Pentagon considers abolishing all Christian witnessing, proselytizing
- Thread starter AMonger
- Start date
According to the quote by LCDR Nate Christensen [in the article linked by the OP], "Religious proselytizing is not permitted within the Dept of Defense". That applies to the Muslims, Hindus, and Jews [and any & all other religions] as well, but no one complains about them. Why do you think that is?
I think it's because they are content to observe their religious beliefs without the slightest need to convert or proselytize or evangelize or witness to other people.
When's the last time you saw a billboard paid for by a Muslim, Jewish, Hindu, etc, group? And how would you feel about seeing billboards sponsored by atheists on every road in the country?
Bet you wouldn't like it one little bit.
I think it's because they are content to observe their religious beliefs without the slightest need to convert or proselytize or evangelize or witness to other people.
When's the last time you saw a billboard paid for by a Muslim, Jewish, Hindu, etc, group? And how would you feel about seeing billboards sponsored by atheists on every road in the country?
Bet you wouldn't like it one little bit.
AMonger
Veteran Expediter
1) Because man naturally rebels against God, and (2) that's how European WASP self-loathing works.
It's morally & ethically repugnant to not try to rescue a man whose house is burning.
Maverick
Seasoned Expediter
We all know laws are arbitrarily applied and it's my opinion, this will be no different. To eliminate a value system and destroy the moral fabric of any society the final nail is outlawing any espousing of doctrine. The target here is Christian, and always has been.
The founders knew all this following the persecution of Christian's and state run churches in England and Europe. Does one actually believe a rag tag group of Patriots (5-10% of total populace) actually defeated the great army of England with no divine help at all?
No other country or religion sets laws up to persecute their own stated beliefs. In order to complete the one world system, Christianity has to go....right along with your national sovereignty, and the two run parallel.
As for billboards and screaming foul at every turn? The true Christian needs no such things. One has to remember; those who burned witches, throw stones, and persecute others with the Christian faith are NOT and NEVER were, born again Christians. The term would need to be totally defined in order to move on with any like conversation.
Even if the brush paints the whole of any religion, it's purpose removes the target, all in all.
The founders knew all this following the persecution of Christian's and state run churches in England and Europe. Does one actually believe a rag tag group of Patriots (5-10% of total populace) actually defeated the great army of England with no divine help at all?
No other country or religion sets laws up to persecute their own stated beliefs. In order to complete the one world system, Christianity has to go....right along with your national sovereignty, and the two run parallel.
As for billboards and screaming foul at every turn? The true Christian needs no such things. One has to remember; those who burned witches, throw stones, and persecute others with the Christian faith are NOT and NEVER were, born again Christians. The term would need to be totally defined in order to move on with any like conversation.
Even if the brush paints the whole of any religion, it's purpose removes the target, all in all.
Last edited:
It's the same logic I used as a kid, when I'd smack my brother upside the head to 'save' him from a bug that was heading straight for him. It wasn't my fault he couldn't see it - I just wanted to be good to him - honest!
It's impossible to make a real argument (reasoned, intelligent, logical) with someone who makes such wildly ridiculous, paranoid, false premise, and incorrect statements as you did above. It simply cannot be done. Even pointing out the most basic silly of sillies, such as the false premise of percentage of the American populace who fought and defeated the British, used to prove divine intervention, would be a futile waste of time. It's like trying to have an intelligent discussion with someone who believes 2+2=3.5. Why bother?
An aphorism (i.e., not a fact) that actually makes more of an argument against foxholes than against atheists.
And what makes you think that it is not a fact?
I doubt anyone could prove it either way. I don't recall any atheists on the fire line when I was in Florida. When that backfire we set, joined with the main fire and that 50' high, 4 mile wide, wall of flame moving at over 50 MPH came straight at us, I heard one HELL of a lot of prayin goin on!
Uhm, because I'm not a moron, that's what. I know that the religious convictions of the US military closely mirrors that of the US population (although most studies show the military ranks are slightly less religious than the US population at large), and that there are plenty of atheists in and out of the military. I also know that the "atheists in foxholes" phrase most often used to express the belief of the speaker that all people seek a divine power, or anything else to get them out of the situation they're in, when they are facing an extreme threat, such as when under fire in war time or in Chicago, or on trial in court, or when confronted by two or more former girlfriends at the same time. I'm sure there have been many instant (if only temporary) conversions to a belief in God during a time of extreme threat, just as I'm sure the very same situations have caused many to question their own existing belief in God due to the death and violence around them. Plus, there's the Military Association of Atheists & Freethinkers - Atheists in Foxholes, in Cockpits, and on Ships (with some very interesting comments by some highly decorated soldiers very experienced in combat - all of which will be ignored or dismissed by those who think there really and truly are no atheists in foxholes).And what makes you think that it is not a fact?
All it takes is one atheist who has been in a foxhole to prove it one way or the other, and we have many first-hand accounts of those. It's such a silly, albeit humorous aphorism, that proof shouldn't even need to be requested, much less given.
So the fact that you don't recall hearing anyone not praying is supposed to mean something? Relaying such a classic example of direct personal experience anecdotal evidence is an example of many logical fallacies, most notably the informal fallacy combined with the Conformation Bias logical fallacy (also known as Confirmatory Bias and the MySide Bias) where people tend to collect, remember and favor information that confirms their beliefs or hypotheses, and will ignore or discount information which is in conflict with their beliefs. The effect is stronger for emotionally charged issues and for deeply entrenched beliefs. For example, in reading about gun control, people usually prefer sources that affirm their existing attitudes. When talking about religious issues, they prefer only those sources which side with their own beliefs, and will dismiss any evidence, empirical or not, which is in conflict with those beliefs. In this case the information you recall is already biased to begin with, and you've chosen to draw conclusions based on that bias. Because of the incredibly small sample size and personal bias of your anecdotal evidence, it can only be considered at best a dubious support of your claim, regardless of the veracity of the claim. it could very well be that every single firefighter on the fire line was religious, or an instant convert, who not only prayed, but prayed aloud and loudly instead of silently, but it doesn't really prove anything for which any kind of valid conclusions can be drawn, especially in light of the contrary evidence of larger sample sizes.
Maverick
Seasoned Expediter
So Mr Turtle, from this tirade we are to assume you, and you alone, are the authority and only logical/intelligent/reasoned people as yourself should be commenting here? Would get kinda lonely, dontcha think?
Not everything is absolute and sometimes people enjoy speaking in general and accepted terms. It's not a Dr Spock conversation....especially when God fearing people speak with those who are legends in their own minds.
Guard those pennies your standing on....cause I don't see any nickles or dimes heading your way.
Not everything is absolute and sometimes people enjoy speaking in general and accepted terms. It's not a Dr Spock conversation....especially when God fearing people speak with those who are legends in their own minds.
Guard those pennies your standing on....cause I don't see any nickles or dimes heading your way.
Last edited:
No, you shouldn't assume that. Especially since you used tirade incorrectly. So, do you want to discuss issues, or just sit there and take pot shots at me?So Mr Turtle, from this tirade we are to assume you, and you alone, are the authority and only logical/intelligent/reasoned people as yourself should be commenting here? Would get kinda lonely, dontcha think?
I think you mean Mr. Spock, not Dr. Spock. Dr. Spock was a pediatrician, Mr. Spock is a fictional Vulcan ruled by logic. In any case, that's a pretty pithy comment regarding general terms, considering your Post #26 is just loaded with absolutes.
I'm going to assumed that's not aimed at me, because it would be a personal attack if it was.
More lame pot shots? Really? Sheesh.
Maverick
Seasoned Expediter
Mr Spock it is......while I consider the remainder as forum banter.
One should not throw grenades (such as your post #30) without expecting some type of response? My comments here are not directed at those who don't believe. Rather, they are posted in support of those who do.
Typically, one side rushes to defend their position to any given topic in a forum. I state my belief (often posed as a question) and some of those points are well out of reach to an unbelieving populace. After all, unbelief simply means no matter what is presented......it will be rejected by anyone who denies a spiritual higher power. So, what is absolute for me will greatly differ from what is absolute for you, because it's a belief system.
