on religious freedom

ok, I have a question for Mr. Weinstein

why do you say that, spreading a faith (christianity in this case) through non coercive means (just talking about it on a conversation) equals ”spiritual rape” and ”treason”? I do agree that forcing someone to accept a religion IS spiritual rape, but, if there are two people talking about religion, and one convinces the other, isn’t it valid and fair? and, wouldn’t religious freedom INCLUDE christianity, because your quotes seem to imply that christianity should be excluded from it

thanks for your time

(name withheld)

P.D: if I misunderstood something then please forgive me, but, can you explain it more clearly? and please, with all due respect don’t use the excuse of ”that lying media” again, thanks for your time

Dear (name withheld),

Mikey has read your email and asked me to respond.

As a Christian (Episcopalian in fact) supporter of MRFF I have the freedom (as do you) to demonstrably agree with any proselytized message, disagree, or totally ignore with no chance of repercussions (excluding of course potential repercussions of hard core fundamentalists of any faith proselytizing their message). If on the other hand you chose to proselytize a faith based message to me in a government controlled situation where your official capacity was superior and mine subordinate, your message becomes immediately oppressive, and unconstitutional, due to the loss of my freedoms as listed above.

Let me use the words of another in further explanation:
No one will be prosecuted simply for sharing one’s faith in the military. Sharing your faith – in a non-official context – is fine. What’s wrong is when it is in a mandatory, official, or any other context in which the power dynamic between the individuals is out of balance (e.g., a commander recommending church attendance to subordinates).

Should fundamentalist of other religious faiths engage in the same type of activity within the U.S. Military, MRFF’s response will be exactly the same. You should also be aware that MRFF fully supports the military chaplaincy role in its passive (i.e. without proselytization) ministrations to the religious needs of all U.S. Service Members of any faith.

While I will avoid blaming “lying media” I would be interested to know specifically how you arrived at the opinion that Mikey said “spreading a faith (christianity in this case) through non coercive means [my emphasis] (just talking about it on a conversation) equals ”spiritual rape” and ”treason”?”

Peace be with you,
Andy Kasehagen

Share this page:

Commenter Account Access

  • Register for a commenter account
    (Not required to post comments, but will save you time if you're a regular commenter)
  • Log in using your existing account
  • Click here to edit your profile and change your password
  • All comments are subject to our Terms of Use

No Comments

Start the ball rolling by posting a comment on this article!

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *