on May 2 separately confirmed a second time.

Now the Pentagon claims the opposite. But these new statements instead only compound the problem, as the Pentagon’s new definitions for terms squarely contradict what the dictionary says those terms mean. All this has taken place as the first flag officer in the military has stepped forward to defy the unconstitutional policy.

...

And this week it began. Rear Adm. William D. Lee of the Coast Guard said that he will “defy any efforts to stop military personnel from openly sharing their Christian faith.” Told that sharing the gospel is crossing the line, Lee said, “I’m so glad we’ve crossed that line so many times.” He then pledged to exercise his “right under the Constitution to tell a young man that there is hope.”

The U.S. military is the most noble and honorable institution in America. Officers like Rear Adm. Lee are an essential part of making it so. Congress should step forward to enact whatever legislation is needed to safeguard their rights, as they continue to protect ours.

Hagel's Pentagon Defends Unconstitutional Policy Against Soldiers Sharing Faith

Could there be anything more absurd than to assume that all the constitutional protections that apply to civilian citizen also apply to those serving military duty?

Does one have the unlimited right to say what one wants when one wants as during the course of military service?

...to bear arms at one's own discretion?

...to enjoy a sphere of privacy?

...to the due process of law?

...to a speedy and public trial by a jury of one's peers?

...to do what one wants wants when one wants even when the right to do so is not enumerated in the constitutional document?

Here is a great organization

Since its inception in 2005, MRFF and its President and Founder, Michael L. “Mikey” Weinstein, have worked tirelessly to protect the rights of our clients by fostering a national discussion, influencing military policies, and pursuing legal remedies through our court system. Your support has made this vital work possible.

August 2007 – MRFF first to uncover evangelical extremist group’s unconstitutional distribution of sectarian and bigoted “Left Behind” videogame to active-duty troops serving in Iraq. The game featured a post-apocalyptic storyline where “Soldiers for Christ” must convert “Secularists”, Jews, Muslims, and others. The group, Operation Straight Up, openly advocated the United States military unleashing “multiple crusades” to “sweep through” the Arab and Muslim world.

Religious Freedom & the Military: An Ongoing History
Many argue against our stance on the basis that somehow our nation and our governing document, the Constitution, were founded on Christian principles. Because each member of our armed forces takes an oath to support and defend the Constitution, it’s important to understand its origin with respect to religion. Our founding fathers set up a government based on democratic principles, not religious principles. Our Constitution is secular. There is no mention of Christianity or any other religion.

There are however, two references to religion and both are exclusionary. Clause three article six in the body of the Constitution itself states very clearly that “no religious test shall ever be required as a qualification to any office or public trust.” The other reference is in the first Amendment that states “Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion or prohibiting the free exercise thereof”.

It is important to note several things,

#1. the presidential oath of office, the only oath specified in the Constitution, does not contain the phrase “So help me, God” or show any requirement to swear on a bible.
#2. The pledge of allegiance written in 1892 did not contain, “under god.” until it was added by Congress in 1954 .
#3. Most significantly the 1797 Treaty with Tripoli, negotiated under President Washington, unanimously approved by the Senate and signed by President Adams, declares, “The government of the United States is not,in any sense, founded on the Christian religion.”

The founding fathers, many of whom were religious gentlemen, created a secular government for very specific reasons.

#1. They were very conscious of the pitfalls the church-state alliances had fostered in Europe, the reasons for many to depart and forge a new path in the new world.
#2. They looked back to our early American colonial period where some colonies officially established churches and taxed all citizens to support them regardless of weather they were members of the church or not.

Among the many things that make this country unique are the liberties guaranteed in our Constitution, including religious freedom. Because we live in this pluralistic society set up by our founders, people of all faiths or no faith are welcome and we as Americans enjoy more religious freedom than any other people in the world. Simply stated, our founders understood two very simple and important things:

#1. That the separation of church and state would allow all faiths to flourish.
#2. That in matters of religion our government would be set up to remain neutral.

All Americans have the right to worship as they see fit within the bounds of the law, but no one has the right to use the government , military, or power of the state to endorse or promote his or her religious beliefs or demand help in spreading sectarian messages. Given that, it is imperative that when military professionals take the oath to support and defend the Constitution, these democratic principles are what they are promising to protect. On September 1, 2011 the Chief of Staff, General Norton A. Schwartz sent a memorandum for all commanders, the subject was “Maintaining Government Neutrality Regarding Religion.” In this memo he states, ” Leaders at all levels must balance Constitutional protections for an individuals free exercise of religion or other personal beliefs and its prohibition against governmental establishment of religion”. Further ” They must avoid the actual or apparent use of their position to promote their personal religious beliefs to their subordinates or to extend preferential treatment for any religion.” To do so, he states, ” Commanders or supervisors who engage in such behavior may cause members to doubt their impartially and objectivity. The potential result is a degradation of the unit’s morale, good order, and discipline. Thus the flagrant proselytizing of subordinates by superiors, non voluntary evangelizing of members by chaplains and public prayer in official, mandatory settings, outside of voluntary worship, are at the root of what the Military Religious Freedom Foundation is fighting against.

Michael L. ?Mikey? Weinstein | Military Religious Freedom Foundation - Protecting the Constitutional Guarantee of Separation of Church and State in the United States Military

Michael L. ?Mikey? Weinstein | Military Religious Freedom Foundation - Protecting the Constitutional Guarantee of Separation of Church and State in the United States Military

 

[Agit8r]

Pentagon Defends Unconstitutional Policy Against Soldiers Sharing Faith​

by Ken Klukowski 3 May 2013

Pentagon personnel responded to Breitbart News’ report about court-martialing service members who share their faith in the military, which the Pentagon confirmed on May 1, and the Air Force on May 2 separately confirmed a second time.

Now the Pentagon claims the opposite. But these new statements instead only compound the problem, as the Pentagon’s new definitions for terms squarely contradict what the dictionary says those terms mean. All this has taken place as the first flag officer in the military has stepped forward to defy the unconstitutional policy.

...

And this week it began. Rear Adm. William D. Lee of the Coast Guard said that he will “defy any efforts to stop military personnel from openly sharing their Christian faith.” Told that sharing the gospel is crossing the line, Lee said, “I’m so glad we’ve crossed that line so many times.” He then pledged to exercise his “right under the Constitution to tell a young man that there is hope.”

The U.S. military is the most noble and honorable institution in America. Officers like Rear Adm. Lee are an essential part of making it so. Congress should step forward to enact whatever legislation is needed to safeguard their rights, as they continue to protect ours.

Hagel's Pentagon Defends Unconstitutional Policy Against Soldiers Sharing Faith

Could there be anything more absurd than to assume that all the constitutional protections that apply to civilian citizen also apply to those serving military duty?

Does one have the unlimited right to say what one wants when one wants as during the course of military service?

...to bear arms at one's own discretion?

...to enjoy a sphere of privacy?

...to the due process of law?

...to a speedy and public trial by a jury of one's peers?

...to do what one wants wants when one wants even when the right to do so is not enumerated in the constitutional document?

Here is a great organization

Since its inception in 2005, MRFF and its President and Founder, Michael L. “Mikey” Weinstein, have worked tirelessly to protect the rights of our clients by fostering a national discussion, influencing military policies, and pursuing legal remedies through our court system. Your support has made this vital work possible.

August 2007 – MRFF first to uncover evangelical extremist group’s unconstitutional distribution of sectarian and bigoted “Left Behind” videogame to active-duty troops serving in Iraq. The game featured a post-apocalyptic storyline where “Soldiers for Christ” must convert “Secularists”, Jews, Muslims, and others. The group, Operation Straight Up, openly advocated the United States military unleashing “multiple crusades” to “sweep through” the Arab and Muslim world.

Religious Freedom & the Military: An Ongoing History
Many argue against our stance on the basis that somehow our nation and our governing document, the Constitution, were founded on Christian principles. Because each member of our armed forces takes an oath to support and defend the Constitution, it’s important to understand its origin with respect to religion. Our founding fathers set up a government based on democratic principles, not religious principles. Our Constitution is secular. There is no mention of Christianity or any other religion.

There are however, two references to religion and both are exclusionary. Clause three article six in the body of the Constitution itself states very clearly that “no religious test shall ever be required as a qualification to any office or public trust.” The other reference is in the first Amendment that states “Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion or prohibiting the free exercise thereof”.

It is important to note several things,

#1. the presidential oath of office, the only oath specified in the Constitution, does not contain the phrase “So help me, God” or show any requirement to swear on a bible.
#2. The pledge of allegiance written in 1892 did not contain, “under god.” until it was added by Congress in 1954 .
#3. Most significantly the 1797 Treaty with Tripoli, negotiated under President Washington, unanimously approved by the Senate and signed by President Adams, declares, “The government of the United States is not,in any sense, founded on the Christian religion.”

The founding fathers, many of whom were religious gentlemen, created a secular government for very specific reasons.

#1. They were very conscious of the pitfalls the church-state alliances had fostered in Europe, the reasons for many to depart and forge a new path in the new world.
#2. They looked back to our early American colonial period where some colonies officially established churches and taxed all citizens to support them regardless of weather they were members of the church or not.

Among the many things that make this country unique are the liberties guaranteed in our Constitution, including religious freedom. Because we live in this pluralistic society set up by our founders, people of all faiths or no faith are welcome and we as Americans enjoy more religious freedom than any other people in the world. Simply stated, our founders understood two very simple and important things:

#1. That the separation of church and state would allow all faiths to flourish.
#2. That in matters of religion our government would be set up to remain neutral.

All Americans have the right to worship as they see fit within the bounds of the law, but no one has the right to use the government , military, or power of the state to endorse or promote his or her religious beliefs or demand help in spreading sectarian messages. Given that, it is imperative that when military professionals take the oath to support and defend the Constitution, these democratic principles are what they are promising to protect. On September 1, 2011 the Chief of Staff, General Norton A. Schwartz sent a memorandum for all commanders, the subject was “Maintaining Government Neutrality Regarding Religion.” In this memo he states, ” Leaders at all levels must balance Constitutional protections for an individuals free exercise of religion or other personal beliefs and its prohibition against governmental establishment of religion”. Further ” They must avoid the actual or apparent use of their position to promote their personal religious beliefs to their subordinates or to extend preferential treatment for any religion.” To do so, he states, ” Commanders or supervisors who engage in such behavior may cause members to doubt their impartially and objectivity. The potential result is a degradation of the unit’s morale, good order, and discipline. Thus the flagrant proselytizing of subordinates by superiors, non voluntary evangelizing of members by chaplains and public prayer in official, mandatory settings, outside of voluntary worship, are at the root of what the Military Religious Freedom Foundation is fighting against.

Michael L. ?Mikey? Weinstein | Military Religious Freedom Foundation - Protecting the Constitutional Guarantee of Separation of Church and State in the United States Military

Michael L. ?Mikey? Weinstein | Military Religious Freedom Foundation - Protecting the Constitutional Guarantee of Separation of Church and State in the United States Military

Obviously, per the First Amendment, the government may not establish any religion within any of it's branches or agencies, including giving preference to any sect.

On the other hand, the free exercise of religion is necessarily limited as are all freedoms as an individual may expect once enlisted into a military force. One could not for instance expect to kneel and pray toward Mecca several times a day, if it interfered with the execution of one's duties, etc.

 

[ABikerSailor]

The US military USED to be the most noble and honorable institution in America. It isn't any more. What it is is an atheist playground and a gay meat market.

Quick question asshole.....................how many years did YOU serve in the military?

Me? I gave 20 years, from 1982 until 2002. Never heard of it being an atheist playground, nor (even though I did know gay servicemembers) did I ever hear of it as being a "meat market".

Go ahead cocksucker........................denigrate (yeah...............new word, look it up), the military and be the idiot you truly are.

So...................in your humble (and probably uninformed opinion) when did the U.S. Military lose it's nobility and honor?