Danes feel Obama is greater than Jesus

[kandrathe]

First, I think I made it clear, in the very sentence you quoted, that this is not something that applies to every soldier, or to the military as a whole. This is a problem with pockets of fundamentalism, and with a string of disturbing incidents, including this one. There are plenty more if you go look for them. My point is that the individuals exist, and that they cause problems for reading Christianity in wholly peaceful terms, not that they are about to take over.

There are Tim McVeigh's and John Allen Muhammad's. I would guess when you are dealing with groups of 18 to 23 year old mostly men, you'd have cadre's that think they are supermen or on some holy mission. It's the job of their leadership to stamp out the nonsense, keep them professional and keep them grounded in reality.

Second, are you really playing the "people who disagree with me are traitors" card? Because it sure sounds like it.

No. I'm pointing out that the only people who profit from this type of *news* are the radical elements who will now (have already made) make propaganda hay of it.

... Yes, this is all ABC's fault. Much better to just stay silent - after all, a silent media makes for good government! Solid libertarian principles.

If we are fighting a war, the rules are different. Unfortunately, libertarian or not I'd have to side with not "aiding and abetting the enemy" over idyllic principles of the press freedom. I think the press needs to do a better job in thinking through what the outcome of their stories will be, since in this case and others it results in the loss of life on the battlefield and radicalizing more young terrorists who will go detonate themselves in the middle of a crowded Baghdad (or London, or Detroit) marketplace. So, in my opinion akin to shouting fire in a crowded theater resulting in the loss of life. I wouldn't make that a legal stand, just a moral one.

Soldiers can carry whatever they like, as their *personal* possessions. They are as free as anyone else to practice their *personal* religion.

Actually, no. The regs allow some things, but really not much. For example, you might wear a pendant no larger than your dog tags as long as it is not visible. My statement was meant as a caveat.

... it was about Christians who see it as part of their religion to blow the hell out of their enemies. Hasn't that point already been demonstrated?)... Violence for Jesus? ... However, this is all tangential to the original point, which was not about the establishment clause, but about the opinions of (some) Christians.

In my experience, you will find in companies and the employees that supply items to the military heightened to excessive attitudes of nationalism, patriotism, religiousness, sports fans, and yes, religiousness. The people that choose to found, operate, and work at a company that supplies gear and munitions are also pretty passionate when it comes to mom, apple pie, flag waving and baseball. Trijicon is like that. The statements I'd read on their web site indicate their concern is for the safety of the soldier. I didn't find anything indicating their blood lust for killing terrorists, however, I'm sure some of the people who work there would personally express their support for winning the current conflicts we are involved in. Are they zealots? No. When Christians begin strapping explosives to themselves and walking into crowds, I'll begin worrying about neo-crusaders. Until then, they are a pretty disorganized minority crackpot fringe that emerge once in a while... esp. in state militias.

As Pete pointed out, this is a logical hash. Not taking a position is not the same as supporting a null position. And you continue, over and over and over, to act as if there is no distinction between what someone does personally, and what they do as a public servant. This is the *key* distinction. A public employee can go to church, say prayers, read the bible, sacrifice goats, whatever turns them on. But they cannot, when wearing the public mantle, support any religious belief, or discriminate amongst beliefs. The easiest way by far to do this is to simply not mention the issue at all.

But, this is not your position. You want to never see or hear anything religious be expressed at all. If it is done in public in any way by anyone however loosely connected to any government entity you unleash the wrath of the ACLU upon it declaring that the wall of seperation has been violated. I believe often that violates the free exercise clause, when that speech has no sovereign authority. I don't see anything in the Constitution indicating a wall, it's more like a hedge where some things pass through both ways as long as there is not an expression of support or favoritism by the government.

http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/data/const...endment01/