Must read: Mikey Weinstein on religious indoctrination in the military
posted at 10:40 am on December 15, 2006 by Allahpundit
It’s at Salon so you’ll have to sit through a 30-second ad before you can read it, but it’s worth it. Weinstein’s the founder and president of the Military Religious Freedom Foundation, which is leading the charge against the Christian Embassy for using officers in uniform for its promo video. I wrote about it a few days ago. I can’t do justice to the righteous indignation of the interview — and he does go too far at points — but this’ll give you a taste.
I get calls 24/7 from the soldiers, Marines and airmen. Unlike cops, they don’t have a union, they have my foundation, that’s it. They’re being tormented. And 96 percent of those who come flooding in, on fire with torment, are Christians, three-fourths of whom would be traditional Protestants: Lutherans, Methodists, Episcopalians, Presbyterians. The other one-fourth are Roman Catholics. These are Christians being preyed upon by evangelical Christians — pray and prey — and being told that you’re not Christian enough, therefore you’re going to burn in a hell of fire…
[W]e’re not going to stop, we’re not going to ever stop, we’re going to lay down a withering field of fire and leave sucking chest wounds on these people that are trying to destroy our Constitution. This is not a Christian-Jewish issue, and it’s also not a political spectrum, left or right issue, it’s a Constitutional right and wrong issue. These officers, and what’s happening in that video, simply by appearing in a video that is blatantly and vociferously sectarian, by simply doing three things in that video, they should be court-martialed. That would be circulating blood, reflecting light and breathing. That’s all they had to do and that alone would have been enough.
Read it all.
Blowback
Note from Hot Air management: This section is for comments from Hot Air's community of registered readers. Please don't assume that Hot Air management agrees with or otherwise endorses any particular comment just because we let it stand. A reminder: Anyone who fails to comply with our terms of use may lose their posting privilege.
Trackbacks/Pings
Trackback URL
Comments
Comment pages: « Previous 1 2
Look, AP, this post is not your typical post. You very strongly advocated this article, moreso than you usually do. Sit through that 30 second ad, you said, it’s worth it. After the excerpt, you added read it all.
So you gave the impression that you really felt very strongly about this particular article, and you used, just in my opinion, stronger language than you usually use when calling your reader’s attention to an article. You seemed to be PUSHING the article, like a salesman. I think that explains the perception that the previous commenter identified as “down our throats” though I wouldn’t use such strong language.
I got the impression that you felt strongly that this was an article you though your readers should read.
kaltes on December 15, 2006 at 7:08 PM
Yes, I did. I thought it was fascinating, armylawyer’s points to the contrary notwithstanding (and well taken). But of course you’re free not to. If I were to post constantly about this topic such that you basically can’t visit the site without reading about it (a la Sullivan and torture), that, to me, is much more akin to “shoving it down your throat.”
Allahpundit on December 15, 2006 at 7:13 PM
Why? My impression is that AllahPundit is an atheist or agnostic, and so he probably has only a vague concept of Christian theology.
This blog isn’t about theology, it’s about politics, and this post is not about the truth or lack thereof of any particular religious view.
sandberg on December 15, 2006 at 7:16 PM
Vocabulary question: should I have said “therein” instead of “thereof”? Please advise.
sandberg on December 15, 2006 at 7:18 PM
Yes, that’s true. I was raised Catholic but I’m anything but knowledgeable about theology. I’m certainly not making any claim about what evangelical Christians believe.
Allahpundit on December 15, 2006 at 7:24 PM
Well, then you be wrong. As I posted previously, I am a lapsed Catholic-agnostic-atheistist. I have no problems with religion and when I do, I have no problems telling people to kindly get out of my fkn face. However, there are certain subjects that rile people up, this being one of the major ones. You joke about red meat all the time. You know what that implies and you know this is top sirloin. This subject, and a few others, tends to create a lot of bad feelings.
EF on December 15, 2006 at 7:59 PM
Yes, I agree that language is too strong.
…and no one is saying that you shouldn’t be able to post whatever you want. I just don’t think it is much of a stretch to say that your overwhelmingly conservative readership (who I obviously dont speak for) is going to find just about anything written for Salon on the subjects of religion and the military to be pretty difficult to stomach.
I do think your conservative readers are much more accepting of you posting something that seems to be pretty left wing (regardless of if the guy says he is republican, he uses the same kind of language/arguments that I often see used by the more extreme left wing sites) than liberal readers would be if a liberal blogger posted something that was right wing.
kaltes on December 15, 2006 at 8:07 PM
Allah has his own opinions just like the rest of us. It’s wrong to jump all over him for writing something you don’t agree with. Jump all over the opinion if you like, but don’t rip him for expressing it. Debate the opinion itself, but don’t suggest that he should somehow only write things that everyone agrees with. We all know that’s impossible.
At the same time – from a business standpoint – which is what HotAir seems to be designed for … Allah should know from experience that most conservatives hold some type of religious belief. To me it’s like a comedian who tells political jokes. You know before you even start that you’re going to offend at least half your audience. Why do it? Same situation with the NAU. Allah should not shy away from debating the NAU issue, but is it wise to insult and mock many of the readers who give him his high hit count?
BUT! Then again, Allah is a professional political writer/blogger and it wouldn’t make sense for him to shy away from controversy.
I think religion is the most debated argument throughout history, but debates are what this blog is about … is it not?
If you don’t like Allah’s opinion … debate the facts and prove him wrong, but telling him he shouldn’t write his opinions sounds more like what DailyKos readers would do.
Gregor on December 15, 2006 at 8:10 PM
As others have noted, this statement is complete baloney. Google “Ratzinger hell” and the first thing that comes up is this:
Ratzinger is now Pope Benedict. Moreover, if you actually want to read what the Church teaches, there’s the Catechism of the Catholic Church, which has a LOT to say about Hell.
As for the Church Fathers & Purgatory, you need to read more of St. Augustine, who said:
and
Augustine was writing in the 4th Century.
Sydney Carton on December 15, 2006 at 8:13 PM
Who the hell are you talking to? No one told him he had to stop doing anything. And I and others have the right to say our opinions. As far as debate the facts — what? my God is better than your God shit? My religion is the true religion and yours ain’t? Get real.
EF on December 15, 2006 at 8:41 PM
I just wanted to say that I’m uncomfortable with any sentence featuring both “Sullivan” and “shoving it down your throat”.
ReubenJCogburn on December 15, 2006 at 8:41 PM
Allahpundit, you say this was a fascinating article.
Point taken. It was very interesting to read. But I wonder how you feel about the credibility of the author. Do you think his claims are reasonably accurate? If so, why? If not, why?
Very respectfully,
EFG on December 15, 2006 at 9:34 PM
Allah:
1) You’re taking this awfully personally.
2) Criticism does not equal censorship, and it’s rather bizarre of the person who posts the articles and can ban people to accuse commenters of trying to cow _him_ into not writing about a subject.
It’s a style of argument we often mock LLLs for.
3) Warm glass of milk, man.
As far as the topic, an invasion by the Moon Men in their Atomic Flying Suits would be “fascinating,” but it isn’t happening, and therefore not really fascinating.
