| About Us | Contact | Donate | User Blogs | Login |
for all you libertarians out there...
Quoting this from a master sergeant:
2 Feb 2009 MSgt Jeffrey L. Thompson PSC 47 Box 21 APO AE 09470
Colonel Kimberly K. Toney 501 CSW/CC APO AE 09470
Col Toney,
Our MEO NCOIC, MSgt XXXXX, suggested that I write you a letter regarding the inspirational email that you sent out to the wing. I initially approached MSgt XXXXX to get his opinion on the email because I had a concern that your email about Mr. Vujicic seemed to be wing leadership promoting, advancing or endorsing Christian faith. MSgt XXXXX invited me to his office to discuss the issue. I had expected anonymity IAW AFI 36-2706 (3.18.1 / 4.3.12.7 / 5.2.12.3) to protect my identity until I decided how to proceed, but MSgt XXXXX informed me that that he has told you my identity regarding this issue. I appreciate that his intentions were good, but approaching the wing commander on what I perceived as a foul has made me very nervous. No one wants to be on the wrong side on their wing commander.
Here is why I perceived the email as proselytizing: Your email to the wing asked us to look to Mr. Vujicic as an opportunity to think about our lives and how we handle our personal and professional challenges. Mr. Vujicic, in the article written just above the video, is described as someone whom the Lord has given an unquenchable passion to share his testimony and hope in Jesus with the world as he introduces Jesus to others and tells of His great desire to know them personally by allowing Him to become their Lord and Savior. By this language, this was Mr. Vujicic's intent and basis of his inspirational message.
MSgt XXXXX told me that any endorsement of faith by your email was unintentional. My own impression of your email was an organizational endorsement of Christian faith because the email, article and video compelled us to witness an exercise in religious-specific faith that I felt was in conflict with DoD neutrality on religion. Although I am of Roman Catholic faith, I have always felt passionately about keeping religious events out of our mandatory military functions because faith is such an intensely personal, private and emotive issue. A basic tenant of some fundamentalist Christian faiths is their mission to convert others to their faith. When practiced openly or aggressively, this creates an exclusionist atmosphere for those of other faiths and those who reject religion entirely. Perhaps I am especially sensitive to this issue because I have been persistently pursued by fundamentalist Christians throughout my 23-yr career to convert; from supervisors, to subordinates, to the once agenda-covert Military Marriage Seminar, and more recently strong anti-Muslim sentiment and characterization of our current operations in Southwest Asia as a mission from God by the then deputy undersecretary of Defense for Intelligence Lt General Boykin. For me, some of the pieces of the puzzle fell into place when the Air Force academy scandal was uncovered in the media. Our top Air Force leaders were being "character-shaped" into a fundamentalist Christian mindset with the help of organizations the Campus Crusade for Christ and The Military Ministry who has run Military Marriage Seminars in order to proselytize.
MSgt XXXXX disagrees with my perception that your email was proselytizing. He made the point, if I understood him correctly, that because the wing chaplain programs belong to you, that you are able to publicize religious programs. He made the point that the Air Force has legitimate concern in its members' spirituality (not necessarily in a religious sense, but which can include faith). He made the point that after his own thorough review of DoD guidance, AFIs, and chaplain program guidance, he cannot see a direct MEO violation by the email. He made the point that you were unaware that the video and website had a religious association; again if I understand him correctly it was a simple oversight. Despite those clarifications and the context put forth by MSgt XXXXX, I still cannot set aside my own impression that, even if unintentional, the email promoted and endorsed Christian faith, which creates an environment of exclusion of others that do not share that faith.
I am a deeply reflective person and I thoroughly considered MSgt XXXXX's reasoning against my own perception of this event. In an attempt to grasp some additional perspective on this issue, I reviewed the MEO AFI and researched other resources such as the Military Religious Freedom Foundation website [www.militaryreligiousfreedom.org] and contacted Mr. Mikey Weintstein, the foundation's president and founder. He is an AF Academy Honor Graduate, served as Judge Advocate General for 10 years, served as the Whitehouse legal counsel to President Reagan for 3 years, and was General Counsel to Mr. H. Ross Perot. He is an attorney and has extensive expertise in MEO religious issues. I requested his perspective and discussed the issue in depth. The act of sending out an email with religious affiliation may not necessarily constitute an MEO institutional barrier. But there are indeed AFI's other DoD regulations that control such distribution, especially from chaplains. In contrast, such messages coming from the commander, as in this situation, almost certainly raises serious issues of Constitutionality. In any event, important legal issue aside, it certainly creates the likely potential to negatively impact the human relations climate of the wing by sending a message of exclusion to those who do not share that faith. Also, by AFI, commanders' support of religious beliefs and practices must be in a manner that is consistent and fair to all. The Official Air Force Core Values Handbook (The Little Blue Book) specifically addresses Religious Toleration under part 2, Service Before Self: "Religious toleration. Military professionals must remember that religious choice is a matter of individual conscience. Professionals, and especially commanders, must not take it upon themselves to change or coercively influence the religious views of subordinates."
There is an additional issue. The 4Marks.com website that you linked to in your email explicitly promotes an atmosphere that is hostile to our commander-in-chief, which is potentially detrimental to the good order and discipline of our unit. This website prominently host political extremist media directly linking religion to citizen's voting obligations for and against specific political candidates, such as arguing on religious grounds that "voting for Obama would be wrong," that Catholics were "morally obligated" to vote for McCain-Palin, and that Catholics could not have voted for Obama "without endangering their immortal soul." That Obama "is not fit to our commander-in-chief." That our former President Clinton and our Secretary of State Hillary Clinton are "career criminals." That one of the videos pushes that to vote for Obama "would be to assist in his evil," and, "cooperating with evil," and that President Obama is "soft on terrorist." Especially offensive content include: That President Obama is "a veritable forerunner of the Antichrist." That suicide-cult leader Jim Jones "would be proud of these Democrat pied pipers leading their sheep to slaughter." That Obama wants to "kill babies." That our commander-in-chief is "anti-American," influenced by Satanism and inspired by domestic terrorists. That "a good Christian in his right state of mind could [not] vote for such a monster like Obama." That President Obama's mind is "twisted," that his voting record is "sick" and that Vice President Biden is an "American Judas." That in an article titled "America's Dead," President Obama's "election to the presidency, free speech and freedom to practice and freely worship our God may be denied." That, "Given the election of Obama, I fear that the days of the Third Reich are being revisited." That one article is preceded with a photo of President Obama depicted as Hitler, wearing a Nazi uniform and holding a Nazi flag . These are not forum discussions, but are posted articles and videos that make up the message of the 4Marks.com website, just as the video and article of Mr. Vujicic do. One video I saw on the 4Marks website was sponsored by "www.NoHussein.org " who sell anti-Obama merchandise such as a bumper sticker that reads "Obama=666." The 4Marks.com website that your email linked to, seems to part of a network that is contemptuous and disparaging toward our president. These issues are perhaps more relevant to Dissident and Protest Activities, but the organization actively uses religion to discriminate between candidates aggressively uses religion to persuade those who view the website to vote for or against a specific candidate or political party. I believe that MSgt XXXXX has referred the organization's website to AFOSI to determine if it falls under Dissident and Protest Activity. Additionally, because of 4Marks.com's open and extreme contempt toward President Obama and our other elected officials, and with all respect to you, I am especially troubled that wing leadership linking to, or promoting, the website may violate UCMJ article 88-Contempt Toward Officials.
I do not know what resolution is needed to put right this situation. As a commander you wield a tremendous amount of power over the four Air Base Groups and the 8 installations in the U.K. and Norway that make up our wing. What you say, write, or send out sets our direction and instructs us how to get there. I feel passionately that our job as military members is to defend, among other Constitutional concepts and rights, religious freedom which is understood and consistently defined by our courts as the secularity of government balanced by each individual's freedom of religious faith. We also defend the very core of democracy; individuals voting their conscience, free from coercion and well-informed by our Constitutionally protected press. With all of this said, I will respectfully meet with at your convenience to discuss this issue if you desire for me to so. However, because of my very strong feelings on this subject and the seriousness by which I believe this issue needs to be addressed, I am proceeding with a formal complaint.
Very respectfully,
JEFFREY L. THOMPSON, MSgt, USAF
There is a very real possibility that the Fundamentalist Christians will establish a Hamas-like government in America. In some places, they have already begun. For all those interested in liberty, this will remain a concern. For unlike in the West Bank, the deliberate placement of these reactionaries in positions of power by our elected representatives means that they are likely to achieve nuclear power.


Comments
wtf?
wtf?
umm... what in particular?
the odds of a Civil War in america in the next ten to twenty years remain at 5%. no telling who the parties will be, but there's likely ethnic/religious cleansing involved.
Freedom of Speech
It sounds like the proselytizers are simply exercising their freedom of speech.
when it is mandatory, and enforced by your commander
that is no longer freedom of speech. that is deliberate harrassment.
This is no different than the reason they don't let pedophiles run boy scout troops. There is a very real difference of stature and power in any relationship that would result (and the implied coercion, which also would exist in this case).
It sounds to me like the
It sounds to me like the proselytizer is a U.S. military commander distributing materials and weblinks promoting the Christian faith and links to a site that goes way over the top on the wingnut hysteria about Pres. Obama, those troops' Commander in Chief, if I'm interpreting the contents of the letter correctly. That kind of garbage and disrespect has no place in our military and if true, the commander should be disciplined and the recipients informed of the inappropriate conduct exhibited. Our military is the last place that should be infected with wingnut evangelism with a command stamp of approval.
my sig on kos:
Jesus ain't comin', go ahead and put the Nukes back now.
Christians and Hamas
I have no idea what this case is really about, or if anyone broke any rules. People in positions of authority should of course not abuse that authority. (IMO this applies to college professors as much as it applies to Army sergeants.) But what irks me the most is your suggestion that "[t]here is a very real possibility that the Fundamentalist Christians will establish a Hamas-like government in America", and your implicit suggestion that true libertarians should be worried about this "troubling" development. Look, if you just don't like fundamentalist Christians, just say so. But why is it necessary to flaunt your prejudice in public so plainly by insulting and bashing them as a group? Do you think this substitutes for rational discourse? This isn't Kos you know.
Is it so bad to say that they seek to supplant other charities
and become the sole source of sustenance for their communities? And that such a thing, in times of economic and political uncertainty (as certainly the case in palestine), can lead to people electing them as the government-of-last-resort?
geez, you'd think I'd just compared them to Stalin or something!
There's no insult intended, and anyone who isn't subscribing to the various agenda-movements like Joel's Army or the Dominionists, well, forgive me if I caused offense. This is a simple "some of these folk are fucking crazy," and I pray that you can forgive me for lumping you together with them (and I hope you take the clarion cry as written to you as well, and not against you). If there is a better terminology that is less offensive, please let me know.
I mention fundamentalist christians, because to my knowledge none of the other wacko fundamentalist groups (and they are legion, if small in number) are infiltrating the military. Also, because of their smaller numbers, the fundamentalist Muslims and Jews are much less of a threat to the common good.
Why in God's name do you
Why in God's name do you think this is of legitimate interest to libertarians?
The military != civil society. If the wing commander's behavior violates standing orders or the UMCJ (and at a cursory glance, it appears to), then he ought to be disciplined. If not, then the master sergeant ought to stop whining.
The notion that there's a serious chance evangelical Christians will over throw the United States government and replace it with a repressive theocracy is simply delusional. The greatest threat to individual liberty today comes from the authoritarian collectivist left, not the evangelical right -- but I assure you that if the God-botherers ever achieve the political power and mainstream credibility that authoritarian collectivists have, and start enslaving people the way the authoritarian collectivists have, I'll be happy to bitch vociferously about them, too.
FYI, Liberty is based on Judeo-Christian Principles
Let's be clear, RisingTide. Why do you think that libertarians have and love liberty in the first place? Do you think that "liberty" simply dropped out of the Enlightenment into your lap courtesty of the Humanists? Perhaps you think it's a gift from your government... I'm interested in your response to this question, so please enlighten me (no pun intended).
