US crusader sent home for handing out money

[Dinner]

Originally posted by Ben Kenobi


Then hand him a demerit.

He is in the military and he broke a direct order. Demerits, even if such a thing existed in the military, wouldn't cover it. prostelitizing is completely unacceptable for an official of the United States government.

[DaShi]

I just like to state that Ben does not represent Catholics. In fact, he barely is one.

[Tuberski]

Originally posted by SlowwHand
Thrown the book at him? Based on what regulation?

Article 134

ACK!

[Ben Kenobi]

I just like to state that Ben does not represent Catholics. In fact, he barely is one.

Oh, true I am a convert, but I didn't have the opportunity to grow up in a Catholic family, so I don't think that should be held against me.

I have been confirmed and it took me two years in the RCIA classes to do so.

I'm not sure why that qualifies as 'barely' Catholic. It cost me quite a bit to convert and I lost folks I considered friends at the time.

Since you are so catholic, what are your qualifications Da Shi?

[Ben Kenobi]

He is in the military and he broke a direct order. Demerits, even if such a thing existed in the military, wouldn't cover it. prostelitizing is completely unacceptable for an official of the United States government.

I'm sorry. What about a public school teacher with a bible on her desk? Should she be fired? I can't see why this man was doing a criminal act, and that's up to you folks to show.

[Ben Kenobi]

Bull****. The guy is in UNIFORM, with UNITED STATES MARINES written on it, handing out religious memorabilia.

Your point being? Should he take his marine uniform off when he prays?

This is a criminal act, under the UCMJ.

What is the criminal act? Disobeying a direct order? That would depend on the nature of the order here.

This is forcing ones religious views on others while giving the appearance that the US Military is backing it.

Ah, so when the chaplain of the services holds a mass, that means that the US Marine Corps backs Christianity? I'm sorry, this man meant well, and I agree with you that he should be reprimanded for his actions, I do not agree with your other statements. It was not a criminal act, even it if it considered hostile by certain groups in Iraq.

[snoopy369]

Originally posted by Ben Kenobi


I'm sorry. What about a public school teacher with a bible on her desk? Should she be fired? I can't see why this man was doing a criminal act, and that's up to you folks to show.

1. It is a criminal act because there is a military regulation against it, with specific punishment. In the military this is the definition of a criminal act.

2. A teacher with a bible on her desk could be fired, based on our current caselaw I believe, though i'm no expert. I'd say she should be asked to remove it, and then if she doesn't further penalties; but the military is a very different place with rather fewer second chances. This is also very obviously a deliberate act (as opposed to a bible on the desk possibly simply being unaware) and is quite dangerous (inciting violence due to the reasonably expected reaction to this), thus deserving quick - and harsh - punishment.

This is what gives christians a bad name, Ben. You should be against this just as much as anyone if not more.

[Dinner]

Originally posted by Ben Kenobi

I'm sorry. What about a public school teacher with a bible on her desk? Should she be fired?

Absolutely.

[snoopy369]

Originally posted by Ben Kenobi


Your point being? Should he take his marine uniform off when he prays?

If he leads a prayer among non-marines over which he holds some measure of power/responsibility, yes.

Ah, so when the chaplain of the services holds a mass, that means that the US Marine Corps backs Christianity? I'm sorry, this man meant well, and I agree with you that he should be reprimanded for his actions, I do not agree with
your other statements. It was not a criminal act, even it if it considered hostile by certain groups in Iraq.

Actions done while an employee of an organization are assumed to be done with the backing of that organization. Thus the armed forces expressly forbid this action; he chose to ignore that rule. I'm not sure what you don't understand about the word 'criminal' here... it doesn't mean 'things Ben thinks are wrong' ... but 'things that are against laws', which this act was.

[Dinner]

Originally posted by Ben Kenobi

What is the criminal act? Disobeying a direct order? That would depend on the nature of the order here.

Ben, stop pretending you know a damn thing about the US military.

[Ben Kenobi]

If he leads a prayer among non-marines over which he holds some measure of power/responsibility, yes.

What if the prayer is marines only and the local population witnesses? What if they can hear his homily? Is that considered pushing Christianity on them?

Actions done while an employee of an organization are assumed to be done with the backing of that organization.

I am quite aware of that, I've been in that situation before. They tend to be codes of conduct that are far more strict among those organisations with regards to what they can and can't wear, etc. This is a good point.

Thus the armed forces expressly forbid this action; he chose to ignore that rule.

That is why I agree he ought to be reprimanded for doing so by the military. I've said that throughout. I don't think he should be kicked out. What say he made the sign of the cross as he did his patrols? I fear the argumentation in this thread here is too far over. I believe it is important, that Christianity can be practiced freely in Iraq, as it will be a stabilizing influence. I would love to see marines attending local services there.

I'm not sure what you don't understand about the word 'criminal' here... it doesn't mean 'things Ben thinks are wrong' ... but 'things that are against laws', which this act was.

It means "things against the civil code of law", which is the general interpretation of a "criminal act". Now if you had read earlier I was making a clear distinction between these and between "violations of the military code".