While your entitled to that.......I don't really cotton to having people demean what little intelligence I may bring to a conversation. Nor do I hold a conversation very long with unbelievers, due to the utter futility involved. Correct my grammar, punctuation, and sentence structure....but I ask for respect of my opinion without the questioning of intelligence.
In any case, the issue has been settled.
Pentagon Changes Mind, Says Soldiers Can Share Faith
One should not throw grenades (such as your post #30) without expecting some type of response? My comments here are not directed at those who don't believe. Rather, they are posted in support of those who do.
Typically, one side rushes to defend their position to any given topic in a forum. I state my belief (often posed as a question) and some of those points are well out of reach to an unbelieving populace. After all, unbelief simply means no matter what is presented......it will be rejected by anyone who denies a spiritual higher power. So, what is absolute for me will greatly differ from what is absolute for you, because it's a belief system.
While your entitled to that.......I don't really cotton to having people demean what little intelligence I may bring to a conversation. Nor do I hold a conversation very long with unbelievers, due to the utter futility involved. Correct my grammar, punctuation, and sentence structure....but I ask for respect of my opinion without the questioning of intelligence.
In any case, the issue has been settled.
Pentagon Changes Mind, Says Soldiers Can Share Faith
Last edited:
." Was that praying?
That's because it's easier to consider it forum banter than to respond to the issues directly.
One most certainly should expect some time of response. But as my grenades were issue based, I did not expect a personal attack in response, rather I expected you to defend your statements by restating them without using false premise and false fact.
Clearly, you would be quite surprised to know that even those who may not agree with you are still capable of understanding.
If that were true, then no one, ever, under any circumstances could be saved or born again. So it appears that your definition of "unbelief" is a little on the too absolute side.
Not really. Absolute is free from imperfection, limitation or restriction, and not dependent on external conditions. You can certainly believe in something absolutely, but that does not mean that what you believe in is necessarily absolute.
I can, and do, respect your opinion. But, if you notice, I never questioned your intelligence. I simply said, in response to you asking for someone to make a "real argument," that making a real argument consisting of reasoning, intelligence and logic would be impossible to do with someone who's statements consist of none of those things.
There's a lot of "much ado about nothing" here in the Soapbox. This instance is no different, where the worse-case scenario was imagined to be true, and that imagination turned out to be wrong. Even the link you posted has the truth of the matter skewed, right there in the headline, where the pentagon has changed their mind. They haven't, they merely clarified the worse-case misinterpretation of the original comments, noting that the Defense Department “has never and will never single out a particular religious group for persecution or prosecution," which is quite contrary to the original comments in the OP and others in this thread. The Pentagon's comments clarified to mean, incidentally what I stated in Post #7 above. Funny that, more often than not, how knee jerk reactions tend to get it wrong, and common sense and intelligence tends to get it right. But you go right along believing that, "in order to complete the one world system, Christianity has to go....right along with your national sovereignty, and the two run parallel." Good luck with that, especially since there is no historical precedent for it.
Maverick
Seasoned Expediter
The reason you find no historical reference for it might have something to do with not understanding Biblical history. The founders understood perfectly that with national sovereignty comes a moral and responsible populace. The Bible is stacked full of instances whereby peoples and nations once blessed and turned their backs on God lost everything....including their freedom.
And I classify "knee jerk reaction" in the same category as "tin foil hat" Some people have the ability to see things coming and the little things add up to a lot. Slowly but surely this country is being dismantled. I cannot assist you, or anyone else, into recognition of that fact.
You'll see what you want to see and this is the last chance to break down every sentence written and run your diagnosis on every little point.....thus correcting others from your point of view. Frankly, it's become a bore.
And I classify "knee jerk reaction" in the same category as "tin foil hat" Some people have the ability to see things coming and the little things add up to a lot. Slowly but surely this country is being dismantled. I cannot assist you, or anyone else, into recognition of that fact.
You'll see what you want to see and this is the last chance to break down every sentence written and run your diagnosis on every little point.....thus correcting others from your point of view. Frankly, it's become a bore.