Re: MRRF advocating "military" religion

On Mon, 31 May 2021 08:19:28 -0700, Bill Flett <[email protected]>
wrote:

>On 5/31/2021 8:09 AM, Kurt Nicklas wrote:
>> On Mon, 31 May 2021 10:01:56 -0500, David Hartung
>> <[email protected]> wrote:
>> 
>>> On 5/31/21 9:51 AM, Bill Flett 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
>>>>
>>>> Oh, I'll just *bet* you "serviced" in the army!  You serviced all the
>>>> non-comm officers and warrant officers, didn't you?
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>>> 5 years and there was no such agreement. Quite the contrary.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> 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.
>>>
>>> As compared to the left wing "main stream" sources you cite?
>> 
>> Rudy/Bill prefer 
>
>fake news.  Yes.

This is beyond  rational debate.

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