Non-Profits, Fundraising, and ‘Support Our Troops’

If you received a flyer that said “send money to support the troops,” for what would you expect the money to be used?

A quick web search reveals that the phrase is generally used by those who have a history of material military support (like the USO).  When other groups use the phrase “support our troops” for fundraising, they generally give specifics as to how the funds will be used.  For example, they may send care packages, provide services for wounded warriors, buy phone cards, or provide material support for deployed servicemembers’ families.

In one such example, Jolt makes a “caffeine-energy gum”–it is admittedly not a “normal” “support the troops”-type group.  But it advertised with exactly that phrase, and Jolt was explicit about how the funds would be used, even listing the specific organizations that would receive their donations: 

Obviously, Jolt is not a charity.  When charities invoke the “support our troops” mantra, it draws an emotional response, particularly in today’s world.  That’s part of the reason donors are cautioned, even by some government agencies, to research an organization before giving.  For example, Charity Navigator, a respected reviewer of non-profit organizations, says

Many people wish to honor the brave men and women who serve our country in the armed forces…With so many charities engaged in these endeavors you may wonder how you can find one to trust to spend your money wisely…These organizations provide various services from lifting soldiers’ morale to financial assistance for food, rent, utilities and medical expenses

We caution you to look carefully before choosing one of these charities to support as not all operate with equal efficiency. Those with the highest ratings have demonstrated their exceptional financial health. Donors can be confident that contributions made to the higher rated charities will be spent efficiently as these charities have low overhead and fundraising costs enabling them to use more of their resources in carrying out their mission.

On the other hand, the low rated charities do not operate efficiently. Much of the money donors give to those organizations ends up in the hands of for-profit fundraisers, not the brave women and men of the United States’ military and their families.

Of note, Charity Navigator does not list or review every possible non-profit organization.

While there does not appear to be a legal restriction on using “Support Our Troops” for fundraising, those who give should ensure their donations are used as they expect.

For example, the Military Religious Freedom Foundation recently advertised a “Bowling for the Troops”/”Support Our Troops Bowl-a-Thon” fundraiser with the explicit statement that

All proceeds go to MRFF for the express purpose of supporting the troops. (emphasis added)

Like Jolt, the MRFF is not an organization whose “express purpose” is to “support the troops” in the traditionally understood way.  For example, nowhere on its website does the MRFF say that it provides support for the troops in any material or immaterial way. The advertisements for the fundraiser also failed to specify for what “express purpose” the donations would used to “support the troops.”

There’s nothing wrong with raising funds for the troops, of course.  Any organization of any purpose is free to raise funds to provide support for American servicemembers.  However, as noted above, it is reasonable to expect that they will say how they are going to support the troops—so that it is clear the funds are for the troops, and not merely padding the organization’s coffers.

Since the MRFF failed to publicly say for what purpose they would use donations, they were asked what they were going to do to “support the troops.”  They sent a defensive and somewhat unclear reply:

MRFF’s mission of protecting the troops from coercive evangelizing and proselytizing is as much an effort to “support the troops” as the Evangelicals and proselytizers say their mission is.

It would seem, then, that the MRFF isn’t planning to do anything unique to “support the troops,” such as send care packages or buy phone cards, etc., as other organizations that raise funds to “support the troops” do.  Instead, the funds will simply be used to further the MRFF’s day-to-day efforts.  The most public face of the MRFF is its lawsuits against the military.  Thus, the “Support Our Troops Bowl-a-Thon” appears to be aimed at raising funds to support the MRFF’s legal actions against the Department of Defense.

The MRFF’s connection between the common phrase “support our troops” and its mission of litigation is somewhat unusual.  Few people probably expect that the self-described “agitation and litigation” organization “supports the troops” in any stereotypical way.  This makes it vulnerable to the accusation that it is misusing an emotional appeal for “the troops” as a vehicle for fundraising.

Had it chosen to do so, it could easily have eliminated any misperception by saying

“Support our Troops: Contribute to our legal efforts against religious coercion in the military”

or anything that indicated the funds they were requesting would support their litigation, not provide material support for American servicemembers.

