Religions > Atheism > evangelicals are trying to turn military into a "frickin' faith-based initiative.
| Topic: |
Religions > Atheism |
| User: |
"" |
| Date: |
14 Dec 2006 02:18:28 PM |
| Object: |
evangelicals are trying to turn military into a "frickin' faith-based initiative. |
[ it is sometimes hard to find this article. What works best is to enter
evangelicals are trying to turn military into a "frickin' faith-based
initiative. into a Google seracvh box. Often times clicking on the URL
below you get flash sites of trucks ]
http://www.salon.com/news/feature/2006/12/13/weinstein/index_np.html
Former Air Force officer Mikey Weinstein says evangelicals are trying to
turn his beloved military into a "frickin' faith-based initiative."
By Alex Koppelman
Dec. 13, 2006 | When a Christian group shot a video inside the Pentagon
that
featured uniformed senior military officers talking about their evangelical
faith, Mikey Weinstein went on the attack. Himself a former Air Force
lawyer and Air Force Academy grad, Weinstein, who is Jewish, is the founder
and president of the Military Religious Freedom Foundation. He founded the
MRFF earlier this year to oppose the spread of religious intimidation in a
military increasingly dominated by evangelical Christians.
On Monday, Weinstein held a press conference in Washington, D.C., to
announce that he was asking the Department of Defense's inspector general
to look into the video, and determine whether the people who appeared in it
-- Air Force Maj. Gen. Jack J. Catton Jr.; Army Brig. Gen. Vince Brooks,
the former public affairs director of the Army; and Undersecretary of the
Army Pete Geren -- had violated military regulations. He also filed a
Freedom of Information Act request with the government to find out who, if
anyone, had approved the video shoot.
Bob Varney, the executive director of Christian Embassy, the group that
made the video, tells Salon he believes no regulations were violated, and
he says Weinstein's allegations about increased evangelical influence
within the military are wrong.
"I don't understand how one could come to that kind of conclusion," Varney
says. "The military believes in religious freedom, it offers religious
freedom, it therefore offers people of different religions to express them,
and we're one among a number of different religions that are working in the
Armed Services."
Weinstein spoke with Salon Tuesday afternoon.
The Christian Embassy is now saying it had permission to film this inside
the Pentagon. Were you surprised to hear that?
Not at all. They're damned if they do, they're damned if they don't. If
they said they didn't have permission, they would have been blown away.
Having permission, to me, just shows the complicity. We have a systemic
problem. You sound like you're too young to remember Robert Redford in
"Three Days of the Condor," but the premise of that movie was that there
was a CIA within the CIA. We have a virulently dominionist, fundamentalist
evangelical Christian element within the Pentagon. They would prefer this
to be the "Pentecostalgon," not the Pentagon. That's what they would
prefer. They're trying to turn the Pentagon into a frickin' faith-based
initiative, and that is not what our military is about.
These are the people who, when I talk to senior members of the military at
the flag-level rank -- I don't know if you're familiar with what that
means, that means admiral or general -- that have looked at me and said,
"Come on, Mikey, what's your problem? We have the cure to cancer. If you
had the cure to cancer, wouldn't you want to spread the word?" They don't
realize when they say it, they don't have the mental wherewithal to
understand that to a person who isn't an evangelical Christian, you're
calling our faith a cancer.
What's wrong with this video?
I'm trying to think where to start. It is absolutely violative of a
mountain of Department of Defense internal regulations, guidelines, core
values, instructions, making it very clear that members of the military can
not endorse any one particular political position, partisan religious view,
they can't hold up a tube of toothpaste like Colgate and push it.
Irrespective of that, it's also blatantly violative of the Establishment
Clause of the First Amendment of the Bill of Rights, and at least as
important it's violative of Clause 3, Article 6 of the Constitution -- you
don't even have to get into the Bill of Rights -- which states that we will
never have a religion test for any position in the federal government,
which was brilliantly prescient of our Founding Fathers.
This, to me, constitutes as much of a national security threat to this
country as al-Qaida. In fact, the video itself, to me, would be the No. 1
recruiting tool that I would expect bin Laden, the followers of Abu Musab
al-Zarqawi, although he's dead, Ayman al Zawahiri, Hezbollah with Sheik
Hassan Nasrallah, Hamas, the al-Aqsa Martyrs' Brigades, to get angry young
Islamic men and women in Iran, Syria and Lebanon to join the insurrection
and jihadi terrorist activities. This would be a perfect accelerant to
create even further conflagration.
---end of excerpt---
***************************************************************
You are invited to check out the following:
The Rise of the Theocratic States of America
http://members.tripod.com/~candst/theocracy.htm
American Theocrats - Past and Present
http://members.tripod.com/~candst/theocrats.htm
The Constitutional Principle: Separation of Church and State
http://members.tripod.com/~candst/index.html
[and to join the discussion group for the above site and/or Separation of
Church and State in general, listed below]
HRSepCnS · Hampton Roads [Virginia] SepChurch&State
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/HRSepCnS/
[Its not just Hampton Roads folks who are members, there are members from
all over the US and a couple from overseas as well]
***************************************************************
.. . . You can't understand a phrase such as "Congress shall make no law
respecting an establishment of religion" by syllogistic reasoning. Words
take their meaning from social as well as textual contexts, which is why "a
page of history is worth a volume of logic." New York Trust Co. v. Eisner,
256 U.S. 345, 349, 41 S.Ct. 506, 507, 65 L.Ed. 963 (1921) (Holmes, J.).
Sherman v. Community Consol. Dist. 21, 980 F.2d 437, 445 (7th Cir. 1992)
.. . .
****************************************************************
USAF LT. COL (Ret) Buffman (Glen P. Goffin) wrote
"You pilot always into an unknown future;
facts are your only clue. Get the facts!"
That philosophy 'snipit' helped to get me, and my crew, through a good
many combat missions and far too many scary, inflight, emergencies.
It has also played a significant role in helping me to expose the
plethora of radical Christian propaganda and lies that we find at
almost every media turn.
*****************************************************************
THE CONSTITUTIONAL PRINCIPLE:
SEPARATION OF CHURCH AND STATE
http://members.tripod.com/~candst/index.html
****************************************************************
.
|
|
| User: "Jeff Strickland" |
|
| Title: Re: evangelicals are trying to turn military into a "frickin' faith-based initiative. |
14 Dec 2006 08:28:12 PM |
|
|
<buckeye-elo@nospam.net> wrote in message
news:4bc3o2dtm7o34hmkaob9i2nasecl2frvbp@4ax.com...
[ it is sometimes hard to find this article. What works best is to enter
evangelicals are trying to turn military into a "frickin' faith-based
initiative. into a Google seracvh box. Often times clicking on the URL
below you get flash sites of trucks ]
http://www.salon.com/news/feature/2006/12/13/weinstein/index_np.html
Former Air Force officer Mikey Weinstein says evangelicals are trying to
turn his beloved military into a "frickin' faith-based initiative."
By Alex Koppelman
Dec. 13, 2006 | When a Christian group shot a video inside the Pentagon
that
featured uniformed senior military officers talking about their
evangelical
faith, Mikey Weinstein went on the attack. Himself a former Air Force
lawyer and Air Force Academy grad, Weinstein, who is Jewish, is the
founder
and president of the Military Religious Freedom Foundation. He founded the
MRFF earlier this year to oppose the spread of religious intimidation in a
military increasingly dominated by evangelical Christians.
MY limited experience with the USAF was that there was NO intimidation
whatsoever. Part of the base orientation was that the Chapel was "over
there", and that was the last time I ever heard an official word on
religion. I had a co-worker or two invite me to services, but this falls
short of intimidation.
I am not intimidated by senior officers discussing their faith. My take on
this issue is that, the sky is falling. The sky is not falling.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Dave" |
|
| Title: Re: evangelicals are trying to turn military into a "frickin' faith-basedinitiative. |
14 Dec 2006 10:53:30 PM |
|
|
Jeff Strickland wrote:
<buckeye-elo@nospam.net> wrote in message
news:4bc3o2dtm7o34hmkaob9i2nasecl2frvbp@4ax.com...
[ it is sometimes hard to find this article. What works best is to enter
evangelicals are trying to turn military into a "frickin' faith-based
initiative. into a Google seracvh box. Often times clicking on the URL
below you get flash sites of trucks ]
http://www.salon.com/news/feature/2006/12/13/weinstein/index_np.html
Former Air Force officer Mikey Weinstein says evangelicals are trying to
turn his beloved military into a "frickin' faith-based initiative."
