Sharing your faith is soon to be a crime in the military

[HaloMagic]

You can legally be openly religious in the military. So it's not a legitimate observation. Nor is it somehow connected to homosexuality. Troll somewhere else.

[arch stanton]

Haven't you people seen A Few Good Men ? Unit, Corps, God, Country, In that order. This shouldn't be construed as a random action but one action in many that are intended to promote that old military standby of "good order and discipline". Now imagine that a Muslim commander was going to his Christian troops and asking them to covert. How's that Fox News response now?

 

In a military unit you don't have the right to choose your environment so it's necessary to avoid any ambiguity on subjects that may lead to intimidation, coercion, or the appearance of them.This goes right along with sexual harassment, racial comments, sales pitches, etc. I've seen this first hand and it can get ugly. The mission comes first.

[arch stanton]

So is this some sort of actual change in policy, a potential change in enforcement or outright fear-mongering?

 

For instance: are Mormons (servicemen or not) allowed to go door to door on base?

 

I have no idea, honestly. 

Most bases forbid any door-to-door soliciting of any kind.

[arch stanton]

while i think it being a crime is ludicrous, there is a time and place for religious dicussions... places that are not religious in nature or have nothing to do with personal beliefs, are not it. 

The military is an example of not it, but a court matialable offeense is just downright silly.

When you make a rule and someone violates that rule there's no point if there's no punishment. The article says including court martial, not absolutely court martial. This would only happen to a repeat violator or someone who was clearly impeding mission readiness and would probably go along with additional charges stemming from disobeying a direct order.

[RallyMo]

I just want to join the chorus of people and state that this post caught me off-guard and it took me a while to figure out it was aimed at MT because the words in it don't apply to him at all. At least not the little I know about him.

 

+1

[RallyMo]

WTF are you talking about? It's a legitimate observation/question. 

 

No, it's a stupid conflation of completely separate issues while at the very least misunderstanding one of them. That's what it is.

[nate]

I just want to join the chorus of people and state that this post caught me off-guard and it took me a while to figure out it was aimed at MT because the words in it don't apply to him at all. At least not the little I know about him.

 

It goes back to two things for me.  One being gay marriage, which is 100% a religious issue.  The other I can't find and maybe I am remembering wrong but there was a post about a state senator or governor about making an official state religion.  MT's response, as I recall, was something like "While I don't disagree with him, the way he is going about it is all wrong."

 

Probably also goes back to all the arguments MT and I have.  Anyway I apologized genuinely, I know MT is a good guy and my statement wasn't fair.

[nate]

No, it's a stupid conflation of completely separate issues while at the very least misunderstanding one of them. That's what it is.

 

Don't ask don't pray

[Blarg]

Yes.

 

Have you ever experienced a conversation like this?

[Blarg]

Absolutely.

 

Some people are straight forward and make their intentions known but also will cease when told no in a firm manner. I have found that the most obnoxious are those that are fresh recruits and are high on their new found faith.

 

Regardless of the steryotype or reality, most workplaces are non sectarian environments that are focused on the employers work product and should not be the vehicle for the presentation of religion, dietary suppliments or tupperware.

 

 

There are several levels in between those options blarg.

[mtangelsfan]

I really think this is a discussion about semantics.  There are several ways one shares their faith.  For me, any of those ways is still proselytizing.  Sounds like most of you find a distinction in there somewhere.  Which is fine.

[mtangelsfan]

It goes back to two things for me.  One being gay marriage, which is 100% a religious issue.  The other I can't find and maybe I am remembering wrong but there was a post about a state senator or governor about making an official state religion.  MT's response, as I recall, was something like "While I don't disagree with him, the way he is going about it is all wrong."

 

Probably also goes back to all the arguments MT and I have.  Anyway I apologized genuinely, I know MT is a good guy and my statement wasn't fair.

