PDA

View Full Version : The anti-religionists strike again: military insignias banned from Bibles



Hubie
06-19-2012, 03:41 PM
This is disgusting.

http://www.votervoice.net/Core/core.aspx?APP=GAC&AID=365&issueid=29070&SiteID=-1


June 19, 2012

There was a time in our history when military leaders were men…real men. They stood their ground against all enemies, foreign and domestic. That was until President Obama put Leon Panetta in charge of the Department of Defense. Now the nation's top military leader's uniform comes with a large yellow streak down its back.

According to OneNewsNow and other national reports, Bibles can no longer be emblazoned with the official insignia of the different branches of the U.S. military.

LifeWay Christian Resources spokesman Marty King says the military branches have revoked their prior authorization to use the official service emblems on the Soldier's Bible, Sailor's Bible, Marine's Bible and Airman's Bible. King says permission to use the insignia was granted in 2003.

That permission was withdrawn last year because the Military Religious Freedom Foundation threatened to sue if the military didn't cower to their demands.

The Bibles were sold at no cost to the government and service members voluntarily purchased them. At no point were military members coerced or encouraged by their superiors to buy the books. They were simply for sale in the military exchange stores.

These people don't want "separation of church and state." They want separation of religion and society.

Apache
06-19-2012, 04:18 PM
That permission was withdrawn last year because the Military Religious Freedom Foundation threatened to sue if the military didn't cower to their demands.


Ok Ody, clue me in, on what grounds could they bring suit? I mean these Bibles were not for every service member, just those who wished to purchase them. How could they sue and win?

Generation Why?
06-19-2012, 04:34 PM
Yeah I got nothing. I don't see how a symbol on a book can bother anyone

Odysseus
06-19-2012, 09:28 PM
Ok Ody, clue me in, on what grounds could they bring suit? I mean these Bibles were not for every service member, just those who wished to purchase them. How could they sue and win?

They can sue on the same grounds that theophobes always use, the misinterpretation of the establishment of religion clause. However, they didn't sue, they just threatened to sue, and the leadership caved.

Novaheart
06-19-2012, 09:59 PM
from their site:


As expected, MRFF is being grossly and deliberately misrepresented as an atheist organization whose aim is to rid the military of all Bibles and all religion. This is ridiculous. MRFF is not an atheist organization. In fact, 96% of MRFF’s 28,000 clients are Christians — Catholics and mainline Protestants who are not considered to be the right kind of Christians or Christian enough by the fundamentalists.

M[B]RFF is only fighting a particular subset of Christians — the fundamentalists and dominionists who see the U.S. military as a “mission field” for their evangelism and proselytizing. To these Christians, the military provides an endless supply of young men and women who they can prey upon and turn into “government-paid missionaries for Christ,” typically targeting them when they are worn down by training and at their most vulnerable, with the approval and aid of their fundamentalist brethren in the military itself.[b]

\\What does any of this have to do with the Holman military Bibles? Well, going beyond the obvious church/state separation issue of the government endorsing religious books by allowing the use of official U.S. military emblems on them, the Holman Bibles contain a lengthy section of essays and contact information promoting the Officers’ Christian Fellowship (OCF), an organization of about 15,000 military officers, ranging from cadets at the military academies to 3-star generals, with chapters on virtually every military base worldwide, who think the real duty of a U.S. military officer is to raise up “a spiritually transformed military, with ambassadors for Christ in uniform, empowered by the Holy Spirit.” In other words, these Bibles are a recruiting tool for the OCF and, with the official military emblems on them, were a government endorsement of the OCF mission.

U.S. military regulations prohibit the endorsement of non-federal entities. The OCF is a non-federal entity that not only condones the mission of parachurch ministries and fundamentalist military chaplains who seek to turn the military into a force of “government-paid missionaries,” like those seen in the above video, but actually has that same mission itself.

MRFF has probably received more complaints about these particular Bibles, which are displayed and sold in all the base exchanges and other stores on military bases, than any other single issue. The reasons for individual complaints have varied. Some have been strictly about the constitutional issue of official military emblems on Bibles. Some have been because of the manner in which these Bibles are displayed in the exchanges, often being placed right next to books that are denigrating to other religions, such as The Politically Incorrect Guide to Islam, and in some cases being placed in sections of military training books, as if the Bible is considered to be part of military training. Many of the complaints coming from Christians have been that the military wasn’t only unconstitutionally endorsing Christianity, but endorsing only a particular brand of Christianity that they, as Christians, do not subscribe to.

Although this is an issue that MRFF has been working on for quite some time, the military is now claiming that its revocation of permission for Holman Bible Publishers to use the military emblems on the Bibles had nothing to do with religion, and is merely the result of a revamping of its trademark licensing programs. But this explanation is pretty hard to believe.

The first is that the purpose of the revamping of the military’s trademark licensing program was to expand the licensing of military trademarks into the retail sector. Under a 2004 act of Congress, each of the military’s branches was given the authority to create its own trademark licensing office and earn revenue through the licensing their branch’s trademarks to manufacturers of toys, clothing, and many other commercial products. The manufacturers pay royalties on the use of military logos and emblems, with the proceeds being used to fund Morale, Welfare, and Recreation programs. There has been no explanation from the military as to exactly how this expanding of its licensing program could possibly have led to the Holman military Bibles suddenly being deemed ineligible and having their license, approved in 2003, revoked. But the military wants the official story to be that the revoking of Holman’s license had nothing at all to do with religion or complaints about these Bibles. The recent revamping of their licensing programs just seems to be nothing more than a convenient coincidence.

The documents obtained by MRFF in response to a FOIA request submitted in June 2011, three months before the first of the military branches suddenly decided to revoke the license held by Holman Bibles for over eight years, show that AAFES (the Army and Air Force Exchange Service, which runs the BXs, PXs, and other stores on military bases) was clearly concerned about the complaints about the Holman Bibles, with emails as early as June 6, 2011 from AAFES to Lifeway saying that these Bibles had “become a hot issue,” and referencing and linking to a June 2, 2011 article on MRFF’s website as the reason they were becoming a hot issue. The article referenced by AAFES was an email from a MRFF client, an active duty JAG officer, about the use of the military emblems on these Bibles. In the article from FOX News, it sounds like the military had already decided to stop the use of the military emblems on the Bibles prior to being contacted by MRFF, but this is simply not true.

But, whatever the reason for the military’s decision to disallow the use of official military emblems on these Bibles, the right thing has finally been done, which is all that matters. And, despite any erroneous claims you might see or hear that MRFF is trying to prevent service members from buying Bibles, or that Holman can’t sell their Bibles on military bases anymore, service members will absolutely still be able to buy these Bibles in their BXs and PXs just as they have for the past eight years. They will just no longer have the official military emblems on them, as they never should have in the first place.

Senior Research Director, Military Religious Freedom Foundation (MRFF); author, Liars For Jesus: The Religious Right's Alternate Version of American History

Apache
06-19-2012, 10:20 PM
They can sue on the same grounds that theophobes always use, the misinterpretation of the establishment of religion clause. However, they didn't sue, they just threatened to sue, and the leadership caved.

I know they didn't sue, and that the leadership caved. I was wondering on what grounds a suit could be raised and if they could win on those grounds. These Bibles were for sale, not forced upon the troops...


The BS Nova is trying to peddle doesn't pass the smell test.

Hubie
06-19-2012, 10:30 PM
the fundamentalists and dominionists who see the U.S. military as a “mission field” for their evangelism and proselytizing. To these Christians, the military provides an endless supply of young men and women who they can prey upon and turn into “government-paid missionaries for Christ,” typically targeting them when they are worn down by training and at their most vulnerable, with the approval and aid of their fundamentalist brethren in the military itself.

Kookiness. These people undoubtedly also believe in the "Vast Right-Wing Conspiracy," too.

They used quotes around "government-paid missionaries for Christ." I wonder who they're quoting. I've never heard any Christian fundamentalist use that description.

Novaheart
06-19-2012, 10:55 PM
Kookiness. These people undoubtedly also believe in the "Vast Right-Wing Conspiracy," too.

They used quotes around "government-paid missionaries for Christ." I wonder who they're quoting. I've never heard any Christian fundamentalist use that description.

There is a video at the site, in which the speaker uses the term to describe himself and other evangelists.


The bottom line is that no one should be evangelizing in the workplace, especially the government workplace.

txradioguy
06-20-2012, 01:23 AM
There is a video at the site, in which the speaker uses the term to describe himself and other evangelists.


The bottom line is that no one should be evangelizing in the workplace, especially the government workplace.

As many times as it's been explained to you and you STILL...don't grasp the meaning of the establishment clause.:rolleyes:

noonwitch
06-20-2012, 08:48 AM
I don't see any violation of separation of church and state in Lifeways, a private religious publisher, offering special Bibles with each branch's symbol on the cover for sale to military members. I don't see how it is establishing a national religion or anything, and if you look at Lifeway's website, you can get a Bible with a cover to match pretty much anyone's taste or interests.

