Results 1 to 10 of 37

Hybrid View

  1. #1 The anti-religionists strike again: military insignias banned from Bibles 
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    May 2012
    Posts
    1,468
    This is disgusting.

    http://www.votervoice.net/Core/core....9070&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    That permission was withdrawn last year because the Military Religious Freedom Foundation threatened to sue if the military didn't cower to their demands.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.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  2. #2  
    Senior Member Apache's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2009
    Location
    Tree rats are watching you
    Posts
    6,996
    That permission was withdrawn last year because the Military Religious Freedom Foundation threatened to sue if the military didn't cower to their demands.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?
    Government is not the solution to our problem, government is the problem.
    Ronald Reagan

    We could say they are spending like drunken sailors. That would be unfair to drunken sailors, they're spending their OWN money.
    Ronald Reagan

    R.I.P. Crockspot
    Reply With Quote  
     

  3. #3  
    Senior Member Generation Why?'s Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2011
    Location
    Thurston County, WA
    Posts
    709
    Yeah I got nothing. I don't see how a symbol on a book can bother anyone
    “A creative man is motivated by the desire to achieve, not by the desire to beat others.”Ayn Rand

    Power Point Ranger
    Reply With Quote  
     

  4. #4  
    LTC Member Odysseus's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2008
    Location
    FT Belvoir, VA
    Posts
    15,638
    Quote Originally Posted by Apache View Post
    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.
    --Odysseus
    Sic Hacer Pace, Para Bellum.

    Before you can do things for people, you must be the kind of man who can get things done. But to get things done, you must love the doing, not the people!
    Reply With Quote  
     

  5. #5  
    Fabulous Poster
    Join Date
    Mar 2010
    Posts
    10,161
    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.

    [B]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.

    \\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
    Reply With Quote  
     

  6. #6  
    Senior Member Apache's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2009
    Location
    Tree rats are watching you
    Posts
    6,996
    Quote Originally Posted by Odysseus View Post
    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.
    Government is not the solution to our problem, government is the problem.
    Ronald Reagan

    We could say they are spending like drunken sailors. That would be unfair to drunken sailors, they're spending their OWN money.
    Ronald Reagan

    R.I.P. Crockspot
    Reply With Quote  
     

  7. #7  
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    May 2012
    Posts
    1,468
    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.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  8. #8  
    Fabulous Poster
    Join Date
    Mar 2010
    Posts
    10,161
    Quote Originally Posted by Hubie View Post
    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.
    Reply With Quote  
     

Bookmarks
Bookmarks
Posting Permissions
  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •