• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!
  • Welcome to our archives. No new posts are allowed here.

Military bars troops from attending Vacation Bible school honor

MaggieD said:
Would we still think it was bad policy if they were going to a Muslim church? Or Jewish synagogue? I think we'd be howling in the other direction.
Click to expand...

DA60 said:
Big whoop...I think it is a wise thing to keep the military out of certain religious events.

But the military is not a Christian military...it is supposed to be just a military...for Christians, Muslims, other religions and for atheists as well. And apparently the Church in question called the military 'God's Rescue Squad'.

The U.S. Military is NOT God's Rescue Squad...it is America's Rescue Squad.
Click to expand...

All very true. And yes, this pastor's definition of "patriotism" is closely linked to "conservative christianity" .

That aside it is Missouri and the soldiers were the Missouri National Guard. So it is not suprising that honors to local soldiers would - and should reflect the local community.

The pastor did not ask for an officer to deliver a sermon at the church, he did not demand that particapting soldiers where crosses on their unforms or receive say, "Knights Templar" awards for slaying infideles in Iraq.

Rather, he just wanted to thank them (with a certain relgious back drop) for their service to the nation. In short, if individual troops wanted to participate, they should have been allowed to. The ban is just another example of PC idiocy.
 
Last edited:
Old-Man-Yells-At-Cloud-the-simpsons-7414384-265-199.jpg
 
ecofarm said:
Pretending there is no allusion of military personnel support in the wearing of the uniform to a particular event is just being socially blind. Others at the event will treat such a person better because of that allusion and its value to the organization.
Click to expand...
[emphasis added by bubba]
maybe at this particular church. but possibly not at a quaker congregation

The uniform was not authorized nor issued for personal political purpose. Ignorance is not an excuse of social impacts.
Click to expand...
you insist the wearer of the uniform outside of a military environment has a political agenda evidenced by the wearing that attire. while that can happen, i believe in most instances it is one of pride of being a member of our armed forces. and rightfully so
 
Cryptic said:
All very true. And yes, this pastor's definition of "patriotism" is closely linked to "conservative christian" .

That aside it is Missouri and the soldiers were the Missouri National Guard. So it is not suprising that honors to local soldiers would - and should reflect the local community.

The pastor did not ask for an officer to deliver a sermon at the church, he did not demand that particapting soldiers where crosses on their unforms or receive say, "Knights Templar" awards for slaying infideles in Iraq.

Rather, he just wanted to thank them (with a certain relgious back drop) for their service to the nation. In short, if individual troops wanted to particiapte, they should have been allowed to. The ban is just another example of PC idiocy.
Click to expand...


actually, he wanted the military's exemplar present at the occasion. which is why the military personnel were not exclusively requested but that they be accompanied by a humvee

there is nothing preventing the military personnel from attending that service. in uniform. only at their personal discretion and not at the direction of a government. one which does not play favorites among religions

why did he not encourage all veterans to attend in uniform, of their own free will, and celebrate them and their service. he wanted the official imprimatur of the US military. something which should never been provided. don't think it should have been provided at the gay parade, either
 
Last edited:
It was a stupid ruling. On the plus side though, our Post vacation bible school kicked off today, will run all week, and is not only hosted by the active duty chaplain and run by the chaplains assistants but it is also staffed by volunteers, many of whom are active duty soldiers, and they will be using government facilities, equipment, the fire trucks will be coming down for one of the days...it should be quite a blast for the kids.
 
justabubba said:
you insist the wearer of the uniform outside of a military environment has a political agenda evidenced by the wearing that attire.
Click to expand...

False. Everyone has a political agenda, regardless of what they wear. Everyone exercises their political agenda, regardless of what they wear. Doing so in a military uniform is unethical.

while that can happen, i believe in most instances it is one of pride of being a member of our armed forces. and rightfully so
Click to expand...

