Court Martial for sharing your faith?

72 posts / 0 new
Last post
GloriaInTX's picture
Joined: 07/29/08
Posts: 4116
Court Martial for sharing your faith?

Do you think that Christians in the military who share their faith or offer comfort to others from their faith in Jesus Christ is ?sedition and treason? and deserving of court martial?

Religious liberty groups have grave concerns after they learned the Pentagon is vetting its guide on religious tolerance with a group that compared Christian evangelism to ?rape? and advocated that military personnel who proselytize should be court martialed.

The Military Religious Freedom Foundation is calling on the Air Force to enforce a regulation that they believe calls for the court martial of any service member caught proselytizing.

President Mikey Weinstein and others from his organization met privately with Pentagon officials on April 23. He said U.S. troops who proselytize are guilty of sedition and treason and should be punished ? by the hundreds if necessary ? to stave off what he called a ?tidal wave of fundamentalists.?

?Someone needs to be punished for this,? Weinstein told Fox News. ?Until the Air Force or Army or Navy or Marine Corps punishes a member of the military for unconstitutional religious proselytizing and oppression, we will never have the ability to stop this horrible, horrendous, dehumanizing behavior.?

Tony Perkins, president of the Family Research Council, told Fox News he was stunned that the Pentagon would be taking counsel and advice from the Military Religious Freedom Foundation.

?Why would military leadership be meeting with one of the most rabid atheists in America to discuss religious freedom in the military,? Perkins said. ?That?s like consulting with China on how to improve human rights.?

The FRC has launched a petition drive urging Defense Sec. Chuck Hagel to protect the religious freedom of troops ?and not to proceed with the purge of religion within the ranks called for by anti-Christian activists.?

Pentagon officials met with Weinstein and his group were to discuss a policy called ?Air Force Culture, Air Force Standards,? published on Aug. 7, 2012.

Section 2.11 requires ?government neutrality regarding religion.?

?Leaders at all levels must balance constitutional protections for an individual?s free exercise of religion or other personal beliefs and the constitutional prohibition against governmental establishment of religion,? the regulation states.

Military leaders were admonished not to use their position to ?promote their personal religious beliefs to their subordinates or to extend preferential treatment for any religion.?

Weinstein said it?s time for the Air Force to enforce the regulation ? with zeal.

?If a member of the military is proselytizing in a manner that violates the law, well then of course they can be prosecuted,? he said. ?We would love to see hundreds of prosecutions to stop this outrage of fundamentalist religious persecution.?

He compared the act of proselytizing to rape.

?It is a version of being spiritually raped and you are being spiritually raped by fundamentalist Christian religious predators,? he told Fox News.

He said there is a time and a place for those in uniform to share their faith ? but he took issues with fundamentalism that he says is causing widespread problems in the military.

?When those people are in uniform and they believe there is no time, place or manner in which they can be restricted from proselytizing, they are creating tyranny, oppression, degradation, humiliation and horrible, horrible pain upon members of the military,? he said.

Perkins said the military regulations have ?Weinstein?s fingerprints all over it.?

?It threatens to treat service members caught witnessing as enemies of the state,? he said, referring to a Washington Post article highlighting Weinstein?s meeting with Pentagon officials. ?Non-compliance, the Pentagon suggests, even from ordained chaplains could result in court-martialing on a case-by-case basis.?

The Pentagon confirmed to Fox News that Christian evangelism is against regulations.

?Religious proselytization is not permitted within the Department of Defense, LCDR Nate Christensen said in a written statement. He declined to say if any chaplains or service members had been prosecuted for such an offense.

?Court martials and non-judicial punishments are decided on a case-by-case basis and it would be inappropriate to speculate on the outcome in specific cases,? he said.

Ron Crews, the executive director of the Chaplain Alliance for Religious Liberty, warns that the Air Force policy would ?significantly impact the religious liberties of Air Force personnel.?

?Saying that a service member cannot speak of his faith is like telling a service member he cannot talk about his spouse or children,? Crews said. ?I do not think the Air Force wants to ban personnel from protected religious speech, and I certainly hope that it is willing to listen to the numerous individuals and groups who protect military religious liberty without demonizing service members.?

In an interview with the Washington Post, Weinstein called proselytizing a ?national security threat.?

?And what the Pentagon needs to understand is that it is sedition and treason,? he told the newspaper. ?It should be punished.?

Perkins said it was troubling the Obama Administration would place so much trust in someone like Weinstein.

?Unfortunately, it appears our military is on a forced march away from the very freedoms they are sworn to protect,? he said. ?This language from Weinstein that Christians who share their faith or offer comfort to others from their faith in Jesus Christ is ?sedition and treason? is a treasonous statement in and of itself.?

But Weinstein said they count thousands of Protestants among their ranks ? and said they are simply going after fundamentalists.

?As soon as we find a fundamentalist Muslim, atheist, Jewish person or anybody else, we will be happy to fight them ? but so far they have been few and far between,? he said.

Lt. Gen. (Ret.) Jerry Boykin, an executive vice president with the Family Research Council, told Fox News that he?s deeply concerned by what he call a pattern of attacks on Christianity within the military.

?Mickey Weinstein has a very visceral hated of Christianity and those who are Christians,? he said. ?He?d like to see it eliminated from the military entirely.?

If the Air Force policy is implemented, Boykin said Christians who speak of their faith ?could now be prosecuted as enemies of the state.?

?This has the potential to destroy military recruiting across the services as Americans realize that their faith will be suppressed by joining the military,? Boykin said.

In the meantime, Weinstein and his group said they will continue to push for the Pentagon to fully implement its ban on proselytizing.

?There is a time, place and manner in which proselytizing is not only allowed, but it?s something we support among our Christian clients,? Weinstein said. ?However, you can?t scream fire in a crowded theater and you can?t scream Jesus in a crowded theater at certain times, places, and in certain manners.?

Pentagon: Religious Proselytizing is Not Permitted | FOX News & Commentary: Todd Starnes

Joined: 05/31/06
Posts: 4780

This is nothing new. This is just another look at what began under that famous anti God guy GWB back in 2005 Smile

http://www.nytimes.com/2005/08/30/national/30religion.html?_r=0

It is important that our Military remain a safe place for people of all religions to not feel bullied.

Joined: 08/17/04
Posts: 2226

There is no need for people to go to work (including the military) and have someone try to convert them. It is also not appropriate for forces that represent the US to be doing public prayer either.

AlyssaEimers's picture
Joined: 08/22/06
Posts: 6567

I believe in the right to free speech. If the military personnel have the right to curse God and use every profanity under the sun, they also have the right to talk about God in a positive light.

ETA - So it would be A OK to say God d*m you, but it would be a court martial offence to say that God loves you? This is in no way any better than Don't Ask, Don't Tell. "It is ok if you have your religion, as long as you don't let anyone know about it."

If someone is harassing another person and trying to push something down their throat, then deal with the harassment. Not take away the religious freedoms, and freedom of speech away from the entire military.

mom3girls's picture
Joined: 01/09/07
Posts: 1537

Harassment and sharing faith are 2 very different things. Harassment should be punished. Sharing faith should be totally acceptable in any work environment

Joined: 03/14/09
Posts: 624

"mom3girls" wrote:

Harassment and sharing faith are 2 very different things. Harassment should be punished. Sharing faith should be totally acceptable in any work environment

Really? You'd be totally happy if you went to the water cooler and instead of going back to your desk, someone gave you some pamphlets about the Quran and asked if you wanted to go to hell if you didn't convert?

Joined: 05/31/06
Posts: 4780

WHat I find incredibly interesting about the bias in this article is that they never mention WHO Weinstein is. They merely describe him as a "Rabid atheist".....the man is an ACADEMY GRADUATE. Do you know what an elite standing that alone is? From the other article I linked to

But one outspoken critic, Mikey Weinstein, an academy graduate from Albuquerque, said the guidelines meant nothing because the Air Force had refused to discipline officers who overstepped the boundaries.
"All this does is increase the level of confusion," Mr. Weinstein said.

Whatever his religion is that certainly gives him perspective as to what is actually going on within our Air Force.

Tony Perkins, says

Tony Perkins, president of the Family Research Council, told Fox News he was stunned that the Pentagon would be taking counsel and advice from the Military Religious Freedom Foundation.

?Why would military leadership be meeting with one of the most rabid atheists in America to discuss religious freedom in the military,? Perkins said. ?That?s like consulting with China on how to improve human rights.?

Now, Tony Perkins is a real gem.

