Re: MRRF advocating "military" religion

On 5/31/21 11:23 AM, Bill Flett wrote:
> 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."

Do tell.