The Left's War On Christians
See other The Left's War On Christians Articles
Title: High military court will hear case of Marine punished for displaying Bible verse
Source:
Washington Times
URL Source: http://www.washingtontimes.com/news ... e-punished-for-displaying-bib/
Published: Nov 29, 2015
Author: Kellan Howell
Post Date: 2015-12-01 10:30:32 by redleghunter
Ping List: *Religious History and Issues* Subscribe to *Religious History and Issues*
Keywords: None
Views: 3956
Comments: 24
The highest U.S. military court will hear the case of a Marine who was punished for refusing to remove a Bible verse from her workstation.
In May, 2013 then-Lance Cpl. Monifa Sterling kept a Bible verse on her computer in three places. The verses read "No weapon formed against me shall prosper," a modification of the Isaiah 54:17, according to the Catholic News Agency.
Ms. Sterling's staff sergeant demanded she remove the verse, but Ms. Sterling refused, saying she had the right to express her religious freedom.
The next day Ms. Sterling arrived to find the verses had been ripped down from her station. She put them up again. The cycle repeated until Ms. Sterling was court-martialed on Feb. 1, 2014.
She was convicted of disrespecting a superior commissioned officer, failing to go to an appointed place of duty, and disobeying a lawful order on four separate occasions, The Daily Caller reported.
Earlier this year, the U.S. Navy-Marine Corps Court of Criminal Appeals also sided against Ms. Sterling, saying significant damage could be caused by forcing military employees to be exposed to a religious quotation, CNA reported.
Poster Comment:
How such a situation got to the point of CM and appeals is amazing. Was there not just ONE leader in the Marine's chain of command who could have handled this situation better?Subscribe to *Religious History and Issues*
Post Comment Private Reply Ignore Thread
Top • Page Up • Full Thread • Page Down • Bottom/Latest
This is not the same USMC as was in the 60's nor the same military, nor the same country.
Eli, Eli, nai erchomai Kurios Iesous.
#2. To: redleghunter (#0)
If the United States military wants to prosecute and punish a woman for firmly maintaining her right to make a simply statement about God at her desk, Americans who join now, or who serve, should understand that they are under the command of an organization that hates God. And they should not be surprised when God allows them to be slaughtered on the battlefield, because they are not his friends or his allies, and they are carrying around guns killing people.
If you are killing people and it is not in defense of life and truth, you are a murderer damned to Hell. All armed men in all armed forces which forces are opposed to God, as the military is in this case, are simply thugs who cannot expect God's protection in battle, but who can expect to roast in the Lake of Fire at final judgment for being killers without sanctuary.
That's the way it is. The US military has declared war on God. Therefore it is evil, and God will not protect it on the battlefield. And the men who fight and kill without following the rules of God, and who hate God, have nothing to look forward to but damnation and hell, because they are evil by definition.
Too bad for them. My advice nowadays: don't sign up to serve the United States in any capacity that involves carrying a gun, because the evil that your nation has become will be imputed to you because you protect and defend it.
It would be best if the Christians in the military made it very clear, en masse, that their allegiance to God and love for God is always superior to any oath they took to support and defend the Constitution, if for not other reason than that an oath before God is meaningless unless one acknowledges that the one before whom the oath is made - God - has the power to enforce the oath. If the Constitution cannot protect itself but requires men to swear before God that they will do it, then the fact there is an oath at all is an open admission of the inferiority of the Constitution before God - for God is invoked to try to keep the defenders of the Constitution on the line defending it.
If the Constitutional order has degenerated to the point that God cannot even be referred to, except in an oath, then the oath is vitiated of any meaning, other than whatever meaning that men without God can extract by imposing human punishment upon those who don't remain true to a promise made to men.
The Constitution and the nation are nothing before God, and every American soldier, sailor, airman and Marine would do very well to realize that, if forced to choose between God and the Constitution, the fact of being forced to make that choice means that the Constitution has become a tool of Satan, and should be rejected in favor of God.
This is obvious. But every lover and fearer of God in ranks should make that tacit admission to himself or herself now, in the face of these proceedings: if forced to choose between God on the one hand, and Constitution and nation on the other, the Constitution and the nation die. Without a moment's hesitation. For the fact of being forced to make the choice - that fact itself - means that the Constitution has been rendered a dishrag of the Devil.
