Is it a superior officer proselytizing?

A common accusation wholly unsupported by any example in reality.

Is it a threat of non-promotion for failing to tow the Jesus line?

Again, not a single, documented example. Ever.

Is it a Westpoint officer telling a room full of cadets that a “Muslim” surely planted bombs in Boston…

Acknowledging that the statement is paraphrased out of context, what rule does that violate? (We’ll ignore for the moment that it was true.)

Was it religious intolerance perceived at USAFA?

If such a perception can justify “compelling” someone to “run” to the MRFF — and ignoring the entire US military grievance system — can the “perception” of institutionalized religious hostility caused by a Pentagon invitation to Michael Weinstein also be actionable by outside groups contacted by military members?

Who is bringing discredit…

I would challenge you to cite a single validated example of any such impropriety in a public complaint brought by Weinstein. A single one. Since you didn’t understand this last time, just because Weintein makes an accusation does not make something true, and you can’t “corroborate” something by citing a news article that simply quotes Weinstein making the accusation.

there are 27 people…

What number legitimizes a group’s claim? If 28 people disagree, will you change your mind? No one is claiming people don’t honestly believe the Christians are trying to take over the world. Groups far larger than 27 people, and with far more impressive resumes, can believe in just as irrational concepts.

Which is more believable:

The US government colluded with a private company to convert people to Christianity by inscribing abbreviated references to Bible verses in 2mm font next to serial numbers on rifle scopes.

or

The government purchased a commercial product recognized for its technical superiority from a company that had a tradition of connecting Biblical references about “light” to its products, without regard to that practice.

For someone who claims to be inclined to accept the simple, reasonable explanation, you seem oddly accepting of the irrational.

I take information and attempt to corroborate it. That’s a far cry from taking anything at face value.

I read that book several years ago when I began to see evidence of issues appearing, especially at USAFA. It’s been an ongoing observation and education since then. I only mention it, as part of my own learning. As I said before, this phenomenon is not taking place in a vacuum, and is coincident with a rise in the civilian sector of similar patterns, especially with respect to church/state separation issues, science/biology tinkering in favor of creationism, etc. There is a pattern that’s sweeping the country, and is mirrored in the military imo. But I’m repeating myself, because I think this is an important element of the big picture.

I can see your point about discredit on the Armed Forces. But the rub with the logic is who, or what force is instigating all of this to begin with? You’ve got a causation question, but if you drill down beyond a soldier running to MRFF, why did he do that to begin with? What compels him or her to take such action? Is it a superior officer proselytizing? Is it a threat of non-promotion for failing to tow the Jesus line? Is it a Westpoint officer telling a room full of cadets that a “Muslim” surely planted bombs in Boston, when one of the classroom students is Muslim? Was it religious intolerance perceived at USAFA? You suggest a horse before the cart, I would disagree with that assertion – something pops up in the news frequently, and it’s not made up by MRFF. I don’t need to point to you the Wikipedia page on MRFF, which contains specific, factual information about MRFF and it’s activities. Who is bringing discredit to the Armed Forces – the person with a legitimate complaint, the person who is aggrieved, or an organization set up to combat and respond to it?

Lastly, how is it that, at last count, there are 27 people on the MRFF advisory board, who boast lengthy and impressive resumes, from a variety of backgrounds? Are they all just clueless idiots following Mickey Weinstein down the path of unabated, intolerant, anti-Christian militancy? I don’t think so.

Bashing at Weinstein is easy, but either he is incredibly adept at pulling a wool of deceit and fabrication over a lot of people’s eyes, or there are genuine issues that demand attention.

Just like Col. Wilkerson admitted, you didn’t experience this wave of evangelical proselytizing while you were in yet you are willing to jump on a ban wagon because you read a book? I don’t care where you graduated from or where or how you served, you’re simply wrong in your support of Weinstein and his ‘organization’ aka. business.

So since you insist that JD answer your question, I’ll do the same.

When a soldier in the Army or a Marine, say, contacts an outside agency, for example MRFF, who then takes the soldier or Marine’s story and publicizes it in the media accusing the military of discrimination and then attacks Christian organizations that support the military and claims the military is in cahoots with these groups to turn the military in Jesus lovers, is that behavior that brings discredit up on the Armed Forces?

Regardless of how you characterize the relationship, how do you explain away or rationalize this anonymous author stating “During those three years, and specifically because of that relationship, my Service avoided countless (I believe in excess of 3 dozen) events of potential Constitutional breaches of religious civil rights – which we were able to resolve quickly, and quietly.”

You constantly claim there’s no “evidence” and now we have this letter, ostensibly claiming there have been issues/problems over a three year time frame.

Are these people just fabricating falsehoods, just to prop up Mickey Weinstein? I wouldn’t think so.

As to the Rock Beyond Belief event you are referring to, that’s old ground that’s debatable.

I don’t buy for two seconds the assertion that the MRFF Advisory Board is composed of people who “take Mickey’s word for it…” Many of these people have their own reputations to protect, including a very popular New Mexico governor. Glen Doherty, who was killed in Libya, was a class act, smart, and a staunch protector of the Constitution.

The bottom line is that to ignore the advent of Chrisitian “dominionism” is to do so at our collective peril. My own education on this topic began when I read “The Family – The Secret Fundamemtslism at the Heart of American Power.” The military is only an extension of this disturbing trend in American culture, and must not be ignored.

And speaking of service members violating regs, under General Article 134 of the UCMJ:

‘Though not specifically mentioned in this chapter, all disorders and neglects to the prejudice of good order and discipline in the armed forces, all conduct of a nature to bring discredit upon the armed forces, and crimes and offenses not capital, of which persons subject to this chapter may be guilty, shall be taken cognizance of by a general, special or summary court-martial, according to the nature and degree of the offense, and shall be punished at the discretion of that court.’

So when a soldier in the Army or a Marine, say, contacts an outside agency, for example MRFF, who then takes the soldier or Marine’s story and publicizes it in the media accusing the military of discrimination and then attacks Christian organizations that support the military and claims the military is in cahoots with these groups to turn the military in Jesus lovers, is that behavior that brings discredit up on the Armed Forces?

How about when Chris Rodda, the Senior Research Director of MRFF, publicly attacked members of the atheist community for advertising that a secular organizations president was going to be speaking at a chapel on Fort Bragg because they had had been propagating that atheist soldiers were being discriminated against when they weren’t. Instead of recognizing Fort Bragg’s equal treatment of secular soldiers, MRFF tried to defame the local atheist members who had been working WITH Fort Bragg.

MRFF’s board is composed of people who take Mikey’s word for it instead of educating them-selves on actual military policies.

Is it crossing a line for an officer to give a grieving service member a Bible? I think so. It’s also crossing a line when you exploit AD service members and hide behind fancy titles like ‘legal counsel to the Reagan Admin.’ or Former aid to Gen. Colin Powell, and? Does that somehow excuse his bigotry? Go educate your-self a bit more before you support someone you know nothing about.

It seems to me your opinions on this topic are key, given your angst against Weisntein – whose stated mission is to stop the abuse of military command by proselytizing subordinates.

I posed some questions related to individual and organizations associated with MRFF. Does no answer mean you are declining to reply?