The entire notion of liberty as a God-given right comes directly from the teachings of the old and new testaments, which made its way to the Enlightenment courtesy of a thousand years of Western Civilization and the evolution of Judeo-Christian ethics, including a little thing we like to call the Reformation, which freed the people from the tyranny of the church, from which we further free ourselves from the tyranny of the government. In a classical sense upon which our country was founded, the government does not grant libertarians our Liberty. Our liberty is a right that comes to us straight from our Maker.
Anyone who calls him or herself a libertarian and does not acknowledge the roots of liberty is simply neither enlightened, nor classically educated. This in and of itself is no sin, merely a shortcoming that ought to be addressed by further study of the matter.
I do not have the temporal capital to go into the details of the odd case which you brought to bear on the judgment of libertarians above, only enough time to indicate the context in which libertarians should judge all cases involve freedom, liberty and the rights we hold so sacred.
There's a pretty enormous
There's a pretty enormous difference between saying:
(a) American political principles owe an intellectual debt to the Enlightenment, which owes an intellectual debt to two millenia of Western Civilization, which in turn owes an intellectual debt to Judeo-Christian ethics; and
(b) American political principles embody Judeo-Christian ethics such that modern American society owes Judeo-Christian ethics significant deference.
(a) is a statement of historical fact. (b) is a preposterous delusion held by an unfortunately-large segment of the Christian right.
So then why do socialst countries persecute Jews and Christians.
We have seperation of the state from the church and from God given rights going back Chronicles
Like it or not Christian's are against Socialism and for a seperation of the state from the Church and human rights given by our creation.
Aurge if you must the arguements for rights outside of those used inside the Church.
But why insist that they don't exist in the chuch? They do exist inside the Church.
socialists exist within the church too.
Rev. Wright may or may not be an example, but it's flatly wrong to say that the Church does not have some adherents who advocate socialism from the pulpit.
You're basically ignoring the fact that Israel was a theocracy by the way.
Jonestown was a socialist cult not a church.
http://www.infoplease.com/spot/jonestown1.html
Charity is not socialism, and the Stimulus bill is not charity. The Bible teaches that we are to be charitable and love each other. Socialism is not an act of brotherly love. The Parable of the Good Samaritan tells us how we are to take care of our bother and it is not by relying on the state.
He did not spend somebody else's money for the man he found, he used his own oil, grape juice, and his own money.
Yes the church spends its own money to help the poor, but this is not Socialism it is given freely not forced, it honors peoples free will and does not put that second to the health of the state. It holds up the individual.
Charity works, Socialism does not. ... Both desire that all people have food to eat, but they work very differently.
others in your Church feel differently.
they feel obligated to "teach a man to fish" instead of just keeping on giving him fish... and incidentally creating a dedicated follower whose entire survival depends on keeping you guys happy.
Once again you're incorrect, Israel is not a theocracy
Israel is a parliamentary republic, not a theocracy. Elected representatives make decisions and laws in the Knesset (Israeli Parliament) and all citizens have the right to vote. You are confusing Jews and Israelis. A Jew is a religious person who practices Judaism. An Israeli is a person who lives in and is a citizen of Israel. A parliamentary republic with representatives chosen by the people is closer to a democracy than Jordan's monarchy or Iran's theocracy.
Iran too has a parliment, and elects jews there every year.
don't huck me a chinick, you putz.
Any democracy that makes it a crime to display bread 8 days a year (even for Christian shopkeepers) is a theocracy.
Any democracy that has a chief rabbi, and practices exclusionary criteria for who is a Jew is a theocracy (in this case, it would be like ruling that only Catholic marriages are legal).
Maybe not a strong theocracy, but definitely there is a large component.
Why not simply agree to disagree?
Why resort to the ineffective ad hominem attack whenever someone disagrees with your world view? "Maybe not a strong theocracy" isn't exactly a ringing endorsement for your initial claim. Calling the reader "putz" is really not so much an effective debate technique, but perhaps it serves to distract us from whether or not Israel's parliamentary government is in fact a democracy rather than a theocracy.
