The 'New Crusaders'...

Originally posted by melatonin
I think producing 'government paid missionaries' will be well-covered. Unless you think having the government pay for missionary work is congruent with the establishment clause.

I suppose you've never met or heard of an Army chaplian before.

Qualified and sent by their religious bodies, trained by the U.S. Army, and led by the God that they serve,

www.goarmy.com...

Originally posted by Equinox99
I think religion should be taken out of the state and out of the army, but if we did that then you would have Atheist crusaders now wouldn't you?

Either way this problem will continue and it will not change. Great post!

No, no. That's most definitely not what I would want. It's a bit like the science issue (please don't go down that path anyone, heh), science is essentially agnostic - you can have faith or not and be a good scientist. Same with the military, same with politics and most other human 'institutions' (except perhaps churches, lol). Theism and non-theism are essentially irrelevant to their aims.

The UK army are out there and can fight without having to opportunistically mix religion with the primary 'mission'. So why not others...

reply to post by melatonin


Well because the army is just like elementary schools. The outcast usually always gets made fun of and bullied. It is wrong and puts a lot of stress on the troops. I honestly say that religion should not be a topic to speak of in the army, just because that it will lead to argument which may lead to bullying. The bullying is usually done by Christians because they outnumber every other religion.

Originally posted by dbates
I suppose you've never met or heard of an Army chaplian before.

I think they are there to ensure the spiritual health of the various soldiers of faith. Don't think that's exactly pertinent to the issue.

Thus, chaplains having weekly services is not that relevent. Soldiers can have a faith and would be entitled to have access to religious services and the state should enable such access, but I would assume that these same Chaplains running around converting soldiers of other faiths or non-faith would be a potential problem.

That's another strand to this issue. Big-wigs in the Pentagon are apparently favouring these Evangelical groups. Giving them exclusive access.

Yeah, I as an English Citizen was disgusted when I heard that Bush, and henceforth Blair, started the "War on Terror" in God's name. Now I am not religious in any way but what right do they have to say that?

To me that sounds like the Christian equivalent of Jihad surely...?

Originally posted by melatonin
Don't think that's (Army chaplains) exactly pertinent to the issue.

I was just demonstrating that the U.S. goverment doesn't have an issue with having a payroll for religious items. That's not a taboo. Also that the first amendment clause is a poor arguement since you're relying on an interpretation of the Constitution instead of what's actually written there.

At any rate, this is all about oil. I don't think the goverment cares one way or the other who the Iraqi people pray to as long as they can keep getting crude out of the ground in the Middle East.

Why so down on the Christian faith? Better the devil you know, right?

[edit on 16-6-2008 by dbates]

Originally posted by dbates
I was just demonstrating that the U.S. goverment doesn't have an issue with having a payroll for religious items. That's not a taboo. Also that the first amendment clause is a poor arguement since you're relying on an interpretation of the Constitution instead of what's actually written there.

And the firm separation of church and state has been a pretty consistent intepretation, same with the restrictions on using the state to establish or favour forms of religion. If you even go back to my original post I think I said 'not exactly congruent' and from what I gather, it isn't.

You might not like the interpretation that is widespread in your home, but they take it as a barrier between state and religion. In the UK we have no such thing, and it doesn't bother me that much. Mainly because our culture is nothing like yours and faith is of minimal importance to everyday public and state life (Indeed, such irrelevant public displays are frowned upon).

Why so down on the Christian faith? Better the devil you know, right?

If it's 'better the devil I know' then I'll be looking forward to the CofE becoming the predominate world faith, heh. I actually have a bit of a soft spot for it, and was even happy to allow my son to go to a CofE school.

I'm not that anti-religion really, I think it has some negative aspects (e.g., just another divisive category for social prejudices) and is a vacuous method of explaining the real-world, but the more innocuous forms don't particularly bother me. In a similar way to you probably dream of some christian utopia, I dream of a non-theist utopia. However, I won't support forcing my non-theism into your church or using the military to spread atheism, amongst other things. I'll just try to keep using ELARM* missiles.

Hopefully that puts to bed me and mine.

* Evidence, Logic And Reason to Mind

[edit on 16-6-2008 by melatonin]

reply to post by dbates


having a payroll for religious items is irrelevant because chaplains are there simply to prevent the restriction of the free exercise of religion. they aren't there to convert, they're there for people who are already a member of a religion.

the establishment clause (contrary to the ignorant statements by lightmare) prevents the government from favoring a religion

the only way that a chaplain could be pertinent is if the US government was allowed to only hire chaplains from certain religions and deny access to certain religious groups.

they aren't.

this is a gross violation of the establishment clause and of US military codes of conduct.

this needs to stop.

the armed forces aren't there to convert people, it's their job to represent the ideals of this nation, one ideal being secular government

not to mention the recent and egregious violations of the rights of atheists soldiers serving their country, the fundamentalists have far too much control of the military now.

the military makes me sick these days
...though at least they aren't as bad as the contractors.

Excellent post Mel . . . I just wish i hadn't rehd it though, because every time i'm reminded of this situation it makes me sick.

It is so true, and it really is messed up. This is just one of the many reasons why the rest of the world laughs at us. (America)

If you want an one world order, with one political body, one financial body, one military body, one police force, and yes, one religion, you will assure that these things happen as quickly yet delicately as possible, especially when the time is ripe for it. The papacy believes the HRC is the mother church of all other churches and religions in the world. it's an agreement they share with the founders of the new world order concept, that's now, already at least 200 years old in America. they've been planning this for a very long time and the entire thing can be read in the prophetical books of Daniel and Revelation.

the final empire, the new world order, will have ONE RELIGION, a watered down version of catholicism. this will be used to eradicate the other religions from the planet by appealing to everyone's desire for peace, and then the religion itself will be destroyed by the atheist movement. i believe its something on the order of the destruction of vatican city. i could be wrong on all this but this is what the eschatologists have been saying for many years now.

p.s. i sure hope they get all the innocent people, ancient texts and artifacts out of the vaults before they destroy it. there may be some reallly important info down there. sadly, if it disproves atheism and/or catholicism, it doesn't stand a chance of surviving.

"zealots fighting zealots"

That's not a bad idea. I remember my Western Civ I prof opining that, if it weren't for the Holy Crusades, brutish and militaristic young men filled with bloodlust and religious zealotry would not have left Europe, and the Reformation and Renaissance might never have occurred.

[edit on 19-6-2008 by applebiter]

Originally posted by melatonin

That's another strand to this issue. Big-wigs in the Pentagon are apparently favouring these Evangelical groups. Giving them exclusive access.

That's not even the half of it Mel. I saw this live a few months ago and couldn't believe it. I still haven't been able to get a national journalist to touch it. The implications are mind boggling. This excerpt begins about half way down:

Holy Cow

BECK: Does it concern you at all -- we only have 45 seconds. Does it concern you at all that the third temple is really ready? I mean, most of it is sitting in a warehouse. I mean, they got everything ready to go.

ROSENBERG: Architectural plans are done. The clothes for the priests are being, being sewn. All of the implements for the temple sacraments are being done.

BECK: And, the red heifer was -- is this true? That the red heifer, they have to make the ashes of blah, blah, blah, of a red heifer. Couldn`t find a red heifer, and now they`re just being born all over.

ROSENBERG: Well, they`re actually being genetically engineered right now, because you need an absolutely perfect one. One was born a few years ago called Melody. She turned out to have a few hairs that were flawed. And so they said that`s not the one. A perfect one has to be born and then, once that happens, it will be sacrificed and the temple will be ready to be built.

The Pentagon is already crawling with evangelical Christian Zionists in top leadership positions.
This Joel Rosenberg gets invited to speak at the White House, Congress, the Pentagon, foreign governments, etc. He says America is not mentioned in the Bible because it will be destroyed and play no significant role in the "End Times." He is talking about the preparations that are already made to replace the Temple Mount in Jerusalem. Won't that be fun!