Re: MRRF advocating "military" religion

On 5/31/2021 8:01 AM, Kurt Nicklas wrote:
> On Mon, 31 May 2021 07:51:47 -0700, Bill Flett <[email protected]>
> wrote:
> 
>> On 5/31/2021 5:24 AM, David Hartung wrote:
>>> On 5/31/21 7:05 AM, Kurt Nicklas wrote:
>>>> On Mon, 31 May 2021 06:39:45 -0500, David Hartung
>>>> <[email protected]> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> On 5/30/21 9:23 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.
>>>>>
>>>>> Oh? Please explain.
>>>>
>>>> Hollowman knows nothing about the military. I serviced [sic in the Army for
>>>> Hollowman knows nothing about the military. I serviced in the Army for
>>>> 5 years and there was no such agreement. Quite the contrary.
> 
>>
>> Oh, I'll just *bet* you "serviced" in the army!  You serviced all the non-comm
>> officers and warrant officers, didn't you?
> 
> "You just conceded defeat again.  I'll add it to the list.  I've
> instructed you that before."

And you just conceded defeat *again*!  Excellent!!!

> "your fuckwitted phony patriotic believees[sic] should be
>       financially penalized."

"Believees" (alternately "believies") is very well explained and supported.

> 
>>>>
>>>> Here is a "Religious Freedom in the Military – FAQ"
>>>> https://firstliberty.org/rights/religious-freedom-in-the-military-faq/
>>>
>>> I am certain that Firstliberty is not among the sources which Holman considers
>>> to be authoritative
>>
>> With good reason:  it's a far right-wingnut hate group.
> 
> No, it isn't.

Yes, undeniably it is.