Off-topic, I do have to say you picked an ideal handle for the times, though, have any fatwas hanging on the wall? :)
Merovign on December 15, 2006 at 9:37 PM
There are no athiests in foxholes…
SilverStar830 on December 15, 2006 at 10:00 PM
Hey, speaking as a Wahhabi al-Qaeda-like Evangelical Christian, I don’t have a problem with the article at all, and certainly not with AP’s fawning endorsement of it.
As a matter of fact, seeing the delusional rantings of a frothing paranoiac like Weinstein described as a “must read” is quite possibly the funniest thing I’ve read all month.
There is a point to be made (although I disagree with it, but that’s irrelevant) regarding the mix of religion and secularism and whether or not the twain shall e’er meet, but it doesn’t come across very well when it’s made by the mentally ill.
“Every bit as bad as al-Qaeda.”
Give the poor, deranged feller his Thorazine and send him back to bed.
Misha I on December 15, 2006 at 10:12 PM
It does exactly that when the criticism is for the crime of daring to write about a certain subject. The criticism was not regarding his views, but rather that he would speak them in a forum of mostly Christians.
You know … kind of like daring to print cartoons that might offend Islam?
Gregor on December 15, 2006 at 10:16 PM
Does AP have an embassy to burn?
EnochCain on December 15, 2006 at 10:29 PM
You’ve got it backward. It’s the people who are attacking him who would be burning the embassy.
Gregor on December 15, 2006 at 10:53 PM
I agree that the impulse of evangelical christians to evangelize is “every bit as bad as that of al-qaida”, but the message itself probably not so.
I base this on absolutely nothing.
xyan on December 15, 2006 at 11:02 PM
Because that’s what those Wahhabi Christians are known to do at the drop of a papal hat, of course.
Please, stop. I can’t stand it any more. My sides are about to split wide open and my diaphragm is one huge sheet of excruciating pain from all the laughing.
It is, at worst, intimidation. And I dare say that I’ve been around the ‘Sphere and AP for long enough to be able to say, with no small amount of certainty, that it takes a wee bit more than that to intimidate him.
This is getting out of hand. AP can write and say whatever he wants around here. It’s his living room. I may not always agree, but that’s completely irrelevant. I still enjoy the heck out of his writings, even if I do get a gulp of my coffee down the wrong pipe every once in a while. It’s probably good for me.
Now, if you’ll excuse me, I have a few embassies I need to burn. And that papist scum bastard that lives two blocks down the road is in DIRE need of a beheading, right after I rape his daughters and stick them both in burlap sacks.
Sheesh.
Misha I on December 15, 2006 at 11:06 PM
Perhaps what everybody (Christians of whatever stripe included) should find disturbing about this trend in the military (if it exists) isn’t the Constitutional issue (though that would be real), but rather this: The purpose of the military is to successfully train in and perform tasks necessary for the successful prosecution of combat operations and related complex logistical taks, and evangelizing or even holding religious beliefs of any kind has absolutely nothing to do with realizing that purpose.
If the practice of high-ranking officers espousing their personal religious beliefs in any way, shape, or form is even remotely interfering with the expeditious training, effective operation, or general maintenance of morale of any segment (no matter how small) of the US armed forces, in any way at all, it represents a serious professional failing on the officers’ parts, and, worse, a gross violation of the public trust. To be blunt, we pay our officers to win wars. We do not pay them to express personal views on intrinsically non-military matters.
Blacklake on December 16, 2006 at 12:31 AM
That’s what I mean by making a good point.
You should be allowed to hold any religious belief you want while in uniform but, unless you’re a chaplain, preaching about it is NOT in your MOS.
That’s where I agree completely. As long as you’re in uniform, you’re getting paid to do what’s in your MOS, and NOTHING ELSE. If you want to proselytize, do so on your own damn time or leave the service. There’s absolutely nothing wrong with proselytizing, in my opinion, but my personal opinion is completely irrelevant to the question at hand.
If you’re being paid to protect the country, kill people and break shit, then that’s what you do while you’re on company time. I wouldn’t pay a contractor to sit around on his heinie doing whatever he felt like doing, and neither should our armed forces.
If you want to be a chaplain, fine. G-d Bless You. It’s a noble call. So BECOME one.
Where I disagree, where I have to restrain myself from dissolving into paroxysmal bouts of laughter, is when paranoiacs start babbling about “Christian wahhabis” working as an insidious fifth column trying to enslave free-thinking people.
But as far as “do your effin’ job instead of using your position as a pulpit” goes, I’m in complete agreement. That’s not what you’re paid to do. If you want to preach, fine. As a Christian I have no problem with that unless you insist on preaching to people that have expressed a clear disinterest in being preached to, in which case you’re just an inconsiderate, imposing, impolite boor, but do it on your own dime.
Misha I on December 16, 2006 at 1:06 AM
The Amish would say we’re all going to hell. And they may be right.
Ali-Bubba on December 16, 2006 at 2:45 AM
PRCalDude: “My sister goes to the Air Force Academy and can attest to the looniness and hypocrisy of many of these evangelicals. Apparently, Ted Haggard’s church is within view of the gates there and many of the cadets and officers attend. Many cadets will later go out and sleep around or debauch, yet maintain a holier-than-thou attitude. I’m sure Ted Haggard’s recent actions will pull the wind out of their sails, however.”
Unfortunately, the gates are not in view of the campus at USAFA. It’s something like a ten mile hike from the cadet dorms to the South Gate. That means cadets are not heading out the gate except on weekends. It’s not like Annapolis or West Point where you can see civilization on the other side of the base walls from your room. The only things you can see from the dorm at the Blue Zoo are mountains, pine trees, and deer.
You’re kinda late to the game when you point out that the Bible-beaters are hypocrites, partying hearty and then posing as super-moral. Sinning on Saturday night then praying for forgiveness on Sunday morning is very nearly a proverb with respect to Christian fundamentalists. And I can tell you that those Baptist girls are just as warm-blooded as any other girl and they talk with their girlfriends about what they do with their boyfriends, even though they all agree they shouldn’t be doing it. They just include some Bible verses when they do it.
Tantor on December 16, 2006 at 2:53 AM
Every branch of the military has its own regulations, and they all share the Uniform Code of Military Justice (UCMJ).
Clearly outlined by one or the other are a wide variety of behavioral boundaries, especially as involves how superiors treat subordinates. Any person above you in a chain of command who applies undue pressure ON ANY TOPIC is creating what is defined as a hostile working environment, and is subject to a charge of harassment.
When you first encounter such harassment, your responsibility is to inform the individual of your discomfort with their treatment. If it continues, you are free to approach their superior and speak privately with them about it. If that fails, your access chain goes as high as it needs to in order for the situation to be resolved. Harassment in any form is a very serious issue, and officers can have their careers gravely damaged by a confirmed charge of harassing a subordinate.
I was outspoken about my Christianity while in uniform, but I absolutely guarantee that I never harassed anyone. On the contrary, I was regularly badgered by peers and superiors alike to “loosen up” and join them in their lifestyle, which usually meant drinking, smoking, or cheating. Only once did this behavior rise to the level of harassment, and it was dealt with through proper channels. There was no outside office that I needed to cry to in order to be heard.