#3. To: Vicomte13 (#2)
it's disgusting ain't it? what a repulsive effrontery to God and Christians everywhere.. daily we face this.. look at any forum and you see atheists having a circle jerk about how stupid christians are and how irrational religious people are .. some even going far to say they should be killed.. im starting to have a strong dislike for a lot of secular westernist agnostics who don't value family, God, or morals.
didn't you use to be in the marines? how was it?
#4. To: Vicomte13 (#2) (Edited)
Does "give to Caesar's what is Caesar's and to God what is God's" apply to this?
And Paul said the Emperor's power is given to him by God - so Paul was supposed to be under the influence of the Holy Spirit too
#5. To: ebonytwix (#3)
didn't you use to be in the marines? how was it?
Navy. Went to Annapolis. Drove ships. Flew planes and helos. Enjoyed it. Back then we were not forced to choose between God and the Constitution. Back then, I would have chosen the Constitution. Not anymore.
#6. To: ebonytwix (#4)
Does "give to Caesar's what is Caesar's and to God what is God's" apply to this?And Paul said the Emperor's power is given to him by God - so Paul was supposed to be under the influence of the Holy Spirit too
Sure "Give unto Caesar" applies. The view that "God will protect me from mine enemies" is not Caesar's to approve or deny. It's God's.
What Paul said is true, but it applies universally to all leaders and to whomever wins the battle. Which means that Hitler, Stalin, Pol Pot and the Ayatollah, also, had their power given to them by God. The Almighty has his own purposes.
If, with the power granted by God, and even with victories given by God to the evil - such as the Nazi victory over free people in various places, or the Japanese victory over the American fleet at Pearl Harbor, or the success of the terrorist strike in Paris - what those leaders and victors granted their power and victories by God is itself evil, then those leaders and victors must be fought.
God never promised us that we get to die in bed. Sometimes he places evil in command and grants it victory specifically to force those who are with him to fight and endure hardship, loss and even death for him. God demanded that Abraham kill Isaac, after all, and though God prevented Abraham from doing so at the last minute, when God ordered the Israelites into battle, he did not spare all of the Israelite lives in the battle.
Such is the way of it: we must not overvalue these physical bodies of ours, because God doesn't place much value on them. It's the spirit that resides in them that counts. And sometimes God forces men into the situation where they have to sacrifice their bodies, and lose their lives and limbs fighting evil men to whom God has given the leadership and the victory. Perhaps in such cases it is specifically to cause those spirits that are martyred fighting the evil that God has appointed to run its course to have a greater crown than they otherwise would have, as they move out of bullet-torn flesh into the afterlife.
The Almighty has his own purposes. Hitler was also appointed by God to rule Germany, and God granted Hitler many victories over free people and over the Jews of the Warsaw ghetto. God gave him the imperium, and then God forced those who were his people, free people, to make the choice to submit to the evil which God had appointed to chastise them, or to take up arms and fight that evil, because of the evil it did. And in fighting the evil, God gave full weight to the enemy weapons also. Nazi bullets tore through the heads of saints with the same deadly force that the bullets of those fighting the Nazis killed Nazis.
We cannot help but all be under the influence of God's Holy Spirit, to whatever purpose God intends. Pharaoh didn't harden his OWN heart to not let the Hebrews go, rather, when Pharaoh was ready to let the Hebrews go, time and again it was God himself who hardened Pharaoh's heart, so that the Egyptians would not let the Hebrews go, and then, then, gave the opening for God to slaughter more Egyptians with disease, hail, etc.
God uses human rulers and victories and death also to teach people what he wants of them. If people all obeyed God, there would be no killing, and no need for rulers either. But we don't, and so God makes examples and assigns punishment and justice. The evil rises? If men do not bestir themselves to put it down, then God may very well grant the evil the thrones of great empires, such as Germany and the Soviet Union, and grant the evil great victories so that, with terror and slaughter, the neutral and the good are forced to bestir themselves more than they want to.
The American Civil War is a classic example of God hardening hearts and granting victories to one side, then to the other, to prolong the savagery and cause the suffering to more deeply soak into all levels of society - so that America could experience across the board the suffering of the bondsman.
God's justice is a fierce and terrible thing, and he doesn't play games.
#7. To: redleghunter (#0)
the U.S. Navy-Marine Corps Court of Criminal Appeals also sided against Ms. Sterling, saying significant damage could be caused by forcing military employees to be exposed to a religious quotation
Don't damage the court by paying them!
"We (government) need to do a lot less, a lot sooner" ~Ron Paul#8. To: redleghunter (#0)
Ms. Sterling's staff sergeant demanded she remove the verse, but Ms. Sterling refused, saying she had the right to express her religious freedom.
She's right. There is nothing abusive about printing something out to display on your work station. She doesn't have a right to preach and try to convert her fellow Marines to her religious POV,but that's not what she was doing.
She was convicted of disrespecting a superior commissioned officer,
When did the commissioned officer show up? It was a SSG that had the beef with her,and SSG's are NON-commissioned officers.
failing to go to an appointed place of duty, and disobeying a lawful order on four separate occasions, The Daily Caller reported.
That's called "piling on to try to get a guilty plea". BullBush charges that can't be proven,and in fact the order given to her to take down the print outs was NOT a lawful order.
Why is democracy held in such high esteem when it’s the enemy of the minority and makes all rights relative to the dictates of the majority? (Ron Paul,2012)
American Indians had open borders. Look at how well that worked out for them.
#9. To: Vicomte13 (#2)
If the United States military wants to prosecute and punish a woman for firmly maintaining her right to make a simply statement about God at her desk, Americans who join now, or who serve, should understand that they are under the command of an organization that hates God. And they should not be surprised when God allows them to be slaughtered on the battlefield, because they are not his friends or his allies, and they are carrying around guns killing people.
You really are insane.
Why is democracy held in such high esteem when it’s the enemy of the minority and makes all rights relative to the dictates of the majority? (Ron Paul,2012)
American Indians had open borders. Look at how well that worked out for them.
#10. To: ebonytwix (#3)
im starting to have a strong dislike for a lot of secular westernist agnostics who don't value family, God, or morals.
Give it a freaking rest,you nutcase. You are as looney as the forum Catholic if you want to claim that only Christians (mostly those from YOUR cult) are the only ones that value family or have morals.
As for valuing God,why value a fictional character? Do you also worship the Easter Bunny?
Why is democracy held in such high esteem when it’s the enemy of the minority and makes all rights relative to the dictates of the majority? (Ron Paul,2012)
American Indians had open borders. Look at how well that worked out for them.
#11. To: redleghunter (#0)
She did not raise the issue of RFRA until 15 months after the fact. She disobeyed direct lawful orders on multiple occasions, refusing to wear the uniform of the day, or to go to her designated duty area.
United States v Sterling, 201400150 (NMCCA 2015) (26 Feb 2015)
http://www.jag.navy.mil/courts/documents/archive/2015/STERLING-201400150-UNPUB.PDF
[2]Background
In May of 2013, the appellant’s duties included sitting at a desk and utilizing a computer to assist Marines experiencing issues with their Common Access Cards. The appellant printed three copies of the biblical quote “no weapon formed against me shall prosper” on paper in 28 point font or smaller. The appellant then cut the quotes to size and taped one along the top of the computer tower, one above the computer monitor on the desk, and one above the in-box. The appellant testified that she is a Christian and that she posted the quotation in three places to represent the Christian trinity. At trial, the parties referred to these pieces of paper as “signs.” The signs were large enough for those walking by her desk to read them.
- - - - - - - - - -
[3]
On or about 20 May 2013, Staff Sergeant (SSgt) Alexander ordered the appellant to remove the signs. The appellant refused and the SSgt removed them herself. The next day, the SSgt saw the signs had been replaced and again ordered the appellant to remove them. When the signs had not been removed by the end of the day, SSgt Alexander again removed them herself. In August of 2013, the appellant was on limited duty for a hip injury and wore a back brace and TENS unit during working hours.3 The medical documentation (chit) included a handwritten note stating that “[w]earing charlies & TENS unit4 will be difficult, consider allowing her to not wear charlies.”5 The uniform of the day on Fridays for the appellant’s command was the service “C” uniform and when the appellant arrived at work on a Friday in her camouflage utility uniform, SSgt Morris ordered her to change into service “C” uniform. The appellant refused, claiming her medical chit exempted her from the uniform requirement. After speaking with medical, SSgt Morris again ordered the appellant to change into the service “C” uniform. The appellant again refused. SSgt Morris then brought the appellant to First Sergeant (1stSgt) Robinson who repeated the order. Again, the appellant refused.
On 12 September 2013, 1stSgt Robinson ordered the appellant to report to the Pass and Identification building at the front gate on Sunday, 15 September 2013, from 1600 until approximately 1930 to help distribute vehicle passes to family members of returning deployed service members. This was a duty the appellant had performed before. The appellant refused, showing 1stSgt Robinson a separate medical chit that she had been provided to treat a “stress reaction.” This chit recommended that the appellant be exempted from standing watch and performing guard duty.6 Additionally, on 03 September 2013, the appellant was prescribed a medication to help prevent the onset of migraine headaches.7
On 13 Sept 2013, the appellant was ordered to report to Major (Maj) Flatley. When she did so, Maj Flatley ordered the
_____
3 TENS refers to a small machine that transmits pulses to the surface of the skin and along nerve strands.
4 “Charlies” refers to the Marine service “C” uniform.
5 Defense Exhibit B.
6 DE A.
7 Appellate Exhibit XXXIX.
- - - - - - - - - -
[4]
appellant to report to Pass and Identification on 15 September 2103 to issue vehicle passes and ordered her to take the passes with her. The appellant told Maj Flatley that she would not comply with the order to report and refused to accept the passes. On 15 September 2013, the appellant did not report as ordered.
Additional facts necessary for the resolution of each assignment of error are developed below.
- - - - -
[8]Personal beliefs, grounded solely upon subjective ideas about religious practices, “will not suffice” because courts need some reference point to assess whether the practice is indeed religious. See Wisconsin v. Yoder, 406 U.S. 205, 215-16 (1972) (recognizing for purposes of a First Amendment inquiry that individuals are not free to define religious beliefs solely based upon individual preference). For these reasons, we reject the appellant’s invitation to define “religious exercise” as any
- - - - - - - - - -
[9]
action subjectively believed by the appellant to be “religious in nature.”16
Here, the appellant taped a biblical quotation in three places around her workstation, organized in a fashion to “represent the trinity.” While her explanation at trial may invoke religion, there is no evidence that posting signs at her workstation was an “exercise” of that religion in the sense that such action was “part of a system of religious belief.” Indeed, the appellant never told her SSgt that the signs had a religious connotation and never requested any religious accommodation to enable her to display the signs.17 Instead, the record supports the conclusion that the appellant was simply placing what she believed to be personal reminders that those she considered adversaries could not harm her. Such action does not trigger the RFRA.
_____
16 Appellant’s Brief of 8 Aug 2014 at 26.
17 Secretary of the Navy Instruction 1730.8B (Ch. 1, 28 Mar 2012) regulates the accommodation of religious practices in the Department of the Navy and requires requests for religious accommodations be submitted in writing to the command. We leave for another day what impact, if any, the failure to first request an accommodation will have on the lawfulness of an order to refrain from engaging in one.
- - - - - - - - - -
[8]
Personal beliefs, grounded solely upon subjective ideas about religious practices, “will not suffice” because courts need some reference point to assess whether the practice is indeed religious. See Wisconsin v. Yoder, 406 U.S. 205, 215-16 (1972) (recognizing for purposes of a First Amendment inquiry that individuals are not free to define religious beliefs solely based upon individual preference). For these reasons, we reject the appellant’s invitation to define “religious exercise” as any
- - - - - - - - - -
[9]
action subjectively believed by the appellant to be “religious in nature.”16
Here, the appellant taped a biblical quotation in three places around her workstation, organized in a fashion to “represent the trinity.” While her explanation at trial may invoke religion, there is no evidence that posting signs at her workstation was an “exercise” of that religion in the sense that such action was “part of a system of religious belief.” Indeed, the appellant never told her SSgt that the signs had a religious connotation and never requested any religious accommodation to enable her to display the signs.17 Instead, the record supports the conclusion that the appellant was simply placing what she believed to be personal reminders that those she considered adversaries could not harm her. Such action does not trigger the RFRA.
Valid Military Purpose
The appellant also argues that the military judge erred by finding the orders to remove the signs had a valid military purpose.
Military orders are presumed to be lawful and are disobeyed at the subordinate’s peril. MANUAL FOR COURTS-MARTIAL, UNITED STATES (2012 ed.), Part IV, ¶ 14c(1)(d)(2)(a)(i). To sustain the presumption of lawfulness, “‘the order must relate to military duty, which includes all activities reasonably necessary to accomplish a military mission, or safeguard or promote the morale, discipline, and usefulness of members of a command and directly connected with the maintenance of good order in the service.’” United States v. Moore, 58 M.J. 466, 467-68 (C.A.A.F. 2003) (quoting MCM, Part IV, ¶ 14c(2)(a)(iii)). To be lawful, an order must (1) have a valid military purpose, and (2) be clear, specific, and narrowly drawn. Id. at 468; United States v. Womack, 29 M.J. 88, 90 (C.M.A. 1989). The lawfulness of an order is a legal question for the military judge to decide at trial, New, 55 M.J. at 105, and this court reviews the trial judge's decision de novo, Moore, 58 M.J. at 467.
_____
16 Appellant’s Brief of 8 Aug 2014 at 26.
17 Secretary of the Navy Instruction 1730.8B (Ch. 1, 28 Mar 2012) regulates the accommodation of religious practices in the Department of the Navy and requires requests for religious accommodations be submitted in writing to the command. We leave for another day what impact, if any, the failure to first request an accommodation will have on the lawfulness of an order to refrain from engaging in one.
- - - - - - - - - -
[10]
After receiving evidence and hearing argument, the military judge found that the “orders were given because the workspace in which the accused placed the signs was shared by at least one other person[,] [t]hat other service members came to the accused’s workspace for assistance at which time they could have seen the signs. The court also finds that the signs, although the verbiage . . . [was] biblical in nature, read something to the effect of no weapon found [sic] against me shall prosper ... which could easily be seen as contrary to good order and discipline.”18 Although these meager findings of fact fail to illuminate why the military judge believed the signs verbiage “could easily be seen as contrary to good order and discipline[,]” we are able to glean from the record sufficient information to affirm his ruling.
First, the military judge found that the signs verbiage was biblical in nature, that the desk was shared with another Marine, and the signs were visible to other Marines who came to the appellant’s desk for assistance. The implication is clear—the junior Marine sharing the desk and the other Marines coming to the desk for assistance would be exposed to biblical quotations in the military workplace. It is not hard to imagine the divisive impact to good order and discipline that may result when a service member is compelled to work at a government desk festooned with religious quotations, especially if that service member does not share that religion. The risk that such exposure could impact the morale or discipline of the command is not slight. Maintaining discipline and morale in the military work center could very well require that the work center remain relatively free of divisive or contentious issues such as personal beliefs, religion, politics, etc., and a command may act preemptively to prevent this detrimental effect. To the extent that is what the military judge determined to be the case, we concur.19
_____
18 Record at 362.
19 We are sensitive to the possible implication that such orders may have on the service member’s Free Exercise and Free Speech rights under the First Amendment to the Constitution and we have carefully considered the appellant’s rights thereunder. While not convinced that displaying religious text at a shared government workstation would be protected even in a civilian federal workplace (see e.g. Berry v. Dep't of Soc. Servs., 447 F.3d 642 (9th Cir. 2006) (holding that a state may prohibit an employee from posting religious signs in his workspace when clients routinely entered that workspace for purposes of consulting with an agent of the state), it is well-settled that “review of military regulations challenged on First Amendment grounds is far more deferential than constitutional review of similar laws or regulations designed for civilian society[,]” Goldman v. Weinberger, 475 U.S.
- - - - - - - - - -
[11]
Second, examination of this record indicates the existence of a contentious relationship between the appellant and her command, even prior to the charged misconduct. In fact, the appellant testified that her purpose for placing the signs was to encourage her during those difficult times and that her SSgt ordered her to remove the signs because the SSgt didn’t “like their tone.”20 While locked in an antagonistic relationship with her superiors--a relationship surely visible to other Marines in the unit--placing visual reminders at her shared workspace that “no weapon formed against me shall prosper” could certainly undercut good order and discipline. When considered in context, we find that the verbiage in these signs could be interpreted as combative and agree with the military judge that the signs placement in the shared workspace could therefore “easily be seen as contrary to good order and discipline.”21 For this reason as well, the orders to remove the signs were lawful.
_____
503, 507 (1986). See also, United States v. Brown, 45 M.J. 389, 396 (C.A.A.F. 1996) (“the right of free speech in the armed services . . . must be brought into balance with the paramount consideration of providing an effective fighting force for the defense of our Country.”). Moreover, in Parker v. Levy, 417 U.S. 733, 759 (1974), the Supreme Court held the military may restrict the service member's right to free speech in peace time because speech may “undermine the effectiveness of response to command.” We apply these principles here and remain satisfied that the orders were lawful.
20 Record at 312.
21 Id. at 362.
#12. To: redleghunter (#0)
http://www.caaflog.com/wp-content/uploads/Sterling-Government-Answer-to-Petition.pdf
Appellee's Answer Supplement to Petition for Grant of Review, Crim App Dkt No 201400150, USCA Dkt No 15-0510-MC, EXCERPTS
At 5:
Nowhere on the Record, during trial on the merits or during litigation concerning the signs, does anything support that Appellant told anyone that the signs were Biblical quotations or otherwise religious.
At 5-6:
The first time the Record supports that Appellant informed anyone the signs had religious significance was on February 1, 2014, during litigation of Appellant's Motion as to the lawfulness of the May 2013 order to remove the signs. (R. 266) Nothing in the Record supports that Appellant told anyone about the signs' religious nature until nine months after she refused to remove the signs.
At 14:
Appellant never testified, and nothing in the Record supports, that Appellant informed anyone that the signs were religious. Nothing in the Record supports that anyone but Appellant knew the signs were religious. Nor does anything in the Record support that Appellant sought religious accommodation for the signs in accordance with the requirements of the Department of Defense Instruction.
At 14-15:
E. The Department of Defense requires servicemembers to provide notice of and to request accommodation of religious practices prior to disobeying orders or refusing to comply with military duties.At the time Appellant placed the signs in her shared workspace, a Department of Defense Instruction governed how to request exceptions to military duties based on religion, “Accommodation of Religious Practices Within the Military Services.” DoDI 1300.17 (Feb. 10, 2009). The Instruction stated that “The Department of Defense places a high value on the rights of members of the Military Services to observe the tenets of their respective religions.” Id. The Instruction stated that “It is DoD policy that requests for religious accommodation should be approved when accommodation would not adversely affect mission accomplishment, including military readiness, unit cohesion, good order, discipline, or any other military requirement.” Id. The Enclosure to the Instruction prescribed procedures for military commanders to approve requests by servicemembers for special accommodations based on a servicemembers’ religious practices. Id.
While Appellant’s trial was ongoing and prior to the Article 39(a), UCMJ, session to litigate Appellant’s Motion, the Department of Defense updated the Instruction to explicitly include reference to the Religious Freedom Restoration Act (RFRA). DoDI 1300.17 (Jan. 22, 2014). The new Instruction, which Appellant provided as an appellate exhibit to the Military Judge, explicitly quoted the text of RFRA, but otherwise continued to place the burden on servicemembers to make specific requests for religious accommodation through their chain of command. Id.; (Appellate Ex. XXXVI).
#13. To: Vicomte13 (#6)
Smooth, intelligent, helpful, and down to the point as always.
#14. To: sneakypete (#10)
I wasn't talking to you. And Vicomte13 is one of the most rational and intelligent posters I've encountered on the internet. At least he doesn't attack anyone like a baby for having different beliefs from him.
Piss off you fedora Atheist. You think you're going to change my minds acting like a oversensitive child who gets hives thinking about people with faith? You're just wasting your time. By the way, I was talking about a particular-kind-of person. But if the shoe fits go wear that shit.
Don't reply to me anymore.
#15. To: ebonytwix (#14)
Piss off you fedora Atheist. You think you're going to change my minds acting like a oversensitive child who gets hives thinking about people with faith? You're just wasting your time. By the way, I was talking about a particular-kind-of person. But if the shoe fits go wear that shit.