[Ben Kenobi]

This is what gives christians a bad name, Ben. You should be against this just as much as anyone if not more.

I don't see why. Try telling a Sikh to remove his turban. As far as I can see it is only Christians who are told they cannot outwardly express their faith.

1. It is a criminal act because there is a military regulation against it, with specific punishment. In the military this is the definition of a criminal act.

Civil law is different, and is what I meant by a criminal act is one that violates the civil law code not the military code. I think it's problematic when you use the same word for both.

2. A teacher with a bible on her desk could be fired, based on our current caselaw I believe, though i'm no expert. I'd say she should be asked to remove it,

Why? Why on earth should she be forced to remove a bible from her desk? Should she have to take her crosses off if heaven forbid a student would know she was a Christian?

This is also very obviously a deliberate act (as opposed to a bible on the desk possibly simply being unaware) and is quite dangerous (inciting violence due to the reasonably expected reaction to this), thus deserving quick - and harsh - punishment.

No, you've missed the point. The reason the military should discipline him is for two reasons. 1, distributing things to the local population. It is extraordinarily bad to give them something that is not already checked out from on high. Imagine a soldier gives them nuts and the kid has an allergy. Kid dies, rumour spreads the Marines are poisoning kids.

2. it was done at a checkpoint. This is bad, because checkpoints are a necessary evil to maintain security. They are not for distributing items to the local population, and it's a security risk in itself if you distribute things there. This guy was doing it because he came in contact with folks at the check point. It makes sense from the perspective of wanting to get these things out, but is extraordinarily bad place to do this. There were other, far more acceptable options out there.

A bible on the desk is a representation of the beliefs of the teacher. I think schools would be better off if the teacher was open about his beliefs, and I do not see it as a violation of the curriculum.

[Lonestar]

Originally posted by Ben Kenobi


Your point being? Should he take his marine uniform off when he prays?

Is he imposing his religion on someone when he prays?

What is the criminal act? Disobeying a direct order? That would depend on the nature of the order here.

That would fall under "failure to disobey a lawful order".

Ah, so when the chaplain of the services holds a mass, that means that the US Marine Corps backs Christianity? I'm sorry, this man meant well, and I agree with you that he should be reprimanded for his actions, I do not agree with your other statements. It was not a criminal act, even it if it considered hostile by certain groups in Iraq.

You mean when the Chaplain holds voluntary mass to American servicemen?

A whole lot different than handing out Christian paraphernalia at gunpoint.

[Lonestar]

Originally posted by Ben Kenobi


I don't see why. Try telling a Sikh to remove his turban. As far as I can see it is only Christians who are told they cannot outwardly express their faith.

Is the Sikh pointing a gun at people and handing out Sikh holy verses?

Why? Why on earth should she be forced to remove a bible from her desk? Should she have to take her crosses off if heaven forbid a student would know she was a Christian?

Because, unless it's in a class on religion, than it tacitly supports Christianity in Public schools.

No, you've missed the point. The reason the military should discipline him is for two reasons. 1, distributing things to the local population. It is extraordinarily bad to give them something that is not already checked out from on high. Imagine a soldier gives them nuts and the kid has an allergy. Kid dies, rumour spreads the Marines are poisoning kids.

It's bad because he distributed, at gunpoint, religious paraphernalia. Its an action that gives the Jihadists ammo in the PR war.

2. it was done at a checkpoint. This is bad, because checkpoints are a necessary evil to maintain security. They are not for distributing items to the local population, and it's a security risk in itself if you distribute things there. This guy was doing it because he came in contact with folks at the check point. It makes sense from the perspective of wanting to get these things out, but is extraordinarily bad place to do this. There were other, far more acceptable options out there.

Nope, sure weren't. There should be no distribution fo religious material, none, to the locals unless they walked up and asked for it.

A bible on the desk is a representation of the beliefs of the teacher. I think schools would be better off if the teacher was open about his beliefs, and I do not see it as a violation of the curriculum.

The beliefs of the teacher have ****-all to do with the Public school curriculum.

[Rufus T. Firefly]

Ben, I know others have pointed it out already, but still: you're really, really, really dense.

This couldn't be simpler, but I'll break it down for you anyway:

1) The guy is in the military, and has violated a military regulation. End of story. Or it should be, but...

2) You want to question the justice of the regulation. That's simple: the guy is there on a mission. His job is to support the mission. There is no place for him to run his own vevrsion of the mission, whatever that may be. It would be unacceptable for him to hand out coins with Karl Marx's image and "Workers of the World Unite!" on them in Arabic. It would be unacceptable for him to hand out coins with the image of the Twin Towers in flames and "The Jews did it!" on them in Arabic. This is unacceptable for the same reasons. The mission is not to Christianize Iraq; in fact, it's hard to think of anything more counterproductive to the mission than Christian prostletyzing. End of story. Or it shold be, but...

3) You want to defend this guys "rights." That's simple: he's a soldier. He does not have the same rights as a civilian, and is not covered by the same Constitutional protections. That is a long-standing, uncontroversial principle of military service and Constitutional law.

End of story. Really.