TexasCHLforum.com

It's not directly gun related but it's indicative of just what degree our Liberty and Freedom is under assault.

Please make sure this issue hits your radar as it directly effects the freedom and liberty of those that are fighting for our freedom and liberty.

http://www.breitbart.com/Big-Peace/2013 ... tian-Faith" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

mojo84 wrote:It's not directly gun related but it's indicative of just what degree our Liberty and Freedom is under assault.

Please make sure this issue hits your radar as it directly effects the freedom and liberty of those that are fighting for our freedom and liberty.

http://www.breitbart.com/Big-Peace/2013 ... tian-Faith" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

Persecution of the faithful will increase as we approach the end times.

Jesus told us this.

Anygunanywhere

Ho, hum.

"Religious proselytization is not permitted within the Department of Defense...Court martials and non-judicial punishments are decided on a case-by-case basis...”. [emphasis mine]

Hardly an "assault on liberty." More like enforcing a policy strictly in line with the First Amendment.

Don't Ask, Don't Tell wasn't repealed, it was just repurposed. I don't even know what to say anymore.

While while Pvt. Willie and Pvt. Joe are having a beer on their own time, Pvt. Willie isn't allowed to witness to Pvt. Joe?

This is not just a way to stop religion, it is a way to purge the Military of potential patriots, ,and not allow them the ability to own guns. Remember that camp of people don't go after front end assaults it is all slight of hand tricks.

bdickens wrote:Ho, hum.

"Religious proselytization is not permitted within the Department of Defense...Court martials and non-judicial punishments are decided on a case-by-case basis...”. [emphasis mine]

Hardly an "assault on liberty." More like enforcing a policy strictly in line with the First Amendment.

How is it that one soldier talking to another soldier about Jesus Christ is in violation of the First Amendment? Freedom of speech and freedom of religion are both affirmed in the First Amendment. We are not talking about the government dictating which religion one must believe or follow. We are talking about someone being allowed to believe what they choose to believe and then discussing it. The First Amendment is there to guarantee the right for people to be able to believe what they choose and to talk about it.

I don't understand why some choose to believe and promote that the First Amendment guarantees that people are not to hear or be exposed to religion. This political correctness crud that hearing about religion violates someone's rights is absurd.

Amendment I

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.

bdickens wrote:Ho, hum.

"Religious proselytization is not permitted within the Department of Defense...Court martials and non-judicial punishments are decided on a case-by-case basis...”. [emphasis mine]

Hardly an "assault on liberty." More like enforcing a policy strictly in line with the First Amendment.

Did you even bother to read the article?

(From our earlier report: Weinstein is the head of the Military Religious Freedom Foundation, and says Christians--including chaplains--sharing the gospel of Jesus Christ in the military are guilty of “treason,” and of committing an act of “spiritual rape” as serious a crime as “sexual assault.” He also asserted that Christians sharing their faith in the military are “enemies of the Constitution.”)

That is an outrageous statement. The man should be fired immediately for insulting 70% of the population of the US. He should be forced to recite the First Amendment until his lips bleed and he dies of thirst. There is no place in America for such an evil person in a position of power.

He represents the government, and as the government, he is advocating making the free exercise of religion a crime. That's PRECISELY what the purpose of the amendment is - to preclude the possibility that men like him can exercise their power over others to violate their personal beliefs.

I'd want to see the document announcing/confirming this policy. Even the DoD knows that the plural of Court Martial is Courts Martial.

"Religious proselytization is not permitted within the Department of Defense...Court martials and non-judicial punishments are decided on a case-by-case basis...”.

In my opinion, several points need to be highlighted and clarified in order to comment on the article in question. Specifically, the role of the military chaplain. I speak from my experience as a retired Army chaplain. In order to do this, I first need to share several presuppositions that pertain to Army chaplains and then I'll offer several points of clarification in regard to the published article. Please forgive for being too technical; it's one of the job hazards:

Presuppositions:
1. The role of the chaplain is to "perform" or "provide" religious support for the Soldiers of the command to which they are assigned (Field Manual 16-1). This means that the unit chaplain actually performs the religious (support) task [or] the chaplain coordinates for religious support. The unit Commander is ultimately responsible for a unit's religious support plan. The chaplain executes the Commander's religious plan.
2. "Perform" means that the chaplain personally carries out the religious act/ rite/ ceremony/etc. [my paraphrase]
3. "Provide" means that the chaplain coordinates for religious support for Soldiers of different faith/religious groups, but religious accommodation is ultimately dependent on the Commander's approval and the mission. [METT-TC, Religious accommodation (AR 600-20)] [My paraphrase].
4. Title 10, U.S. Code Section 3547, states that "Each chaplain shall, when practicable, hold appropriate religious services at least once on each Sunday for the command to which he is assigned, and shall perform appropriate religious burial services for the members of the Army who die while in that command."
5. The chaplain's role is rooted in the First Amendment, "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise therof..." (RB 16-100)
6. There are four categories of chaplains: Protestant, Catholic, Jewish, and Muslim
(these presuppositions are not meant to be exhaustive)