Novaheart
06-20-2012, 11:01 AM
I don't see any violation of separation of church and state in Lifeways, a private religious publisher, offering special Bibles with each branch's symbol on the cover for sale to military members. I don't see how it is establishing a national religion or anything, and if you look at Lifeway's website, you can get a Bible with a cover to match pretty much anyone's taste or interests.

But, whatever the reason for the military’s decision to disallow the use of official military emblems on these Bibles, the right thing has finally been done, which is all that matters. And, despite any erroneous claims you might see or hear that MRFF is trying to prevent service members from buying Bibles, or that Holman can’t sell their Bibles on military bases anymore, service members will absolutely still be able to buy these Bibles in their BXs and PXs just as they have for the past eight years. They will just no longer have the official military emblems on them, as they never should have in the first place.

Novaheart
06-20-2012, 11:02 AM
As many times as it's been explained to you and you STILL...don't grasp the meaning of the establishment clause.:rolleyes:

I'll give your grasp of the issue the same weight I generally do.

Novaheart
06-20-2012, 11:07 AM
While you guys are complaining about religious BS, Obama is walking amnesty past the gates.

Religion doesn't matter. Illegal immigration does. However, if you want to bolster the number of the ignorant and faithful in the US population, then fling open the doors to Mexico and kiss the Pope's ring.

Atheism is not a threat to this nation, papism and popery is.

txradioguy
06-20-2012, 11:11 AM
I'll give your grasp of the issue the same weight I generally do.

That embarassed that I know more about it than you do huih Novatwit?

I expected no less.


The fact of the matter is I've studied it...figured out where you Libtards are misrepresenting it and exploiting it for your own stupid anti-Theist gains.


Try and dismiss me and my question all you like Libtard...but the fact of the matter is you'd get your ass pwn'3d on this if you tried to go toe to toe.

noonwitch
06-20-2012, 11:42 AM
But, whatever the reason for the military’s decision to disallow the use of official military emblems on these Bibles, the right thing has finally been done, which is all that matters. And, despite any erroneous claims you might see or hear that MRFF is trying to prevent service members from buying Bibles, or that Holman can’t sell their Bibles on military bases anymore, service members will absolutely still be able to buy these Bibles in their BXs and PXs just as they have for the past eight years. They will just no longer have the official military emblems on them, as they never should have in the first place.



They can buy the same Bibles at Barnes and Noble or Family Christian Stores, for that matter.


This to me is sort of the opposite of establishment of religion. Establishment of religion would be putting a cross on a military handbook, not putting a military symbol on a religious book. In a military family, where more than one generation serves in the same branch, a Bible like this could be a family heirloom.


If private companies are allowed to make t-shirts, ashtrays, and all kinds of merchandise with military insignia on them, why not Bibles? As far as the government is concerned, the Bible should be just another piece of merchandise that someone wants to put a military insignia upon.

Odysseus
06-20-2012, 11:54 AM
But, whatever the reason for the military’s decision to disallow the use of official military emblems on these Bibles, the right thing has finally been done, which is all that matters. And, despite any erroneous claims you might see or hear that MRFF is trying to prevent service members from buying Bibles, or that Holman can’t sell their Bibles on military bases anymore, service members will absolutely still be able to buy these Bibles in their BXs and PXs just as they have for the past eight years. They will just no longer have the official military emblems on them, as they never should have in the first place.


Why is that the right thing? There are specific verses in the Bible that are applicable to the different branches, and the visual representation of the branch insignia on the cover is simply a marketing tool, it does not imply official endorsement. The various Military Clothing Sales Sites offer religious medallions for sale, and there are religious items which are tied in to the branches of service. Why is this unacceptable to you?

Apache
06-20-2012, 12:27 PM
While you guys are complaining about religious BS, Obama is walking amnesty past the gates.

Religion doesn't matter. Illegal immigration does. However, if you want to bolster the number of the ignorant and faithful in the US population, then fling open the doors to Mexico and kiss the Pope's ring.

Atheism is not a threat to this nation, papism and popery is.

As usual, nothing substantive to add, just...

Hey guys look, something shiny! :cold:

Generation Why?
06-20-2012, 12:42 PM
As an atheist this kind of stuff pisses me off. No one's faith or belief has ever bothered me and I don't see why putting logos on books that will be purchased is a big deal. Let's peel the onion back a little. Most atheists look at the BIble as a book, which it is. So who cares what is on the book? It's that simple.

Hubie
06-20-2012, 01:48 PM
There is a video at the site, in which the speaker uses the term to describe himself and other evangelists.

The speakers shown are military chaplains.

Gina
06-20-2012, 01:55 PM
The speakers shown are military chaplains.