By Alex Koppelman
Dec. 13, 2006 | When a Christian group shot a video inside the Pentagon
that
featured uniformed senior military officers talking about their
evangelical
faith, Mikey Weinstein went on the attack. Himself a former Air Force
lawyer and Air Force Academy grad, Weinstein, who is Jewish, is the
founder
and president of the Military Religious Freedom Foundation. He founded
the
MRFF earlier this year to oppose the spread of religious intimidation
in a
military increasingly dominated by evangelical Christians.
MY limited experience with the USAF was that there was NO intimidation
whatsoever. Part of the base orientation was that the Chapel was "over
there", and that was the last time I ever heard an official word on
religion. I had a co-worker or two invite me to services, but this falls
short of intimidation.
I am not intimidated by senior officers discussing their faith. My take
on this issue is that, the sky is falling. The sky is not falling.
The issue is that these people used their position to promote something
that was against the rules of their position. They should be drubbed
out, just as anyone in a regular job should be, for violating their rules.
Seeing as you live a lie with regards to your beliefs, it's probably
okay to break the rules.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Jeff Strickland" |
|
| Title: Re: evangelicals are trying to turn military into a "frickin' faith-based initiative. |
15 Dec 2006 11:55:04 AM |
|
|
"Dave" <a@b.com> wrote in message
news:A92dnSv9JNrWtx_YnZ2dnUVZ_oS3nZ2d@giganews.com...
Jeff Strickland wrote:
<buckeye-elo@nospam.net> wrote in message
news:4bc3o2dtm7o34hmkaob9i2nasecl2frvbp@4ax.com...
[ it is sometimes hard to find this article. What works best is to enter
evangelicals are trying to turn military into a "frickin' faith-based
initiative. into a Google seracvh box. Often times clicking on the URL
below you get flash sites of trucks ]
http://www.salon.com/news/feature/2006/12/13/weinstein/index_np.html
Former Air Force officer Mikey Weinstein says evangelicals are trying to
turn his beloved military into a "frickin' faith-based initiative."
By Alex Koppelman
Dec. 13, 2006 | When a Christian group shot a video inside the Pentagon
that
featured uniformed senior military officers talking about their
evangelical
faith, Mikey Weinstein went on the attack. Himself a former Air Force
lawyer and Air Force Academy grad, Weinstein, who is Jewish, is the
founder
and president of the Military Religious Freedom Foundation. He founded
the
MRFF earlier this year to oppose the spread of religious intimidation in
a
military increasingly dominated by evangelical Christians.
MY limited experience with the USAF was that there was NO intimidation
whatsoever. Part of the base orientation was that the Chapel was "over
there", and that was the last time I ever heard an official word on
religion. I had a co-worker or two invite me to services, but this falls
short of intimidation.
I am not intimidated by senior officers discussing their faith. My take
on this issue is that, the sky is falling. The sky is not falling.
The issue is that these people used their position to promote something
that was against the rules of their position. They should be drubbed out,
just as anyone in a regular job should be, for violating their rules.
Seeing as you live a lie with regards to your beliefs, it's probably okay
to break the rules.
I believe you are wrong on this. There is no rule that says a person can not
say, "I made it this far because I have faith." Indeed, the 1st Amendment
specificaly protects people that want to say such a thing.
There is no rule that prohibits a Commander from making a motivational video
that might serve to reinforce the flagging faith of somebody. The rules come
into play when the Commander says, "You're not getting the promotion because
I never see you at the chapel, or I'm giving you a promotion because I see
you at teh chapel every week." Or words to that effect.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Dave" |
|
| Title: Re: evangelicals are trying to turn military into a "frickin' faith-basedinitiative. |
15 Dec 2006 01:30:38 PM |
|
|
Jeff Strickland wrote:
"Dave" <a@b.com> wrote in message
news:A92dnSv9JNrWtx_YnZ2dnUVZ_oS3nZ2d@giganews.com...
Jeff Strickland wrote:
<buckeye-elo@nospam.net> wrote in message
news:4bc3o2dtm7o34hmkaob9i2nasecl2frvbp@4ax.com...
[ it is sometimes hard to find this article. What works best is to
enter
evangelicals are trying to turn military into a "frickin' faith-based
initiative. into a Google seracvh box. Often times clicking on the URL
below you get flash sites of trucks ]
http://www.salon.com/news/feature/2006/12/13/weinstein/index_np.html
Former Air Force officer Mikey Weinstein says evangelicals are
trying to
turn his beloved military into a "frickin' faith-based initiative."
By Alex Koppelman
Dec. 13, 2006 | When a Christian group shot a video inside the Pentagon
that
featured uniformed senior military officers talking about their
evangelical
faith, Mikey Weinstein went on the attack. Himself a former Air Force
lawyer and Air Force Academy grad, Weinstein, who is Jewish, is the
founder
and president of the Military Religious Freedom Foundation. He
founded the
MRFF earlier this year to oppose the spread of religious
intimidation in a
military increasingly dominated by evangelical Christians.
MY limited experience with the USAF was that there was NO
intimidation whatsoever. Part of the base orientation was that the
Chapel was "over there", and that was the last time I ever heard an
official word on religion. I had a co-worker or two invite me to
services, but this falls short of intimidation.
I am not intimidated by senior officers discussing their faith. My
take on this issue is that, the sky is falling. The sky is not falling.
The issue is that these people used their position to promote
something that was against the rules of their position. They should
be drubbed out, just as anyone in a regular job should be, for
violating their rules.
Seeing as you live a lie with regards to your beliefs, it's probably
okay to break the rules.
I believe you are wrong on this. There is no rule that says a person can
not say, "I made it this far because I have faith." Indeed, the 1st
Amendment specificaly protects people that want to say such a thing.
There is no rule that prohibits a Commander from making a motivational
video that might serve to reinforce the flagging faith of somebody. The
rules come into play when the Commander says, "You're not getting the
promotion because I never see you at the chapel, or I'm giving you a
promotion because I see you at teh chapel every week." Or words to that
effect.
So, anyone can enter the Pentagon to make a promotional video? No.
Nobody is saying they don't have the right to believe and to
proselytize. This is the U.S., but they have to also follow the
Military Code, which forbids what they were doing. Besides, they're not
trying to motivate the troops to fight, they're trying to motivate them
to be Christians. I know you have trouble understanding that not
everything has to be religious in this country that was found on
religious freedom.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Jeff Strickland" |
|
| Title: Re: evangelicals are trying to turn military into a "frickin' faith-based initiative. |
15 Dec 2006 02:22:03 PM |
|
|
"Dave" <supradave@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:Gq6dnf6aYMRCah_YnZ2dnUVZ_uS3nZ2d@giganews.com...
Jeff Strickland wrote:
"Dave" <a@b.com> wrote in message
news:A92dnSv9JNrWtx_YnZ2dnUVZ_oS3nZ2d@giganews.com...
Jeff Strickland wrote:
<buckeye-elo@nospam.net> wrote in message
news:4bc3o2dtm7o34hmkaob9i2nasecl2frvbp@4ax.com...
[ it is sometimes hard to find this article. What works best is to
enter
evangelicals are trying to turn military into a "frickin' faith-based
initiative. into a Google seracvh box. Often times clicking on the URL
below you get flash sites of trucks ]
http://www.salon.com/news/feature/2006/12/13/weinstein/index_np.html
Former Air Force officer Mikey Weinstein says evangelicals are
trying to
turn his beloved military into a "frickin' faith-based initiative."
By Alex Koppelman
Dec. 13, 2006 | When a Christian group shot a video inside the
Pentagon
that
featured uniformed senior military officers talking about their
evangelical
faith, Mikey Weinstein went on the attack. Himself a former Air Force
lawyer and Air Force Academy grad, Weinstein, who is Jewish, is the
founder
and president of the Military Religious Freedom Foundation. He
founded the
MRFF earlier this year to oppose the spread of religious
intimidation in a
military increasingly dominated by evangelical Christians.
MY limited experience with the USAF was that there was NO
intimidation whatsoever. Part of the base orientation was that the
Chapel was "over there", and that was the last time I ever heard an
official word on religion. I had a co-worker or two invite me to
services, but this falls short of intimidation.
I am not intimidated by senior officers discussing their faith. My
take on this issue is that, the sky is falling. The sky is not falling.
The issue is that these people used their position to promote
something that was against the rules of their position. They should
be drubbed out, just as anyone in a regular job should be, for
violating their rules.
Seeing as you live a lie with regards to your beliefs, it's probably
okay to break the rules.
I believe you are wrong on this. There is no rule that says a person can
not say, "I made it this far because I have faith." Indeed, the 1st
Amendment specificaly protects people that want to say such a thing.
There is no rule that prohibits a Commander from making a motivational
video that might serve to reinforce the flagging faith of somebody. The
rules come into play when the Commander says, "You're not getting the
promotion because I never see you at the chapel, or I'm giving you a
promotion because I see you at teh chapel every week." Or words to that
effect.
So, anyone can enter the Pentagon to make a promotional video?
No, I never said that.
No.
Nobody is saying they don't have the right to believe and to
proselytize. This is the U.S., but they have to also follow the
Military Code, which forbids what they were doing.
I believe you are mistaken. Having served in the military, I do not recall
anything in the UCMJ that prohibits this. We (I) do not know what the
context of the video was, but if it served to reinforce faith in those that
already had it, and was shown in the context of appropriate study sessions
within the chapel at a time and place where faithful would already be
assembling, then I see no problem whatsoever. On the other hand, if the
troops were assembled solely to be presented with the video and a
proselytizing session, then I'd agree there may be a violation. (I'm not
certain there _would_ be a violation, but if anybody wanted to make an
issue, I would not argue against it.) It is inappropriate to assemble troops
to present religious dogma, but is not inappropriate to present religious
dogma to troops that assemble specifically to receive such dogma. See the
difference?
Besides, they're not
trying to motivate the troops to fight, they're trying to motivate them
to be Christians. I know you have trouble understanding that not
everything has to be religious in this country that was found on
religious freedom.
Unless you've actually seen the video, you do not know what they were being
motivated to do. Perhaps they were being motivated to simply be the best
that they can be, and the video demonstrated that religion and war are not
mutually exclusive.
There are people that are both Christian and military. Sometimes these two
lives come into conflict with one another. I see no problem with a commander
stating that his walk with the lord and his walk through life are in synch,
despite the fact taht he is a military commander, or whatever rank he may
be, or she may be.
In any case, the original post falls short of demonstrating that the
military is becomming a "frickin' faith-based initiative." Your argument is
not very strong either.
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "" |
|
| Title: Re: evangelicals are trying to turn military into a "frickin' faith-based initiative. |
16 Dec 2006 07:49:19 AM |
|
|
Dave <supradave@yahoo.com> wrote:
:|Jeff Strickland wrote:
:|>
:|> "Dave" <a@b.com> wrote in message
:|> news:A92dnSv9JNrWtx_YnZ2dnUVZ_oS3nZ2d@giganews.com...
:|>> Jeff Strickland wrote:
:|>>>
:|>>> <buckeye-elo@nospam.net> wrote in message
:|>>> news:4bc3o2dtm7o34hmkaob9i2nasecl2frvbp@4ax.com...
:|>>>>
:|>>>> [ it is sometimes hard to find this article. What works best is to
:|>>>> enter
:|>>>> evangelicals are trying to turn military into a "frickin' faith-based
:|>>>> initiative. into a Google seracvh box. Often times clicking on the URL
:|>>>> below you get flash sites of trucks ]
:|>>>>
:|>>>> http://www.salon.com/news/feature/2006/12/13/weinstein/index_np.html
:|>>>>
:|>>>> Former Air Force officer Mikey Weinstein says evangelicals are
:|>>>> trying to
:|>>>> turn his beloved military into a "frickin' faith-based initiative."
:|>>>>
:|>>>> By Alex Koppelman
:|>>>>
:|>>>> Dec. 13, 2006 | When a Christian group shot a video inside the Pentagon
:|>>>> that
:|>>>> featured uniformed senior military officers talking about their
:|>>>> evangelical
:|>>>> faith, Mikey Weinstein went on the attack. Himself a former Air Force
:|>>>> lawyer and Air Force Academy grad, Weinstein, who is Jewish, is the
:|>>>> founder
:|>>>> and president of the Military Religious Freedom Foundation. He
:|>>>> founded the
:|>>>> MRFF earlier this year to oppose the spread of religious
:|>>>> intimidation in a
:|>>>> military increasingly dominated by evangelical Christians.
:|>>>>
:|>>>
:|>>>
:|>>> MY limited experience with the USAF was that there was NO
:|>>> intimidation whatsoever. Part of the base orientation was that the
:|>>> Chapel was "over there", and that was the last time I ever heard an
:|>>> official word on religion. I had a co-worker or two invite me to
:|>>> services, but this falls short of intimidation.
:|>>>
:|>>> I am not intimidated by senior officers discussing their faith. My
:|>>> take on this issue is that, the sky is falling. The sky is not falling.
:|>>
:|>> The issue is that these people used their position to promote
:|>> something that was against the rules of their position. They should
:|>> be drubbed out, just as anyone in a regular job should be, for
:|>> violating their rules.
:|>>
:|>> Seeing as you live a lie with regards to your beliefs, it's probably
:|>> okay to break the rules.
:|>
:|>
:|> I believe you are wrong on this. There is no rule that says a person can
:|> not say, "I made it this far because I have faith." Indeed, the 1st
:|> Amendment specificaly protects people that want to say such a thing.
:|>
:|> There is no rule that prohibits a Commander from making a motivational
:|> video that might serve to reinforce the flagging faith of somebody. The
:|> rules come into play when the Commander says, "You're not getting the
:|> promotion because I never see you at the chapel, or I'm giving you a
:|> promotion because I see you at teh chapel every week." Or words to that
:|> effect.
:|
:|So, anyone can enter the Pentagon to make a promotional video? No.
:|Nobody is saying they don't have the right to believe and to
:|proselytize. This is the U.S., but they have to also follow the
:|Military Code, which forbids what they were doing. Besides, they're not
:|trying to motivate the troops to fight, they're trying to motivate them
:|to be Christians. I know you have trouble understanding that not
:|everything has to be religious in this country that was found on
:|religious freedom.
Did you know you are arguing with a documented idiot?
The credentials of the man who was interviewed
Mikey Weinstein
Former Air Force officer a former Air Force lawyer and Air Force Academy
grad, Jewish, is the founder and president of the Military Religious
Freedom Foundation. He founded the MRFF earlier this year to oppose the
spread of religious intimidation in a military increasingly dominated by
evangelical Christians.
The credentials of the idiot who seems to think he knows more about the
topic than the above fellow
But jeffy is famous for his ignorance
Jeff Strickland displays his "intelligence and knowledge"
http://groups.google.com/group/alt.politics.democrats/msg/96d51bf8dace2663?hl=en&
Your shorter link is: http://makeashorterlink.com/?M54921D4D
Yes, you do love to flaunt your ignorance
http://groups.google.com/group/alt.politics.democrats.d/msg/01961b0e44a090eb?hl=en&
Your shorter link is: http://makeashorterlink.com/?J49E320FB
Jeff Strickland displays his "intelligence and knowledge"
"Jeff Strickland" wrote:
:|But the Adams son was a child, or relative child, when the Adams father was
:|Prez.
ACTUAL FACTS:
John Adams 1735-1826.
President 1797-1801
John Q. Adams 1767-1848
President 1825-1829
J.Q. Adams was approx 30 years old when his father was elected president.
That hardly makes him a child or relative child
One more time jeffy dazzles us with his ignorance
********************************************************************
NOTE THE CONFUSION IN HIS OWN THINKING:
Not mandatory, but federal law permits, indeed it compels--or nearly
compels—
hehehehe
Jeffy strickland wrote
:|But reciting the Pledge is not a mandatory activity, the clients can opt out
:|of the daily exercise if they want to. Even Newdow's own daughter could opt
:|out, but he was not satisfied with that because she was still exposed to the
:|word, God coming from the other children.
:|
:|And Federal Law permits the recital of the Pledge, indeed it compels -- or
:|nearly compels -- the recital. State Education Code is attempting to follow
:|Federal Law in this regard.
ACTUAL FACTS:
Jeffy - I don't know sh*t about law - strickland messes up AGAIN
Ever hear of this before
http://66.34.103.193/ufc/Other/Gov-Religion/Pledge.htm
1943: The Supreme Court rules that students can not be forced to recite
the pledge. (West Virginia State Board of Education v. Barnette)
The USSC has also stated that "opting out, such as leaving the room, etc is
not acceptable.
************************************
Jeffy - I am "against" vouchers but I have offered every pro voucher
argument ever offered on the internet in voucher discussions for at least a
year to two years now - strickland
******************************************
[Jeffy had asked another]
Why do you feel the constant need to be nasty?
