MRFF’s Chris Rodda Criticizes One Military Chapel, Defends Another

If one wasn’t aware of her history, it might have been surprising to see a recent pair of articles highlight the intellectually inconsistency of the MRFF’s Chris Rodda.

Rodda recently went on record defending the construction of the US Air Force Academy chapel facility called the “Falcon Circle” from those who claimed it was an inappropriate use of government money for three cadets (a separate issue discussed elsewhere).  She said:

Designating the stone circle as a chapel facility simply accommodates a religious group with a worship area that meets their needs, something taken for granted by other religious groups at the Academy. Whether the users of that worship space number in the hundreds or in single digits is completely irrelevant when it comes to providing a place for them to worship according to their beliefs.

Comically, four days later an article appeared in the Tennessean quoting the Military Religious Freedom Foundation’s 2009 criticism of the construction of a different chapel at Fort Campbell.

The [MRFF] felt it looked too much like a megachurch and would be used mostly by evangelicals. Members also argued that it was a waste of taxpayer money to build a new chapel when there are already plenty of churches in Clarksville for soldiers to attend.

“It’s not like they are in the middle of nowhere and there is no place for them to go to church,” said Chris Rodda, senior research director for the Military Religious Freedom Foundation.

Despite Rodda’s concern that it “looked too much like a megachurch,” the Army post has been quite adamant about what the chapel will be used for:

People of all faiths – from Wiccans to Christians – are welcome.

“You try to accommodate as many faith groups as possible,” said Col. Roger Heath, the installation chaplain at Fort Campbell. “That’s what these chapels are designed for, to be multifaith and multiuse…”

Heath said the new chapel will help him and the other 75 or so chaplains on the base to better serve the spiritual needs of the 30,000 soldiers at Fort Campbell and their families. It’s all part of the Army’s long-standing commitment to ensure that soldiers are free to practice whatever faith they choose.

Chris Rodda’s “religious freedom” group opposed the construction of a facility providing a larger and improved space for spiritual support of all servicemembers at Fort Campbell — yet it defended the construction of one for three pagans at USAFA.  Despite Rodda’s insinuations, it’s not as if there isn’t proof of Fort Campbell’s pluralistic environment:

Twenty-one weekly services at the base draw worshippers from a wide variety of faiths. There are traditional Protestant and Catholic services, Muslim prayers, a Shabbat service, a contemporary music service called ChapelNext, a Greek Orthodox Service, two services conducted in Samoan, and a Wednesday night ceremony for about 20 Wiccans…

Staff Sgt. Trevor Madison, a chaplain assistant who also leads the Wiccan group at the base, said that even soldiers who aren’t religious turn to chaplains when they have a crisis. The new facility, he said, will make it easier for people to connect with chaplains who will have offices in the building.

Also, the chapel is intended to replace a half-dozen too-small World War II-era chapels, including providing sufficient space for an entire battalion to conduct a memorial service (something unfortunately frequent in this day and age).

Ironically, a sometime-ally of the MRFF had no problem with the chapel.  Ginny Welsch, representing the local Americans United for the Separation of Church and State,

said she could see why Fort Campbell would need a new chapel. As long as the facility is open to all faiths, she has no problem with it.

Apparently, Chris Rodda’s issue, and that of Michael Weinstein’s MRFF, is the Fort Campbell chapel (which “looked like a megachurch”) represented the “wrong kind of Christian” to deserve religious freedom in the American military.  No doubt she and Rick Baker will claim these proclamations of the environment of religious freedom at Fort Campbell are all “window dressing” to obscure an evangelical Christian coup in the military, part of Weinstein’s conspiracy that Christians are out to take over the world.  It will be called an after-the-fact whitewash to cover up an attempt at Christian domination, since it will largely be used by Christians.

The fact Christians make up a majority of the American (and US military) population will likely influence the majority use of the military chapel.  The fact they form a majority makes them no less deserving of religious freedom than, say, the Wiccans on the same post, however.

Naturally, all US troops are deserving of religious liberty, right?

It appears Chris Rodda and Michael Weinstein’s MRFF — an awkwardly named “religious freedom” charity — would disagree, which is why they would oppose one chapel apparently purpose-built for Christians, while defending another apparently purpose-built for pagans.  (As it turns out, both appearances are inaccurate.)

Rodda’s self-contradiction on behalf of the MRFF isn’t hypocrisy, however, because hypocrisy indicates an inconsistency between stated beliefs and conduct.  Rodda’s statements are actually entirely consistent with the stated objectives of Michael Weinstein:  Weinstein created his “charity” not to defend religious freedom for all, but to “battle” the religious beliefs of some.

As Rodda’s statements attest, Weinstein created his foundation not to defend constitutionally-protected religious liberty, but to fight Christians in the US military who aren’t the Weinstein-approved “right kind” of Christians.

The Army built the chapel despite Rodda’s complaint.  Overall, the US military generally does an admirable job of protecting the religious liberty of the troops within its ranks, even from opponents of religious liberty like Michael Weinstein.

43 replies to “MRFF’s Chris Rodda Criticizes One Military Chapel, Defends Another

  1. Chris Rodda

    I was misquoted by the Tennessean.

    When I said that it wasn’t like there was nowhere else they could go to church, it was in answer to a question from the reporter about part of the reason for the size of the chapel being all the veterans in the area who would also be going to it. That’s who I was saying had plenty of other churches in the area that they could go to, and did not have to be accommodated at taxpayer expense to be able to go to church on a military base. The reporter took that completely out of context and made it sound like I was talking about the soldiers at Fort Campbell. I wasn’t.