Fair enough nate.  Just want to clarify a couple of things.  First, I have never proposed or argued that gay marriage should be illegal.  My main argument is state sponsored religious ceremonies.  I don't think marriage should be a government run entity.  Now my reasoning is certainly following my beliefs, I don't want the government telling my church who they can or cannot marry.  Before I get the "that is ridiculous" statement, there is already a wedding cake maker who is being sued for not wanting to make a wedding cake for a gay couple.  I don't see how a church who refuses to perform a gay wedding is so much different.

 

Second, I completely disagreed with those idiots who wanted to have a state religion.  I understand their frustration for sure, I understand their anger at seeing things being taken away from them. 

[nate]

Fair enough.

 

People can sue for anything, that doesn't mean there is any basis to the lawsuit.

 

Also in regard to seeing things being taken away, I often feel that evangelicals confuse not always getting their way with being oppressed.  Christianity is so overwhelmingly dominant in our society and in many ways overreaching into our laws and policy.  Some of that is being corrected.

[mtangelsfan]

I just think it is silly.  Having a picture of the ten commandments, or anything like that isn't truly hurting anyone.  They take it away, fine, I still think it is petty to do so.

[nate]

I just think it is silly.  Having a picture of the ten commandments, or anything like that isn't truly hurting anyone.  They take it away, fine, I still think it is petty to do so.

 

Have they said that is against the rules?  I am fine with it as long as it is in personal space like office desk space or living quarters.  I do think it is inappropriate to post in a public area.  Like any religious or political item would be.

[Rico]

When I was in the Navy I always felt an uneasy feeling at the presence of chaplains.  I understand the importance of having easy access to a chaplain if you want to seek one out, but for them to show up at our meetings and ask us to pray with them...  that was just inappropriate.

[Ray McKigney]

You can legally be openly religious in the military. So it's not a legitimate observation. Nor is it somehow connected to homosexuality. Troll somewhere else.

 

 

No, it's a stupid conflation of completely separate issues while at the very least misunderstanding one of them. That's what it is.

 

Oh yeah? Well, the jerk store called. They're running out of you.

[RallyMo]

Oh yeah? Well, the jerk store called. They're running out of you.

You're their best seller!

[Broad Street]

So is this some sort of actual change in policy, a potential change in enforcement or outright fear-mongering?

 

For instance: are Mormons (servicemen or not) allowed to go door to door on base?

 

I have no idea, honestly. 

 

If this hasn't already been addressed (too lazy to go through the comments), no they are not allowed to go door to door on base. They would have no way of getting on base without a military ID.

[Socaliente]

If this hasn't already been addressed (too lazy to go through the comments), no they are not allowed to go door to door on base. They would have no way of getting on base without a military ID.

All they would need is a service member to escort them. Its easy to get 1 day passes.

[Vegas Halo Fan]

Most people can't proselytize at their jobs, either. Non-issue.

 

I will discuss my religion at work if someone asks, but I don't make a habit of it. I am Baha'i, and since most people have little or no understanding of what that is, there is some natural curiosity. I certainly don't "recruit". If someone wants more information I tell them where they can get it, nothing more. My employer prohibits proselytizing.

 

Some people interpret anything that restricts what I call "aggressive Christianity" as an attack on God, which it clearly is not. Freedom of religion also includes freedom from religion, if that is what the person chooses. There is nothing in this that prevents or discourages anyone from practicing any faith, just from trying to convert others.

 

If I approach someone of a another faith to learn more about it, that is a far different situation than a person of another faith approaching me without invitation and trying to convince me how wrong I am. They aren't the same thing and they should not be treated as such.

[mtangelsfan]

So what if the person you spoke with wanted to know more?  What if they wanted to join you for a service?

[nate]

MT, I think(hope) there is a designated difference between good faith discussion and forced discussion.

[HaloMagic]

Harassment is only harassment if the person feels harassed. Subjective, yes. But there's no other way to do it. The act of telling a joke isn't harassment if the person you are telling it to doesn't feel harassed. Proselytizing works the same way. If I am interested in what you are saying and would like to discuss further then you aren't proselytizing. If I don't want to hear it and have informed you of that then you aren't allowed to keep going.

[mtangelsfan]

Fair enough.  I just don't know very many folks who would engage in what you are describing.  Mostly because it would be completely ineffective.