Non-profit organizations do have legal obligations not to misrepresent their objectives under state laws.  However, there does not appear to be a legal requirement that they explicitly state what they intend to do with the donations they receive.  Discovering their purpose is left to the discerning judgment of the individual contributor.

Notably, despite its constant cries for financing, the MRFF is hardly strapped for cash.  It has raised six figure sums every year, including more than $500,000 in 2007.  It paid its President, Michael Weinstein, 45% of its income in 2006.  It is also worth noting that by some measures of Charity Navigator’s publicly listed ratings system, the MRFF would be ranked in the bottom 10% of non-profits, earning zero stars due to inefficiency with its donations.  (Charity Navigator has not reviewed the MRFF.)


  • The term “Support the Troops” in MRFF Fundraising activities is used in the context that much money and time is expended by MRFF in the process of dealing with overt, command centered and coercive Christian proselytizing to trainees and other command controlled members of the armed forces.

    Currently an expensive lawsuit is being undertaken by MRFF against the Defense Department for such violations. In addition MRFF is dealing with over 15,000 client case complaints of coerced prayers, Christian ceremonies and such which are de facto breaches of military and constituitional law.

    This is an expensive proposition. As an unpaid volunteer regional outreach coordinator for over four years, I can testyify to the long hours and heavy responsibilities of assisting our young service men and women remain out of the clutches of terribly misled Dominionist Christians who consider the Military, and I quote “a big mission field.”

    These folks have taken what is known as the “Great Commission” and made it a military objective to proselytize trainees and full fledged soldiers, sometimes NCO’s and Officers, to achieve an obedient Christian fighting force. One may read up on Dominion Christianity and its objectives by googling Dominion Christianity or Christian Recontructionism.

    More about the heavy expenses involved and MRFF’s policies can be seen at [their website]. [Edited by Admin]

  • My my. Editing the posts now I see. Although I’m sure blocking the link to the Military religious freedom foundation web site is for the good of sensitive people who should not be given the full impact of MRFF’s successes, I still think it is mean spirited. Something that a Dominion Christian might do.

    This seems to be an ongoing conservative trick. If you have no significant rebuttal, silence the opposition by whatever means possible.

    I have no compunction about disseminating the Christianfighterpilot blog to my contacts. I often copy entire portions to my mailing list which I consider makes for healthy debate. Censorhip in any form to prevent the airing of the core structure of ones closely held beliefs is tantamount to abridging free speech.

    I can understand the fear that a committed dominionist could feel at the disclosure of some of the truly awful undertakings of the grossly misled Christian contingents who carry out the ever advancing Dominionist agenda. If caring, alert and patriotic members of the armed forces get confirmation of such indignities and religious violations and start paying closer attention, the applecart could be seriously upset.

    I prefer open debate with nothing censored. Most real Americans do.

  • Your advertisement and your solicitation for donations were edited out. You have your own site for those purposes. This site is not obligated to promote your cause.

    If you’d like to debate, feel free. Leave the solicitations at home.

  • Even though you have censored my posts, preventing any interested parties from using a link to our MRFF web site and short circuited my earnest plea for donations to MRFF in order to support the many young men and women in our armed forces subject to overt and coercive religious proselytizing, I will still continue to feature your blog address in my many communications with MRFF supporters nation-wide. I do this because I am compelled by fairness to provide both sides of an issue in which I am involved and to stimulate debate not diatribe.

    I have noticed that your posts are noticably devoid of any fair representation of MRFF’s policies and actions. This indicates to me that you care very little, if at all, about the plight of the above mentioned young men and women in harm’s way.

    You appear totally committed to alllowing interference in training and other standards of militray performance by Evangelical Protestant chaplains and other operatives engaged in unilateral religious proeslytizing. This includes such diversions even in war zones as we have learned recently.

    This appears contrary to military regulation and constitutional law. Can one ignore secular law in order to accommodate religious law?

    I am wondering if the 15,000 client cases we are investigation and attempting to ameliorate are at all troublesome to you or whether you have written them off because they do not comport with your religious beliefs?

  • Baker,

    Learn how to argue. The arguments on this site work because they are well thought out and presented with supporting facts. You may disagree with the core assumptions and the overall conclusion, but the entire argument is well presented. Your arguments present emotions and passion, but few solid facts. The military typically trains people to ignore the emotions to get to the core substance. You don’t do that, and then wonder why your point does not get across.

    The MRFF’s stated objective (found on your website, which was insanely easy to find), is a good objective. The problem is that your words and your actions do not line up. You are so focused on the past biases that you are not looking to the future. Your idea of religious freedom is that I can’t say anything about religion when I’m in uniform or at work. That is not freedom.

    If you want your arguments to start working, start advertising cases where your organization supports all troops regardless of their affiliation to religion. Supporting only the troops that share your perspective is a guaranteed way to alienate the very people you claim to serve. In the meantime, what is your military background?

  • Mr. Dealer,

    Thank you for your response.

    I am sorry if I am not arguing in the style to which you are accustomed. I believe any good debate must represent the point of the person making the argument. What a great debater I’d make if I had to follow your instructions on how to go about it.

    My points are well founded in fact and had you been privy to the on-going exchange instead of a late-comer, you might have understood them.

    The United States armed forces are currently infested by a bloated evangelical protestant chaplain corps aided and abetted by a number of Dominionist operatives affiliated with such organizations as the Officers Christian Fellowship, Campus Crusade for Christ Military Mission and others.

    There are numerous cases of overt, coercive and command centered proselytizing on record.

    We support all troops in all branches and all religious or non-religious beliefs who obey military and secular law. Sadly a number of US Military personnel have abrogated their oaths to the constitution and are currently involved in or covering up acts that violate military and constitutonal provisions. Among these are General officers and senior civilian officials affiliated with the armed forces, several of whom have already been cautioned as to their commingling of religion and government. These acts are easily verified.

    The support we speak of is in aid of those young men and women who have little recourse or power in their own defense. The chain of command has proven an often inneffective process of relief. A veritable hen house full of foxes.

    You are mistaken about our desire to keep you from talking about religion when in uniform. Talk all you want unless you attempt to proselytize those who do not welcome it or are subordinate and feel it nesessary to listen because of command influence. Also if you speak out in favor of a specific religion to a group or formation while in uniform, that represents the establishment of religion by a government official or representative which is prohibited.

    You are smart enough to know these things yet, you persist in making them an attack on religion.

    My military service is not an issue here nor does it add or detract from my position.

  • Baker,

    You’re right, I am a new-comer, and therefore I should be part of your audience. Also I have been paying attention to the arguments you have made on this site for about a year, and I haven’t seen a whole lot of factual context, mainly overall conclusions and a few high-profile cases.

    I am interested in an honest review of facts. In my limited FOV I know of no one who felt Constitutionally violated (much less didn’t tell the chain-of-command or the IG), yet I know of two cases where people (both mid-level NCOs) who were disciplined by the chain because of these issues.

    Your military background is an issue. It establishes your frame of reference. Is your only involvement with the military the legal battles over freedom of religion? If so, how many cases do you know of where a military person has been disciplined by the chain of command to prevent additional and unwanted attempts to convert someone? And have you been looking for them? These are valid questions and not answering them chips away at your credibility.

    Finally, where can I go to learn about what you call ‘Dominionist’ organizations? It’s not readily available from the MRFF website.

  • Mr. Dealer,

    The history of this maverick form of Christianity is very interesting. You may Google “Dominion Christianity” or “Christian Reconstructionism.” These are not just fancy terms but explain why there is such an urgent push by Dominionists to prepare an obedient and responsive armed forces with access to weapons of immense destructive power. This in order to prepare for Armageddon, which, it seems, they are convinced is imminent.

    These are seroiously extreme Christians of the sort that brought us some very nasty times over the centuries. They are purveyors of strict and exclusive doctrines that pretty much call for conversion of death for all other belief systems.