  2. Chris Rodda

    Oh, and when it comes to defending chapels, you’re leaving out another one that I defended. When I objected to the excessive expense of the chapels at Fort Campbell and Fort Hood, part of my problem with them was that the reason they got immediate approval from Congress was because certain members of Congress on the Subcommittee for Military Construction were using their position to approve earmarks for certain chapels but not others. What I defended in that case was the construction of a chapel at Dover Air Force Base , where they needed a new chapel to accommodate the families of the fallen service members who were coming to the base for the dignified transfer. The same congress members who were approving tens of millions of dollars for the mega-church type chapels that they wanted did not initially approve the much less costly new chapel at Dover. The senators from Delaware eventually got it put into the bill and it was approved in the conference report, but they really had to fight for it. I thought it was outrageous that these congressmen were immediately approving amounts as high as $30 million for the Fort Hood chapel complex, but not the much smaller amount being requested for a much needed chapel for the families of fallen service members.

  3. JD

    @Chris Rodda
    You’re arguing about the trees instead of the forest, and you’re not even doing a good job of it. In fact, you’re strengthening the case against your illogical position.

    You were implying one chapel (Dover) was more worthy of funding than another (Fort Hood) because one was too much like a “megachurch.” Your sensationalist melodrama is ultimately moot because they were all funded, but it is yet more proof of your animosity toward even potential support of military members who you don’t think are the “right kind” of Christian. That the chapel could (and would) be used by many faiths was apparently irrelevant to you.

    The issue, which you don’t address and can’t defend, is the fact you objected to a chapel you stereotyped as ‘evangelical Christian’ but you defended one reportedly (if inaccurately) purpose-built for pagans. That’s not a consistent defense of religious freedom; it’s a biased political agenda.

    You don’t need to fret, though, your job is safe. Your boss Weinstein has specifically said he’s fighting evangelicals, so your criticisms of religious freedom in the military are an accurate representation of his public positions.

  4. Richard

    Mikey Weinstein is actually not fighting evangelicals in general but rather a certain overbearing and dangerous group of evangelical Christians known as “Dominion Christians.”

    This group proudly identifies themselves as having a mandate to reclaim the earth for Jesus Christ and maintain dominion over it and its people.

    These misguided Christians are basically Christian Taliban with many of the same ideas fostered by Islamic extremists. Total control of body mind and spirit appears necessary for Dominionists in order to achieve the staggering goal of world domination and conversion to their brand of Christianity.

    Those who do not wish to participate in Dominion Christianity face a rather abrupt end. It is a classic Domionionist threat. All those who do not cooperate shall be “cast into the lake of fire,” which, I assume , means death.

    I support Mikey’s fight against Dominionist Christians for more than one reason. First and foremost is the coercive and command centered proselytizing foisted on our young men and women in the armed forces who find themselves in the grip of Dominionst commanders who have achieved a number of high ranking and important positions in the military.

    In addition, this massive effort to convert non-Christians and elevate existing Christians to a higher level of obedience is to accomplish another stated Dominionist goal: An all Christian fighting force, capable of deploying and operating weapons of immense destructive power for the purpose of world domination and assisting God in the destruction of Earth in the end times.

    So one should not position Mr. Weinstein’s effort to defeat Dominion Christianity as simply fighting evangelicals but as a desperately needed battle to keep Theocracy and world religious war from bringing a sad and ruthless end to humanity.

  5. JD

    @Richard

    Mikey Weinstein is actually not fighting evangelicals in general…

    Funny, his book says “evangelical,” not “dominion.” Fine, though: Please provide an example in which Weinstein “fought” a “dominion Christian” in the US military. Of course, you’ll need to demonstrate they’re actually a dominionist, and not just the victim of your name-calling.

    grip of Dominionst commanders who have achieved a number of high ranking and important positions…

    Name a command/”high ranking and important position” filled by a dominionist. If they’re proud and as numerous as you imply, that should be easy. Again, you’ll need to actually demonstrate they hold those beliefs — not just your accusation that they do. Saying “Gen Gould is a dominionist” is no more defensible than saying “Richard is a Catholic.”

    weapons of immense destructive power for the purpose of world domination…

    …and there’s the tinfoil hat. You are an excellent revealer of the lucidity of Weinstein’s personal vendetta.

  6. Chris Rodda

    Really, JD? You’re going to jump on the ‘there’s no such thing as dominionists bandwagon? I’m sure MRFF’s many non-dominionist evangelical Christian clients would disagree with you on that. And so would the dominionists who have come right out and said that dominionism is the goal of the very real dominionists, like George Grant in his book The Changing of the Guard: Biblical Principles for Political Action, published by the aptly named Dominion Press.

    Here’s how Grant (not somebody at MRFF) explained dominionism:

    “Christians have an obligation, a mandate, a commission, a holy responsibility to reclaim the land for Jesus Christ-to have dominion in the civil structures, just as in every other aspect of life and godliness.

    “But it is dominion that we are after. Not just a voice.

    “It is dominion we are after. Not just influence.

    “It is dominion we are after. Not just equal time.

    “It is dominion we are after.

    “World conquest. That’s what Christ has commissioned us to accomplish. We must win the world with the power of the Gospel. And we must never settle for anything less.

    “If Jesus Christ is indeed Lord, as the Bible says, and if our commission is to bring the land into subjection to His Lordship, as the Bible says, then all our activities, all our witnessing, all our preaching, all our craftsmanship, all our stewardship, and all our political action will aim at nothing short of that sacred purpose.

    “Thus, Christian politics has as its primary intent the conquest of the land – of men, families, institutions, bureaucracies, courts, and governments for the Kingdom of Christ. It is to reinstitute the authority of God’s Word as supreme over all judgments, over all legislation, over all declarations, constitutions, and confederations.”

  7. Richard

    @JD

    Hi JD,

    Many of us who use the term “Christian Dominionist” as a descriptor often because we understand that not all Christians are dominionists and their moderate practices need to be delineated. Many evangelists are not dominionists. By varying degree various Christian churches and organizations practice their beliefs across a broad spectrum of doctrinal tenets. You must remember, however, that Christian Dominionism began with Christian Reconstructionism and its role in promoting and defining Dominionism. Christian Reconstructionism was born in evangelism.

    Christian Dominionism is not new but is only now reaching its zenith of power in America. Evangelical Christian Organizations which can be easily identified as dominionist groups such as Focus on the Family, The Navigators, Family Research Council, American Family Association, Southern Baptist Convention and dozens more subscribe to a strict and militant brand of Christian evangelism and take “The Great Commission” and other archaic doctrines as fact-based law.

    JD, to reprise an old saw: “where there is smoke, there is fire.” I am told that the over 26,000 complaints of religious impropriety from our young service men and women and our corps of cadets at service academies have filed with MRFF, in fact, center on coercive and frequent command level Dominionist Christian proselytizing. Could all 26,000 armed forces members have missed the boat?

    The closest I can come to describing the Dominionist movement is to harken back to the thirties and forties when Fascism and Nazism gripped Europe. Strong and ruthless central leadership and ever expanding recruitment, propaganda and enforcement units rather rapidly, often within a decade, brought the populations of central and Southern Europe under the mantle of National Socialism and the partnership between state sponsored religion, totalitarian government and laissez faire corporate workings we have come to know as Fascism.

    Christian Dominionism follows that course rather closely. And after Pope Pius XII signed the Vatican Accord with Hitler in 1933, agreeing to turn a blind eye to the destruction of the Jews in exchange for immunity for the Vatican, militant religion, Christianity in specific, became the order of the day.

    As for identifying the perpetrators of these acts of Dominion Christian terrorism, it must be remembered that there is a protective armored coating of reputation, rank, position, power, support, deniability, sterliong war records and inneffectual policing of superior officers and officials which give the Gen. Mike Gould’s an almost impenetrable shield of invulnerability.

    One often has to get down in the dirt and root around to get the information necessary to identify the worst offenders. And try to get someone to agree with you when you come up against a Vietnam war hero or gulf war veteran who, irrespective of their sterling service to America now violate her constitution in a most vile fashion and abrogate their oath to uphold it.

    No, JD, it will not be easy but in order for our progeny to succeed and prosper, there must be a religion-neutral world for them to live in. I and others who agree have begun to lay a foundation upon which our kids and grand kids can enjoy the true friuts of religious freedom as originally guaranteed by our precious constitution. And our armed forces must also enjoy freedom from religion as well as freedom of religion.

    True religious freedom must prevail.

  8. JD

    @Chris Rodda
    Your comment has virtually nothing to do with the conversation above. If we really stretch it though, there were two points of relation.

    First, the fact Michael Weinstein has said he is fighting evangelicals. You did not take an opportunity to dispute that fact.

    Second, in response to Richard’s claims to the contrary, the challenge to Richard to provide an example of a military dominionist Weinstein has fought. You quoted ad nauseum from someone unrelated to either the military or Weinstein (or anything even mentioned above).

    You’re 0 for 2. You might consider reading to see what people are actually writing, rather than what you think they wrote.

    @Richard
    You were asked to provide an example to support your claim of something you say is ubiquitous: the presence, coercion, and usurpation of power by military Christian dominionists. You used more than 500 words to say what you could have said in two: “I can’t.”

    As nearly everyone is fond of quoting, you are entitled to your own opinions, but not your own facts. You have provided no factual support of your outlandish claims, despite your passionate assertion that your conspiracy theories are patently obvious.

  9. Chris Rodda

    Question: If Mikey is fighting all evangelicals, than why does MRFF have evangelical clients?

    Answer: Because Mikey is not fighting all evangelicals. He is only fighting the subset of evangelicals who are dominionists and/or fundamentalists who even many evangelicals come to MRFF with complaints about.

  10. JD

    @Chris Rodda
    Question: If “Mikey is only fighting the subset of evangelicals who are dominionists,” how come neither Chris Rodda nor Richard have named a self-proclaimed “dominionist” in the military Weinstein has “fought” in his 6-year, four-lawsuit “war?”

    Better Question: If Chris Rodda says “Mikey is only fighting the subset of evangelicals who are dominionists,” how come he has “fought” Christians who aren’t “dominionists”? Somebody is playing loose with the truth again…

  11. Richard

    @JD

    In these postings on almost every subject dealing with Dominionism, MRFF, etc., names are mentioned. A few follow but it is up to the reader to google these names and get the stories and not mine to print, in detail, every news article on every event that has taken place. You have to do some of the work yourself.

    Gen. Johnny Weida, USAF, Gen. Dana Born, USAF, Gen. Mike Gould, USAF, Colonel Nicholas F. Marano, USMC, General William G. Boykin, US Army, Col. Robert Bruno, USAF, Gen John

    Lieutenant General Frank G. Helmick and Col. Stephen J. Sicinski, US Army Fort Bragg. Gen. John Regni, USAF

    Soldiers forced to attend Spiritual Fitness Christian Concert or be punished This is what we at Rock Beyond Belief are up…

    Billy Graham Evangelistic Association Operation Christmas Child shoe box campaign USAF Academy.

    Spiritually Unfit Soldiers FORCED to see Chaplains, to get “born again”

    There are hundreds of examples. Do your job and research them. Trouble is, you won’t like what you find and you refuse to believe them anyway.

  12. JD

    @Richard
    You forgot the second half of the question:

    you’ll need to actually demonstrate they hold those beliefs — not just your accusation that they do. Saying “Gen Gould is a dominionist” is no more defensible than saying “Richard is a Catholic.”

    You have no idea to what theological beliefs most of those people ascribe, and yet you, like Weinstein, assign them to religious beliefs at your whim.

    Your argument fails because you can’t support your accusations with facts. Most people gave up name-calling in grade school. You might consider doing the same.

  13. Nate

    Richard, you gave us names, but no proof, as predicted.

    OCC has been settled. It was an idea a cadet had to help children. Nothing more.

  14. Richard

    @Nate

    Nate, you are as naive as JD or as protective of Christian misdeeds.

    I do not believe the OCC thing was an attempt by cadets to violate constitutional provision. They were not informed or misinformed as to the unconstitutional endorsement of a religious body by government and militarypersonnel.

    The Supreme Court has held that Government employees, including the armed forces, particulary command personnel may not favor, elevate, recommend, prefer or proselytize one religion over another or religion over non-religion.

    Irrespective of who the recipients were, assembling gift boxes and soliciting donations in the name of a stated Evangelical Christian organization containing exclusive Christian proselytizing messages by Air Foce personnel violated this Supreme Court ruling.

    Also, would you call Gen. Dana Born’s signing of a base newspaper ad that read “Jesus is the Answer to All Things” an act of proselytizing? Would you call the distrubution of fliers about Mel Gibson’s Movie, “The Passion of the Christ” at AFA mess facilities proselytizing? Would you call e-mails to the cadet corps by members of the chain of command favoring Christianity proselytizing? Would you call the Superintendent’s wife holding exclusive Christian Bible studies to the exclusion of other faiths in their home proselytizing? Would you call offering bussing to cadets to selected Christian church and Organizations with no similar service to Synagogues or Mosques proselytizing? How about exclusive Christian promotional material in the visitors center? Or 24/7 access to cadets by operatives of Dominionist organizations such as Focus on the Family, The Navigators, New Life Church and others to the exclusion of representatives of other faiths? What about a known Christian cult, The Warrick’s Paternal Shepherding Cult, AKA Cadets for Christ in which female participants are told that they are sheep and men are their shepherds and they must submit graciously to their husbands in all things?

    There are currently over 26,000 client case complaints from our young men and women in the armed forces relative to being coercively proselytized by zealous Christian Commanders and other personnel.

  15. Richard

    It is my belief that while there are religious role models in the military which some may admire and follow for their leadership abilities, there are far more self-important Dominion Christian officers and senior NCO’s who use their rank and position to coercively proselytize their Dominionist brand of Christianity to subordinates.

    The military is the perfect venue for aggressive evangelizing and large, well organized corporations are running a close second as a number of corporations are now hiring Christian Chaplains and making worship facilities available to workers.

    Dominionist Christianity is basically a Cult with strong central leadership and a host of mid-managers. Coercion and extortion are common. A Dominion Christian organizational-functional chart would clearly resemble that of multi-level marketers such as Mary Kay Cosmetics or Amway.

    Christian Dominionism is much like a purely religious form of Fascism. Totalitarian in nature and absolute in belief structure. Doctrine is well defined and immune from changes.

    Dominionism is also habitual. Religion, Christianity in specific has been given a free pass by government for centuries which has turned a blind eye to religious misdeeds. Christianity basically operates on its own standard of law. Christian Supremacy succeeds in the United States because of its vast majority and the fact that it can do pretty much what it wants to do.

    Evangelists take the “Great Commission” as law and violate just about every rule in the book to promote it. Mosaic Law trumps secular law and Christians have often gotten civil legislatures to pass so called “Blue Laws” in which Christian oriented doctrines such as Sunday closings of business and liquor stores are made to be followed. This is, of course, misfeasance.

    Efforts to control religious excesses and make religion operate within the parameters established by the First Amendment and all the rulings and decisions made a part thereof by the US Supreme Court are taken as assaults on that religion.

    Without some form of effective blocking measures I see the spread and eventual growth of Dominionism to national stature. It came close during the Bush administrations where nearly every department and agency head was born again and a department of religious affairs and faith based initiatives was opened in the White House with Dominionist Jim Towey as administrator.

  16. JD

    @Richard

    There are currently over 26,000 client case complaints…from [those] coercively proselytized by zealous Christian Commanders…there are far more self-important Dominion Christian officers and senior NCO’s who…coercively proselytize their Dominionist brand of Christianity to subordinates.

    Again, you make vague, sweeping allegations, and yet you cannot name a single one, not one “dominionist” Christian officer “fought” by Weinstein in his “war.” Worse, you’re going back and forth between indicting only “dominionists” and all of Christianity. You can’t keep your own story straight.

    “You are a dominionist if Richard says so” is not a valid support of your conspiratorial accusations. You have failed to defend your point. In fact, you undermined it by citing acts unrelated to dominionism — but consistent with the Christian faith — as evidence of your claim Christians are trying to take over the military (and the world).

    Contrary to Rodda’s claim, you’ve succeeded in proving Weinstein and his MRFF go after whomever he feels like and simply decide to call them “dominionists,” regardless what their theological beliefs actually are. Makes for a nice bogeyman, but its not very truthful.

    You don’t like Christianity. Fine. We get it. Creating a faux controversy to try to get the government to restrict a faith with which you disagree is not consistent with the Constitution you so often claim to hold dear.

  17. Richard

    Au contraire JD. There are many who are named in the complaints received by MRFF. But they cannot be identified until adjudication is complete. What with the stalling tactics and stone-walling undertaken by ranking dominionists, it will be some time before the criminals are identified.

