Quote:I think you should talk to some current and former US military about what they believe. I've never met one that believes they are doing anything more or less than serving their country when called.No doubt, most of the military is secular, and keeps its religion to itself. This is a marvellous tradition. Sadly, it is being eroded in some very disturbing places. There are many who obviously believe that "serving their country" involves serving their religion - they see America as a Christian nation, fighting Islamic enemies, and that this is the fundamental basis for the conflict. That's dangerous, to say the least.
Quote:Proselytizing? Exactly how was that done? You have a pretty low threshold on what constitutes proselytizing. There might be biblical micro dots on your bowling ball... You never know.Well, I know, because I don't have a bowling ball. However, there was clearly a group of soldiers and gun enthusiasts who knew about this, and who claimed this was one of the scope's good qualities. This is not a totally unknown series of microdots - this is a known religious marking that acts to forward a religious goal, not only in spreading that religion, but in implying the connection between military power and religion. The less any military goes in that direction, the better.
Quote:Establishment is not practice or speech. Establishment is when the government declares a state religion, or prohibits one.We've been here plenty of times before. Your interpretation of the establishment clause is not supported - not by the courts, and not by the relevant founders, notably Madison. The establishment clause is a wall between the government and religion - it binds both speech and practice for anyone acting officially for the government. Even then, whatever the standard may be for ordinary politics, surely it should be far higher for the military, a place where any religious entanglement at all could lead to dire consequences.
Quote:Besides, the US governments position on religion should be intentionally neutral. Neither supporting or restricting. By requiring "zero" religious speech or expression, they would be endorsing or implementing an atheist world view.That's ludicrous. "Endorsing or implementing an atheist world view" would involve explicitly *denying* that there is a God. Keeping government from interfering with religious matters through word or deed absolutely does not promote that viewpoint, or any other. It is simply silent on the issue, which is what the Establishment clause should enforce. Individuals are free to express whatever opinions they like, but the military is not free to purchase religiously-branded weaponry.
Quote:The point being that we live with religious icons, phrases, and symbols from many religions all around us.Surely a libertarian does not need this point explained to them. In your own words, if individuals feed the poor, it's charity. If the government does, it's socialism. If an newspaper prevents you from publishing in their paper, that's their right. If the government does the same, it's censorship. If an individual displays a religious symbol, it's freedom of religion. If the government does it, it's a violation of the establishment clause.
There is a world of difference between what private people can do, and what the government can. This is the most elementary libertarian principle possible. It's what the whole Constitution is about, enumerating exactly what the government is allowed to do, and what it is forbidden from doing - religion being very high on that list.
-Jester