In 1996, while managing the U.S. Senate campaign of Woody Jenkins against Mary Landrieu, Perkins paid $82,500 to use the mailing list of former Ku Klux Klan leader and state representative David Duke.[24] The campaign was fined $3,000 for filing false disclosure forms in a bid to hide the payment to Duke.[25] Perkins has stated he did not know about the mailing list's connection to Duke.[24]On May 17, 2001, Perkins gave a speech to the Louisiana chapter of the Council of Conservative Citizens (CCC), a white supremacist group that has described black people as a “retrograde species of humanity.”[26] Perkins claimed not to know the group’s ideology at the time, but it had been widely publicized in Louisiana and the nation, just two years earlier. The Duke incident surfaced again in the local press in 2002, when Perkins ran unsuccessfully for the U.S. Senate.[24]
In 2010, the Family Research Council—under Perkins' leadership—was classified as a hate group by the Southern Poverty Law Center which characterized the group as "a fount of anti-gay propaganda".[27][28] Perkins dismissed the hate group designation as a political attack on the FRC by a "liberal organization" and as part of "the left's smear campaign of conservatives".[28] On December 15, 2010 the FRC ran an open letter advertisement in two Washington, D.C. newspapers disputing the SPLC's action. The letter included the signatures of social conservative politicians including twenty members of the House of Representatives (including then soon-to-be Speaker John Boehner), three U.S. senators, four state governors, and one state attorney general.[29]
In the spring of 2013, Perkins urged conservaties nationwide to withhold political contributions to the national Republican Party until the leadership "grows a backbone" and halts support for so many of the Democratic legislative intiatives.[30]


My question is why are our military leaders meeting with HIM?

A court martial is an incredibly serious and expensive procedure. To those all wigged out that someone is going to be court martialed because they say "God loves you" I think that you don't have much of an understanding of our military. THese regulations are in place to protect those who are being harassed by religious people who are overstepping their bounds. Someone who self identifies as a Christian will not be prosecuted. Someone who repeatedly harasses others, who makes people uncomfortable by trying to convert them etc has no place within our military (or any workplace). Further, military leadership should NOT be taking on the role of spiritual advisor ~ leading prayers (of any religion) etc. That is NOT the way this country was founded and y'all know that.

Joined: 03/08/03
Posts: 3189

Honestly it's not okay in a work environment. It can be really annoying and sometimes difficult to manage. When I came back to work after my Mom died, our head of Tech called me to say how sorry he was, which was really nice. Then he said, "It's good you know she's with God now." I'm an atheist but I let it go. He said it again. Then he said it again. At that point it was making me feel really crappy and upset as it had no meaning for me and only made me feel her loss more acutely. The conversation continued and the fourth time he said it, I said, "That would be comforting if it was in my belief system, but it isn't." He grew silent and we wrapped up the conversation.

He wasn't even proselytizing and we weren't in a closed environment like an army base and he meant well but it made me feel crappy and it started to really bother me that he was imposing his religious views on me so persistently. One passing mention is okay but he kept saying it until I had to snap back at him because I'd had it.

People who are religious often do not understand how offensive and aggressive it is to keep pushing their beliefs on someone. I don't walk around telling people to be atheists or telling them to stop believing in God & why it would free them and be good for them. Religious people should do the same. If you can't contain yourself then you are the one with the problem, not me. In groups it can be VERY intimidating and disturbing.

mom3girls's picture
Joined: 01/09/07
Posts: 1537

"blather" wrote:

Really? You'd be totally happy if you went to the water cooler and instead of going back to your desk, someone gave you some pamphlets about the Quran and asked if you wanted to go to hell if you didn't convert?

Yes. Before working in a christian school I worked in merchandise allocation in the fashion industry. I traveled quite extensively and on more then one occasion I was in a situation where people tried to convert me. I politely said I had a strong belief system that did not include their teachings, and it was always received quite well.

I am not sure who is "sharing" faith with you guys, but every time it has happened to me when I told the person that I was happy with the church I attend they were fine. I have never felt harassed.

Joined: 08/17/04
Posts: 2226

But in many cases within the military it is people of high ranking that are pushing religion and that's a huge problem. You shouldn't have to fear repercussions withing your job because someone with seniority feels you should believe what they do.

AlyssaEimers's picture
Joined: 08/22/06
Posts: 6567

If you are going to limit the free speech of the military because it makes others uncomfortable, all profanity should also be banned.

Laurie - I am sorry about your mother. I find people often do not know what to say when someone dies.

Joined: 03/08/03
Posts: 3189

"AlyssaEimers" wrote:

If you are going to limit the free speech of the military because it makes others uncomfortable, all profanity should also be banned.

Laurie - I am sorry about your mother. I find people often do not know what to say when someone dies.

Thanks Bonita.

But it's not about being "uncomfortable"....religious proselytizers can be bullies. Some are very aggressive and if they are senior level or a majority group, it creates a very difficult and intimidating situation for others.

The guy in my situation was not my boss, was not trying to make me become religious, he just didn't even consider that I might not share his beliefs, and when I said something, he backed off. But some people don't back off and put tons of pressure on other people to be like "the group" or the "norm" or whatever.

AlyssaEimers's picture
Joined: 08/22/06
Posts: 6567

As previously stated, if someone is being harassed or bullied, that is completely different than someone sharing information with someone that wants to hear it. The outright banning of sharing your faith or talking about your faith is unbelievable. I mean I can not believe we are having this conversation.

ftmom's picture
Joined: 09/04/06
Posts: 1538

"mom3girls" wrote:

Yes. Before working in a christian school I worked in merchandise allocation in the fashion industry. I traveled quite extensively and on more then one occasion I was in a situation where people tried to convert me. I politely said I had a strong belief system that did not include their teachings, and it was always received quite well.

I am not sure who is "sharing" faith with you guys, but every time it has happened to me when I told the person that I was happy with the church I attend they were fine. I have never felt harassed.

In my personal experience, when I went to church and had a religion of my own people backed off quickly when I asked them to. It is now that I dont go to church and lean more towards atheism that I find people wont just back off. They want to know what I do belive and I think they feel I am confused (which I am not) so they keep pushing. I dont want to argue with them, I just want them to stop and go away Smile

I dont mind pamphlets or gentle conversation, however I dont think work is ever the place for it. Especially not from someone of authority.

Joined: 05/31/06
Posts: 4780

"AlyssaEimers" wrote:

As previously stated, if someone is being harassed or bullied, that is completely different than someone sharing information with someone that wants to hear it. The outright banning of sharing your faith or talking about your faith is unbelievable. I mean I can not believe we are having this conversation.

Of course you can't. That is because you live in a safe little bubble of Christian privilege. Heck Bonita, you ACTUALLY believed that no one in your entire state had abortions because you believed that your ENTIRE STATE was pro life!!!! You have yet to acknowledge the fact that your state is 14th out of 51 in the country in abortions, and that you actually have NO IDEA what is going on outside of your little bubble of homeschool/church world.

Think about what you wrote. Do you believe that someone who WANTS to hear the "information", who seeks it out, who ASKS to be witnessed to, would then turn in the witnesser for sharing their faith? Of course not.

The ban is specific to

[TD=align: left]pros?e?ly?tize

(prs-l-tz)v. pros?e?ly?tized, pros?e?ly?tiz?ing, pros?e?ly?tiz?es
v.intr.1. To induce someone to convert to one's own religious faith.

That does not mean saying "i go to bible study". Or "i follow Jesus". It means to proselytize. Specifically. And no, there is no place for that. I don't want to be induced to do ANYTHING other than my job. I don't want people to do that to me at my gym, or on the golf course, or at our pool, or on the beach. And I certainly don't want them to do it in my workplace, where I cannot get away from them.

AlyssaEimers's picture
Joined: 08/22/06
Posts: 6567

"Potter75" wrote:

Of course you can't. That is because you live in a safe little bubble of Christian privilege. Heck Bonita, you ACTUALLY believed that no one in your entire state had abortions because you believed that your ENTIRE STATE was pro life!!!! You have yet to acknowledge the fact that your state is 14th out of 51 in the country in abortions, and that you actually have NO IDEA what is going on outside of your little bubble of homeschool/church world.

Think about what you wrote. Do you believe that someone who WANTS to hear the "information", who seeks it out, who ASKS to be witnessed to, would then turn in the witnesser for sharing their faith? Of course not.

The ban is specific to

[TD=align: left]pros?e?ly?tize

(prs-l-tz)v. pros?e?ly?tized, pros?e?ly?tiz?ing, pros?e?ly?tiz?es
v.intr.1. To induce someone to convert to one's own religious faith.

That does not mean saying "i go to bible study". Or "i follow Jesus". It means to proselytize. Specifically. And no, there is no place for that. I don't want to be induced to do ANYTHING other than my job. I don't want people to do that to me at my gym, or on the golf course, or at our pool, or on the beach. And I certainly don't want them to do it in my workplace, where I cannot get away from them.

I never said no one in the entire state of TN gets an abortion. I said there is no abortion clinic here because the majority of people do not want one here.

I am sorry, I am not able to debate with you.

GloriaInTX's picture
Joined: 07/29/08
Posts: 4116

"Potter75" wrote:

Of course you can't. That is because you live in a safe little bubble of Christian privilege. Heck Bonita, you ACTUALLY believed that no one in your entire state had abortions because you believed that your ENTIRE STATE was pro life!!!! You have yet to acknowledge the fact that your state is 14th out of 51 in the country in abortions, and that you actually have NO IDEA what is going on outside of your little bubble of homeschool/church world.