    It is a slow process, rendered as such by every barricade possible to protect and defend dying religious cultism. Jim Jones is still alive in Christian Dominionism, as is David Koresh, Marshall Applewhite and Rev. Sun Young Moon.

    I love Christianity but as any competent human being, I hated Nazism, Fascism, Crusades, Pogroms and Christian Cults as I now hate Christian Dominionism.

    The danger that the world now faces is, I’m afraid, in the bowels of Christian Dominion organizations and churches. It waits there, festering and slavering in anticipation. As great nations fell to religious hegemony, so shall America succumb to the stupidity of aging fat women and blundering old men whose brains have ceased to produce valid thought.
    They will search for and accept the comforts of contrived peace and harmony, and their tickets to heaven as their very birthright is sold to the highest Dominionist bidder. Hello Rev. Hagee, Rev. Parsley, Rev. Robertson, Rev. Falwell Jr,. Rev. Richard Roberts, Rev, Graham, Rev. Benny Hinn, and all the hawkers of Christianity for a buck who crowd the religious stage. Enjoy your ill gotten gains now for if there is a God you will surely regret your Dominionist days as they stretch into eons of torment.

    Not one to normally threaten eternal damnation, I just wanted to get one in.

    Cotton Mather of Salem Witch Hunt fame exemplifies Dominionists in the military. A bit looney and very dangerous.

  18. Nate

    @Richard
    “Also, would you call Gen. Dana Born’s signing of a base newspaper ad that read “Jesus is the Answer to All Things” an act of proselytizing? Would you call the distrubution of fliers about Mel Gibson’s Movie, “The Passion of the Christ” at AFA mess facilities proselytizing? Would you call e-mails to the cadet corps by members of the chain of command favoring Christianity proselytizing? Would you call the Superintendent’s wife holding exclusive Christian Bible studies to the exclusion of other faiths in their home proselytizing? Would you call offering bussing to cadets to selected Christian church and Organizations with no similar service to Synagogues or Mosques proselytizing? How about exclusive Christian promotional material in the visitors center? Or 24/7 access to cadets by operatives of Dominionist organizations such as Focus on the Family, The Navigators, New Life Church and others to the exclusion of representatives of other faiths? What about a known Christian cult, The Warrick’s Paternal Shepherding Cult, AKA Cadets for Christ in which female participants are told that they are sheep and men are their shepherds and they must submit graciously to their husbands in all things?”

    I never saw the newspaper.

    Who distributed the fliers? When?

    There is no cadet corps; we’re a cadet wing. And I’ve never seen a wing-wide from the Chaplain favoring Christianity.

    As far as I know, people can hold Bible studies in their homes. And if I want to hold a Christian Bible study in my home, it doesn’t mean I have to hold a Wiccan get-together too. If you’re suggesting people can’t hold Bible studies, that sounds like a law restricting religion.

    As I’ve said earlier, there are no busses to NLC or anywhere else. Cadets going there offer rides, or the church itself provides a van. The government isn’t involved. We’ve talked about the tourist fliers in the Visitor Center too.

    Focus on the Family and New Life Church don’t have anyone up here; they’re not SPIRE groups. Navs is a SPIRE group, so their leaders can meet with their cadets. Just as the leaders of any other SPIRE group can.

    Have you met the Warricks? Talked to them? Realized that cadets can still make their own decisions?

  19. Richard

    @Nate

    Hi Nate. I suppose it would be catty of me to say “There are none so blind as they who will not see.” But frankly there were prominent news articles in the Gazette and Independent relative to all those events described above.

    GO HERE: http://www.nytimes.com/2005/06/23/politics/23academy.html?pagewanted=all

    Many were also identified in a talk Gen. Rosa gave at the academy upon assuming his assignment. GO HERE: http://www.adl.org/misc/gen_speech.asp

    Read these carefully for they confirm many of the things which I have said.

    A for the Warricks, I knew of them through the correspondence of one of the female cadet cult member’s mother who described in detail the horror of her daughter’s fall into cult worship and ultimate arranged marriage to a man selected for her and to whom she had to pledge eternal obedience.

  20. JD

    @Richard

    they confirm many of the things which I have said.

    No, they don’t. The NYT article does little more than repeat the USAFA report from 2005 (which is even on this website), and which largely undermines your accusation of institutional religious discrimination at USAFA:

    “The HQ USAF team found a religious climate that does not involve overt religious discrimination, but a failure to fully accommodate all members’ needs and a lack of awareness over where the line is drawn between permissible and impermissible expression of beliefs.”

    Rosa’s speech, which has been discussed here before, said nothing that wasn’t already known, and nowhere does he say USAFA is overrun by dominionists trying to take over the world. The NYT article repeats many of your accusations, but does not “confirm” your insinuations of Christian usurpation of the Academy — and, again, its from more than six years ago. Yes, it is history, but citing an example from the 1800s does not “confirm” the US as a slave trading country today. We’ve been over this repeatedly. You need some fresh material that’s actually relevant.

    When pressed to give an example of your wild accusations, you named names (sort of). When pressed to defend those names, you changed your mind and said you can’t name names.

    Six years, four (failed) lawsuits, and 26,000 “clients,” and you can’t name a single “Christian dominionist” Weinstein has “fought”? Sounds like someone is preaching fiction.

  21. Richard

    @JD

    JD, you can run but you can’t hide.

    Repeated or not the information contained in the URL’s I provided condemns whomever was in charge during that period at the AFA.

    One simply has to agree that this is what happened and continues to happen at the AFA or risk his honor in falsehood and cover-up.

    To nail things down a bit at your request I will say that at the AFA level, Gen. Johnny Weida, Gen. Dana Born, Gen. Regni, Col. Bruno, Gen Gould, were and remain Dominionists.

