Comments on: Military Officers and Religious Ideology

By: Chappy

Chappy — Sat, 14 Nov 2009 20:16:00 +0000

Miss Rodda is delusional. As a paid shill for MRFF, she is required to come up with outrageous anti-Christian rhetoric to satisfy her boss, Weinstein. Their words are one. MRFF needs to embrace the idea that we have freedom of religion in our military, not freedom from any other religion than “American patriotism,” which is Weinstein’s stated goal on his website. Ironically for the small minds at MRFF, American patriotism has always rested on the notion of “God and country.” Bzzzzzp!

By: Dealer

Dealer — Thu, 05 Nov 2009 18:40:41 +0000

Chris,

I see your point, but I have a problem with you referring to a news organization as false in the same paragraph where you commend the fact that the news organization is agreeing with you.

Due to lack of time (and sleep) I haven’t reviewed the video clip. Does Cash present this view while in uniform? If not, why is it unconstitutional for a military officer to wish something that he sees as good to happen to the entire military? Isn’t that what you are also trying to do-advocate something that you see as good to the entire military and then to the nation?

By: Chris Rodda

Chris Rodda — Thu, 05 Nov 2009 17:00:23 +0000

You are missing my point about FAUX News. JD claimed that by saying that Cash’s statements about Islam are a problem, and that Obama complimenting Cash has caused a problem, MRFF is saying that chaplains can’t express their religious views. By JD’s logic, that would mean that Sean Hannity, who usually defends any kind of religious expression anywhere by anybody, also thinks that chaplains can’t express their religious views. Both MRFF and Hannity were making exactly the same point — that Obama should have vetted this chaplain better. Our reasons, of course, were different — MRFF’s concern was the perception of Obama by the world, while Hannity was just relishing the possibility that Obama might have another “pastor problem” on his hands — but our conclusion was the same.

As for an officer expressing their personal opinions, there is a big difference between a Christian chaplain expressing a theological opinion that their religion is the “true” religion and a chaplain making denigrating statements about another religion. But, as I already said in previous comments, this was not MRFF’s issue with Cash until his statements about Islam were made public by the Washington Post. MRFF’s problem with Cash was his statement “First we get the military, then we get the nation,” which he made via video during a speech by Campus Crusade for Christ’s Military Ministry’s director. There was clearly a statement advocating Campus Crusade’s mission of proselytizing of the entire U.S. military, something that no chaplain should be promoting.

By: Dealer

Dealer — Thu, 05 Nov 2009 05:46:08 +0000

Chris,

You’re saying that you can use Fox news as a reference when it agrees with you, but when it disagrees with you it’s FAUX news? Sounds like biased research…

Even if a military officer’s views and desires are controversial, you have to evaluate his actions. If you maintain that a military officer always carries his rank then when is that officer allowed to express his personal opinions? I ask that because I am a military officer and want to know on a practical level what your position is.

By: Chris Rodda

Chris Rodda — Tue, 03 Nov 2009 16:13:23 +0000

I didn’t reference FAUX News as a source of good information! I referenced it as a source that would usually be in disagreement with the positions of MRFF, but in this case said the same thing we’re saying.

As for Cash’s rank, even if he has been promoted to O-4 by now, it makes absolutely no difference in regard to the issues raised by MRFF or the Washington Post about the things he said and wrote as an O-3. Unless a promotion suddenly made him change his views on Islam and converting the entire military to Christianity, his rank is irrelevant.

By: Dealer

Dealer — Tue, 03 Nov 2009 01:36:04 +0000

Chris,

If you call it FAUX news, then why do you reference it as a source of good information? Anyway, if Chaplain Cash is a Lt (O-3) then his current stature is pretty impressive. Somehow I think that he got promoted since his Lt. days…

By: Chris Rodda

Chris Rodda — Mon, 02 Nov 2009 05:32:07 +0000

I use this site for research????? That’s freakin’ hysterical!!! Thanks for the laugh!!!

And, by the way, I’m not “consulting” for MRFF. I work for MRFF full-time, and Senior Research Director is my title. But, since you seem to get such a kick out of describing my position with MRFF in so many different ways to trivialize me, you can keep doing that. At least my job will never be replaced by a robot like yours will. But I’m sure you’ll be able to get a job with FAUX News when that happens. You’ve definitely got a knack for spinning stories. I’m sure they’d be glad to have you.

By: JD

JD — Mon, 02 Nov 2009 02:07:30 +0000

What does “who started it” have to do with anything? Your insistence on digressing to grade school irrelevancies is intriguing.

This is about the incorrect opinions, asserted as fact, that military Chaplains cannot speak in accordance with their theology. This basic religious liberty is, as you state, one of the Constitutionally guaranteed freedoms with which the MRFF takes “issue.”

Have you seen Chaplain Cash in uniform recently? While there are undated photos of him in Lieutenant rank (which he has held since at least 2003), a variety of public records indicate that is not his pay grade. Admittedly, the USNR may operate under an abnormal arrangement regarding status.

But then, as a “senior research director” consulting with the MRFF, you probably already took the time to find that out. Then again, I know you use this site for research, so maybe you’re waiting for me to tell you where to find it…

By: Chris Rodda

Chris Rodda — Mon, 02 Nov 2009 00:38:03 +0000

Mikey’s quote was IN RESPONSE TO the revelation of the anti-Muslim statements in the Washington Post article, and the effect these statements were obviously having in other countries. This was not something that MRFF started. The Washington Post did. Sean Hannity even brought it up on FAUX News, saying that Obama should have done a better job of vetting this pastor! Does that mean Hannity thinks chaplains shouldn’t be allowed to express their religious views?

And, Chaplain Cash most certainly is a Lieutenant. Apparently, you are unfamiliar with Navy rank insignia.

By: JD

JD — Sun, 01 Nov 2009 21:06:13 +0000

it wasn’t MRFF that went after Lt. Cash for his anti-Muslim statements

MRFF’s founder, Weinstein, did–as quoted in your own article.

Thus, your impassioned defense is untrue.

That said, the MRFF view of Cash’s statements on Islam wasn’t the point, and your blog wasn’t the point. The point was “Rodda, Sharlet, and Weinstein’s MRFF…disagree with Cash’s religious freedom to espouse his views,” a point which you just reinforced.

And do a little research, MRFF researcher. Chaplain Cash is not a Lieutenant.

By: Chris Rodda

Chris Rodda — Sun, 01 Nov 2009 18:31:41 +0000

Why no link to what I actually wrote, JD? Because anyone reading what I wrote would see that it wasn’t MRFF that went after Lt. Cash for his anti-Muslim statements? That it was actually the Washington Post and the Times of London, and that I was just reporting on the the reaction to the story around the world?

MRFF’s issue with Lt. Cash was his involvement with Campus Crusade for Christ’s Military Ministry — particularly his statement: “First we get the military, then we get the nation.” I had written nothing about Cash’s anti-Muslim statements until it became apparent that this was the issue that newspapers and blogs around the world were zeroing in on from the Washington Post article.

Here’s the link to what I actually wrote so your readers can see how you grossly distorted the story to feed your insatiable obsession to bash MRFF:

http://www.dailykos.com/story/2009/10/15/793741/-The-Times-of-London:-Islam-is-violent-says-President-Obamas-new-pastor-Carey-Cash