It seems that photographs of dead enemy soldiers and American and NATO war materiel are giving clues to the enemy about who and what are being stationed in war zones.

Photographing an aircraft with military markings could well earn the picture taker a courts marshal. Imagine a photo of a Marine Fighter Squadron with Christian symbols on them on station in Afghanistan shown by Al Jazeera, Fox News and CNN.

You said: The former (and apparently failed) military lawyer fails to explain for what crime any person should be “prosecuted,” something even MRFF representative Rick Baker called “harsh.”
________________________________________________________________________

The meaning of what I said appears to be lost on you. Just another opportunity to cloud the waters of truth.

The intent of my statement was to say that those of similar feelngs as the Squadron Commander who ordered the switch back to a notable intent to insert Christian doctrine into secular military business would certainly consider a courts martial harsh for the squadron commander. This primarily because they don’t think any punishment is deserved for disobeying regulation and constitutional provision by abrogating their oath to the constitution and violating the first amendment by favoring and promoting Christianity in a militray context.

There is no excuse for those who go against the very precepts of religious freedom by trying to corner the market for their own stilted beliefs. Those who violate their oaths and encourage unilateral religious activity in the armend forces are not soldiers, airmen, sailors or marines. They are outcasts, Paraiahs among real militray men and women. They are carving comfortable nests for themselves at the jeopardy of those they wish to dominate.

By all means the Squadron Commander deserves to be courts marshalled and any other traitor to the constitution, the flag and the millions who have sacrificed their lives in service to a secular nation and not some religion run country. Our military is pluralistic in form and function. Multi-Racial and Multi-cultural. To assume for one moment that one religion, irrespective of its majority, should be superimposed on that pluralism is treason.

Let’s get back to real religious freedom in our armed forces and stop Dominionists from co-opting the religious preferences and non-beliefs of all our young armed forces members.

They have many extreme beliefs among which is absoluteism, Christian World Supremacyand total committment to the “Great Commission” which has been expanded to include some rather forceful proselytizing. Command centered and coercive proselytizing exists in large measure in the armed forces aimed at conversion but beyond that the training of existing Christians to a higher level of obedience and religious committment is also SOP.

The agenda is straight forward. World conquest and conversion of all non-Christian world populations to Fundamental and Dominion orientedChristianity. This to be accomplished by amassing an all-Christian fighting force, and training them in the use of weapons of immense destructive power as a precursor to the return of Jesus Christ.

Dominionist Christianity is not new. From the days of the Crusades and before, elements of this normally peaceful religion have broken free of the original tenets and proclaimed their faith to be inviolable and dominant as proclaimed by God in Genesis.

Religious extremism has existed for a long time. Whether, Christian, Jew, Muslim, Hindu, etc., many sects have taken a wrong turn and become militant and unilateral.

Dominionism combined with military thinking and regimentation is a threat not to be ignored.

In the many years more that I have served in the Army, all of them at the same installation as this person and his group, I have never been in a position where my beliefs have made me feel uncomfortable or felt forced to endure anything that was against my personal code. Just for clarification, I have been in the Army close to four times longer than the group leader and at least that long more than the majority of his “flock”.

I have been to many memorial services for fallen comrades, numerous retirement ceremonies and so many public events in my career that have had some religious opening and closing, but they have always been non-denominationa,l or, at least reflective of the belief structure of the person being memorialized, and I choose to do what I will when they are being conducted, but I do so respectfully. After all, we are a team. I need to know the guys I go out the door with have my back and respect me in the same way they need to feel it towards me. It is an extremely small concession to respect the beliefs of my friends in order for both them and me to feel comfortable walking into the unknown.

My suspicion is that if were not for the religious aspect of this groups events, those within who tend to lean towards the unprofessional at times, would be lashing out in the same way at any other topic in which they would feel they are unjustly persecuted. I have nothing against non-believers in the military gathering together under common interest, provided they do not try and speak for me as one voice. A true professional and a leader in the military does not need a group to advocate for him or her, they have the skills with which to do so themselves and more often then not have much more experience than those who open their mouths as advocates for the group as a whole.

I know several people in the Fort Bragg group and not all of them approve of the way it has been represented. My hope is that those who are in the group who have a different/better vision of how it should move forward will replace those who are obviously not capable of making decisions and providing vision without the inflammatory guidance of people who have not been part of the military for several years. In my opinion there is about a five year time from the departure of your military career to a point where your ability to consult effectively has passed its “sell by” date. This seems to me to be the case of a lot of “advisers” and “consultants” as to how this group should handle perceived slights against their lack of belief.

As been described here for several years, Weinstein has used several adjectives to describe the “type” of Christians he is fighting, though sometimes his acolytes forget to use one and blame all Christians.

However, he decides who ascribes to those beliefs. Weinstein has “accused” people of being “fundamentalist” or “dominionist” with no proof they held any specific theological beliefs, much less Christian beliefs.

For example, Weinstein called Secretary of the Army McHugh a “Christian supremacist” and apparent supporter of “far right Christian fundamentalism.” McHugh is Roman Catholic, which is hardly considered a “fundamentalist.” Weinstein’s staff has even accused groups composed of Quakers and Coptics of being dominionist proselytizers.

In addition, Weinstein claims Christianity is the root cause of a variety of issues — from the Fort Hood massacre, to the issues around the Fort Bragg atheist concert, to the Afghan Koran burning — without any evidence he even knows the religious beliefs of those involved. Now he claims a conspiratorial “fundamentalist Christianity” is the problem behind a DoD PME course.

When you list the traits of those Weinstein is “concerned about,” you fail to realize there’s nothing wrong with what you describe. In other words, you’re admitting Weinstein is attacking the legitimate free exercise of religion, as protected by the US Constitution.