Preachers in the Military!? Oh no way! Theocracy! AHHHHH! :rolleyes:

Generation Why?
06-20-2012, 04:20 PM
Preachers in the Military!? Oh no way! Theocracy! AHHHHH! :rolleyes:

Chaplains are awesome. I have 2 rules:

1. Nobody you work with. (It is implied as to what I mean)
2. Show the Chaplain the utmost of respect.

JB
06-20-2012, 08:58 PM
The bottom line is that no one should be evangelizing in the workplace, especially the government workplace.Fine.

Don't preach to me about diversity in the workplace and who or what I should accept or not accept. Don't let me see any union organization propaganda. Or girl scout cookies for that matter.

Keep work in the workplace and all that other stuff out.

NJCardFan
06-20-2012, 09:53 PM
Why is that the right thing? There are specific verses in the Bible that are applicable to the different branches, and the visual representation of the branch insignia on the cover is simply a marketing tool, it does not imply official endorsement. The various Military Clothing Sales Sites offer religious medallions for sale, and there are religious items which are tied in to the branches of service. Why is this unacceptable to you?

If the Bibles had pictures of 2 guys in a 69 he'd be all for it. Seriously, if it was some kind of gay pride thing like a rainbow or purple triangle and people wanted it removed Nova's stance on this would be vastly different.

noonwitch
06-21-2012, 12:05 PM
If the Bibles had pictures of 2 guys in a 69 he'd be all for it. Seriously, if it was some kind of gay pride thing like a rainbow or purple triangle and people wanted it removed Nova's stance on this would be vastly different.

Don't give people ideas for new Bible versions. :smile-new:

I really don't understand Nova's position on this, he's got it backwards. Although I concede that the DOD has the right to decide whether to let a company use the military insignias, the only reason for denying that right to a company would be to prevent a disrespectful use of them. If an ashtray or lighter is not a disrespectful use of the symbol, a Bible certainly isn't, either.

Odysseus
06-21-2012, 02:06 PM
Don't give people ideas for new Bible versions. :smile-new:

I really don't understand Nova's position on this, he's got it backwards. Although I concede that the DOD has the right to decide whether to let a company use the military insignias, the only reason for denying that right to a company would be to prevent a disrespectful use of them. If an ashtray or lighter is not a disrespectful use of the symbol, a Bible certainly isn't, either.

It's PC idiocy run amok. I guarantee that a Soldier's, Sailor's, Airman's or Marine's Qur'an would not receive similar treatment under the current administration.

Hubie
06-21-2012, 02:48 PM
If the Bibles had pictures of 2 guys in a 69 he'd be all for it. Seriously, if it was some kind of gay pride thing like a rainbow or purple triangle and people wanted it removed Nova's stance on this would be vastly different.

Interestingly, apparently no one has ever thought about emblazoning Bibles with the "gay pride" upside-down pink triangles or rainbows.

Odysseus
06-21-2012, 04:15 PM
Interestingly, apparently no one has ever thought about emblazoning Bibles with the "gay pride" upside-down pink triangles or rainbows.

A gay Bible would have to delete Leviticus and the end of the chapter on Sodom and Gomorrah.

Novaheart
06-22-2012, 09:03 AM
Fine.

Don't preach to me about diversity in the workplace and who or what I should accept or not accept. Don't let me see any union organization propaganda. Or girl scout cookies for that matter.

Keep work in the workplace and all that other stuff out.

Collective bargaining is a legitimate workplace discussion, ie whether to organize or not organize, once organized what to require, etc... Your wish not to participate in collective bargaining is your legitimate contribution to that discussion. Batshit ranting about communists and "demonicrats" would cross the line, one would think.

Diversity in the workplace is not something you will hear me preach about because I don't believe in Diversity (capital D) for diversity's sake. Under our current laws, though, fair employment and compensation practice is a legitimate workplace discussion.

Girl Scout Cookies, like all solicitation for charitable donations has no place in the workplace IMO. We are all adults and capable of choosing and supporting our charities outside the workplace. That goes for the employer as well; no employer should be trying to aggrandize himself by pressuring his employees to participate in his social climbing through charity or whatever it is he is pursuing in that regard.

Trying to get your coworker to attend indoctrination centers for Jesus or Krishna with you is not an acceptable workplace activity, especially if you are other than equals in workplace status. Megacorp's policy on this, if I recall correctly is pretty much the same as it is for dating: you may ask once. After one refusal, it's harassment.

Apache
06-22-2012, 09:33 AM
Collective bargaining is a legitimate workplace discussion, ie whether to organize or not organize, once organized what to require, etc... Your wish not to participate in collective bargaining is your legitimate contribution to that discussion. Batshit ranting about communists and "demonicrats" would cross the line, one would think.