    The “Great Commission” or Jesus’ comment about taking his Gospel to all nations, has become a operating strategy and is why illegal Christian Proselytizing is an on-going problem in Iraq and Afghanistan where thousands of privately printed Bibles in Pashto and other local laguages, on which were printed US Military Unit emblems, were discovered and burned by the Pentagon. Yet no direct action has been taken against the perpegtrators.

    Let me know if there is any further info you need.

    I am a former air force officer and rescue pilot.

  • Baker,

    I’m aware of the unfortunate and less-than-Christ-like history of Christians. What I don’t see is a push from inside the military. Everything that I see is organizations that are outside military or organizations driven by members in a non-official capacity. Case in point is the OCF. I found one case, just one, where the OCF overstepped the proper boundaries. That’s hardly a case to make the organization dominionist. Amusingly both the MRFF and the OCF are driven predominately by members that are either retired or working in a non-official capacity.

    As a side note, do you have proof of a Christian organization encouraging its members to disobey direct orders? I’ve seen proof of organizations encouraging members to push the boundaries of the regulations, but I haven’t seen any promoting the disobeying of a direct order.

  • There are numerous cases of overt, coercive and command centered proselytizing on record.

    No, there aren’t. The only way that statement is “true” is if you creatively define “proselytize” and “coerce.”

    We support all troops in all branches and all religious or non-religious beliefs who obey military and secular law.

    Not precisely true. You do not “support” troops who “obey” the laws if you disagree with the law. Case in point is that of Col Mundy, discussed here, or Gen Brooks, discussed here. Neither of those officers violated any regulation or law, yet the MRFF said they did.

    You are certainly free to disagree with their actions, but don’t say you “support” them when you do not.

    You are mistaken about our desire to keep you from talking about religion when in uniform. Talk all you want…

    If merely being in a photo is coercive, how can you possibly say that speaking about religion isn’t? Your logic is contradictory.

    thousands of…Bibles in Pashto and other local laguages…were discovered and burned by the Pentagon

    What is your source for “thousands?” Not that quantity is terribly significant, but you’re making quite a sensational claim.

    Yet no direct action has been taken against the perpegtrators.

    What action? There is no law that restricts the private printers from producing or mailing those Bibles.

    Bibles in Pashto and other local laguages, on which were printed US Military Unit emblems

    To date, no publicly available story indicates that local language Bibles had military emblems. Please provide your source.

  • I’ve seen proof of organizations encouraging members to push the boundaries of the regulations…

    I don’t know of the cases to which you are referring, but I will say that there may be another way to view “pushing the boundaries.”

    When the government or the military creates a law or regulation, those affected often say, “Ok, we’re not allowed to do X, but what can we do?” It’s not an attempt to circumvent the law, as some would suppose. It’s an attempt to understand what is permissible. No person or individual is under obligation to self-censorship; that is, they are not required to restrict themselves further than the law requires.

    For example, General Order Number One prohibits the possession or importation of pornography. That does not prevent people from mailing or having Maxim in Iraq or Afghanistan, despite the fact that some people have described the magazine as “soft porn.”

    Maxim doesn’t circumvent the rule, though some may feel is “pushes the boundaries.” Pushing the boundaries, whether it seems wise or not, is not against the regulations. Crossing that boundary is.

  • I have pictures of the Bible but I have been unable to paste it or other condemning pictures to this blog site. I can e-mail them to you on request. Will you publish them?

    The Bibles sent to Iraq and Afghanistan were printed by extremist Christian organizations and mailed in bulk, in violation of special order #1 to receiving Chaplains for distribution to troops to pass out. These Chaplains and other conspirators were seen in a video produced by Al Jazeera conspiring to facilitate their distribution.

    These Chaplains were never punished.

    Being in uniform in a photo which exclusively includes known Christian symbols is tantamount to a religious endorsement by the officer, which he is prohibited from doing.