I would just like to point out that this is a personal attack. Please debate the topic and not Bonita.

Joined: 05/31/06
Posts: 4780

"GloriaInTX" wrote:

I would just like to point out that this is a personal attack. Please debate the topic and not Bonita.

Thank you, you are right. I was feeling frustrated after her personal attack on me last night. Please forgive me Bonita. It is difficult when you continue to just jump in without debating and then jump out. I'm glad that you are done doing that. Please accept my apology.

Joined: 08/17/04
Posts: 2226

Here as in your town or in TN? A quick google search pulled up 3 which is a small amount compared to the size of your state but they exist.

AlyssaEimers's picture
Joined: 08/22/06
Posts: 6567

"Jessica80" wrote:

Here as in your town or in TN? A quick google search pulled up 3 which is a small amount compared to the size of your state but they exist.

Here as in my city. The closest abortion clinic is 83 miles away and is in a different state.

AlyssaEimers's picture
Joined: 08/22/06
Posts: 6567

"Potter75" wrote:

Thank you, you are right. I was feeling frustrated after her personal attack on me last night. Please forgive me Bonita. It is difficult when you continue to just jump in without debating and then jump out. I'm glad that you are done doing that. Please accept my apology.

Thank you. I would like to be able to debate abortion, but not if every idea I suggest is called silly or stupid.

Joined: 05/31/06
Posts: 4780

"AlyssaEimers" wrote:

Thank you. I would like to be able to debate abortion, but not if every idea I suggest is called silly or stupid.

If you'd like to have a discussion not related to the debate why don't you take it to PM? I apologized to you, if you would like to continue the discussion you can do it privately. This debate is about the air force, not how you debate abortion.

ClairesMommy's picture
Joined: 08/15/06
Posts: 2299

"mom3girls" wrote:

Harassment and sharing faith are 2 very different things. Harassment should be punished. Sharing faith should be totally acceptable in any work environment

I would be beyond offended if a coworker took it upon themself to 'share' their faith with me. How presumptious. I don't walk around blaspheming the Lord or JC or spewing atheist belief (not that I'm an atheist). I could get fired for that. Why would doing tht opposite be okay?

AlyssaEimers's picture
Joined: 08/22/06
Posts: 6567

"ClairesMommy" wrote:

I would be beyond offended if a coworker took it upon themself to 'share' their faith with me. How presumptious. I don't walk around blaspheming the Lord or JC or spewing atheist belief (not that I'm an atheist). I could get fired for that. Why would doing tht opposite be okay?

Would a military person be court martialed for blaspheming the Lord or spewing atheist belief? My understanding is that there is a ton of profanity which in my opinion is just as offensive. Free speech is just that. I would hate the idea that I had to monitor everything I said to anyone. Who is going to draw the line of what is just conversation and what is not. Is there going to be a rule that no religion or politics can be discussed in the military? It is not like the military is 9-5 like a normal job. To many people their religion is very important to them. Forbidding them to discuss it would take a huge part of them away. It is a MAJOR breach of their constitutional rights. If you were going to ban all conversation that could possibly offend someone, you would have to ban all swearing a cursing, all talk of politics, all talk of most things we debate on this board, and pretty much all talk of anything other than the weather. We all know that is not how it works in the military. Talking about and sharing about your faith should not be singled out as a taboo subject. To be honest, the idea that I would not be aloud to talk about my faith is extremely offensive to me. Why is one persons offence able to trample the constitutional rights of others?

Again, I am not talking about harassment. If you are talking to someone about something and they tell you to stop or that you are bothering them, that is different than carrying on a conversation.

Joined: 03/08/03
Posts: 3189

There is a massive difference between talking about your faith and trying to convince others to share it. Some people don't really understand that line. (No, I don't mean you, just speaking broadly.)

Joined: 05/31/06
Posts: 4780

"freddieflounder101" wrote:

There is a massive difference between talking about your faith and trying to convince others to share it. Some people don't really understand that line. (No, I don't mean you, just speaking broadly.)

My goodness, thank you. Its really bewildering that people are getting all worked up without focusing on what is actually being banned. I bolded it and defined it for them. Its so simple.

AlyssaEimers's picture
Joined: 08/22/06
Posts: 6567

In my experience, people are going to talk to others about what they are into and want them to join them. That goes for someone who is on the weight loss band wagon, on a fad diet, super big on going to the gym, eating a certain way, if they are in a new job like Mary Kay or other similar business, if they are all about a new lotion, or many other things. It is just how people are.

