Re: MRRF advocating "military" religion
Bill Flett <[email protected]> Mon, 31 May 2021 09:23:14 -0700
| Newsgroups | alt.fan.rush-limbaugh,alt.comedy |
|---|---|
| Organization | A noiseless patient Spider |
| Message-ID | <[email protected]> |
On 5/31/2021 9:15 AM, David Hartung wrote: > On 5/31/21 10:14 AM, Bill Flett wrote: >> On 5/31/2021 8:01 AM, David Hartung 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? >> >> I don't cite left wing sources. > > Really? Yes. > So you don't cite the New York Times and the Washington Post? I do cite them. They are not "left wing."