    (Impermissible governmental endorsement of religion occurs whenever a public official — such as a military officer — takes any action that “‘conveys] or attempt[s] to convey a message that religion or a particular religion is favored or preferred.” (quoting Wallace v. Jaffree, 472 38, 70 (1985). )

    One does not have to “creatively define” coerce and proselytize to the over 15,000 young men and women armed forces members who claimed to have been coercively proselytized by senior NCOs’ and Officers. One must remember also that even an oral suggestion from or photo of a recognized superior sporting or containing Christian paraphernalia can be taken as a an order.

    To me, pushing the boundaries of military regulations could be a Christian organization such as CCC Military Mission being allowed to videotape what can only be described as an Air Force endorsed Christian religious document at the AFA and in that video relating to the cadet corps that they will become “Government paid missionaries for Christ.” The Air Force authority who approved that video was derelict in his/her duty. (The Supreme Court has held that the Establishment Clause prohibits any official action that promotes religion generally or shows favoritism toward any particular faith. Government should not prefer one religion to another, or religion to “non-religion.” Allegheny, 492 U.S. at 604.)

    There are no cases in which those who employ coercive proselytizing in the military are obeying legal law or orders. They may try to interpret, bend or bastardize such regulation and use arbitrary reasoning to skirt the intent but in the end honesty, if in fact that is possible, requires them to admit that the acts of aggressive, coercive and blatant Christian proselytizing is part of a religious requirement that they feel they are charged with. (To wit: the Great Commission.)

    I think that the figurative cock has crowed three times and you are denying not Jesus but the misplaced actions of those who would establish Christianity as the state, nay, the world religion. Yours is a delaying action, which I see now as making you complicit and conspiring with the other culpable purveyors of this outlaw form of Christianity.

    The identified Dominion Christian organizations about which I have written are, in the scope of their direction, simply an American form of Taliban and Al Qaeda. The Jihad is supplanted by Crusade and Sharia Law supplanted by Mosaic Law. It is a battle of the religions in which you see Jesus as a warrior God leading Dominionists in battle, defeating all others and establishing a thousand year reign on Earth. In this scenario, world populations must convert to Christianity or be “cast into the lake of fire.” In addition, Dominionists already have their “Antichrist;” President Obama.

    This is a massive betrayal of the Constitution and the American Way. Those in the van of Christian Nationalism see America as a tool of Christianity and a land given the responsibility of such a well honed religious effort to achieve world religious supremacy.

    One can see this in the LaHaye series of “Left Behind” books, Pat Robertson’s “Secret Kingdom,” the works of John Rousas Rushdoonie, and others.

    The cat’s out of the bag. The Dominionist Agenda is clear. Construct an obedient military under the command of loyal Dominion Christian Leaders, usurp the constitution and replace it with biblical drivel. Next, the take over of American government and the election of Christian only officials by self professed Christian population and on to Armageddon.

    As we fight the Islamic version of Dominionism in the mid-east it would do well for us to take time to address the growing American version before it erupts in yet another Civil War.

    The actions of Dominion Christian Identity groups are treasonous and seditious. They crush American value systems and bastardize American justice. If you do not remember who they are let me refresh your memory. KKK, World Church of the Creator, Aryan Nation, Skin Heads, Army of God, Neo-Nazis, Focus on the Family, Navigators, Campus Crusade for Christ Military Mission, OCF, Christian Embassy, Michigan Militia, Indiana Militia, and more. A complete list is available from the Southern Poverty Law Center web site.

  • JD – there are non-government agencies that promote actions that would be counter to regulations for a military officer to do because some of those actions would be counter to good morale and order. Many Christian radio stations promote active conversion at work which in some cases (but not all) could be against regulation.

    Baker – with the above said, I still haven’t seen any proof from you that organizations that are officially associated with the military have been systematically encouraging specific actions that are anti-regulation and/or anti-Consitutional. Non-governmental organizations (like the MRFF and Campus Crusade) are at liberty under the Constitution to promote their standpoint. Arguing points about what these organizations are doing (“Left Behind” series for example) is irrelevant because they are not governmental officials.

    On an individual level, you stated:
    “Being in uniform in a photo which exclusively includes known Christian symbols is tantamount to a religious endorsement by the officer, which he is prohibited from doing”
    “One must remember also that even an oral suggestion from or photo of a recognized superior sporting or containing Christian paraphernalia can be taken as a an order.”

    Does this mean that two officers who are consentually discussing religion are endorsing that religion if someone of lower rank happens to overhear that conversation? Also, if officers are seen by lower rank individuals exiting a personal vehicle with a religious-specific decal (fish decal is the best example), then is that same officer endorsing that religion?

    The scary part about your thought process is that it hinges on what other people find ‘offensive’ to their religion, not what the Constitution finds offensive. Separation of church and state is not actually Constitutional, it came from a federalist paper. Contextually that statement was made to prevent a particular church from worrying that the government will declare a different religion the official church of the nation. As a common sense perspective, an individual cannot separate the whole of their character: the person can be both a military member and a church member (or leader for that matter). Are you telling these people to be different characters in the two locations (not to be confused with different actions).

    Your argument does not go to the core of the issue: actions by the military organization. Specifically I’m interested in your proof on OCF. What proof do you have that the entire organization is coercive in nature?

  • Hi Dealer,

    Here are some (there are many more) examples of overt Christian activities in the military.

    The Christiasn Embassy video taped in the Pentsgon, a Lou Dobbs story on it and the CCC Militray Mission video of Christian activities at the AFA.

    You must remember that many of the Dominion Christian activities are well camouflaged or not allowed to be known beyond certain command levels. “Burying” complaints is commonplace. I can’t take time to give you a blow by blow but you should be able to follow some of these cases on MRFF web site.

    Some supremacist statements such as are in the CCC video are almost throw away lines like ” And this is the AFA chapel where cadets come to worship Jesus Christ.” Not a word aboiut the Jews, Muslims or Atheists.

    It is not what I or others feel is offesnsive about religion it is a matter of how religion, Christianity in specific, is applied and endorsed by senior officers and officials. You would think Congress was a seminary.

    The Pentagon video ought to give you a feel for how many Christian officers are empowered by the professions of uniformed generals and high ranking civililan officals.

    Dominionists are relentless and tenacious. They will become liars for Jesus in a heartbeat if threatened with exposure.

    As a regional coordinator I have personally read dozens of e-mails from those in the clutches of Evangelical extremists. I am privy to them and a few have been released which have had actions completed. I am not empowered to distrubute these but even JD has read a few. And like some Knight Templar, he has pooh poohed them and gives the impression that the violated ones are just weenies.

    I can tell you dealer that these are not pleasant people to detractors. They will go to whatever lengths necessary to destroy credibiity. No lie or misleading information is left unspoken.

    In fairness this is because JD and those of his persuasion are thoroughly indoctinated and religion has taken so much of their beings that they are simply marking time on Earth awaiting the Rapture. You hear General Catton in the Pentagon Video saying that he tells everyone who Jack Catton is. A Christian who obeys God first, takes care of family second and serves country third. This is a DeFacto abrogation of his oath to support and uphold the constitution. The order should be Duty, Country, Honor. God is incidentasl and does not appear in the oath. When one places his religion above the constitution, he becomes a traitor.

    Remember, the current list of over fifteen thousand complaints of overt and coercive proselytizing is just the current batch. Many more have been addressed in prior years. Fifteen thousand young men and women can’t all be lying weenies.

    Taken in aggregate with the other incidents these complaints demonstrate an active, persistent and tenacious proselytizing effort in the armed forces.

    It is a large and festering project and will take probably more than MRFF and it’s current allies (many just recent believers) to curtail.

    But we are dedicated to first assisting those who have little or no recourse in protecting themselves from the Dominionists and then with what resources we can muster, to address the perpetrators, which as you know, can be very difficult procedure given the military’s penchant for self preservsation.