Motive is irrelevant and I'm happy to grant the best of intentions. Ones personal motive does not define or negate social implications.
 
Last edited:
SparkyFarkas said:
Imagine NP's outrage if the National Guard had shown up at a similar event at a mosque.
Click to expand...

If a mosque were to hold such an event honoring "rescue squads" which is very unlikely but if they did, orders from the Obama White House would have been issued that every Guardsman will attend.

Remember when the Obama White House issued an order that Gay Pride month will be recognized and celebrated on all military bases ? Remember all of the drag queens on Air Force bases and LGBT political activist booths being set up on military bases ?
 
ecofarm said:
The uniform was authorized and issued for a specific purpose, which does not include personal business. That uniform represents the military and an individual has no right to use it for personal agenda. The military is not a "free society", it is servitude entered into voluntarily. To accept the terms and then attempt to use the uniform for ones own purpose is unethical.
Click to expand...

Isnt any uniform issued for a specific purpose? How is this any different from a fireman, police officer, astronaut, or a Dominoes Pizza delivery guy wearing an "authorized and issued" uniform to a religious function? I don't get it?

I served in the military for twelve years btw....I never remember being informed that I no longer lived within a "free society"?
 
justabubba said:
he wanted the official imprimatur of the US military. something which should never been provided. don't think it should have been provided at the gay parade, either
Click to expand...

That is a good point.

Though the HUMVEE was probably requested far more to offer the children a memorable closing activity (common practice at vacation Bible Schools, in fact, I am going to such an activity this evening with bounce houses and hot dogs) rather than to be an official endorsement.

I would have allowed the presence of the HUMVEE. I dont think commanders should exactly solicit invitations for such events though. Likewise, if an Imam or the orgainizers of a gay pride parade asked for a single Humvee and willing soldiers to be present at an event for a tribute or thanks, I would allow it.

Giving needless offense is just never wise and this was a form of needless offense.
 
FluffyNinja said:
Isnt any uniform issued for a specific purpose? How is this any different from a fireman, police officer, astronaut, or a Dominoes Pizza delivery guy wearing an "authorized and issued" uniform to a religious function? I don't get it?

I served in the military for twelve years btw....I never remember being informed that I no longer lived within a "free society"?
Click to expand...

You don't see the difference between military service and private employment? I served one enlistment, paratrooper.
 
ecofarm said:
It's trying to supplement ones position with authority that is not authorized. It's the employment of false authority for personal political capital.
Click to expand...

Showing up at a Vacation Bible School to spend an hour with children, in your own home town with no media around is now "for personal political capital"? Wow....that IS a stretch! :roll:
 
If "General Embarrassment" (LTG William G. Boykin) had not gone off the reservation and begun showing up in churches in uniform publicly denigrating Muslims and the Islamic religion perhaps the US military would not be so sensitive about the issue now. When you have a 3 star out pimping the faith while in uniform, when you have the religious oppression that has been (is) rife in the USAF officer ranks, from the Air Force Academy though out commands, you cannot be too careful.

-----

Also: I think the general population and certainly children at any religious church/school only want to hear what they think the military does.
 
FluffyNinja said:
Showing up at a Vacation Bible School to spend an hour with children, in your own home town with no media around is now "for personal political capital"? Wow....that IS a stretch! :roll:
Click to expand...

People only give a crap because of the uniform. A pathetic "look at me" at best, and certainly a misuse of government gear.
 
Cryptic said:
That is a good point.

Though the HUMVEE was probably requested far more to offer the children a memorable closing activity (common practice at vacation Bible Schools, in fact, I am going to such an activity this evening with bounce houses and hot dogs) rather than to be an official endorsement.

I would have allowed the presence of the HUMVEE. I dont think commanders should exactly solicit invitations for such events though. Likewise, if an Imam or the orgainizers of a gay pride parade asked for a single Humvee and willing soldiers to be present at an event for a tribute or thanks, I would allow it.