    Army Lt. Gen. William G. “Jerry” Boykin was faulted for criticizing Muslims while appearing in uniform before church groups, actions that the inspector general did not consider violations of ethics rules. Last year, a Navy chaplain, Gordon J. Klingenschmitt was court-martialed for appearing in uniform at a political protest in front of the White House.

    The inspector general last week recommended that Air Force and Army leaders take unspecified “corrective action” against the seven military officers who took part in the Christian Embassy video.

    Air Force Maj. Gens. Peter U. Sutton and Jack J. Catton Jr., and Army Brig. Gens. Vincent K. Brooks and Robert L. Caslen Jr. were singled out for failing to seek appropriate approval to participate in the video and for violating ethical rules by appearing in uniform while praising the religious group. Retired Army Col. Ralph G. Benson, a former Pentagon chaplain, was also criticized for allowing Christian Embassy to film.

    These are all Dominionists. And a little cuckoo if you ask me. Google these names, by the way, for more startling anti-American views and dominionists doctrines.

  22. Nate

    Richard, again you’ve named AFA names without evidence. Besides, most cadets including myself believed Regni to be an atheist.

  23. JD

    @Richard
    In addition to Nate’s astute observation, you do not explain how criticizing Muslims, appearing in a political rally in uniform, etc., are evidence of a dominionist theology. In fact, it is easy to find examples of military atheists criticizing Muslims, and a random soldier recently appeared a political rally in uniform. Are you prepared to say they’re dominionists, too?

    You copied/pasted most of your comment from a Washington Post article. If you’re going to use someone else’s words, at least say so. You failed to note, again, the article was from years ago. You’re still recycling old stories.

    On the positive side, at least it seems you’re trying to answer the questions posed. The problem is you’re starting to see the difficulty of defending the accusations you normally make so freely. Perhaps you should rethink making those accusations to begin with.

  24. Richard

    @JD

    JD,

    How old a piece of information is does not effect its veracity; especially when similar events occur in the present. Either it is true or it is not. Take Gen. George Patton, who ordered his chaplain to write a prayer telling God to clear the weather so the attack against the German line could succeed.

    The fact remains that an atmosphere of Christian supremacy has plagued the AFA for some time. A known extremist Christian organization, Campus Crusade for Christ Military Mission, was permitted to film a documentary at the AFA in which Cadets were portrayed as groveling Christian sycophants and were told that they would become “paid government missionaries for Christ.” No objection was made as to that premise being a prima facie constitutional violation.

    There are so many of these transgressions that are well documented in the 26,000 plus complaints to MRFF, over 350 of them originating at the AFA. Other events are made available on militaryreligiousfreedom.org. You and “Nate” should visit there more often and catch the latest horror story. Gen. Boykin did not only criticize Islam but said that his God was bigger than Allah, not a good thing to say while in uniform.

    And Nate, as for Regni, your remark shows how really out of touch you are. I have it on good authority that Regni was a devout Catholic but decided because of the Christian flap to not attend church services so no one could tell what his religion was.

    Also, read up on AFA baseball coach Mike Hutcheon and AFA Football Coach Fisher DeBerry
    and their Dominionist Shenannigans. It was like they were running their own seminary.

    There is no room for religious zealotry in the armed forces. Religious conditioning tends to give dominionists a feeling of invulnerability that translates into acts of religious supremacy.

    The Officer’s Christian Fellowship is a hot bed of Christian Dominionism. JD, you should know that having served, I believe, as the head of the Edwards AFB chapter.

    The very term “Christian Fighter Pilot” connotes a religious preference and endorsement of a particular religion to the exclusion of others by Senior Air Force personnel. This violates the Lemon Test as held by the US Supreme Court in Lemon Vs. Kurzman (1971).

  25. JD

    @Richard
    “The fact remains…” you’ve repeated accusation after accusation against many people, yet you’ve failed to support a single one with anything other than “because I said so.”

    Monday is Religious Freedom Day. You might consider defending religious liberty rather than fighting it.

  26. Richard

    @JD

    Hi JD,

    I am a supporter of the fight against religious hegemony not religious liberty. But as I have said, it appears that you, Nate and others believe the term “religious freedom” really means “Christian Supremacy.”

    If you were to study the various and sundry rulings and decisions made by the US Supreme Court relative to the First Amendment you would find a number which outline what religious freedom means. Religious freedom must remain within the parameters established for it. Religious freedom is not carte blanche. The Supreme Court is very specific as to the lawful practice of religion and a religion’s responsibility not to encroach, disturb, interrupt or prevent the practice of other religions. Also specific is government’s role vis a vis religion and how no exclusive religion may be preferred, elevated, recommended or proselytized over others or religion over non-religion.

    It is vital that you and other intense practitioners of Christianity become aware that you may not run rough shod over other beliefs or non-beliefs and irrespective of certain Christian doctrines such as “The Great Commission” may not practice them in the armed forces without the express permission and acceptance of the proposed proselytizees and in a venue that is prescribed for such activities and under the supervision of a vetted chaplain.

    Practicing one’s faith outside the parameters established for it constitutes a violation of law.

    Now I’m not talking about a officer or enlisted person saying to a buddy or even a subordinate: “Hi, I’d like to ask you to join me for church services tommorow. I think you would find them interesting.”

    What I’m talking about is a an exclusive Christian rock concert at a military base in which all personnel are required to attend by the commander irrespective of their personal beliefs, with those who decline being punished.

    It is my considered belief that Christians start out with the concern for others souls and desire to bring them into their religious system with the firm belief that their souls would be “saved.” But it appears that the original concern turns into malicious program of coercion and that the concern becomes a process of domination and a competition for the highest number of converts. This process, as I have said, is much closer to Fascism than religion.

    There is a lingering fear that a “Christian Fighter Squadron” when receiving conflicting orders from a “Christian” squadron commander and Wing or Air Force level commander might well obey their Christian leader instead of higher command. What this could result in is anyone’s guess but the possibility of the Christian Squadron following what they perceive to be God’s will through their Christian leader could lead to a number of undesirable scenarios. Is a “Christian Fighter Pilot” still accountable to his oath to uphold and support the constitution? Or is he free to abrogate that oath if and when a conflicting religious order is given?

    An active duty Maj. General, General Jack Catton said in a recent religious video improperly filmed in the Pentagon: ” “And I tell them right up front who Jack Catton is, and I start with the fact that I’m an old-fashioned American, and my first priority is [1] my faith in God, then [2] my family and then [3] country. I share my faith because it describes who I am.”

    Nothing like having someone command the first line of defense who gives that command third prority.

  27. Pingback: God and Country » Muslim, Former Soldier Arrested for Supporting Terrorism

  28. Richard

    Here’s another wonderful result of religion’s incursion into secular law. The Michigan legislature has passed an anti bullying law for state public schools. Thankfully, the toxic language originally contained in the bill which allowed bullying to take place as long as it was morally or religiously motivated, has been eliminated.

    Dominionists Christians in the Michigan State senate where the religious bullying language originated still insist that it should be OK for bullying for religious or moral reasons be alllowed also mentioned that verbal and even a little mild physical bullying should be allowed to steer kids in the direction of God.

    It is mind boggling that law makers could actually concoct the kind of dangerous legislation that would allow religious bullying. Yet, the Christian dominated Michigan Senate had no problem in sending the bill to the general assembly for passage.

    This is only one of hundreds of Christian attempts to dominate state laws and invade public schools with “Creation Science” and mandatory attendance of sectarian Christian services and school led prayer.

    Without question, these are glaring violations of US and State Constitutions but have only been curtailed or stopped when faced with law suits from Americans United for the Separation of Church and State, People for the American Way or strong community objection. Dominionist Christians keep pushing the religious freedom envelope in public schools and other government venues to achieve Christian religious dominance. They read into the free practice clause of the first amendment a tyrannical majority privilege for Christians to the detriment and exclusion of other faiths.

    It is vital that thinking Americans be alert to these Dominionist Christian efforts to gain supremacy in America and to thwart the efforts to install Christian-based doctrinal law into domestic secular policy and achieve a Christian Theocracy.

  29. Nate

    Richard,

    So Regni was a domionist, but he never attended church services so that no one would know what religion he was? How does that even make sense?

    And where did I ever write anything about Christian supremacy?

  30. Nate

    And Richard, as to your fears about a “Christian Fighter Squadron” and Gen. Catton, read the first part of Romans 13. If you have questions about it, post them here.

  31. Richard

    @Nate

    Hi Nate,

    He was. But because he was a devout Catholic dominionist he knew he was on the Evangelical Protestant “S” list. You see Protestant Dominionists don’t think Catholics are good Christians. As a matter of fact they think the Pope is the AntiChrist. Even though a lot of high powered proselytizing goes on through Opus Dei I think Catholics are second class to Ptotestant Evangelists.

    So what with this intramural religious head butting Regni was hiding out a bit. I only found out about his beliefs after he left.

  32. Richard

    @Nate
    I’m quite familiar with Romans 13. But I have always had a little trouble with it. Did God give powers of authority to the bad leaders too? It would seem so and if so, God was just planning the demise of a lot of people.

    Another thing, after I’ve heard the ceasless carping of the religious right against Obama and how he is scorned, criticized, vilified and disobeyed by the Domionionist Christians I don’t think they are following scripture.

  33. Nate

    Richard, you said, “You see Protestant Dominionists don’t think Catholics are good Christians. As a matter of fact they think the Pope is the AntiChrist. Even though a lot of high powered proselytizing goes on through Opus Dei I think Catholics are second class to Ptotestant Evangelists.”

    Any proof of that?

    Yes, all authority comes from God. So the Romans in Jesus’ time had authority, even though they were bad leaders.

    There is sin in the world. God gives everyone free will, even the bad people. Otherwise, there’d be no point to any of this.

  34. Richard

    Nate, you say God gives people free will. OK God gives people free will and in the next breath we are told that God has a “plan for our lives.” Do you see a conflict here?

  35. JD

    @Richard
    So now we have protestant and Catholic dominionists, but the protestants think the Catholics are evil, and yet they’re working together, or not, to establish a single theological world rule, secretly, but somehow you’ve learned their plans?

    Wow, Richard. What a tangled web you weave.

    As with every other person you’ve accused, you didn’t provide any evidence Regni had theological beliefs consistent with dominionism, aside from your own statement to that effect. Care to elaborate?

    “Free will” is a fascinating theological discussion, but if you don’t agree with the primary premise of the Christian faith — that Jesus Christ is the Son of God and died for your sins (yes, Richard, yours) — what difference does it make?

  36. Nate

    Obviously, Bob Jones is crazy. And I don’t see how me being ignorant about a crazy dude calling the Pope the anti-christ indicates that I don’t get out enough. I have enough things to do here at camp USAFA.

    I see no conflict with free will and God’s plan. God has a plan, but we’re not required to follow it. Like my dad, who wanted me to go to college but never forced me too. I’ve been reading through the entire Bible, and it really helps put all this into perspective. Also, C.S. Lewis explains free will vs. God’s omniscience pretty well in Mere Christianity.

    You’re asking good questions, questions that I’ve wrestled with quite a bit myself.

  37. Richard

    Fellas, fellas! What I am saying is that there are many things which you choose to ignore because of your beliefs and the need to preserve and protect them from criticism and debunking. No one wants their closely held beliefs subject to rational thought and logical examination. Especially when there is no empirical evidence to support them.

    So when I talk about a person such as Regni, unless I have an inictment by a grand jury of card carrying Dominionists you simply pooh pooh my inofrmation. Much of what I know is gleaned directly from the source. I have talked with Gen. Regni and discussed his beliefs. I have corresponded with Gen Weida and have a letter from him categorically denying any of the events we know to have taken place under his command.

    And, truly, you two seem really defensive. My comments are not attacks on the foundation of Christianity but rather what I consider legitimate criticism, not of the religion, but of the practice thereof.

    You must also be aware that across the wide spectrum of religious belief almost without exception, each religion claims the one true god and one true faith. They fight amongst themselves and bring calamity to an already edgy world. There are even arguments between different sects of the same religion. Given the number and severity of religion generated war and civil strife should one not want to examine more closely the cause and effect of such bitterness with the hope of changing it?

    There is no objectivity left in you guys. It’s hook line and sinker with not even a modicum of doubt about some of the more fanstastic claims.

    You might be more convining, if, say, you were to admit that many of the Bible-Based stories and parables may realy have been fantasies dreamed up and presented as fact to make a point and win converts?

    Doesn’t it bother you to believe God made the Earth is six days and if you muliply that feat by the untold billions of planets, asteroids, suns, and other astral bodies it would take an eternity to complete?

    In addition, there are many religious happenings right under our noses that are dangerous.

    Sen. Cruse of the Indiana state legislature is introducing SB 89 which would require Indiana
    schools to teach creationism in science classes. The Indiana Bill Would Give School Boards the power to force teachers to teach creationism as science. These are seditious things and require people of good will to step up and say no to these examples of religion gone awry.

    And as for free will, rather than free will within established parameters, I see that also as free thinking unshackled by doctrine or commandment. It took the church five hundred years to admit the world was round and orbited the sun. I frankly don’t see much improvement in today’s belief systems. Many are downright archaic and defy logic. JD, you can look at your instruments and determine air speed, altitude, threat detection, target aquisition, etc. That degree of reality does not exist in religion. The word “Faith” as in “Ye of Little” fame is the stock answer for all things not understood.

    I am simply trying to point out that there may be a much higher level of understanding that brings science and religion closer together, a bridge if you would, that would ameliorate religion’s fear of science and science’s fear of religion.

  38. JD

    @Richard

    No one wants their closely held beliefs subject to rational thought and logical examination. Especially when there is no empirical evidence to support them…

    There is no objectivity left in you…It’s hook line and sinker with not even a modicum of doubt about some of the more fanstastic claims.

    You do realize you just described yourself, right…? You adhere to your conspiracy theories like a “religious zealot.” You have the very character traits you belittle.

  39. Richard

    @JD
    AAARRRGGGHHH!! JD, there you go with your Tu Quoqe Defense again. My conspiracy theories are now settled scientific knowledge and deal with your misaligned religious beliefs. You are an easy target JD and I have only been gentle on you because of your service to America. Don’t make me come at you with the dreaded logic of finality. Don’t forget, Nate is a passenger on your train of misplaced religious belief, an unwiiling adjuct of misplaced religiosity.

    Think of the masses that your personal beliefs will affect. Think of the trust that they have instilled in you and your ilk. Can you deliver?

  40. Nate

    Well, we’re way off topic. Richard, I would suggest you read Mere Christianity by C.S. Lewis. It is the most logical and reasoned argument for Christianity I have seen, and I’ve researched this quite a bit. I wrote a twenty page paper on it, and I took a class which was basically on Creation v. Evolution here at USAFA.

    I want my beliefs subject to rational thought and logical examination. I’m a mechanical engineering major. I don’t take things at face value. Yes, there’s faith involved, and God’s existence cannot be proven scientifically. He is outside the realm of science. If His existence could be proven scientifically, there would be no free will.

    Why does the energy of the visible spectrum peak at 5800K, the temperature of the sun? Was it chance that created the perfect gravitational constant? Doesn’t evolutionary theory violate the second law of thermodynamics? Why does nearly every culture in the world have a flood story? Why do people feel an obligation to rescue someone at the cost of their own life? If evolution were true, such people would be naturally deselected.

    Christians have started wars. We’ve persecuted people. We’re sinners. We screw up. Would you judge the Mona Lisa by a third-grader’s recreation of it? Then don’t judge Jesus by those who try to follow Him.

    As for Creation, God is infinite and omnipotent. He made the stars on the fourth day. Nowhere does it imply that he took the same amount of time creating each star as he did the sun and Earth.

    If Gen. Regni kept his beliefs to himself, he cannot by definition be a dominionist.

  41. Richard

    Well, Nate, I can see where this is headed. It’s been a good exercise and many good points made on both sides. I think people of differing belief systems should foster debate on them. Perhaps it would have prevented some of the violence that resulted from misunderstanding.

    For example, I am not an Atheist. I am an Agnostic Catholic. LOL.

    As for Regni keeping beliefs to himself and therefore not a Dominionist let me just say that Domoinionism may be as well applied by deed or lack of action rather than speech.

    JD,

    As usual, you bring a pile driver to a tea party. Any extremism emanating from me is simply self-defense and an effort to deflect the trappings and get to the meat of the matter.

    On the other hand, you do have a way of making your point even though much of your information is based on myth.

    I had serioulsy considered saying to you both: “Sir, you lack the depth FOR your convictions!” but upon further consideration it seems to me that both your religious inventories are bottomless.

    I think I need a fresh start on a different topic.

Comments are closed.