Tantor, while there are certainly hypocrites everywhere, and indeed everyone who believes in something and doesn’t perfectly live up to it can be called such, I reject your statement in its form of applying to all fundamentalist Christians. Only one I knew in my years of service fit that description, and Navy life is more likely to produce wild results than even college kids. Please don’t paint with such a broad brush. And anyway, what matters most isn’t how the next person is holding to their beliefs, but how the person we each face in the mirror is. A preacher I know from Australia put it best: “Read your own mail.”
Freelancer on December 16, 2006 at 3:22 AM
Weinstein goes too far, and in twisting the regs to appear to say exactly what he wants them to say discredits his position.
But he’s right. It does happen, it has happened to me and 25 people for whom I was responsible. We were forced to attend religious lectures by highly placed non-chaplain individuals who were in uniform, and I was forced to set it up. I started off by saying no, but was informed by my chain of command that I had no choice in the matter.
Saying ‘I haven’t seen it’ means absolutely squat…you haven’t seen me or the vast majority of people in the military either. Trying to pass off some merely anecdotal denial as evidence that it doesn’t happen is intellectually dishonest. In the end we’re left with you knowing nothing for certain and professing it as the truth.
James on December 16, 2006 at 9:11 AM
Interesting debate since I last visited this thread. Whatever happened to the guy who claimed Catholics gave up on Hell? If I were him, I would have skulked away, too.
As for the rest, one comment: it is very easy to tell who here has actually served and who hasn’t. And in every post from those who haven’t, I hear echoes of a few really dumb urban myths.
The myth you hear constantly is this: people in the military aren’t allowed to voice political opinions.
It is a stupid, mindless myth, that countless non-military people believe. And from that myth comes a belief that military people ALSO don’t voice opinions on issues like religion.
Absolute, pure bunk. But a widely held perception.
And ALL of that stems from another belief – that somehow people stop being PEOPLE when they join the military.
It’s all false. Every bit of it. And yet I’ve had people (usually liberals) repeat it to me 100 times.
For example, I’ve told people how few people I knew that voted for Clinton when I was in the USMC (I was one of them, actually). And the response has been: “you can’t know that, because it’s forbidden.”
Please. Puh-leeze. What do people talk about where YOU work? The usual things, right? Sports, entertainment … and controversial crap like religion and politics.
Every place I was ever stationed, at some point the conversation turned to the same things. And yes, it wasn’t exactly rare for those of higher rank to join the conversation, where appropriate. Military folks have opinions just like you do, on all of the things you do. I saw plenty of heated arguments over every aspect of politics and religion.
Are military members supposed to be officially ENDORSING political or religious opinion, in uniform, in their official capacity? NO. And that’s where the confusion lies.
But then again, guess what? If you work for IBM and you run around at the office converting people to your religion, YOU are getting in trouble, too.
The bottom line: The military isn’t anywhere near as different as some of you think it is. It’s people.
Is it perhaps a little more religious in tone at times? Yes. But like I said, where death is involved, thoughts of mortality aren’t far behind.
Professor Blather on December 16, 2006 at 10:31 AM
Would you like to be the pot or the kettle?
You do realize you just used your own anecdotal evidence to argue against others using anecdotal evidence, right?
That’s funny, and almost textbook “intellectual dishonesty.” Well done.
The problem you seem to be missing is that Weinstein appears to claim that this problem is rampant. Thus anecdotal evidence – while actually not effective in supporting his claims – is logically perfectly effective in countering them. If I served for 5 years and never saw it, it can’t be very rampant. Period.
It’s not non-existent. Your OWN intellectually dishonest anecodtal evidence establishes that. Right? ;)
The military is full of people. Regular people. They make the same mistakes the rest of the world does. But Weinstein is simply factually inaccurate in suggesting the problem is widespread – and so are you.
But I loved the pot and kettle bit!
Professor Blather on December 16, 2006 at 10:35 AM
“Just start shooting the evangelicals. Simplify things. They’re creepy anyway.”
I’m outraged! Behead those who insult Christia— Oh, wait. Wrong religion.
Barntender on December 16, 2006 at 11:28 AM
Media anti-Christian smear job #2076, actually a two-fer becuase the Left gets also a chance to smear the military at the same time. There’s just enough truth in there to make it seem convincing, that some evangelicals can be tactless. DUH! Quite a few are very nice people, too, but we’re making a point here, sheeple.
Let’s throw the tactless moral superiority accusations around a bit more evenly: Couldn’t get out of the supermarket in peace without the check-out girl pointing out that the bag of chicken parts I’d just selected to buy was horrific, she should know, being a vegetarian and all. Couldn’t get into my Chevy truck without someone standing near gratuitously informing me that it was ruining the environment. Two teenagers in a gang-fight end up dead and it’s the springboard for an uninivited lecture on how evil the second amendment is and how the NRA hates children. Can’t sit in a public shcool classroom without the teacher pounding into the little kids’ heads that Americans should feel guilty about Columbus strip-mining into desolation all of the Central and South Amerian continent. Celebrating the national holidays of Mexico instead of the USA, because evidently, Mexican holidays are more colorful and ethnic than America’s. This article pushes all the Left’s buttons. It’s contrived and malicious.
naliaka on December 16, 2006 at 12:34 PM
Wait a sec… I thought evangelicals *support* Israel?
Jonathon on December 16, 2006 at 1:01 PM
while I was in the US Air Force, in Basic training, the only way to leave the barracks on Sunday morning, was to go to church. if you didn’t go there, you stayed in. So you picked a church and went….
retired on December 16, 2006 at 1:10 PM
As a Conservative Atheist I am, as always, mildly concerned.
I’m not a conspiracy guy, and I’m not afraid of the ‘Religious Right’ but there are real stories out there about this sort of thing happening.
Now, proper Chaplains in our Armed Forces serve a very important task. Even for our non-religious Soldiers. I 100% agree that our fighting Men and Women need to be provided such services.
However, just as I disagreed with the ‘Separate rooms and services for Muslim Soldiers’ I also disagree with the principle of this accusation. Which is probably overblown and exaggerated, tis true.
Even with the total separation of Church and State in which I believe, Soldiers need these services and I have no problem with providing tax dollars to support them.
The issue I have is the possibility of one religion, or one religious-group having ‘special status’
Yes. It probably happens. No. It’s probably not a DiVinci Code conspiracy.
It probably doesn’t warrant a multi-million dollar investigation, but it is something watch-dogs should keep an eye on. Our guys and gals overseas have enough to worry about right now.
The Armed Forces, of whom I am very proud, took an Oath to my country, and thas enuff for me. I don’t care which god they prefer to worship.
KeaponLaffin on December 16, 2006 at 1:27 PM
Wow. Not even I would go that far. I was a bit thrown off at how the post seemed to cast the guys oppinions in a positive light, but frankly if the readership were … “turned off” I think they would be gone.
There are a billion other conservative blogs out there to read with tons of contributors.
If people want to read the 700 Club daily let them, but this … ISN’T that kind of a blog.
[/captain obvious]
Allah, some of your religious comments and articles do strongly run against even the moderate religious conservatives. Sometimes you even come off as slighly (note emphasis on SLIGHLY)
anti religious, but usually only to someone who has … how shall I say? A soft under belly.
Personally, I’d like to see more of Brians take on this sort of stuff being that he’s the local religious nut … err Christian.
:-)
heh.
One Angry Christian on December 16, 2006 at 2:34 PM
Gregor:
Wow.
Just Wow.
Now I know that all I have to do to achieve complete control over all discourse is to criticize endlessly.
Or not.
I guess words don’t mean things after all, huh guys?
Merovign on December 16, 2006 at 4:08 PM
Oh, by the way, Gregor. Don’t criticize people. That’s censorship, and censorship is wuh-rong.
Merovign on December 16, 2006 at 4:09 PM
I’m not sure if you’re agreeing with me or not. I’m not criticizing Bible-beaters, I’m criticizing evangelicals. It’s turned into a big, giant circus. Ted Haggard and Rick Warren are the ringleaders. It’s turned into something other than Christianity. Nominal Christians, like my sister, are aware of this and won’t by into it. Unfortunately, it makes them cynical of Christianity as a whole.
PRCalDude on December 16, 2006 at 4:52 PM
I’ve been in the military for 21 years now (both Army and Air Force). When I joined I was an atheist. Nobody ever tried to evangelize me. Not once.
I became Catholic in 1993 without any pressure from anybody. Since then, nobody in the military has tried to get me to convert.
I hear these stories and they do not coincide with reality. Commanders are very careful about not offending their troops. They avoid terms that (even if not meant to be) can be seen as racist, sexist, or religiously offensive. There aren’t officer’s like Jack Nicholson in “A Few Good Men” who will go out of their way to make sexist comments in front of female officers. Its great for the movies to show what kind of guy ole Jack is playing. But it doesn’t match reality. There are officers like Kiefer Sutherland’s character, who is an evangelical and proud of it (some are even hypocrites like Lt Kendrick, but this is the exception, not the rule). But Kendrick wasn’t trying to convert Santiago, just beat him into submission.
cmay on December 16, 2006 at 5:09 PM
AP’s distaste for Christianity is fairly evident, from the “red meat” posts, to posts like this one. A substantive portion of his readership is Christian. Yes, AP could turn off his readership by wraggling this issue a la Sullivan, but one would think he’s not that stupid. Besides, these kinds of articles provide a bit of spice, even if they do suck.
spmat on December 16, 2006 at 6:05 PM
I grew up in a Baptist church, attending a nondenominational Christian college (evangelistic) and my husband was an assistant pastor in a charismatic church. I really don’t understand what people mean when they talk about evangelicals. What is your definition? From my experience evangelicals are those who take the Bible literally and seek to follow it “religiously”. Since Jesus said to witness for Him these people do. But I don’t see how atheists who are determined to eliminate all spirituality from public life and have everyone believe as they do have the moral authority to condemn religious people from having a different agenda. As far as the military thing goes, does this man mention any numbers of complainers or just percentages?
Rose on December 16, 2006 at 6:12 PM
EFG, interesting question. I suppose we each have our own inclinations which affect our judgement of credibility.
Pablo, thanks for the laugh. I agree with you. I take it you didn’t feel pressured by your supervisor?
Rose, good point about pushers of other agendas. I didn’t notice any statistics whereby we could judge prevalence. I think many here are curious about that as well.
IMHO, there is religion and then there is religion, and they are as different as night and day.
Kevin on December 16, 2006 at 6:51 PM
Yes, heaven will be full of hypocrites. Then again, so will hell. All of us are hypocrites to some degree.
jman on December 16, 2006 at 6:59 PM
You apparently used a defective online translator in attempting to understand what I wrote. I said nothing close to what you just said. Use a different translator and re-read what I wrote.
And this time, don’t skip the part where I wrote (in response to those on here suggesting that Allah should not have wrote this post):
Gregor on December 16, 2006 at 8:09 PM
There is absolutely nothing wrong with criticizing what Allah wrote. But to criticize him and suggest that he should not have written it at all simply because it may offend some of us readers … is indeed the same as Muslims getting pissed at those who printed the cartoons.
And don’t add to what I said in suggesting that I’m saying the “response” is the same as the cartoon riots. I’m not. Just that the action of getting angry that he dared to write something you disagree with is the same.
Gregor on December 16, 2006 at 8:17 PM
Gregor, I understood what you said perfectly well.
It does exactly that when the criticism is for the crime of daring to write about a certain subject.
You said criticism is the same as censorship, did you not?
I never said you (nor Allah) never make good points, or eat babies, or anything.
I just said you were wrong about this – and you still are.
As far as Allah, my criticism of him is the _very_ slight mislead in the head article – he knew damned well this wouldn’t be so much “interesting” as “grotesquely annoying” to his audience, to who he suggested it.
That and the fact that the linked article is so obviously an overblown polemic that a two-year-old could see it.
Okay, those and his overreaction to criticism in the thread.
You, you just seem to sometimes get a bad idea stuck in your head, like “criticism (response in disagreement) equals censorship (wielding political power or force to prevent expression)”.
That’s crap, and there ain’t no two ways about it.
And don’t come back with that “it’s the same as the Wahhabis” crap again, because that’s pathetic. Those two things are about as similar as a Fromage Omlette and Jupiter.
Unless you’re going to start claiming that no one should criticise ANYTHING they disagree with because it would make them “Like the Wahhabis.”
But before you do this – ask yourself this: Have you EVER said “I wish they’d shut up,” like, for example, about the “Truthers” or Fred Phelps?
Merovign on December 16, 2006 at 11:39 PM
Uhmmm. It’s not “My Way or the Highway” pal, it’s that JESUS’S WAY OR HELL! JESUS is THE WAY and he left SPECIFIC instructions which he gave to HIS apostles. The problem is that most of YOUR FAKE CHURCHES, have no proper baptism and have no Holy Ghost evidenced by speaking in tongues, AND YOU DON’T FOLLOW THE ONES THAT CHRIST PROVIDED!
The problem is that your “faith” is measurable and is often found to be wanting in that, you have no gifts! Which of the NINE do you possess? Do you really think Christ runs a GIFTLESS church? But most of you fake so called Christians go to “churches” that actually LOOK DOWN ON THOSE WHO CLAIM TO BE BORN AGAIN!!!!! You with no gift, unregenerated curs posing as righteous men, actually despise the proper gifts of GOD! Riddle me this batman…..who’s really running a church that is taught to neglect the gifts of the Spirit which Jesus died on the cross to provide? Kinda makes ya go, “HMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMM”"
Soothsayer on December 17, 2006 at 12:58 AM
I know that most of you who think you are saved, yet curiously lack THE PROOF, prefer to listen to your “feelings” like a bunch of silly liberals, instead of the Scriptures provided for your benefit. But you have to admit that I was right, you have to admit that most of your Episcopalian, Methodist( you need a better METHOD) , Lutheran, Protestant (aren’t you finished PROTESTING), etc, like to look on Evangelicals who claim to be “BORN AGAIN” as if they are somehow extreme while you “middle of the road bowls of mush” have found wisdom in ambiguity. But it’s you who are THE STUPID ONES and it’s you who are going to burn with the chaff unless you repent. Because the one who made this world and all things herein declared with the utmost clarity that UNLESS YOU ARE BORN AGAIN, YOU ARE GOING TO SPEND ETERNITY IN HELL. And He doesn’t give a hot plate of pig spit, how YOU FEEL ABOUT IT!
WHAT PART OF “MUST BE BORN AGAIN” DO YOU FAIL TO UNDERSTAND?
Soothsayer on December 17, 2006 at 1:13 AM
Merovign …
You seem to have a comprehension problem.
No! I never suggested anything of the sort! What’s so hard to grasp? How many times do I have to break it down?
You even quoted my exact line, but somehow you’re not able to figure it out.
“Criticism of an opinion”… is perfectly FINE. I’ve written that at least three or four times in this thread.
“Telling someone they should not be writing about something because it might offend some of the readers”… IS CENSORSHIP.
If you’re still not able to figure out the difference … I’m done trying. I’ll allow you to continue to misquote me and butcher my words.
But please explain to me one thing …
What is the difference between someone telling Allah that he shouldn’t dare be writing anything that insults Christians … and Muslims saying you shouldn’t dare publish any cartoons that insult Islam?
This really isn’t that hard to understand.
Gregor on December 17, 2006 at 3:03 AM
And Soothsayer …
Is your name really Fred Phelps? You sound exactly like him.
Gregor on December 17, 2006 at 3:07 AM
Gregor:
One more time:
Telling someone they should shut up is not censorship.
Burning down their office or throwing them in jail because they won’t shut up is.
If you don’t get it now, you never will.
Oh, and if all Muslims ever did was SAY that other people shouldn’t insult their faith, wouldn’t we all be a damned sight happier right now?
Telling someone to drop dead isn’t murder. Making them is.
If that isn’t a difference, you must live in a terrifying world.
Merovign on December 17, 2006 at 5:53 AM
actually you’re very wrong
…
He didn’t say “God hates fags”, so it’s not exact. Please try to be a bit more attentive to details next time.
Thanks.
One Angry Christian on December 17, 2006 at 10:14 AM
So I guess you’re saying that someone who believes they can tell you what to write and what not to … is not supporting censorship? Whatever.
Here’s the proper definitions which you somehow don’t understand:
Criticism: I hated what you write.
Censorship: You’re not allowed to write that crap.
“Reaction” to refusal to follow censorship: Riots or jail time.
Following your description …
If the government censors a specific topic from being broadcast, and you do it anyway but they never do anything to you about it … there was never any censorship?
If your boss tells you that you’re not allowed to talk about religion, but you ignore it and do it anyway … as long as they never fire you … the censorship never happened?
Okay. I guess you win. There’s never any censorship until some form of punishment has been levied. ROFL!
ROFL! Actually, he did in a way. But even worse … he basically said that anyone who doesn’t belong to his particular church, and anyone who doesn’t practice their faith EXACTLY as he does … is going to burn in hell.
So, he might even be worse than Phelps. This guy even condemns Christians to eternal hell for not being baptized properly.
Gregor on December 17, 2006 at 12:20 PM
By the way Merovign …
Here’s how Websters defines the word “censor”:
I don’t see anything in the definition regarding punishment or reaction being necessary.
Gregor on December 17, 2006 at 12:32 PM
Soothsayer,
You have yet again done a marvelous job of showing others the love of Christ, which obviously you carry in such greater measure than the rest of us.
I agree entirely with Gregor, Soothsayer’s brand of shouting down anyone with a different opinion is precisely that form of hateful Christianity employed by Phelps. The issue might not match the drum Phelps beats, but the blanket condemnation of all who have a different view of God’s intention through Scripture than his is identical.
James,
I hope you didn’t take any of my posts as among those claiming “it doesn’t happen”. What I have posted was that there are channels of recourse to oppose it when it does.
This has no comparison to the issue of the article. The same rule applied in Navy basic training when I was there. Sit in the barracks, or attend chapel on Sunday mornings while in boot camp. So what? You weren’t forced to attend. You could sit in barracks and draw pretty pictures all Sunday morning if you wanted to. The Air Force still lets you guys use crayons in boot camp until 4th week, right? ;-)
Freelancer on December 17, 2006 at 12:37 PM
Soothsayer, I agree that you must be born again as the bible does make it crystal clear. However, they way you present your message essentially nullifies it and gives fodder for the evangelical bashers.
Yes, it is ok to defend your faith and the bible gives guidelines on how to do it:
If people decide to reject christ, it should be because they reject the message, not the messenger.
With regards to bashing other denominations, please remember that Christ is the head and the church is the body. Any issue you put above Christ, who unifies us, is idolitry because in reality you are basically saying that Christ alone is insufficient. Christians can debate the issues, but they should not divide us.
jman on December 17, 2006 at 12:47 PM
‘Zactly, jman, couldn’t have said it better myself.
Scripture says what Scripture says, whether those who read it like it or not, but there are different ways of spreading the message. Shouting and sneering isn’t likely to make people want to listen to you.
And on a more general note, to the more thin-skinned people out there: Pointing out that you’re going to end up in Hell unless you repent isn’t “mean” or “hateful”, any more than pointing out that, if you step off the roof of a building, you’re going to hurt yourself when you hit the ground.
Doing everything you can to make sure that the sinner goes to Hell right NOW, on the other hand…
And that’s what differentiates Christianity from Wahhabism, something that a puzzlingly large amount of people seem to have real difficulty understanding.
It’s almost as if they don’t WANT to see the forest, for fear that they have to let go of their favorite tree.
Oh well…
Misha I on December 17, 2006 at 1:32 PM
Gregor:
Hey, how handy you “didn’t see” the rest of the definition you quoted!
The criticism here was not “in order to suppress or delete,” it was an opinion stating that the “published material” was alienating at least some of the audience – a transparently correct observation, however small.
If you’d take the time to read ANY other definitions, I haven’t seen a single one (including yours) that characterizes the expression of an opinion by someone without authority to control or punish as “censorship.”
You’re trying to put ten gallons of meaning into a five-gallon word here.
If “censorship” includes criticism (passing judgement on the manner or content of a communication inherently addresses what the author “should or should not say,” however mildly), then “censorship” has no meaning.
Webster seems to have gone out of their way to feed a controversy with their definition – everyone else defines censorship as what a censor does – which is not “sit idly by and comment impotently.” It is the act of suppression.
Though by your definition, I guess I’m a “censor” now, I guess I should have some T-shirts made up.
I guess it’s the nature of language to evolve until words don’t mean anything, like how “racism” or “rights” seem to mean whatever people want them to these days.
I think I’ll call it “linguistic bloat.”
Merovign on December 17, 2006 at 2:16 PM
You mean this?