Giving needless offense is just never wise and this was a form of needless offense.
Click to expand...

there was no needless offense
there was the need to preserve the appearance that the military does not play favorites in the arena of religious belief
which is why refusing to provide military personnel and equipment - no matter the religion of the requesting organization - was consistent with that long held principle
 
ecofarm said:
You don't see the difference between military service and private employment? I served one enlistment, paratrooper.
Click to expand...
Im honored that you served and am proud of your service.....but no. If these troops were under orders it would be one thing.....but they were National Guardsmen.....and there was no evidence that would lead us to believe that it was during training or duty hours.
 
FluffyNinja said:
Im honored that you served and am proud of your service.....but no. If these troops were under orders it would be one thing.....but they were National Guardsmen...
Click to expand...

You're welcome to your opinion. I have mine.

..and there was no evidence that would lead us to believe that it was during training or duty hours.
Click to expand...

One can use a hummer for personal business? Funny, the motor pool always told me 'no'.
 
ecofarm said:
People only give a crap because of the uniform. A pathetic "look at me" at best, and certainly a misuse of government gear.
Click to expand...

Its a bunch of children. Are you opposed to troops parachuting in during halftime of HS football games as well? Or how about uniformed troops showing up at a public (or private and often church-based) HS to recruit for the Armed Forces? Or could it just be the fact that in this case it involved a local church?
 
FluffyNinja said:
Its a bunch of children. Are you opposed to troops parachuting in during halftime of HS football games as well? Or how about uniformed troops showing up at a public (or private and often church-based) HS to recruit for the Armed Forces? Or could it just be the fact that in this case it involved a local church?
Click to expand...

Read my posts herein again. I don't see why I should repeat myself.
 
ecofarm said:
You're welcome to your opinion. I have mine.



One can use a hummer for personal business? Funny, the motor pool always told me 'no'.
Click to expand...
Thanks for granting me the right to express my opinion. Very considerate of you! And I was specifically addressing your comment about the uniform....not the Humvee.
 
FluffyNinja said:
And I was specifically addressing your comment about the uniform....not the Humvee.
Click to expand...

In the incident in question, there was a hummer, right? Well, that's not used for private business. At least, the military never let me do that. One time, a guy took a hummer from HQ for personal business; however, after he bought the beer and crashed it on the way back (drunk), he went to Leavenworth.
 
ecofarm said:
False. Everyone has a political agenda, regardless of what they wear. Everyone exercises their political agenda, regardless of what they wear. Doing so in a military uniform is unethical.



Motive is irrelevant and I'm happy to grant the best of intentions. Ones personal motive does not define or negate social implications.
Click to expand...

With honest respect for his career in the service of his country, one wonders if a retired old salt such as Navy Pride were asked to speak in uniform about his military experience at a Christian bible school if he would accept the invitation. I don't know NP personally, but I would imagine that he would. Would the same sailor, who served the citizens of the United States extend the same courtesy to an American children at a local mosque? An organized group of American children of gay parents?
 
Last edited:
ecofarm said:
In the incident in question, there was a hummer, right? Well, that's not used for private business. At least, the military never let me do that. One time, a guy took a hummer from HQ for personal business; however, after he bought the beer and crashed it on the way back (drunk), he went to Leavenworth.
Click to expand...

I agree in regards to the Hummer. However, even the Reg that was quoted doesn't specifically refer to military equipment but rather "participation" in general. :shrug:
 
FluffyNinja said:
Its a bunch of children. Are you opposed to troops parachuting in during halftime of HS football games as well? Or how about uniformed troops showing up at a public (or private and often church-based) HS to recruit for the Armed Forces? Or could it just be the fact that in this case it involved a local church?
Click to expand...
[emphasis added by bubba]
those examples are instances where the military's activities are self serving
they are promoting the armed forces
they are recruiting

they are not showing up, giving the appearance of government sanction of a particular religious belief
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom