Marine Crusaders Become Werewolves, Again
According to MSNBC, the VMFA-122 Crusaders were “ordered to reverse” their decision to return to the “Crusaders” moniker.
“The deputy commandant for aviation [Lt. Gen. Terry Robling] directed VMFA 122 to maintain the unit identification as the Werewolves,” said Marines public information officer Lt. Col. Joseph Plenzler. “I called down there to confirm that they have changed the tail markings, squadron patches” and other places the squadron logo appears, he said.
The Marines gave no reason for the order, giving Michael Weinstein — who had called the Marines a “national security threat” for the move — the blood in the water he needed to claim victory and make further demands:
“We still demand that those who made the decision…be fully and aggressively prosecuted so this never happens again,” said Weinstein.
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.” Since the Marines seem to have surrendered to his demands, Weinstein takes that as an acknowledgement of wrongdoing. Wrongdoing, in his mind, apparently means someone needs to “get an f[–]ing beating.”
Weinstein will likely use this to justify further attacks on Crusader-like symbology in the US military, a burr in his saddle that revealed his vendetta against only Christian symbolism a few years ago. A commenter pointed this out quite well [links added]:
Why stop there? Why not go after the Navy’s VFC- 13 Saints (reference to the Catholic sainthood tradition), VFC-12 Fighting Omars (Omar? My God! It’s a surefire Jihad in the making), VR-57 Conquistadors (again Catholic church inspired invaders and murders), VFC-111 Sundowners (those Japanese were fighting for religious belief in their Emperor), VP-69 Totems (everyone knows totems are religious symbols)? And I only know about the Navy… God knows the entire US military must be steeped in religious references!
Hi JD,
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.
And another thing. Marine and Army high command annouced that no photographs are to be taken in war zones and only on bases in between forays.
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.
@Richard
Actually, your intent was fairly clear. You said:
That doesn’t at all say what you’re saying now.
How is it you came to know the theological beliefs of the man you accuse of being a traitor?
@JD
If an officer in a command position orders that a squadron’s unit identity be changed back to a Christian motif, knowing full well that it had been changed to a non-religious nomenclature for cause, then he has violated his oath to uphold and protect the Constitution of the United States. This is commonly known as treason. Ergo the officer would be a traitor. I can see no other reason for this undertaking than the officer’s dominant religious beliefs which, when exercised, overrode military and constitutional law.
This officer, as have so many others I have encountered in my time at MRFF, has allowed his belief system to control his actions and has thrown those in his command under the bus.
Linear logic makes clear the “harsh” statement relates to the feelings of those sympathetic to the officer’s beliefs and actions and not to MRFF’s. If not let me tell you that my intent was a s described to you and not the way your read it. I would prefer to play scrabble on my own time and not clutter these pages up with word games.
Pingback: God and Country » Marine Crusaders in the Modern Context