Which part of the definition that I quoted do you feel I “didn’t see?” That’s the only line I didn’t copy and paste and it supports my argument. You seem to be just making stuff up now.
You write:
So, now you’re speaking for “everyone else” and concluding that Webster’s Dictionary is now part of some conspiracy to “feed a controversy?”
So you, in all your glory, have decided all by yourself what the meaning of a word SHOULD be, even if the historical definition would claim otherwise.
Congratulations! You’re qualified to be a Supreme Court Judge!
My God! Take your meds!
Gregor on December 17, 2006 at 2:38 PM
I understand where you’re going with this, but I don’t believe anyone is saying what you quoted. I BELIEVE (could be wrong) that Soothsayer seems to believe in …
I believe THAT is the argument here.
Gregor on December 17, 2006 at 2:52 PM
Oh, it was a general note, not aimed at anybody in particular, mentioned only because I was on the topic of message and messenger anyway.
Well, he DOES use Scripture rather than his own personal opinions, and the Book says what the Book says. So it’s not really him saying it, it’s the Bible.
Of course, some people will say that he’s interpreting it wrong, interpretation is why we have denominations, which is all as it should be. We’ll all find out who was right and who was wrong eventually, won’t we? ;-)
Anyway, back to the point: Jman was right. It’s all about the delivery. It doesn’t matter whether you’re right or wrong if you choose to deliver your message in an obnoxious fashion, because people tune out instantly. Nobody wants to listen to the loudmouth screaming in all caps. At least I won’t.
But that hardly turns Soothsayer into Fred Phelps. He’d have to start turning up at funerals, taking a dump on innocent people’s graves to rise to that “lofty” position. Coincidentally, I’m pretty sure that Fred is in for a big surprise when he shuffles off his mortal coil (the sooner the better).
Misha I on December 17, 2006 at 3:12 PM
Well, Prof. Blather, here’s the difference between pot/kettle and logic:
One anecdotal incident is all it takes to prove that it does happen. One, five, or even a hundred anecdotal denials does nothing to prove that it doesn’t happen.
James on December 17, 2006 at 4:20 PM
Only one problem James …
Nobody is claiming “it doesn’t happen.”
The question is if it is “out of control” and “rampant” as Weinstein claims it is.
If you believe Weinstein, you have to believe there’s no escape. You have to believe that all military personnel are being attacked and “tormented” constantly by their superiors.
So in fact … one, five, or even a hundred anecdotal denials by those of us currently or formerly in the military does go a long way in disproving that claim.
Gregor on December 17, 2006 at 4:38 PM
Gregor:
Answers.com: The act, process, or practice of censoring. (Censoring: to examine books, films, or other material and to remove or suppress what is considered morally, politically, or otherwise objectionable.)
Interestingly enough, Dictionary.com quotes Webster’s Law dictionary as “the institution, system, or practice of censoring.” So do a lot of others, which is funny since “censoring” doesn’t have its own entry, it’s under “censor.”
Wordnet: “deleting parts of publications or correspondence or theatrical performances”
Wiki: “Censorship is the systematic use of group power to broadly control freedom of speech and expression”
eLook: “deleting parts of publications or correspondence or theatrical performances”
Allwords: “the suppression of sensitive or offensive material.”
IMUNA: “broadly, any government restrictions on speech or writing; more precisely, government restrictions on forms of expression before they are disseminated”
Carson-Newman Univ. Dic. of Literary Terms: “The act of hiding, removing, altering or destroying copies of art or writing so that general public access to it is partially or completely limited”
Medialit: “The practice of suppressing a text or part of a text that is considered objectionable according to certain standards.”
I could, indeed, go on.
It would seem that the general, historical definition requires some action, which is MY argument here, other than sitting idly and complaining, which YOU are claiming IS EQUAL TO “censorship.”
I don’t see how the excluded text from your quote, “to suppress or delete as objectionable,” support YOUR argument, since it IS my argument. Your exclusion, followed by “I didn’t see anything” to that effect, is your error.
You (and not only you) are trying to render the word “censorship” meaningless by defining it so broadly so as to include all criticism.
I am arguing against that attempt, and so are many, many others.
I think before you accuse others of needing medication, you should perhaps do more that search for ONE dictionary definition that “seems” to support your argument.
If “your” definition of censorship is to become the accepted one, what word do you think should be used to describe actual suppression, since “censorship” can no longer describe suppression if it means “anything from criticism and comment without threat to jailing dissenters and burning newspaper buildings”?
And, don’t we already HAVE a word for “criticism?” Why do we need to lump that one in with the substantially harsher “censorship?”
Merovign on December 17, 2006 at 5:52 PM
Gregor, there are several posts in the preceding 160-some in this thread that do indeed say that ‘this whole thing is BS’ or ‘I don’t believe a word of it because I never saw it in my (insert number) years of service’ or, my personal fave, ‘where are all the complaints…in Weinstein’s laundry list of people complaining.’ To me, the use of the words ‘all,’ ‘never,’ and ‘whole’ in these posts are arguing that ‘everything’ is as it should be.
If it isn’t as widespread as Weinstein claims…so what? Shouldn’t the existence of ‘any’ of these instances indicate that there’s a big problem that needs fixing? Or is some level of corruption in the military acceptable to you?
James on December 17, 2006 at 6:19 PM
James:
Is one asshole “systematic corruption?”
Is even 1% assholes “a big problem that needs fixing?”
If so, there isn’t a large organization in the world that isn’t corrupt, pretty much by definition.
I think that if there is a problem, it needs to be addressed/fixed. But to lambaste the entire widespread organization as “corrupt” over a couple of incidents, if anything, HURTS the cause of curing those incidents by distracting attention from the specific offenders and forcing the organization as a whole into a defensive posture.
Merovign on December 17, 2006 at 6:22 PM
When the 1% includes a disproportional amount of those who are above thousands of troops in the various chains of command, then yes, it’s systematic corruption because they are the system.
James on December 17, 2006 at 6:55 PM
Merovign …
Who would all these “many, many others” be? You seem to be the only one arguing. Maybe all the other comments were censored and deleted by Allah?
I seriously doubt there’s “many, many others” in here who feel it’s proper to suggest that Allah should ignore news stories simply because they might offend some on this board.
Once again, you’ve made up something I never said. I actually said the opposite. I said that criticism of views is not censorship. “Criticism” is not censorship, but that is not what my original comment was in response to. My argument was that stating that Allah should not be writing about a certain topic due to the fact it might offend someone … would be to support censorship. But you know this, and you’ve purposely ignored it, and you’re obviously not interested in what I really said.
I’m done with this argument. I’ll simply repost my earlier response and be done with it …
Sarcasm of course, just so I don’t get attacked by all who find that statement as absurd as I do.
This thread is not all your’s. Have fun. I’m censoring myself.
Gregor on December 17, 2006 at 6:59 PM
Exactly right James. Fortunately … it doesn’t. And those in the military would tell you that. But it doesn’t matter, right?
Hey! The Dan Rather approach.
Nice.
Gregor on December 17, 2006 at 7:04 PM
Merovign …
That should have said …
This thread is “now” all your’s.