To you? Because you are an ignoramus who not only does not check his
facts, but posts endlessly repeating stuff that has been disproven
several times. You also seem to think that your unsupported opinion
is of interest to other people.
lojbab
Bob LeChevalier,
**********************************
[To that I add]
Jeff - I don't have a clue what I am talking about, but I am good at
pretending and making it up as I go along so don't confuse me with the
facts, my mind is made up. I stereotype and prejudge. It has always worked
well in the past, why change now - Strickland
**********
Jeffy -- maybe, I heard, but didn't bother to do any independent research,
[ He says it gives him a headache] I like to believe things I want to hear.
I don't like knowing the facts if they aren't going to agree with what I
want to believe and I especially love passing along on the internet, as
facts, things I haven't a clue about their accuracy -- Strickland )
*******************************
[To Jeff Strickland]
I find it "interesting" that you are so incredibly stupid that you totally
missed the citation to the _New York Times_.
You seem to have remembered to take your one-a-day stupid pills.
Gray Shockley
**********
"Jeff Strickland" <beerman@yahoo.com> wrote:
I think I see more intolerance.
"Gray Shockley" <gray-87a@cybercoffee.org> wrote in message
Oh, no, no, no.
You neither "think" nor "see".
Is that better?
*******************************
"Jeff Strickland" wrote:
As far as I know, they did not lower the goals.
Since you don't know *anything*, that is unsurprising.
lojbab
*******************************
Jeff Strickland wrote:
I find it interesting that when Carol is unable to find the link, you ignore
the request for assistance. But, when I am unable to find the link (and
volunteer twice that I have looked), you jump in with a snide remark that
"the search was not too difficult," as though I am the idiot.
[Joni said]
I'm sorry. I didn't mean to imply you are an idiot. I meant to just
come right out and say you are an idiot.
**************************************
[another time Joni asked Jeffy]
Were you born this stupid or did you take a class?
**************************************
On Thu, 21 Oct 2004 14:12:45 -0500, Jeff Strickland wrote
The ACLU is not mentioned in this story, but I believe they have been
mentioned in other stories on the same topic with the same county. Perhaps I
am being a bit reactionary to point my boney fingers at the ACLU,
You don't mind that some of us consider you a pschopathetic liar, do you?
After all, you seem to create "facts" just like your spiritual
great-great-great-great-great grandfather, Richard "I'll ***** You" Cheney.
Are you so [drunk, stoned, Bushed, freaked out] that you even realize how
much - and how many - of your posts are lies?
Are you truly stupid or totally insane?
Gray Shockley
**************************************
[jeffy was asked]
Can you back this up with truthful citations or is this just more of your
"lies manufactured especially for any and all occasions by Jeffie
Strickland"?
Gray Shockley
Vicksburg, MS
**************************************
As you, Jeffie the Wack Strickland, are quite obviously the product of no
education whatsoever.
Gray Shockley
**************************************
[jeffy had said]
It is the mother that has custodial and full guardianship
rights of the child. Newdow has no rights relative to this child and her
rearing.
YOU STUPID FUCKING ILLITERATE MORON, READ WHAT YOU AGREED
WITH EARLIER! THE COURTS HAVE RULED THAT NONCUSTODIAL
PARENTS **DO** HAVE RIGHTS TO THE RELIGIOUS UPBRINGING
OF THEIR CHILDREN, YOU BRAIN-DAMAGED TURD!
Merlyn LeRoy
*********************************************************
Said to Jeff Strickland
Because you are clueless, seeing an objection when there is none, and
failing to understand the objection that I do have.
Aren't you again showing your cluelessness? Yes.
lojbab
********************************************************
[Larry Hewitt said to Jeff Strickland]
Seeing that you deleted my links to the US census and a current news
report
that both proved you to be factually incorrect, I conclude that you
acknowledge your failure and chose to try to lie your way out of your
defeat.
larry
[jeff replied ]
Those links show NOTHING relative to this discussion.
[Larry naidled jeff with]
So you deleted them because you were afraid I was making a fool of myself
in
public, and you wanted to shield me from that humiliation??
Nah, you're just a rightard liar.
Larry
*********************************************************
Jeff Strickland said
Attack the messenger, never the message. How many times have I seen this
before?
Lots. Because you're a stupid *****.
I'm not even saying this to be insulting. You really are genuinely stupid.
You enter legal discussions without having the slightest idea of the legal
issues involved, and you show no signs of being educable.
Merlyn LeRoy
**************************************************************
Strickland said
Your language demonstrates a certain level of education in itself.
No, it demonstrates that I don't suffer fools gladly.
You demonstrate that you can't reason well, because
using phrases like "stupid *****" indicates nothing about
the speaker's education level.
Merlyn LeRoy
----------------------------------------------------
strickland
Because I take a position opposite of yours? That's rich.
No, because you're obviously stupid, and ignorant of how the courts
work, yet that doesn't stop you from shooting your mouth off.
You really are an ignorant *****.
Merlyn LeRoy
----------------------------------------------------------------------
strickland
Yeah, "ignorant *****" is precise. Idiot.
Yes, for you, it is. You shoot your mouth off in complete ignorance.
Repeatedly. You're an "ignorant *****".
Merlyn LeRoy
***********************************************
.
|
|
|
| User: "Jeff Strickland" |
|
| Title: Re: evangelicals are trying to turn military into a "frickin' faith-based initiative. |
16 Dec 2006 12:53:21 PM |
|
|
<buckeye-elo@nospam.net> wrote in message
news:n6u7o2tcma45pfovbtgac24rot169qamuo@4ax.com...
Dave <supradave@yahoo.com> wrote:
:|Jeff Strickland wrote:
:|>
:|> "Dave" <a@b.com> wrote in message
:|> news:A92dnSv9JNrWtx_YnZ2dnUVZ_oS3nZ2d@giganews.com...
:|>> Jeff Strickland wrote:
:|>>>
:|>>> <buckeye-elo@nospam.net> wrote in message
:|>>> news:4bc3o2dtm7o34hmkaob9i2nasecl2frvbp@4ax.com...
:|>>>>
:|>>>> [ it is sometimes hard to find this article. What works best is to
:|>>>> enter
:|>>>> evangelicals are trying to turn military into a "frickin'
faith-based
:|>>>> initiative. into a Google seracvh box. Often times clicking on the
URL
:|>>>> below you get flash sites of trucks ]
:|>>>>
:|>>>>
http://www.salon.com/news/feature/2006/12/13/weinstein/index_np.html
:|>>>>
:|>>>> Former Air Force officer Mikey Weinstein says evangelicals are
:|>>>> trying to
:|>>>> turn his beloved military into a "frickin' faith-based initiative."
:|>>>>
:|>>>> By Alex Koppelman
:|>>>>
:|>>>> Dec. 13, 2006 | When a Christian group shot a video inside the
Pentagon
:|>>>> that
:|>>>> featured uniformed senior military officers talking about their
:|>>>> evangelical
:|>>>> faith, Mikey Weinstein went on the attack. Himself a former Air
Force
:|>>>> lawyer and Air Force Academy grad, Weinstein, who is Jewish, is the
:|>>>> founder
:|>>>> and president of the Military Religious Freedom Foundation. He
:|>>>> founded the
:|>>>> MRFF earlier this year to oppose the spread of religious
:|>>>> intimidation in a
:|>>>> military increasingly dominated by evangelical Christians.
:|>>>>
:|>>>
:|>>>
:|>>> MY limited experience with the USAF was that there was NO
:|>>> intimidation whatsoever. Part of the base orientation was that the
:|>>> Chapel was "over there", and that was the last time I ever heard an
:|>>> official word on religion. I had a co-worker or two invite me to
:|>>> services, but this falls short of intimidation.
:|>>>
:|>>> I am not intimidated by senior officers discussing their faith. My
:|>>> take on this issue is that, the sky is falling. The sky is not
falling.
:|>>
:|>> The issue is that these people used their position to promote
:|>> something that was against the rules of their position. They should
:|>> be drubbed out, just as anyone in a regular job should be, for
:|>> violating their rules.
:|>>
:|>> Seeing as you live a lie with regards to your beliefs, it's probably
:|>> okay to break the rules.
:|>
:|>
:|> I believe you are wrong on this. There is no rule that says a person
can
:|> not say, "I made it this far because I have faith." Indeed, the 1st
:|> Amendment specificaly protects people that want to say such a thing.