ESAD,dumbass.
Why is democracy held in such high esteem when it’s the enemy of the minority and makes all rights relative to the dictates of the majority? (Ron Paul,2012)
American Indians had open borders. Look at how well that worked out for them.
#16. To: Vicomte13 (#2)
Vic I really believe incidents like this one are part of a Military culture which says "Christians need not apply."
#17. To: hondo68 (#7)
LOL that was good and on target. But people now use the illuminati electronic methods.
#18. To: sneakypete (#8)
Good NCO assessment Pete.
It does stink more as we peel the onion.
#19. To: nolu chan (#11)
Great run down. Seems her actions did not help her much. I know an understatement.
#20. To: nolu chan (#12)
Hole is even deeper.
#21. To: redleghunter (#16)
Vic I really believe incidents like this one are part of a Military culture which says "Christians need not apply."
Yes. And that, in turn, means a military culture that is destined to lose in combat, because it does not have the favor of God.
So, sign up for the military now, and your likelihood of getting killed is higher, and when you do, you're headed to rejection by God.
In such a circumstance, the military is not an option for anybody who wants to live.
And the key for Christians is to face a case that, on the face of it, can be made a case of military insubordination and direct defiance of orders, and to understand that the man or woman who directly defies such orders is right and must be supported. The military must not be granted the authority to tell people to cease small private devotional exercises. The First Amendment must trump the UCMJ.
Otherwise, the Christian has put himself in the position where obedience to an anti-God man-made rule is superior in importance to reverence for God, and that Christian has lapsed into idolatry, placing obedience to an arbitrary human regime above reverence to God.
The military here has chosen to draw a line, that it's internal system of giving orders supersedes the individual soldier's right and need to express a modest reverence for God. It is imperative that the military be slapped down, and that military officers have a limit placed on their command authority, such that they cannot give orders to take down a small passage like this, and they cannot punish anybody if they do give such an order, and that person tells them no. The Commander in Chief must not have the authority to tell the private not to pray in a reasonable outward manner, and if the Joint Chiefs command it, when the individual private defies the chain of command on the matter of reverence to God, the Supreme Court of the United States must subordinate the entire military command authority to the individual soldier's right to simply pray in a simple manner. We're not talking about taking Sunday off here.
It's important that the military be given a hard limit to its command authority, so that it learns respect.
The whole culture of the military has always been to never respect such a limit. But now the military culture has gone to the point of trying to obscure and crush out the Christian culture that has been the only source of the military's providential victories over time. A military with the tightest command structure cannot prevail in battle if it is damned by God.
So it's a test - a test of culture and of power. It is important that this clerk triumph over the authority of her commanding general and all of his lieutenants.
But she won't. That's the truth of it. The government is evil (2 million babies per year) and it will side with command authority over simple, stubborn professions of faith. It will side with the commander's authority to determine what is bad discipline in all cases. It will punish her. And every thinking man must reject the military's argument, and must sadly look forward to the defeats and weakness in the field that inevitably result when an armed force turns on God.
#22. To: sneakypete (#8)
That's called "piling on to try to get a guilty plea".
That's the name of the game in the "injustice system" nowadays...
Vegetarians eat vegetables. Beware of humanitarians!
#23. To: sneakypete (#10)
Same old Canary behavior pete just different logons, you're wasting your breath...
Vegetarians eat vegetables. Beware of humanitarians!
#24. To: sneakypete (#10)
As for valuing God,why value a fictional character? Do you also worship the Easter Bunny?
To: rdl6989
First ... eliminate God --- from government - society.
Then eliminate morality.
Eliminate self-responsibility, self-sufficiency, self-control, self-governance.
This is your result.
Reap what you sow.
563 posted on 12/2/2015 10:56:27 AM by Jim Robinson (Resistance to tyrants is ob ob obedience to to God!)
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/3367287/posts?q=1&;page=551#563
If you ... don't use exclamation points --- you should't be typeing ! Commas - semicolons - question marks are for girlie boys !
Top • Page Up • Full Thread • Page Down • Bottom/Latest
[Home] [Headlines] [Latest Articles] [Latest Comments] [Post] [Mail] [Sign-in] [Setup] [Help] [Register]