  • Baker,

    I’m looking for evidence inside of the military, not what videos outside organizations are making about the video. So the AFA chapel opened its doors to the CCC, do you have proof that the military denied video access by some other (non-Christian) group? The CCC (or the MRFF) can say what they want about the AFA, that’s the right of free speech.

    I’m still looking for your evidence against the OCF: is the OCF a coercive organization?

    Finally, you didn’t say anything about the practical application: if a picture of a military officer with a flag is a non-spoken order, then is an officer allowed to drive a personal vehicle with a Christian symbol while driving to work in uniform?

    I’ve heard all the stuff in your last post before, I’m looking for something new.

  • Hi Dealer,

    You, like many others who defend religious excesse because of their own personal beliefs, mischaracterize the utility of Free Speech. Freedom of Speech is not absolute just as other listed rights are not.

    An eveangelical group may be granted to make a video at thge Air Forve Academy and address the fact that many of the attendees are Christian. But under law they may not publish a document that instructs the Cadets that they will become “paid government missionaries fro Christ.” By ignoring the other faiths and non-beliefs at the Academy, they advance Christian Supremcay. One also may not promote one religion over another when given persmission to address trainees or serving military.

    A military officer in uniform may ride in or drive a military car with military insignia or flags denoting his/her rank and service branch. It would be unconstitutional for a military officer to ride in or drive a military vehicle with religious symbols displayedon it

    It would not be permissable for an officer to drive a personal car with overt or obvious religious symbols while in uniform. The uniform is the key here as he/she, while wearing it is in continuous active service as a representative of the military, on or off base, in effect an agent for a principal. An overtly religiously decorated car has only one purpose.

    All the cautions and regulations as to promoting a religion or promoting one religion over another while thus dressed, are in effect.

    Dealer, either you are a chaplain, priest or minister or you are an officer in a carreer field other than the chaplaincy. It is against the law while in uniform to preach, proselytize or otherwise advance a religion while thus attired.

    Why it is necessary to do that in the first place is beyond me given the off duty opportunites to demonstrate one’s faith. There is no other reason for demontrating one’s religion while in uniform other than to give it the sanction of that uniform and through it the military and government of America. This is dominionism at its worst.

    Also I’m not a teacher or traveling snake oil guy. You must do some of the work yourself.

    Read Pat Robertson’s “The Secret Kingdom” for a start. Then read the works of John Rousas Rushdoonie. Much will become clear to you then.

  • Richard,
    Your statement about personal cars is an opinion that is inconsistent with public policy.

    For example, even though a member of the military may not publicly participate in political issues, the regulations explicitly permit them to have political bumper stickers. The rules for religious references are no different, nor, under the Constitution, should they be.

    It is against the law while in uniform to preach, proselytize or otherwise advance a religion while thus attired.

    Again, incorrect. You may believe that to be true, or you may wish it to be true, but you are not factually correct. For example, the military has gone out of its way to protect “peer to peer” speech (where rank or position is irrelevant), regardless of uniform wear. Cite the law you say would be broken by such an act.

  • Baker,

    Thanks for the response. I wish I more time to respond, but I need to get to work, in uniform, with my overt bumper sticker on. I’m sorry if my discreet, but overt, symbol offends you, but JD is right, policy allows it.

    Your argument against the CCC is becoming more clear. I still disagree. I think there is a difference between allowing and forcing trainees to listen to a specific speaker. No one at the Academy ever told me that to go.

    Finally, I’m still looking for evidence that the OCF is a coercive organization, as you stated earlier (it was in a group listing of organizations that you claim are dominionist and then stated that dominionists are coercive).

    Thank you for the references though.

  • @Richard Baker

    This is my first visit to and I notice that you equate Focus on the Family, Navigators, Campus Crusade for Christ Military Mission, and OCF with KKK, Aryan Nation, Skin Heads, and Neo-Nazis. How do you explain this since the first four organizations specifically and emphatically denounce the last four organizations/categories? Additionally, membership in any of the first four organizations will not jeopardize one’s security clearance whereas association with any of the last four groupings will have a definite impact on one’s security clearance.