:|>
:|> There is no rule that prohibits a Commander from making a motivational
:|> video that might serve to reinforce the flagging faith of somebody.
The
:|> rules come into play when the Commander says, "You're not getting the
:|> promotion because I never see you at the chapel, or I'm giving you a
:|> promotion because I see you at teh chapel every week." Or words to
that
:|> effect.
:|
:|So, anyone can enter the Pentagon to make a promotional video? No.
:|Nobody is saying they don't have the right to believe and to
:|proselytize. This is the U.S., but they have to also follow the
:|Military Code, which forbids what they were doing. Besides, they're not
:|trying to motivate the troops to fight, they're trying to motivate them
:|to be Christians. I know you have trouble understanding that not
:|everything has to be religious in this country that was found on
:|religious freedom.
Did you know you are arguing with a documented idiot?
The credentials of the man who was interviewed
Mikey Weinstein
Former Air Force officer a former Air Force lawyer and Air Force Academy
grad, Jewish, is the founder and president of the Military Religious
Freedom Foundation. He founded the MRFF earlier this year to oppose the
spread of religious intimidation in a military increasingly dominated by
evangelical Christians.
The credentials of the idiot who seems to think he knows more about the
topic than the above fellow
You spend an inordinate amount of time documenting people that disagree with
you, too bad you do not look more closely at those that do agree and put
them into historical context.
I have no issue with Weinstein, nor do I dispute his credentials. Surely he
is an intelligent individual if for no other reason that he rose to a much
higher military rank than I. Having said that, his rantings do not begin to
demonstrate that there is any religious intimidation going on in the United
States military.
Religion has always been a staple among military personell, from the rank
and file to the flag officers, and even above them to the Commander in
Chief. There is nothing new going on. To put it another way that may help
even you, Jim, the sky is not falling.
.
|
|
|
| User: "" |
|
| Title: Re: evangelicals are trying to turn military into a "frickin' faith-based initiative. |
19 Dec 2006 05:45:42 AM |
|
|
"Jeff Strickland" <crwlr@yahoo.com> wrote:
:|You spend an inordinate amount of time documenting people that disagree with
:|you, too bad you do not look more closely at those that do agree and put
:|them into historical context.
:|
:|I have no issue with Weinstein, nor do I dispute his credentials. Surely he
:|is an intelligent individual if for no other reason that he rose to a much
:|higher military rank than I. Having said that, his rantings do not begin to
:|demonstrate that there is any religious intimidation going on in the United
:|States military.
:|
:|Religion has always been a staple among military personell, from the rank
:|and file to the flag officers, and even above them to the Commander in
:|Chief. There is nothing new going on. To put it another way that may help
:|even you, Jim, the sky is not falling.
From:
Newsgroups:
alt.politics.democrats.d,alt.politics.usa.constitution,alt.education,alt.atheism,alt.religion.christian,alt.politics.bush,alt.society.liberalism,misc.education
Subject: Onward Christian Soldiers
Date: Sat, 16 Dec 2006 08:39:08 -0500
Onward Christian Soldiers
http://www.slate.com/id/2155453/entry/0/
Onward Christian Soldiers
Rep. J.D. Hayworth, R-Az., several Bush appointees, and various
high-ranking Army officers and Pentagon civilians appear in a 10-minute
promotional video (to watch it, click here and here) for an evangelical
organization called Christian Embassy. Founded by the late Rev. Bill Bright
(who also founded the Campus Crusade for Christ International), the
nonprofit "comes alongside presidential appointees in the White House and
federal agencies to help direct their focus on Jesus Christ." It's an army
of Rev. Billy Grahams tending souls at the sub-cabinet level.
Most of the government officials who appear in the promotional video
probably violated a federal prohibition against proselytizing in the
workplace. The video puts special emphasis on the ministry's presence at
the Pentagon; military personnel appear in uniform as they sing the praises
of Christian Embassy, and both military and civilian Pentagon employees are
shown in their Pentagon offices. That almost certainly violates a
department directive forbidding "use of official position" to promote
"non-federal entities."
On Dec. 11, the nonprofit Military Religious Freedom Foundation, a watchdog
group that polices separation of church and state in the United States
military, sent a letter about the video to the defense department's acting
inspector general. (See below, and on the following five pages.) The
letter, by Ezra Reese, counsel to the foundation, enumerates a long list of
regulations that the video appears to violate; points out that the video
further appears to violate the establishment clause of the U.S.
Constitution; and asks the inspector general to find out which numbskulls
okayed the taping at the Pentagon.
**************************************************************
From:
Newsgroups:
alt.politics.democrats.d,alt.politics.usa.constitution,alt.education,alt.atheism,alt.religion.christian,alt.politics.bush,alt.society.liberalism,misc.education
Subject: Pentagon May Inquire into Evangelical Video
Date: Tue, 19 Dec 2006 04:39:07 -0500
Pentagon May Inquire into Evangelical Video
http://www.voanews.com/english/2006-12-18-voa41.cfm
By Jeff Swicord
Washington, D.C.
18 December 2006
Separation of religion and state is one of the founding principles of
American democracy. Recently that constitutional principle has been tested
by several high profile events involving conservative evangelical
Christians and the military. Jeff Swicord reports on the latest incident.
"There are over 25,000 Department of Defense leaders working in the rings
and corridors of the Pentagon. Through bible studies discipleship, prayer
breakfasts and outreach events, Christian Embassy is mustering these men
and women into an intentional relationship with Jesus Christ." So begins a
promotional video for "Christian Embassy," an Evangelical organization
whose ministry targets high-powered government and military professionals.
The video has been criticized by a religious freedom watchdog group, which
claims it violates the American principle of separation of religion and
state.
At a news conference in Washington D.C. the Military Religious Freedom
Foundation asked the Pentagon to investigate whether the video appearance
of uniformed officers on location at the Pentagon, violates military
regulations and the United States Constitution. Mikey Weinstein, the
foundation president, says the video is symptomatic of a larger problem.
"I have received thousands of complaints from people being tormented all
over the world from a radicalized version of Christianity being pushed upon
them. Ninety six percent of the complaints that come to me are from
Christians."
According to U.S. military policy on religion, "professionals and
especially commanders must not take it upon themselves to change or
coercively influence the religious views of subordinates."
Robert Varney, the Executive Director of Christian Embassy, the
organization that produced the video, declined VOA's request for an
on-camera interview. But in a telephone conversation he said, in his
words, "Investigations are good. And in the end, the Pentagon investigation
will show there is no merit to the complaint."
The Reverend MeLinda Morton disagrees. She is a former Air force chaplain,
and works with the Military Religious Freedom Foundation.
"It definitely was against regulations and that it demonstrates incredibly
poor officership that this never entered their mind. Well, why doesn't
this enter their mind? Because the whole issue of religiosity in the
military has become such a systemic problem. It has infiltrated the
military so much, that that is the problem that no one gives this a second
thought."
[end excerpt]
***************************************************************
You are invited to check out the following:
The Rise of the Theocratic States of America
http://members.tripod.com/~candst/theocracy.htm
American Theocrats - Past and Present
http://members.tripod.com/~candst/theocrats.htm
The Constitutional Principle: Separation of Church and State
http://members.tripod.com/~candst/index.html
[and to join the discussion group for the above site and/or Separation of
Church and State in general, listed below]
HRSepCnS · Hampton Roads [Virginia] SepChurch&State
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/HRSepCnS/
[Its not just Hampton Roads folks who are members, there are members from
all over the US and a couple from overseas as well]
***************************************************************
.. . . You can't understand a phrase such as "Congress shall make no law
respecting an establishment of religion" by syllogistic reasoning. Words
take their meaning from social as well as textual contexts, which is why "a
page of history is worth a volume of logic." New York Trust Co. v. Eisner,
256 U.S. 345, 349, 41 S.Ct. 506, 507, 65 L.Ed. 963 (1921) (Holmes, J.).
Sherman v. Community Consol. Dist. 21, 980 F.2d 437, 445 (7th Cir. 1992)
.. . .
****************************************************************
USAF LT. COL (Ret) Buffman (Glen P. Goffin) wrote
"You pilot always into an unknown future;
facts are your only clue. Get the facts!"
That philosophy 'snipit' helped to get me, and my crew, through a good
many combat missions and far too many scary, inflight, emergencies.
It has also played a significant role in helping me to expose the
plethora of radical Christian propaganda and lies that we find at
almost every media turn.
