Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Onward Christian Soldiers?

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • Onward Christian Soldiers?

    One thing I most certainly remember from my time in the Army is you were forbidden from wearing your uniform to political rallies or even to promote religious groups. Yet here we have high ranking officers in the Pentigon wearing their military uniforms along side Bush political appointees in their official government offices promoting a radical Christian group, asking for donations to that radical Christian group, and implying that the war on terror is all about Christianizing the infedels. How can anyone allow the Bush administration to get away with such obvious breaches of Federal Law and our Constitution?

    Onward Christian Soldiers

    Rep. J.D. Hayworth, R-Az., several Bush appointees, and various high-ranking Army officers and Pentagon civilians appear in a 10-minute promotional video (to watch it, click here and here) for an evangelical organization called Christian Embassy. Founded by the late Rev. Bill Bright (who also founded the Campus Crusade for Christ International), the nonprofit "comes alongside presidential appointees in the White House and federal agencies to help direct their focus on Jesus Christ." It's an army of Rev. Billy Grahams tending souls at the sub-cabinet level.

    Most of the government officials who appear in the promotional video probably violated a federal prohibition against proselytizing in the workplace. The video puts special emphasis on the ministry's presence at the Pentagon; military personnel appear in uniform as they sing the praises of Christian Embassy, and both military and civilian Pentagon employees are shown in their Pentagon offices. That almost certainly violates a department directive forbidding "use of official position" to promote "non-federal entities."

    On Dec. 11, the nonprofit Military Religious Freedom Foundation, a watchdog group that polices separation of church and state in the United States military, sent a letter about the video to the defense department's acting inspector general. (See below, and on the following five pages.) The letter, by Ezra Reese, counsel to the foundation, enumerates a long list of regulations that the video appears to violate; points out that the video further appears to violate the establishment clause of the U.S. Constitution; and asks the inspector general to find out which numbskulls okayed the taping at the Pentagon.
    No Slate page exists at the address you entered or the link you clicked.
    Attached Files
    Try http://wordforge.net/index.php for discussion and debate.

  • #2
    How would Bush know this?
    “As a lifelong member of the Columbia Business School community, I adhere to the principles of truth, integrity, and respect. I will not lie, cheat, steal, or tolerate those who do.”
    "Capitalism ho!"

    Comment


    • #3
      This is an outrage! Medals for everybody!
      Those who would give up Essential Liberty to purchase a little Temporary Safety, deserve neither Liberty nor Safety. - Ben Franklin
      Iain Banks missed deadline due to Civ | The eyes are the groin of the head. - Dwight Schrute.
      One more turn .... One more turn .... | WWTSD

      Comment


      • #4
        Onward Christian Soldiers
        Ah yes, yet another religion of peace
        Speaking of Erith:

        "It's not twinned with anywhere, but it does have a suicide pact with Dagenham" - Linda Smith

        Comment


        • #5
          Re: Onward Christian Soldiers?

          Originally posted by Oerdin
          One thing I most certainly remember from my time in the Army is you were forbidden from wearing your uniform to political rallies or even to promote religious groups.
          Sorry but I can't find the second part anywhere in DoD Directive 1344.10; is there some other regulation saying religious groups in particular?
          Unbelievable!

          Comment


          • #6
            Bragg has had plenty of field grade and higher hardcore bible thumpers who made no secret of where they and everyone else stands in terms of their relationship with the Lord and how their army careers are progressing. Nothing new in terms of ignoring policy.
            When all else fails, blame brown people. | Hire a teen, while they still know it all. | Trump-Palin 2016. "You're fired." "I quit."

            Comment


            • #7
              Re: Re: Onward Christian Soldiers?

              Originally posted by Darius871


              Sorry but I can't find the second part anywhere in DoD Directive 1344.10; is there some other regulation saying religious groups in particular?
              There's probably something somewhere if you plow through all the ARs as well. There's also plenty of broad decisional law and JAG legal analysis regarding how such conduct can be interpreted in terms of the general article of the UCMJ.
              When all else fails, blame brown people. | Hire a teen, while they still know it all. | Trump-Palin 2016. "You're fired." "I quit."

              Comment


              • #8
                That was the standing orders in the Army handbook when I went through basic. Basically the rule was unless your on duty don't wear the uniform and don't use it to promote any outside group. It was definately made clear that attending political rallies, protests, or taking part in commercial enterprises in a nonofficial copacity in uniform was strictly forbidden.
                Try http://wordforge.net/index.php for discussion and debate.

                Comment


                • #9
                  Originally posted by DaShi
                  How would Bush know this?
                  The point is he is is appointing people who do this and supposedly this has been on going for some time without the administration enforcing federal law. They've deliberately turned a blind eye and allowed for Christian groups to opporate and deseminate their garbage on government premises. That is an endorsement of a religion especially since it was ONLY Christian groups which were allowed to do this. And only right wing Protestant evangelical Christian groups at that.
                  Try http://wordforge.net/index.php for discussion and debate.

                  Comment


                  • #10
                    This isn't super-relevant to the post itself, but I know that in the Navy, at least, they're allowed to wear their dress blues to non-military formal occasions, e.g. weddings. How does that fit into all this?
                    1011 1100
                    Pyrebound--a free online serial fantasy novel

                    Comment


                    • #11
                      I guess it depends if it is a public or private event.

                      That, however, doesn't effect government officials sitting in their office with a big sign announcing their position within the government and then endorsing these groups. That is already explicitly illegal.

                      Yet somehow in the Bush administration it still occurs and no one gets punished.
                      Try http://wordforge.net/index.php for discussion and debate.

                      Comment


                      • #12
                        Originally posted by Elok
                        This isn't super-relevant to the post itself, but I know that in the Navy, at least, they're allowed to wear their dress blues to non-military formal occasions, e.g. weddings. How does that fit into all this?
                        The basic legal criteria is whether wearing the uniform in the particular context can be deemed either prejudicial to military order and disciple, or whether it can be deemed service discrediting. Both of those are obviously subjective, with the former based primarily on potential impact of the participation in the activity on military personnel, missions and operations, and the latter based primarily on the potential impact of the participation on civilians, i.e. the impression observers would have of the military.

                        The private wedding function in uniform could go from just fine to an Art. 15 (non-judicial punishment) all the way to a court martial offense depending on what happens. Get a bunch of 'troops drunk and tearing up the joint while in their Class A's, and you could have a few problems. Add in a couple of fights, some DUI arrests, etc., and things rapidly get worse. The standards are deliberately subjective, to allow the military flexibility in maintining order and a proper public perception.
                        When all else fails, blame brown people. | Hire a teen, while they still know it all. | Trump-Palin 2016. "You're fired." "I quit."

                        Comment

                        Working...
                        X