Commentary:
How do presuppositions 1-6 fit together? Army chaplains teach out of their particular faith/ religious group's belief's/ practices but they don't necessarily teach their particular faith group's beliefs/ practices. It depends on the setting. Another way to say this is that an Army chaplain is informed by his/her particular beliefs and s/he carries out the Commander's religious plan, not necessarily the chaplain's plan. But publically teaching that their beliefs are the correct ones and everyone else's beliefs are wrong is prohibited. Sharing one's particular beliefs is not prohibited but it does depend on the setting. In a Protestant service, we would expect a Protestant chaplain to share his/her beliefs. In a counseling role, communication between a chaplain and a Soldier is protected, and many times a Soldier wants to know the chaplain believes and/or seeks advise/ direction (#2, #3). Maybe the unit chaplain would refer the soldier if appropriate. In a public setting, let's say in a memorial ceremony honoring a fallen soldier, it would be inappropriate for the unit chaplain to offer an "alter call." The chaplain's role is different than a church or synagogue pastor (#4, #5). The Army chaplain's broad job description (regulations) is dictated by his/her employer (#1, #4). Finally, let's say the unit has a Muslim chaplain. How is he going to perform a Protestant service? He isn't. But part of his job description is to coordinate for the Protestant Soldiers so that they have the resources, including chaplains of like-faith, to practice their beliefs (#2). The same holds true for Protestant, Catholic, and Jewish chaplains (#6).


This is the point where I will comment on the article in question. Army chaplains are prohibited from seeking-out soldiers in order to proselytize soldiers, i.e. converting soldiers of differing faith/religious groups to his/ her group. Army chaplains exist to ensure that Soldier's are able to exercise their religious beliefs and that there isn't one established religion (#5).

I think that Lt. Gen. Jerry Boykin (Ret.) is asking the correct question by asking a clarifying question on proselytizing:

[It’s a matter of what do they mean by "proselytizing." ...I think they’ve got their definitions a little confused. If you’re talking about coercion that’s one thing, but if you’re talking about the free exercise of our faith as individual soldiers, sailors, airmen and marines, especially for the chaplains, they I think the worst thing we can do is stop the ability for a soldier to be able to exercise his faith.”] (Bold is mine)

But even his question becomes confusing. If we go back to presupposition #5, we see that the chaplain's role is to ensure that Soldiers are able to practice their particular religious beliefs/ practices so the latter part of his statement becomes a non-issue. The soldier's ability to exercise his/her faith is protected by the First Amendment.


This is where I believe that the article's author plays on the reader's emotions; specifically in the following paragraphs (bolded and underlined sections):

"So President Barack Obama’s civilian appointees who lead the Pentagon are confirming that the military will make it a crime--possibly resulting in imprisonment--for those in uniform to share their faith. This would include
chaplains—military officers who are ordained clergymen of their faith (mostly Christian pastors or priests, or Jewish rabbis)--whose duty since the founding of the U.S. military under George Washington is to teach their faith and
minister to the spiritual needs of troops who come to them for counsel, instruction, or comfort.

This regulation would severely limit expressions of faith in the military, even on a one-to-one basis between close friends. It could also effectively abolish the position of chaplain in the military, as it would not allow chaplains (or any
service members, for that matter), to say anything about their faith that others say led them to think they were being encouraged to make faith part of their life. It’s difficult to imagine how a member of the clergy could give spiritual
counseling without saying anything that might be perceived in that fashion."

I don't wish to re-hash what I shared earlier in this post. But hopefully I've adequately explained, applied, and clarified the (Army) chaplain's role, from my experience, within the confines of this post.

bdickens wrote:Ho, hum.

"Religious proselytization is not permitted within the Department of Defense...Court martials and non-judicial punishments are decided on a case-by-case basis...”. [emphasis mine]

Hardly an "assault on liberty." More like enforcing a policy strictly in line with the First Amendment.

You mean the one that says, "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof?"

And so the military's decision to jail a soldier because he or she shares their faith during a voluntary and personal conversation? How is throwing someone in jail for that NOT anything but prohibiting the free exercise thereof?


I guess we're all constitutional purists when it comes to defense of the 2nd Amendment, but not so much in defense of the 1st. There, we're willing to fudge the meaning?

From the article:

(From our earlier report: Weinstein is the head of the Military Religious Freedom Foundation, and says Christians--including chaplains--sharing the gospel of Jesus Christ in the military are guilty of “treason,” and of committing an act of “spiritual rape” as serious a crime as “sexual assault.” He also asserted that Christians sharing their faith in the military are “enemies of the Constitution.”)

REALLY? "Spiritual RAPE?" Treason? What a crybaby.

I really can't bear listening to constitutional hypocrites.

Another four years of this baloney. I think my head will explode.

Yeah, I did read the article. Full of emotionalism, half-truths and distortions. Whoever wrote that piece of tripe did just as good a job of researching the facts as his counterparts in the lamestream media. Half-mishear some wild rumor and run with it, making all manner of unsubstantiated, unwarranted suppositions.

Nobody is prohibiting anyone exercising his religion. I know English is an extremely difficult language to understand, but practicing and proselytizing are entirely different things.

One of the best people I ever had the honor of working for in the Army, SFC Darryl Barnett, was an extremely devout, washed-in-the-Blood, Born-Again Christian. He made no secret about it - in fact was totally open about it - yet made no attempt whatsoever to convert anybody. Because it would have been inappropriate.

It is a settled matter of American jurisprudence that if you hold a government job you are NOT allowed to proselytize your faith at work. That holds true if you are working at the courthouse, the road crew, or in the Military. Part of me being able to freely exercise my religion is not having you try to cram yours down my throat.

Read v-rog's post for some insight into the proper role of military chaplains.

"Preach the Gospel always, and sometimes use words."

St. Francis of Assisi

Anygunanywhere

anygunanywhere wrote:

"Preach the Gospel always, and sometimes use words."

St. Francis of Assisi

Anygunanywhere

Yes, exactly!