Re: MRRF advocating "military" religion

On Mon, 31 May 2021 08:09:52 -0700, Bill Flett <[email protected]>
wrote:

>On 5/31/2021 7:54 AM, Kurt Nicklas wrote:
>> On Sun, 30 May 2021 20:03:35 -0700, Rudy Canoza <[email protected]>
>> wrote:
>> 
>>> On 5/30/2021 7:23 PM, Mitchell Holman wrote:
>>>> David Hartung <[email protected]> wrote in
>>>> news:[email protected]:
>>>>
>>>>> On 5/30/21 2:25 PM, Rudy Canoza wrote:
>>>>>> On 5/30/2021 6:35 AM, David Hartung wrote:
>>>>>>> This is at the tome of the Military Religious Freedom Foundation
>>>>>>> website:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> "When one proudly dons a U.S. Military Uniform, there is only one
>>>>>>> religious symbol: The U.S. Flag. There is only one religious
>>>>>>> scripture: the American Constitution. Finally, there is only one
>>>>>>> faith: American patriotism."
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> https://www.militaryreligiousfreedom.org/
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> It would seem that they are int he business of destroying the First
>>>>>>> Amendment, rather than defending it.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> No, that's exactly wrong.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>       The Military Religious Freedom Foundation is dedicated to
>>>>>>    ensuring
>>>>>> that all
>>>>>>       members of the United States Armed Forces fully receive the
>>>>>> Constitutional
>>>>>>       guarantees of religious freedom to which they and all Americans
>>>>>>    are
>>>>>> entitled
>>>>>>       by virtue of the Establishment Clause of the First Amendment.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>       MRFF recognizes that military life requires individual
>>>>>>    adherence to
>>>>>> shared
>>>>>>       patriotic principles. MRFF also recognizes the need for
>>>>>>    military
>>>>>> personnel to
>>>>>>       at times temporarily relinquish some Constitutionally granted
>>>>>>    personal    freedoms for the sake of military discipline and
>>>>>>    objectives.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>       However, MRFF believes that religious faith is a
>>>>>>    Constitutionally
>>>>>> guaranteed
>>>>>>       freedom that must never be compromised, except in the most
>>>>>>    limited of    military circumstances, because of its fundamental
>>>>>>    importance to the    preservation of the American nation and the
>>>>>>    American way of life.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>       Additionally, MRFF adheres strongly to the principle that
>>>>>>    religious
>>>>>> faith is
>>>>>>       a deeply personal matter, and that no American has the right to
>>>>>> question
>>>>>>       another American’s beliefs as long as they do not unwontedly
>>>>>>    intrude
>>>>>> on the
>>>>>>       public space or the privacy or safety of another individual.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>       https://www.militaryreligiousfreedom.org/about/our-mission/
>>>>>>
>>>>>> They are staunch, stalwart defenders of the first amendment against
>>>>>> the attacks on it by theocratic Taliban-like extremists like you.
>>>>>
>>>>> Yet they seem to thrive on restricting the religious exercise of
>>>>> military members.
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>       "Military members" AGREE to sacrifice their
>>>> religious obligations when enlisting.
>>>>
>>>>       "I cannot obey that order sir, this is my
>>>> Sabbath". See how far THAT goes............
>>>>
>>>
>>> The MRFF (not "MRRF," as Hartung stupidly and incorrectly put it), has not
>>> restricted the religious liberty of anyone in the military, nor have they
>>> advocated for any restriction of religious liberty.
>> 
>> "MRFF has..." then "MRFF have..."
>
>Referring to the people in the MRFF, of course...

HAHAHAHA. You're such a loser.

>I could just as well have been referring to the organization, of course. It's 
>common British usage.  "Ford have introduced two new SUV models..."

Not in the same post you can't! Hahaha. HAHAHAHA.

>You'll take it and you'll like it, you rancid mackerel-reeking cunt.

I'll take it and laugh at it, dwarfie.

Bill Flett and Rudy Canoza - a friendship before Usenet
https://tinyurl.com/p5f7vwe8