*****************************************************************
THE CONSTITUTIONAL PRINCIPLE:
SEPARATION OF CHURCH AND STATE
http://members.tripod.com/~candst/index.html
****************************************************************
.
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Dave" |
|
| Title: Re: evangelicals are trying to turn military into a "frickin' faith-basedinitiative. |
18 Dec 2006 01:29:09 PM |
|
|
wrote:
Dave <supradave@yahoo.com> wrote:
=20
:|Jeff Strickland wrote:
:|>=20
:|> "Dave" <a@b.com> wrote in message
:|> news:A92dnSv9JNrWtx_YnZ2dnUVZ_oS3nZ2d@giganews.com...
:|>> Jeff Strickland wrote:
:|>>>
:|>>> < > wrote in message
:|>>> news:4bc3o2dtm7o34hmkaob9i2nasecl2frvbp@4ax.com...
:|>>>>
:|>>>> [ it is sometimes hard to find this article. What works best is=
to
:|>>>> enter
:|>>>> evangelicals are trying to turn military into a "frickin' fait=
h-based
:|>>>> initiative. into a Google seracvh box. Often times clicking on =
the URL
:|>>>> below you get flash sites of trucks ]
:|>>>>
:|>>>> http://www.salon.com/news/feature/2006/12/13/weinstein/index_np=
=2Ehtml
:|>>>>
:|>>>> Former Air Force officer Mikey Weinstein says evangelicals are
:|>>>> trying to
:|>>>> turn his beloved military into a "frickin' faith-based initiati=
ve."
:|>>>>
:|>>>> By Alex Koppelman
:|>>>>
:|>>>> Dec. 13, 2006 | When a Christian group shot a video inside the =
Pentagon
:|>>>> that
:|>>>> featured uniformed senior military officers talking about their=
:|>>>> evangelical
:|>>>> faith, Mikey Weinstein went on the attack. Himself a former Air=
Force
:|>>>> lawyer and Air Force Academy grad, Weinstein, who is Jewish, is=
the
:|>>>> founder
:|>>>> and president of the Military Religious Freedom Foundation. He
:|>>>> founded the
:|>>>> MRFF earlier this year to oppose the spread of religious
:|>>>> intimidation in a
:|>>>> military increasingly dominated by evangelical Christians.
:|>>>>
:|>>>
:|>>>
:|>>> MY limited experience with the USAF was that there was NO
:|>>> intimidation whatsoever. Part of the base orientation was that t=
he
:|>>> Chapel was "over there", and that was the last time I ever heard=
an
:|>>> official word on religion. I had a co-worker or two invite me to=
:|>>> services, but this falls short of intimidation.
:|>>>
:|>>> I am not intimidated by senior officers discussing their faith. =
My
:|>>> take on this issue is that, the sky is falling. The sky is not f=
alling.
:|>>
:|>> The issue is that these people used their position to promote
:|>> something that was against the rules of their position. They sho=
uld
:|>> be drubbed out, just as anyone in a regular job should be, for
:|>> violating their rules.
:|>>
:|>> Seeing as you live a lie with regards to your beliefs, it's proba=
bly
:|>> okay to break the rules.
:|>=20
:|>=20
:|> I believe you are wrong on this. There is no rule that says a pers=
on can
:|> not say, "I made it this far because I have faith." Indeed, the 1s=
t
:|> Amendment specificaly protects people that want to say such a thin=
g.
:|>=20
:|> There is no rule that prohibits a Commander from making a motivati=
onal
:|> video that might serve to reinforce the flagging faith of somebody=
=2E The
:|> rules come into play when the Commander says, "You're not getting =
the
:|> promotion because I never see you at the chapel, or I'm giving you=
a
:|> promotion because I see you at teh chapel every week." Or words to=
that
:|> effect.
:|
:|So, anyone can enter the Pentagon to make a promotional video? No.
:|Nobody is saying they don't have the right to believe and to
:|proselytize. This is the U.S., but they have to also follow the
:|Military Code, which forbids what they were doing. Besides, they're=
not
:|trying to motivate the troops to fight, they're trying to motivate t=
hem
:|to be Christians. I know you have trouble understanding that not
:|everything has to be religious in this country that was found on
:|religious freedom.
=20
Did you know you are arguing with a documented idiot?
=20
The credentials of the man who was interviewed
=20
Mikey Weinstein=20
Former Air Force officer a former Air Force lawyer and Air Force Acade=
my
grad, Jewish, is the founder and president of the Military Religious
Freedom Foundation. He founded the MRFF earlier this year to oppose the=
spread of religious intimidation in a military increasingly dominated b=
y
evangelical Christians.
=20
The credentials of the idiot who seems to think he knows more about the=
topic than the above fellow
=20
=20
=20
But jeffy is famous for his ignorance=20
Jeff Strickland displays his "intelligence and knowledge"=20
http://groups.google.com/group/alt.politics.democrats/msg/96d51bf8dace2=
663?hl=3Den&
Your shorter link is: http://makeashorterlink.com/?M54921D4D
=20
Yes, you do love to flaunt your ignorance =20
=20
http://groups.google.com/group/alt.politics.democrats.d/msg/01961b0e44a=
090eb?hl=3Den&
Your shorter link is: http://makeashorterlink.com/?J49E320FB
=20
=20
=20
=20
=20
Jeff Strickland displays his "intelligence and knowledge"
=20
"Jeff Strickland" wrote:
:|But the Adams son was a child, or relative child, when the Adams fat=
her was
:|Prez.
=20
ACTUAL FACTS:
=20
John Adams 1735-1826.
President 1797-1801
=20
John Q. Adams 1767-1848 =20
President 1825-1829
=20
J.Q. Adams was approx 30 years old when his father was elected preside=
nt.
That hardly makes him a child or relative child =20
One more time jeffy dazzles us with his ignorance=20
********************************************************************
NOTE THE CONFUSION IN HIS OWN THINKING:
Not mandatory, but federal law permits, indeed it compels--or nearly
compels=E2=80=94 =20
hehehehe
=20
Jeffy strickland wrote
=20
:|But reciting the Pledge is not a mandatory activity, the clients can=
opt out=20
:|of the daily exercise if they want to. Even Newdow's own daughter co=
uld opt=20
:|out, but he was not satisfied with that because she was still expose=
d to the=20
:|word, God coming from the other children.
:|
:|And Federal Law permits the recital of the Pledge, indeed it compels=
-- or=20
:|nearly compels -- the recital. State Education Code is attempting to=
follow=20
:|Federal Law in this regard.
=20
ACTUAL FACTS:
=20
Jeffy - I don't know sh*t about law - strickland messes up AGAIN
=20
Ever hear of this before
=20
http://66.34.103.193/ufc/Other/Gov-Religion/Pledge.htm
=20
1943: The Supreme Court rules that students can not be forced to recit=
e
the pledge. (West Virginia State Board of Education v. Barnette)
=20
The USSC has also stated that "opting out, such as leaving the room, et=
c is
not acceptable.
=20
************************************
Jeffy - I am "against" vouchers but I have offered every pro voucher
argument ever offered on the internet in voucher discussions for at lea=
st a
year to two years now - strickland=20
=20
******************************************
[Jeffy had asked another]
Why do you feel the constant need to be nasty?
=20
To you? Because you are an ignoramus who not only does not check his
facts, but posts endlessly repeating stuff that has been disproven
several times. You also seem to think that your unsupported opinion
is of interest to other people.
lojbab
Bob LeChevalier,=20
=20
**********************************
[To that I add]
Jeff - I don't have a clue what I am talking about, but I am good at
pretending and making it up as I go along so don't confuse me with th=
e
facts, my mind is made up. I stereotype and prejudge. It has always wor=
ked
well in the past, why change now - Strickland
**********
Jeffy -- maybe, I heard, but didn't bother to do any independent resea=
rch,
[ He says it gives him a headache] I like to believe things I want to h=
ear.
I don't like knowing the facts if they aren't going to agree with what =
I
want to believe and I especially love passing along on the internet, as=
facts, things I haven't a clue about their accuracy -- Strickland )
=20
*******************************
[To Jeff Strickland]
I find it "interesting" that you are so incredibly stupid that you tota=
lly=20
missed the citation to the _New York Times_.
You seem to have remembered to take your one-a-day stupid pills.
Gray Shockley
**********
"Jeff Strickland" <beerman@yahoo.com> wrote:
I think I see more intolerance.
=20
"Gray Shockley" <gray-87a@cybercoffee.org> wrote in message
Oh, no, no, no.
You neither "think" nor "see".
Is that better?
=20
*******************************
"Jeff Strickland" wrote:
As far as I know, they did not lower the goals.
=20
Since you don't know *anything*, that is unsurprising.
=20
lojbab
=20
*******************************
Jeff Strickland wrote:
I find it interesting that when Carol is unable to find the link, you =
ignore
the request for assistance. But, when I am unable to find the link (an=
d
volunteer twice that I have looked), you jump in with a snide remark t=
hat
"the search was not too difficult," as though I am the idiot.
=20
[Joni said]
I'm sorry. I didn't mean to imply you are an idiot. I meant to just
come right out and say you are an idiot.
=20
**************************************
[another time Joni asked Jeffy]
Were you born this stupid or did you take a class?
=20
**************************************
On Thu, 21 Oct 2004 14:12:45 -0500, Jeff Strickland wrote
=20
The ACLU is not mentioned in this story, but I believe they have been
mentioned in other stories on the same topic with the same county. Per=
haps I
am being a bit reactionary to point my boney fingers at the ACLU,=20
=20
You don't mind that some of us consider you a pschopathetic liar, do yo=
u?
=20
After all, you seem to create "facts" just like your spiritual=20
great-great-great-great-great grandfather, Richard "I'll ***** You" Chen=
ey.
=20
Are you so [drunk, stoned, Bushed, freaked out] that you even realize h=
ow=20
much - and how many - of your posts are lies?
=20
Are you truly stupid or totally insane?
=20
Gray Shockley
=20
**************************************
[jeffy was asked]
=20
Can you back this up with truthful citations or is this just more of yo=
ur=20
"lies manufactured especially for any and all occasions by Jeffie=20
Strickland"?
=20
Gray Shockley
Vicksburg, MS
=20
**************************************
As you, Jeffie the Wack Strickland, are quite obviously the product of =
no=20
education whatsoever.
=20
Gray Shockley
=20
**************************************
[jeffy had said]
It is the mother that has custodial and full guardianship
rights of the child. Newdow has no rights relative to this child and h=
er
rearing.
=20
YOU STUPID FUCKING ILLITERATE MORON, READ WHAT YOU AGREED
WITH EARLIER! THE COURTS HAVE RULED THAT NONCUSTODIAL
PARENTS **DO** HAVE RIGHTS TO THE RELIGIOUS UPBRINGING
OF THEIR CHILDREN, YOU BRAIN-DAMAGED TURD!
Merlyn LeRoy
*********************************************************
Said to Jeff Strickland=20
=20
Because you are clueless, seeing an objection when there is none, and
failing to understand the objection that I do have.
=20
Aren't you again showing your cluelessness? Yes.
lojbab
********************************************************
[Larry Hewitt said to Jeff Strickland]
Seeing that you deleted my links to the US census and a current news=
report
that both proved you to be factually incorrect, I conclude that you
acknowledge your failure and chose to try to lie your way out of your=
defeat.
larry
=20
[jeff replied ]
Those links show NOTHING relative to this discussion.
=20
[Larry naidled jeff with]
So you deleted them because you were afraid I was making a fool of myse=
lf
in
public, and you wanted to shield me from that humiliation??
=20
Nah, you're just a rightard liar.
=20
Larry
*********************************************************
Jeff Strickland said=20
Attack the messenger, never the message. How many times have I seen th=
is=20
before?
=20
Lots. Because you're a stupid *****.
I'm not even saying this to be insulting. You really are genuinely stu=
pid.
You enter legal discussions without having the slightest idea of the le=
gal
issues involved, and you show no signs of being educable.
=20
Merlyn LeRoy
**************************************************************
Strickland said=20
Your language demonstrates a certain level of education in itself.
=20
No, it demonstrates that I don't suffer fools gladly.
=20
You demonstrate that you can't reason well, because
using phrases like "stupid *****" indicates nothing about
the speaker's education level.
Merlyn LeRoy
----------------------------------------------------
strickland=20
Because I take a position opposite of yours? That's rich.
=20
No, because you're obviously stupid, and ignorant of how the courts
work, yet that doesn't stop you from shooting your mouth off.
=20
You really are an ignorant *****.
Merlyn LeRoy
----------------------------------------------------------------------
strickland
Yeah, "ignorant *****" is precise. Idiot.
=20
Yes, for you, it is. You shoot your mouth off in complete ignorance.
Repeatedly. You're an "ignorant *****".
Merlyn LeRoy
***********************************************
=20
At least he's not Fred (I think).
.
|
|
|
| User: "" |
|
| Title: Re: evangelicals are trying to turn military into a "frickin' faith-based initiative. |
19 Dec 2006 05:50:44 AM |
|
|
Dave <supradave@yahoo.com> wrote:
:|
:|At least he's not Fred (I think).
LOL no, he isn't actually fred but not much different than fred either
Just another right wing troll long on flawed opinions and short on facts
Another who claims to beleive in church state separation but cannpt define
under what circumstances he would actually agree with the separationist.
Meantime, he supports every radical religious rigth position.
***************************************************************
You are invited to check out the following:
The Rise of the Theocratic States of America
http://members.tripod.com/~candst/theocracy.htm
American Theocrats - Past and Present
http://members.tripod.com/~candst/theocrats.htm
The Constitutional Principle: Separation of Church and State
http://members.tripod.com/~candst/index.html
[and to join the discussion group for the above site and/or Separation of
Church and State in general, listed below]
HRSepCnS · Hampton Roads [Virginia] SepChurch&State
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/HRSepCnS/
[Its not just Hampton Roads folks who are members, there are members from
all over the US and a couple from overseas as well]
***************************************************************
.. . . You can't understand a phrase such as "Congress shall make no law
respecting an establishment of religion" by syllogistic reasoning. Words
take their meaning from social as well as textual contexts, which is why "a
page of history is worth a volume of logic." New York Trust Co. v. Eisner,
256 U.S. 345, 349, 41 S.Ct. 506, 507, 65 L.Ed. 963 (1921) (Holmes, J.).
Sherman v. Community Consol. Dist. 21, 980 F.2d 437, 445 (7th Cir. 1992)
.. . .
****************************************************************
USAF LT. COL (Ret) Buffman (Glen P. Goffin) wrote
"You pilot always into an unknown future;
facts are your only clue. Get the facts!"
That philosophy 'snipit' helped to get me, and my crew, through a good
many combat missions and far too many scary, inflight, emergencies.
It has also played a significant role in helping me to expose the
plethora of radical Christian propaganda and lies that we find at
almost every media turn.
*****************************************************************
THE CONSTITUTIONAL PRINCIPLE:
SEPARATION OF CHURCH AND STATE
http://members.tripod.com/~candst/index.html
****************************************************************
.
|
|
|
| User: "Jeff Strickland" |
|
| Title: Re: evangelicals are trying to turn military into a "frickin' faith-based initiative. |
19 Dec 2006 02:20:48 PM |
|
|
<buckeye-elo@nospam.net> wrote in message
news:cgkfo29l75hbfkqc4fjoo7phonge9k6p2a@4ax.com...
Dave <supradave@yahoo.com> wrote:
:|
:|At least he's not Fred (I think).
LOL no, he isn't actually fred but not much different than fred either
Just another right wing troll long on flawed opinions and short on facts
Another who claims to beleive in church state separation but cannpt define
under what circumstances he would actually agree with the separationist.
Meantime, he supports every radical religious rigth position.
Or, to put it another way, the sky is falling.
The sky is NOT falling.
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Dave" |
|
| Title: Re: evangelicals are trying to turn military into a "frickin' faith-basedinitiative. |
14 Dec 2006 04:35:13 PM |
|
|
wrote:
[ it is sometimes hard to find this article. What works best is to enter
evangelicals are trying to turn military into a "frickin' faith-based
initiative. into a Google seracvh box. Often times clicking on the URL
below you get flash sites of trucks ]
http://www.salon.com/news/feature/2006/12/13/weinstein/index_np.html
Former Air Force officer Mikey Weinstein says evangelicals are trying to
turn his beloved military into a "frickin' faith-based initiative."
By Alex Koppelman
Dec. 13, 2006 | When a Christian group shot a video inside the Pentagon
that
featured uniformed senior military officers talking about their evangelical
faith, Mikey Weinstein went on the attack. Himself a former Air Force
lawyer and Air Force Academy grad, Weinstein, who is Jewish, is the founder
and president of the Military Religious Freedom Foundation. He founded the
MRFF earlier this year to oppose the spread of religious intimidation in a
military increasingly dominated by evangelical Christians.
On Monday, Weinstein held a press conference in Washington, D.C., to
announce that he was asking the Department of Defense's inspector general
to look into the video, and determine whether the people who appeared in it
-- Air Force Maj. Gen. Jack J. Catton Jr.; Army Brig. Gen. Vince Brooks,
the former public affairs director of the Army; and Undersecretary of the
Army Pete Geren -- had violated military regulations. He also filed a
Freedom of Information Act request with the government to find out who, if
anyone, had approved the video shoot.
Bob Varney, the executive director of Christian Embassy, the group that
made the video, tells Salon he believes no regulations were violated, and
he says Weinstein's allegations about increased evangelical influence
within the military are wrong.
"I don't understand how one could come to that kind of conclusion," Varney
says. "The military believes in religious freedom, it offers religious
freedom, it therefore offers people of different religions to express them,
and we're one among a number of different religions that are working in the
Armed Services."
Weinstein spoke with Salon Tuesday afternoon.
The Christian Embassy is now saying it had permission to film this inside
the Pentagon. Were you surprised to hear that?
Not at all. They're damned if they do, they're damned if they don't. If
they said they didn't have permission, they would have been blown away.
Having permission, to me, just shows the complicity. We have a systemic
problem. You sound like you're too young to remember Robert Redford in
"Three Days of the Condor," but the premise of that movie was that there
was a CIA within the CIA. We have a virulently dominionist, fundamentalist
evangelical Christian element within the Pentagon. They would prefer this
to be the "Pentecostalgon," not the Pentagon. That's what they would
prefer. They're trying to turn the Pentagon into a frickin' faith-based
initiative, and that is not what our military is about.
These are the people who, when I talk to senior members of the military at
the flag-level rank -- I don't know if you're familiar with what that
means, that means admiral or general -- that have looked at me and said,
"Come on, Mikey, what's your problem? We have the cure to cancer. If you
had the cure to cancer, wouldn't you want to spread the word?" They don't
realize when they say it, they don't have the mental wherewithal to
understand that to a person who isn't an evangelical Christian, you're
calling our faith a cancer.
What's wrong with this video?
I'm trying to think where to start. It is absolutely violative of a
mountain of Department of Defense internal regulations, guidelines, core
values, instructions, making it very clear that members of the military can
not endorse any one particular political position, partisan religious view,
they can't hold up a tube of toothpaste like Colgate and push it.
Irrespective of that, it's also blatantly violative of the Establishment
Clause of the First Amendment of the Bill of Rights, and at least as
important it's violative of Clause 3, Article 6 of the Constitution -- you
don't even have to get into the Bill of Rights -- which states that we will
never have a religion test for any position in the federal government,
which was brilliantly prescient of our Founding Fathers.
This, to me, constitutes as much of a national security threat to this
country as al-Qaida. In fact, the video itself, to me, would be the No. 1
recruiting tool that I would expect bin Laden, the followers of Abu Musab
al-Zarqawi, although he's dead, Ayman al Zawahiri, Hezbollah with Sheik
Hassan Nasrallah, Hamas, the al-Aqsa Martyrs' Brigades, to get angry young
Islamic men and women in Iran, Syria and Lebanon to join the insurrection
and jihadi terrorist activities. This would be a perfect accelerant to
create even further conflagration.
---end of excerpt---
The result of which would be having the Army of God with the largest
arsenal to take care of all the infidels in the U.S.
Hopefully, they'll bust these flags. But what am I thinking? This is
Bush's military.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Jeff Strickland" |
|
| Title: Re: evangelicals are trying to turn military into a "frickin' faith-based initiative. |
15 Dec 2006 03:47:20 PM |
|
|
"Dave" <supradave@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:rs-dnbaJmIo_TBzYnZ2dnUVZ_sapnZ2d@giganews.com...
buckeye-elo@nospam.net wrote:
[ it is sometimes hard to find this article. What works best is to enter
evangelicals are trying to turn military into a "frickin' faith-based
initiative. into a Google seracvh box. Often times clicking on the URL
below you get flash sites of trucks ]
http://www.salon.com/news/feature/2006/12/13/weinstein/index_np.html
Former Air Force officer Mikey Weinstein says evangelicals are trying to
turn his beloved military into a "frickin' faith-based initiative."
By Alex Koppelman
Dec. 13, 2006 | When a Christian group shot a video inside the Pentagon
that
featured uniformed senior military officers talking about their
evangelical
faith, Mikey Weinstein went on the attack. Himself a former Air Force
lawyer and Air Force Academy grad, Weinstein, who is Jewish, is the
founder
and president of the Military Religious Freedom Foundation. He founded
the
MRFF earlier this year to oppose the spread of religious intimidation in
a
military increasingly dominated by evangelical Christians.
On Monday, Weinstein held a press conference in Washington, D.C., to
announce that he was asking the Department of Defense's inspector general
to look into the video, and determine whether the people who appeared in
it
-- Air Force Maj. Gen. Jack J. Catton Jr.; Army Brig. Gen. Vince Brooks,
the former public affairs director of the Army; and Undersecretary of the
Army Pete Geren -- had violated military regulations. He also filed a
Freedom of Information Act request with the government to find out who,
if
anyone, had approved the video shoot.
Bob Varney, the executive director of Christian Embassy, the group that
made the video, tells Salon he believes no regulations were violated, and
he says Weinstein's allegations about increased evangelical influence
within the military are wrong.
"I don't understand how one could come to that kind of conclusion,"
Varney
says. "The military believes in religious freedom, it offers religious
freedom, it therefore offers people of different religions to express
them,
and we're one among a number of different religions that are working in
the
Armed Services."
Weinstein spoke with Salon Tuesday afternoon.
The Christian Embassy is now saying it had permission to film this inside
the Pentagon. Were you surprised to hear that?
Not at all. They're damned if they do, they're damned if they don't. If
they said they didn't have permission, they would have been blown away.
Having permission, to me, just shows the complicity. We have a systemic
problem. You sound like you're too young to remember Robert Redford in
"Three Days of the Condor," but the premise of that movie was that there
was a CIA within the CIA. We have a virulently dominionist,
fundamentalist
evangelical Christian element within the Pentagon. They would prefer this
to be the "Pentecostalgon," not the Pentagon. That's what they would
prefer. They're trying to turn the Pentagon into a frickin' faith-based
initiative, and that is not what our military is about.
These are the people who, when I talk to senior members of the military
at
the flag-level rank -- I don't know if you're familiar with what that
means, that means admiral or general -- that have looked at me and said,
"Come on, Mikey, what's your problem? We have the cure to cancer. If you
had the cure to cancer, wouldn't you want to spread the word?" They don't
realize when they say it, they don't have the mental wherewithal to
understand that to a person who isn't an evangelical Christian, you're
calling our faith a cancer.
What's wrong with this video?
I'm trying to think where to start. It is absolutely violative of a
mountain of Department of Defense internal regulations, guidelines, core
values, instructions, making it very clear that members of the military
can
not endorse any one particular political position, partisan religious
view,
they can't hold up a tube of toothpaste like Colgate and push it.
Irrespective of that, it's also blatantly violative of the Establishment
Clause of the First Amendment of the Bill of Rights, and at least as
important it's violative of Clause 3, Article 6 of the Constitution --
you
don't even have to get into the Bill of Rights -- which states that we
will
never have a religion test for any position in the federal government,
which was brilliantly prescient of our Founding Fathers.
This, to me, constitutes as much of a national security threat to this
country as al-Qaida. In fact, the video itself, to me, would be the No. 1
recruiting tool that I would expect bin Laden, the followers of Abu Musab
al-Zarqawi, although he's dead, Ayman al Zawahiri, Hezbollah with Sheik
Hassan Nasrallah, Hamas, the al-Aqsa Martyrs' Brigades, to get angry
young
Islamic men and women in Iran, Syria and Lebanon to join the insurrection
and jihadi terrorist activities. This would be a perfect accelerant to
create even further conflagration.
---end of excerpt---
The result of which would be having the Army of God with the largest
arsenal to take care of all the infidels in the U.S.
Hopefully, they'll bust these flags. But what am I thinking? This is
Bush's military.
Flag-level officers of faith have been around much longer than the Bush
Administration.
Indeed, I think the error on the part of the production crew was that they
seem to not have found a flag-level Jew. I'm sure there are some, and their
input to the project would have been a good thing. A required thing?
Probably not.
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Related Articles |
|
|