Diversity in the workplace is not something you will hear me preach about because I don't believe in Diversity (capital D) for diversity's sake. Under our current laws, though, fair employment and compensation practice is a legitimate workplace discussion.

Girl Scout Cookies, like all solicitation for charitable donations has no place in the workplace IMO. We are all adults and capable of choosing and supporting our charities outside the workplace. That goes for the employer as well; no employer should be trying to aggrandize himself by pressuring his employees to participate in his social climbing through charity or whatever it is he is pursuing in that regard.

Trying to get your coworker to attend indoctrination centers for Jesus or Krishna with you is not an acceptable workplace activity, especially if you are other than equals in workplace status. Megacorp's policy on this, if I recall correctly is pretty much the same as it is for dating: you may ask once. After one refusal, it's harassment.

Once again Nova hits the nail on the head...



too bad it was the wrong nail :rolleyes:

Novaheart
06-22-2012, 09:36 AM
Once again Nova hits the nail on the head...



too bad it was the wrong nail :rolleyes:

May your Hoveround not.

txradioguy
06-22-2012, 09:52 AM
May your Hoveround not.

Ok Novatwit...please explain how this simple little phrase...


Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof...

...somehow applies to the OP...or a prayer before a football game or the Ten Commandments in a courthouse?

Nowhere in ANY of those actions is one particular religion established endorsed or stated as the "Official" religion of the United States.

The Founding Fathers didn't want the establishment of another Church of England in the Colonies...hence the establishment clause.

It was never intended to exterminate any hint of religion from the city steps the way you and the other non-believers have tried to do over the last 40 years.

Which...would seem to violate the last part of that quoted text.

Gina
06-22-2012, 12:09 PM
And in case anyone forgot, the Ten Commandments are etched into the SCOTUS building. :smile-new:

Hubie
06-22-2012, 12:49 PM
And in case anyone forgot, the Ten Commandments are etched into the SCOTUS building. :smile-new:

You've only scratched the surface, my friend.

Odysseus
06-22-2012, 04:55 PM
Collective bargaining is a legitimate workplace discussion, ie whether to organize or not organize, once organized what to require, etc... Your wish not to participate in collective bargaining is your legitimate contribution to that discussion. Batshit ranting about communists and "demonicrats" would cross the line, one would think.

Using an employer's property to plan to extort money from him through the establishment of a labor cartel is not a legitimate workplace discussion, any more than plotting to steal industrial secrets or otherwise undermine your job is.


Diversity in the workplace is not something you will hear me preach about because I don't believe in Diversity (capital D) for diversity's sake. Under our current laws, though, fair employment and compensation practice is a legitimate workplace discussion.

Girl Scout Cookies, like all solicitation for charitable donations has no place in the workplace IMO. We are all adults and capable of choosing and supporting our charities outside the workplace. That goes for the employer as well; no employer should be trying to aggrandize himself by pressuring his employees to participate in his social climbing through charity or whatever it is he is pursuing in that regard.

Trying to get your coworker to attend indoctrination centers for Jesus or Krishna with you is not an acceptable workplace activity, especially if you are other than equals in workplace status. Megacorp's policy on this, if I recall correctly is pretty much the same as it is for dating: you may ask once. After one refusal, it's harassment.

First off, the military isn't the private sector, and the rules are different. For example, we do permit charitable solicitation, and there is even a list of approved charities under the Combined Federal Campaign which allow for Soldiers to set up automatic deductions from their pay. Second, the various service Bibles aren't an attempt at prosletyzing. They are sold at MCSS, but are not forced on anyone. The removal of the service emblems is simply spite on the part of militant atheists who cannot accept any doctrines but their own being permitted.

JB
06-23-2012, 07:48 PM
Trying to get your coworker to attend indoctrination centers for Jesus or Krishna with you is not an acceptable workplace activity...Telling me I have to attend an indoctrination seminar to hear someone tell me that I shouldn't tell Janie Bigboobs she has big boobs or Johnny Handjob that it's OK that he gives dudes handjobs is not an acceptable workplace activity either.

If I've done nothing to violate the Code of Conduct I have to sign for employment, I don't need to go sit in a meeting and listen to a bunch of nonsense I have no interest in hearing either.

Apache
06-23-2012, 08:19 PM
May your Hoveround not.

Damn, Dizzy Jane, I'm fully mobile....:biggrin-new:





Thankyoucomeagain...

Rockntractor
06-23-2012, 08:45 PM
Damn, Dizzy Jane, I'm fully mobile....:biggrin-new:





Thankyoucomeagain...

You are this week but with your luck...............stay away from large cacti!