I find the "putz" epithet all the more amusing since I'm a female, although perhaps instead of calling me a "dick" you mean the gender-nonspecific interpretation of mere "idiot". Also, the Yiddish expression you seek invoke is Hok nit kain tchynik. For those who don't speak Yiddish and are still bothering to read this thread (my hat's off to your perseverance if you are), this is loosely translated as "stop talking nonsense". We could apply that phrase to your initiation of this post about an event whose exegesis you neglected to fully inform yourself of prior to writing about it in the first place.
It's interesting that you mention below that some people unintentionally cause offense. You may wish to take care that your repeated intention to cause offense accomplishes little more than leaving you in an echo chamber debating your own ideas with yourself and others who think exactly as you do. That sounds like the perfect definition of a bore.
if it's ineffective, you can probably assume that
I'm using it in a jocular fashion. In this case, I'm asserting my jewishness. I've been to Israel, and have relatives there. Knowing that I could not get married there in a Jewish ceremony hurts. And it evokes the civil libertarian in me.
Considering that Iran as well has a parlimentary democracy, I thought the whole point quite germane. Because Israel does have a Chief Rabbi, it is true...
Nu, do I need lessons in Yiddish now? Nope. transliterations are still transliterations. You'll only get bonus points from me if you can make the hebrew letters show up.
When I do mean to cause offense, and I do very occasionally, I tend to see how flagrant I can be.
Putz, by the way, isn't shmuck (which is dick) but more akin to phallus. more extreme, you might say, but... my dad would use "putzing around" all the time.
As a girl, I've gotten quite used to being considered a guy online. Water off a duck's back. Not that I usually bother to mention, unless it's germane.
So?
Socialist countries persecute Jews and Christians for the same reason that they persecute anybody: Jews and Christians, like individualists, capitalists, and so forth, all refuse to supplicate themselves before the Almighty State.
Like it or not Christian's are against Socialism and for a seperation of the state from the Church and human rights given by our creation.
So are lots of people who aren't Christians. Like, say, me. Though we typically reject the idea that rights are given to us by some bearded dude who lives in the sky; instead we think of rights as being natural in human beings.
Look, I'm happy for you that you find spiritual fulfillment and guidance in your faith. Just stop trying to pretend like the several-times-removed intellectual debts that American political traditions owe to Judeo-Christian ethics requires the rest of society to order itself according to Judeo-Christian ethics.
We agree rights are not given by the Government.
n/t
Indeed
Thank you, Wayne. On this I believe all of us, secular, progressive, conservative, libertarian, Christian or atheist, can all agree. Liberty and freedom never come from the government. Our Declaration of Independence gives credit where credit is due:
After reading the above article again, I did a little research and found the following quote from an RAF trooper in Stars and Stripes:
Having a delete button and using it to eliminate communication that you (but not others) find offensive - now that's liberty I can believe in.
I like killfiles too.
but you NEVER killfile your CO! NOT DONE. as such, distributing things like this still constitutes an abuse of power. (though I am glad to hear of the apology. sometimes people unintentionally cause offense).
The MSgt was within his rights though
I mean, I'd probably just delete it. But technically, she's not supposed to advocate any specific religions. (Even though at every commander's call I've been to, there is always a prayer.)
Thanks
For saying what I was about to type as I read it, and probably clearer than I could.
Not so
The ancient Greeks made the connection that every nation, every barbarian tribe, held a common core of law. This they called "the law of nations," and was later codified in the Lex Romana. That's where our right to habeas corpus comes from. These are known as "natural rights."
Government cannot grant rights. Government can only take away rights. The Constitution limits the power of government in encroachment on the rights of people.
The idea that rights are derived from God is known as "Divine Rights." Our Constitution acknowledges no divine rights.
Our government derives its power from the "consent of the governed," which itself is held to be a natural right.
Judaeo-Christian principles have nothing to do with it.
Some friends and I talked about this in the office
From what I read, the commander was just a doofus. (And this is coming from an active duty USAF atheist... lol)
She was looking for an 'inspiring' video and didn't think about other ways it could be taken. Not to mention she didn't bother checking the website, which was retarded. Stupidity happens, even to high ranking officers.
It was, of course, against regulations, and she'll probably get a slap on the wrist, which I'm fine with. The AF is especially worried about these things lately, after the USAF Academy brouhaha.
good to hear that the book is being enforced.
and that folks are getting "wake up calls" ;-)