You share about the things that are important to you and you hope that people will share in those things as well.

Let me give an example. Say someone was passionate about exercising and eating right. It would be natural to tell their friends in talking to them about their exercising and eating. It would also be normal to invite the person they were talking to join them. Even to explain the benefits of a good diet and exercising and really encourage them to participate. Now I would hope at that point if the person still said they were not interested the person would stop talking about it and change the subject. There is nothing wrong however with sharing your lifestyle with someone. I have also known people who have crossed over into harassment in their believe that everyone should eat and exercising as they do. Most people know they need to eat better and exercise more, but someone who is sensitive in this area is not going to enjoy being nagged about it. Would you like it if it became illegal to try to get someone you care about to eat better? Even mentioning the idea to them meant that you could be prosecuted?

Joined: 03/08/03
Posts: 3189

Bonita, I disagree. I'm on Weight Watchers, I do yoga, and I discuss these things with co-workers and never, ever try to get them to do the same. I bake healthy things and bring them in and when someone else bakes and brings me something I never tell them to stop using white sugar or butter even though those are the things I do.

Even when I felt I had to have a health conversation with my husband, I didn't bring it up casually....I waited for the right time and we had a big heart-to-heart. I would never have a conversation like that at work. It's inappropriate and it puts pressure on people. I can't imagine telling someone at work that they should eat better or exercise, even as I change my own lifestyle and feel better for it. It's not okay. And I would be very annoyed by someone else doing that to me.

Joined: 03/08/03
Posts: 3189

I want to add that as important as your Christianity is to you, my atheism is to me. It's not an absence of belief, it's a carefully thought out belief that means a great deal to me in terms of how I view the world. I wouldn't go up to a practicing Christian and try to talk them into another religion, but atheists don't get that respect at all. My beliefs matter.

Joined: 05/31/06
Posts: 4780

My goodness if I tried to sell Mary Kay at my old career I would be taken to task with HR. Ditto selling Jesus.

And holy cow ~ I go to the gym and am passionate about health ~ but never ever bring it up, and actually HATE it when people bring it up or assume certain things about my lifestyle or whatnot because of my body type or whatever. I would never, EVER bring up my personal fitness regime or whatever in my workplace. People simply don't like that sort of thing, at all. If someone asked me if I liked XY or Z yes I would talk about it with them, but no way ~ ever, would I preach a certain way of eating or working out to my colleagues, it would be wildly presumptious and would not win me any friends. People don't like being judged.

People also super hate being made to feel as though they are going to hell. I promise.

AlyssaEimers's picture
Joined: 08/22/06
Posts: 6567

"freddieflounder101" wrote:

Bonita, I disagree. I'm on Weight Watchers, I do yoga, and I discuss these things with co-workers and never, ever try to get them to do the same. I bake healthy things and bring them in and when someone else bakes and brings me something I never tell them to stop using white sugar or butter even though those are the things I do.

Even when I felt I had to have a health conversation with my husband, I didn't bring it up casually....I waited for the right time and we had a big heart-to-heart. I would never have a conversation like that at work. It's inappropriate and it puts pressure on people. I can't imagine telling someone at work that they should eat better or exercise, even as I change my own lifestyle and feel better for it. It's not okay. And I would be very annoyed by someone else doing that to me.

But do you feel you should be prosecuted for it? That if you and your husband were in the military and you carefully broached the subject with him that you could be court martialed for it?

"freddieflounder101" wrote:

I want to add that as important as your Christianity is to you, my atheism is to me. It's not an absence of belief, it's a carefully thought out belief that means a great deal to me in terms of how I view the world. I wouldn't go up to a practicing Christian and try to talk them into another religion, but atheists don't get that respect at all. My beliefs matter.

I understand your Atheism is important to you. My brother is an Atheist. We do not talk about it. I know what he believes and he knows what I believe. That first conversation though of what do you believe, I do not think is wrong. If after you have talked about it, and the person says they do not want to talk about it, then you need to stop. Sharing your religion can not be made illegal though. There are many non-christians that enjoy taking about it. People who have no religion and are searching for one. There is no crime in talking to those people. By banning sharing religion over all, you are also banning talking to those people who want to hear.

To the argument that those people would not turn you in, I would not (as would many people) be willing to talk about something in the hopes that someone would not turn me in. What if someone overheard or that person had a vendetta. You simply can not limit free speech. Nagging someone that does not want to hear is much different than sharing with someone who does.

Joined: 08/17/04
Posts: 2226

It's not about random conversation AT ALL. Why do you insist that it is?

Joined: 03/08/03
Posts: 3189

I think if I were at my job and walked around trying to get people to eat the way I do that I should be fired for it. Comparable.

But again, it's not about random conversation.

Joined: 03/14/09
Posts: 624

"AlyssaEimers" wrote:

Here as in my city. The closest abortion clinic is 83 miles away and is in a different state.

Sad

AlyssaEimers's picture
Joined: 08/22/06
Posts: 6567

Forcing someone to talk about something they do not want to talk about is harassment. Someone that is sharing their faith with someone in a calm polite way is witnessing, which is what we are talking about. Making it a court martial offence to share your faith with someone.

Let me give a mock conversation.

Person A - So what did you do this weekend?
Person B - I mowed my grass on Saturday and went to church on Sunday.
Person A - Oh, you go to church. Why do you do that?
Person B - Well I go to church because xyz....
Person A - That is neat. Do they accept just anyone?
Person B - Yes, we would love to have you. Our services are at such and such a time at such and such a place.
Person A - That is great. What do they teach there?
Person B - They teach xyz. I think it is really great because...
and so on.

Sharing your faith should not be a crime. Harassment is a completely different subject. This is banning anyone from trying to share their faith.

Joined: 03/08/03
Posts: 3189

"AlyssaEimers" wrote:

Forcing someone to talk about something they do not want to talk about is harassment. Someone that is sharing their faith with someone in a calm polite way is witnessing, which is what we are talking about. Making it a court martial offence to share your faith with someone.

Let me give a mock conversation.

Person A - So what did you do this weekend?
Person B - I mowed my grass on Saturday and went to church on Sunday.
Person A - Oh, you go to church. Why do you do that?
Person B - Well I go to church because xyz....
Person A - That is neat. Do they accept just anyone?
Person B - Yes, we would love to have you. Our services are at such and such a time at such and such a place.
Person A - That is great. What do they teach there?
Person B - They teach xyz. I think it is really great because...
and so on.

Sharing your faith should not be a crime. Harassment is a completely different subject. This is banning anyone from trying to share their faith.

But in your scenario, person A is asking questions. How about this one:

A: What did you do this weekend?
B: I went to church.
A: That's nice. I had a picnic.
B: I get a lot from church, have you ever tried it?
A: No, I'm not religious.
B: Being a ___ (insert faith) has changed my life. You should really explore it.
A: Well it's not really my thing.
B: People say that, but in my church, we all get enriched by what happens and our souls are saved and it's great.
A: Um, yeah, not really my thing.
B: Your soul would be saved if you went. Why don't you try it? Do you want to suffer and have your children suffer?
A: No, but that's not the path for me.
B: Maybe it is and you don't know. God is here for you.

and so on.....

AlyssaEimers's picture
Joined: 08/22/06
Posts: 6567

As I said, that is harassment. Both conversations would be punished if this passed.

Joined: 05/31/06
Posts: 4780

No they wouldnt. You simply aren't understanding the information correctly.

AlyssaEimers's picture
Joined: 08/22/06
Posts: 6567

"Potter75" wrote:

No they wouldnt. You simply aren't understanding the information correctly.

Do you have a different article than was posted in the OP? I went back and carefully re-read the OP. I am representing the facts of that OP. If that article is incorrect, I would be delighted to be shown otherwise.

Joined: 05/31/06
Posts: 4780

Well-since you seem unable or unwilling to accept the definition I have posted and others have referred to, sure, I can give you another article. The Internet is actually full of other articles- it's a magical place. Pentagon pushed to end Christian proselytizing? ? Hot Air. . This one explains it pretty much the same way I and others on this thread have but using more words.

AlyssaEimers's picture
Joined: 08/22/06
Posts: 6567

": to induce someone to convert to one's faith" - Could mean to force someone to change to their faith. It could also mean to talk about it in normal conversation. Any conversation that lead to one person changing their faith to another would fall under that definition. That is something that I am very uncomfortable with.

Joined: 05/31/06
Posts: 4780

So you truly fear that thousands of soldiers may undergo terribly expensive court martial during these days of sequestration a for having " conversations"? You honestly have a true FEAR of that?

Joined: 08/17/04
Posts: 2226

Exactly what Melis is saying. Do you really think that 2 random soldiers, that are talking of their own free will, and one of them decides to try a faith are going to have a courts martial over that? Doubtful.

AlyssaEimers's picture
Joined: 08/22/06
Posts: 6567

It does not matter if they would not ever prosecute every single case. Even having it on the books is 100% unconstitutional and wrong.

Joined: 08/17/04
Posts: 2226

It's not on the books and it's not going to be on the books. Again, for the 100th time...that's not what this is about!

Joined: 03/08/03
Posts: 3189

"AlyssaEimers" wrote:

": to induce someone to convert to one's faith" - Could mean to force someone to change to their faith. It could also mean to talk about it in normal conversation. Any conversation that lead to one person changing their faith to another would fall under that definition. That is something that I am very uncomfortable with.

No it wouldn't also mean that. Talking about faith is not the same as inducing someone to convert. It just isn't.

AlyssaEimers's picture
Joined: 08/22/06
Posts: 6567

"freddieflounder101" wrote:

No it wouldn't also mean that. Talking about faith is not the same as inducing someone to convert. It just isn't.

Can you tell me what exactly what you think it means to "inducing someone to convert"? With examples? So we are all on the same page. I have been taught all my life about witnessing and to witness. The general point is to convert others. I does not have to be harassment, and generally is just a normal conversation.

The most recent article posted stated that it was mostly just for superiors not being able to force their subordinated to convert. I can agree that should not happen. The term proselytizing does mean any kind of sharing your faith. To quote the above article -“We don’t want your boss saying you have to go to a Bible study,” he said. “But what if he just invites you?” - No, a boss should not be able to say "You go to bible study or drop and give me 50". Of course that should not be allowed. Going up to someone and saying "Hey a few of us are going to a Bible study later. Would you like to come?" Is just conversation and should be allowed.

Joined: 08/17/04
Posts: 2226

I would pretty upset in normal conversation if you tried to convert me.

Joined: 03/08/03
Posts: 3189

Proselytizing does not mean sharing your faith, it means recruiting or attempting to convert people. It is not the same.

And your boss inviting you to Bible study is very different from someone else inviting you. It's a different sort of pressure entirely.

Inducing someone to convert is telling them that they should adopt your religion, that they should become what you are. When the Jehovah's Witnesses go door to door they are trying to convert people, that's their purpose. Jews for Jesus are trying to convert people. When my husband says, "I'm going to church on Sunday," or "the pastor's talk today was great" he is not trying to convert me.

Joined: 05/31/06
Posts: 4780

"AlyssaEimers" wrote:

It does not matter if they would not ever prosecute every single case. Even having it on the books is 100% unconstitutional and wrong.

Do you think its even slightly weird that you, Bonita Eimers from TN, are determining that this would be unconstitutional yet our (very smart and educated and powerful) military and political leaders have okayed it?

OF COURSE WHAT YOU ARE DESCRIBING WOULD BE UNCONSTITUTIONAL. Because what you CONTINUE to describe IS NOT WHAT IS BEING BANNED.

Members of the military are free to share their faith as long as they don’t harrass others, the Department of Defense said in a statement Thursday.
A Pentagon ban on proselytzing had caused an uproar in social media this week. Conservative activists claimed that service members could face court martial for talking about Jesus.
But a Defense Department spokesman said that evangelizing is allowed, as long as it is not disruptive.
Service members can share their faith (evangelize), but must not force unwanted, intrusive attempts to convert others of any faith or no faith to one’s beliefs (proselytization),” said Navy Lt. Cmdr. Nate Christensen, a Pentagon spokesman, in an email.
If a service member harasses another member on the basis of race, color, sex, religion, national origin, age, or disability, then the commander takes action based on the gravity of the occurrence. Likewise, when religious harassment complaints are reported, commanders take action based on the gravity of the occurrence on a case-by-case basis.”
Christensen said there are no plans to single out evangelical Christians for punishment, despite claims of activists.
“The U.S. Department of Defense has never and will never single out a particular religious group for persecution or prosecution. The Department makes reasonable accommodations for all religions and celebrates the religious diversity of our service members,” he said.

Its a little maddening that you continue to pretend that this is about "conversations" and whatnot. It just isn't. The above is like the debate, but I've bolded in blue what you have been saying in this debate and in black what the rest of us have been saying. Hopefully it helps you see more clearly that all of this is VERY in line with the constitution, in fact is is DEFENDING the constitution, in that we are to be free from religious pressure or coercion in our places of work as PER the constitution.

Rivergallery's picture
Joined: 05/23/03
Posts: 1301

"disruptive" to whom? someone they might offend? The law itself is "harassing" based on religion.

Pages