Military Times covers House passing of shameless anti-MRFF amendment included in National Defense Authorization Act (NDAA) bill: “Ban on troops communicating with religious freedom group clears House”

Patrick, citizens, yes.

The military is different. In order to achieve cohesion all individual identities have to be secondary, the unit as a whole is primary.

This means a soldier may not proselytize even if they consider such action as part of their religion.

Also, an individuals right to practice their religion ends when another’s rights begins.

Military members swear an oath – not sure if it’s before or after basic training – to adhere to military rules. As a civilian they still have their civilian rights but they are augmented or superseded (depending on one’s perspective) by military regulations.

Right now the most violations of the rules are made by Nationalist Christians, humans who believe their religion is the one true faith wherein all knees will bend.

Fellow commenters, please let me know if my statements are incorrect. It’s been a bad day but here we are.

Military members, in practicality, at the unit level, ARE allowed to proselytize, as abhorrent as that may sound; however, it can’t be harassing in nature or disruptive to the good order and discipline of the unit.

If, for example, a soldier were to tell one of his fellow soldiers, “we’re having a prayer meeting tonight at 7, you want to join us?” That is not disruptive to the good order and discipline of the unit. It’s simply an invitation. If, on the other hand, that soldier were to say, “hey, we’re having a prayer meeting at the Commander’s house tonight and everyone’s expected to be there,” then you have a problem!

If the post exchange is selling military dog tags with Christian iconography, along with a service branch logo, you have a problem. Not for the religious symbology, but for the conflation of the symbology with a particular service branch (by way of the logo).

It’s no different than your personal signature. I wouldn’t, for example, be allowed to sell any item with your signature on it under, say, a star and crescent, a conflation of your signature with Islam. In fact, I wouldn’t be able to sell anything with your signature on it without your permission, but you get the idea.

Military members have a Constitutional right to practice any religion they want – privately. When they are in uniform, they represent the United States Government (and their service branch), and must adhere to the regulations prescribed in their wear of the uniform and their actions pertaining to that representation.

A military member, for example, can privately purchase dog tags with anything they want on them (they never get inspected), but if they were inspected, say, prior to a deployment, you might have a problem if you did not have the government prescribed and issued dog tags with the prescribed information on those dog tags. I really don’t think anyone would care if your dog tags had religious iconography on it as long as the prescribed information was also on it so you could be identified in the event of death without any other discernible forms of identification. In other words, you were burned beyond recognition in a helicopter crash.

When a Government representative, a Commander, a leader, mandates religious symbology, of any form, then you may have a problem, and that’s what the MRFF goes after – the Constitutional violations that attempt to promote one religion over another.

The MRFF’s efforts are protective of ALL religions by going after any unconstitutional violations that would otherwise promote one religion over another.

We are a SECULAR Nation! Thank God – right?

خرید انواع پیچ و مهره آهنی استیل فولادی گالوانیزه و..
https://petropich.com/