Gregor on December 17, 2006 at 7:13 PM
Gregor, I’m in the military, and I’m telling you that it does include a disproportional amount of people with high ranks and high positions. Personally, I’ve encountered it at the Numbered Air Force level.
The way you continuously deny the problem in the face of examples given to you is significantly more Ratheresque than Weinstein’s simple exaggeration.
James on December 17, 2006 at 7:38 PM
Gregor:
Now:
Then:
It does exactly that when the criticism is for the crime of daring to write about a certain subject.
Okay, dude. I guess you’re right about one thing, I don’t know what you’re trying to say, because you’re now on both sides of the argument.
I have not ignored anything you said. I can only be interested in what you said, because that’s all I know about you.
But thanks for framing me dishonestly and then running away.
I doubt I’d ever get an answer, but why did you slice up my comment about “many others” to make it seem like I was talking about the THREAD so you could argue THAT, when I actually said:
Following up on the expounding of the many varied definitions of the word, clearly referring to the larger confounding of the meaning of the word in general, not just on this thread.
Are you like that all the time or did you just take a liking to me?
Merovign on December 17, 2006 at 11:36 PM
The “Then” quote somehow didn’t nest. The sentence after the quote of mine is Gregor’s.
Merovign on December 17, 2006 at 11:38 PM
Can we argue about the meaning of the word “milquetoast” now?
I always liked that one.
Merovign on December 17, 2006 at 11:39 PM
Soothsayer: “I know that most of you who think you are saved, yet curiously lack THE PROOF, wah wah wah silly liberals, wah wah wah Scriptures wah wah But you have to admit that I was right, wah wah wah “BORN AGAIN” wah wah wah But it’s you who are THE STUPID ONES and it’s you who are going to burn with the chaff unless you repent wah wah wah UNLESS YOU ARE BORN AGAIN, YOU ARE GOING TO SPEND ETERNITY IN HELL wah wah wah!”
I have been pressured more on this thread on Hot Air to accept a religion than I ever was in my entire Air Force career. I might also point out that arrogant Christain Bible-beaters like Soothsayer pestered me more about their pinhead religion in civilian college than I ever saw at the Air Force Academy, which was nada. At civilian college, Bible-beaters would interrupt you while you were studying and talk about their jackass religion. They’d come out of nowhere and tell you that you were going to hell if you didn’t convert to their jerkoff religion. Once they asked to talk for a couple minutes at my dorm house meeting and hijacked it into a prayer meeting that went on for forty-five minutes. We finally stuck the guys head in the toilet and flushed it.
There was no religious pressure at the Air Force Academy, nothing like the human wave tactics of the Bible-beaters in a state school. There was no religious pressure in the operational Air Force. None.
If I can speak for most Americans, the arrogant, insufferable, Bible-beating jackasses like Soothsayer are repugnant. I’d sooner join the Wahhabis than Baptist jack-offs like him. I’m not impressed by an immoral religion like Christian fundamentalism that claims that it doesn’t matter how you act as long as you say the secret words that make you a Baptist. I’ve seen plenty of holier than thou jackasses like Soothsayer who pose as morally superior and then lie and cheat their way through life. In my eyes, you profess an inferior religion because you have no code of conduct that guides your behavior.
Soothsayer, yours is a head that desperately needs an old fashioned swirlie.
Tantor on December 17, 2006 at 11:50 PM
C’mon everybody, cut Soothsayer a little slack. He’s a charismatic. Everybody knows that all those extra gifts of the Holy Spirit that they’ve got make them more than a little bi-polar. (Just kidding Soothsayer. Please don’t pray me into Hell or anything.) Hmmm…now if we just need to figure out a way to dispense a healthy dose of valium to Soothsayer via the internet when he “goes off” like that.
Anyhow, this wildly popular thread is “much to do” about nothing. The very fact that 1) the soldiers are free to complain, 2) the complaints are receiving plenty of publicity, 3) the issue is being discussed here in full view of the whole world is all SPLENDID evidence that the whole issue is overblown and that “the problem” is not nearly as serious and/or pervasive as Mikey would like us to believe. As far as I know, no one has been blown-up by an IED, had a RPG fired at them, or been kidnapped and be-headed simply because they did not believe in the military’s “approved brand” of Christianity. Can the Muslims sects say the same thing? I challenge you all to name ANY church of ANY denomination (Catholic or Protestant) that does not have a SINGLE obnoxious, pushy individual sitting in their midst each and every Sunday (or Saturday). Know what I mean?
CyberCipher on December 18, 2006 at 12:53 AM
Wow, Soothsayer makes Christians look crazy.
But on topic. Of course indoctrination won’t make the military as bad as Al’Qaeda, but what it does is attempt to give our nation a militarily religious cause, based on a religion which may or may not be true, and that holds the potential for abuse. And the situation is just too good not to post this:
Arma Virumque
By Ambrose Bierce
“Ours is a Christian army”; so he said
A regiment of bangomen who led.
“And ours a Christian navy,” added he
Who sailed a thunder-junk upon the sea.
Better they know than men unwarlike do
What is an army, and a navy too.
Pray God there may be sent them by-and-by
The knowledge what a Christian is, and why.
For somewhat lamely the conception runs
Of a brass-buttoned Jesus firing guns.
Nonfactor on December 18, 2006 at 3:58 AM
…on a blog…
…on a blog…
3) the issue is being discussed here in full view of the whole
worldblogosphere is all SPLENDID evidence that the whole issue is overblown and that “the problem” is not nearly as serious and/or pervasive as Mikey would like us to believe.Fixed. Ooh, I complained on a blog, the world is now safe! Kumbaya, kumbaya! I know we’re Time’s ‘Person of the Year’ and all, but the mere existence of complaints about the situation on a blog is hardly a guarantee of a change in behavior of the offenders.
James on December 18, 2006 at 8:20 AM
It looks like I missed a lot of excitement over the weekend.
Lawrence, Gregor did a fine job of pointing out how your statements about Catholics is categorically false. I can add nothing more than to request you read some books other than what’s found on the Evangelical Book of the Month Club. Try Lamb’s Supper. It’s a good read.
Soothsayer, this is not the first time we’ve tangled in a thread. You are certified nut case. If the bible says it, well then it cannot be disputed. Let’s look as something:
God’s chosen people are the Jews. The bible says so. Well Soothsayer, unless you’re a Jew, game over. You loose. That is unless you want to interpret God’s words seperate from his meaning?
Let me emphasize again that I hold no ill will towards Evangelicals or any other Christ based religion. I do hold ill will towards any individual who uses Christ’s name (not his message) as a club of hatred.
Some people should try to exercise a bit of tollerance. Tollerance is not acceptance. Tollerance is allowing someone to exercise their free will without condemning them to hell.
Tact would be usefull too.
natesnake on December 18, 2006 at 9:20 AM
I wouldn’t disagree with you. I’m not necessarily saying that “the problem doesn’t exist.” I am just saying that situation doesn’t quite qualify for the whole-sale adoption of a “the sky is falling” doomsday mentality. In other words, keep the problem in perspective. It certainly doesn’t deserve and is not worthy of the “as dangerous as Al-Qaeda” hyperbole.
CyberCipher on December 18, 2006 at 9:28 AM
Meanwhile, you walk on a used car lot and you are attacked, you open up the Sunday paper and ads fall out, every magazine you open has a mess of “order now and save money”, every tv show every 10 min. has 3 min. of ads, every “Hot Air” has some babe in a t-shirt, every school is selling candy, every politition wants him/her to vote for them, your mail is full of credit card come-ons, every paper is full of ads, every stadium is full of pitches, your neighbor has a garage sell, walk down the wrong (or right) street and you are propostioned by some babe. go to a holiday party and sit next to a realtor or a portfolio manager–good bye peaceful night, are you watching a football game or ads with a game between…and this guy is worried about a few people talking to him about religion. Wake-up, everyone is trying to sell what they have.
BTW Blood Diamond opens Dec. 8.
right2bright on December 18, 2006 at 10:27 AM
I’ve been in uniform (Air Force) for more than three decades. Just under four, Active. The rest, Reserve. I’ve also been all over the world on TDYs (short tours) and have never been confronted by anyone in my service or any other regarding my religion, or lack thereof.
This guy, Weinstein is just a few Fruit Loops short of a full bowl.
Jack.
Jack Deth on December 18, 2006 at 11:03 AM
My military superiors are not allowed to tell me to buy their car. I can buy their car, yes, but because of their priveleged position and the undue influence that can ensue they can’t use a salesman’s tactics to convince me to buy it.
Nor are they allowed to tell me to patronize their business…
…even for a discount.
In the military, I can’t change the channel or turn off the TV to avoid listening to it.
What, have you got something against hot babes? Besides, I would have to choose to click the link. Not so in the military.
Schoolchildren are not in charge of my career. Plus, you will never see a commander bringing in his daughter’s Girl Scout cookie order form…it’s considered an unethical implication of pressure. (Yes, people bring in those forms all the time, but those people are never the ones in charge. And even then nobody is allowed to advocate a commercial enterprise outside of designated charities such as the Combined Federal Campaign.)
Yeah, they do, don’t they? Want in one hand and…nevermind the rest.
…which I can toss in the trash without opening it to read their message.
Not sure how this is supposed to be different from what’s in the Sunday paper at the beginning of your post.
In particular, those that are used for baseball.
They don’t have me report to their garage so they can share all the wonders of the items for sale.
There you go with the anti-babe stuff again. But thanks for making the point that illegal activities are just that…illegal.
You go to parties with people like that?
So you’re admitting that this type of behavior distracts from the task at hand to the point where what you’re supposed to be doing becomes an afterthought. Nice to see you’re starting to realize the impact.
It is obvious that you have no idea how much control over your own life you give to these people when you join the military.
I’m just surprised you didn’t make a comparison to carnival hucksters…or would that be too close to the truth?
James on December 18, 2006 at 11:04 AM
Soothsayer,
You speak of proofs of one’s status before God.
1 John 4:7-12
Romans 13:8
1 John 5:1-4
Galatians 5:11-14
I highlight the word circumcision, because for my purposes substituting the word tongues is just as valid.
Galatians 5:22, 23
James 1:27
I strongly desire to quote 1 Corinthians 12 in its entirety, but will refrain. I recommend that chapter in particular to anyone that is uncertain whether tongues or lack thereof proves a person’s salvation. Some highlights:
1 Corinthians 12: 8-11
1 Corinthians 12:28-31, 13:1
Charity in the above passage is translated from the greek agape, the word for pure, selfless, unconditional love. It has no romantic element, cannot be confused with brotherly, parental, or erotic love.
Soothsayer, I have read your posts here, many of them, on many subjects. I have a hard time identifying a shred of love in any of them. Venom, spite, hatred, rage, and bile in great measure, but no love. I ask you, is it more likely that people will be drawn to God by your words, or turned away?
Freelancer on December 18, 2006 at 11:12 AM
These posts are not meant for everyone to understand, James. I am not suprised that someone did not pick up on the common thread. The general idea is that we live in a society that is constantly telling us what they want us to buy or sell. Sorry you did not get the gist of what I was stating.
right2bright on December 18, 2006 at 11:23 AM
I get the feeling that James dislikes religion in general..it does not have to be a problem in the military for him to have his own little..jihad against it if you will going…just my opinion though.
EnochCain on December 18, 2006 at 11:27 AM
right2bright,
I daresay that James understood your intent quite clearly. His point is that if someone with military authority over your life tries to force a religious opinion on you, it is much different and more egregious than bombardment with advertising. You can’t (easily) walk away from it, you certainly can’t ignore it, and you feel implicity threatened against any “wrong” response to it. I completely agree and sympathize with his points.
But I also know because I faced the opposite, anti-religious prejudice from superiors, that there is always recourse available, you simply need to have the courage to take it as high as it needs to go. If a local authority will not redress the grievance, moving up the chain of command, up to and including writing your Congressman, is open to any service member who feels they are being forced to work in a hostile environment caused by inappropriate pressure from a superior.
Freelancer on December 18, 2006 at 12:18 PM
You’d be wrong about that. I like religion, particularly my own, but in the military it is not appropriate by any stretch of the regulations for superiors to proselytize to their subordinates no matter to what religion they belong. People who disregard the rules concerning religion can be convinced to not follow other regulations and that can put me and everyone I work with at risk.
You may think that it’s no big deal, that this isn’t a life-threatening situation so it doesn’t really matter if the regulations concerning religion aren’t followed. But the rules are the rules, they’re all written for legitimate reasons, and they all matter. Patton said, “If you can’t get them to salute when they’re supposed to salute, and wear the clothes you tell them to wear, how the hell are you going to get them to die for their country?”
James on December 18, 2006 at 12:20 PM
Freelancer, I am glad that you know James well enough to speak for him. You both missed my point…Wherever you are; military, the board room, school or at home, there are people who affect your lives who will be telling you how to think. How you accomodate that will be a reflection on how you intergrate into society. If you think that being in the military is so unique as to not interlace with non-military than you are mistaken. It is just another microcosm of life. What I was trying to illustrat, and apparently not well to at least the two of you, is that wherever you are in your life, you are faced with these types of people. People who try to jam their beliefs, and often use their power to do so. What some in the military are facing is not unlike many in the work place who are expected to donate to a political party. Try having some union wages shift to the Republican pacs rather than the Democratic pacs and see how long you are a union member (in some unions). If you want to see how stupidly sensitive some are, ask next monday, a few people, if they went to church, many will be incredibly put off. Ask them if they saw a particular football game, and no big deal. So when someone says they are being harrassed by some religious fanatic, I assume they asked them if they have been to church lately. Religion is a part of our life, a large part, and is expected to surface at any place, any time. Learn to deal with it. I could give you hundreds of examples, but you will think your situation is so unique that we cannot relate to you. Let me leave you with this. It happens all of the time, everywhere you go, learn to deal with it, have trust in your faith, and you may be able to help them.
right2bright on December 18, 2006 at 1:30 PM
Comment pages: « Previous 1 2