Posted on 08/11/2016 5:50:45 PM PDT by Libloather
Or practice their faith respectfully and in a dignified manner while on base. The way this country is headed, you won’t be allowed to have a bible in your possession while on base.
Therefore I would recommend that all people of faith not join the service.
Giving up ones first amendment right to practice their faith is too much to ask.
Same rule applies to the draft. If a person is forced to give up their faith in order to comply with the separation of church and state clause, then it is time to play the consciousness objector card and I am serious about this.
And refusing to offer someone their last rights while they are dying on the battlefield will not go over very well.
Huge can if worms if this is pressed too far.
The military has uniform and workplace standards that go beyond that in civilian life.
For instance a soldier can wear a cross, on a neckless, around thier neck, in uniform as long as it cannot be seen.
A soldier can use a military computer and practice whatever religion they chose, but they can’t hang religious symbology on a military work station. As a matter of fact you can’t hang anything on a military workstation. The simple fact is it doesn’t belong to you.
It has nothing to do with religion or free speech, but the good order and discipline of the unit.
This marine was not practicing her faith in a respectful or dignified manner. Quite the contrary. This case isn’t about religion or free speech. It’s about being told what to do and not doing it.
If this young lady professes to be a Christian then why is she not obeying those in authority? She is using her faith to justify her bad behavior. She was being insubordinate and is being punished accordingly.
Folks this is where the country is heading and along with the services. You are just GI and have not religious freedom; quoting some here on FR.
Caution to anyone joining. It may be okay now but not allowed in a few years.
This isnt new. This is the same policy that was enforced in 1981 when I joined. The only person allowed to display religious symbols on thier uniform are military chaplains.
Military workstations do not have personal paraphernalia attached to them. If I had a person who decided to use thier faith to disrupt the workplace I would have no choice but to discipline the individual.
Once again you are making this a religious issue and it simply isnt.
This is true; but the underlying assumption is that the order is lawful — so the the question becomes this: is it?
So you're saying that these particular rights are not inalienable.
Question: which rights cannot be sold/bartered/given away?
And it’s not “public property”. It’s military property. It may be publiclying purchased, but it is not there for free use by the public.
Military equipmentioned is used to perform mission requirements, not to be used as a billboard.
I didn't say that she did — what I was getting at is that there is a bit of a contradiction in the asserted claim, the mental model that says you lose certain civilian rights while in active service
— it is this:
The Constitution, which all military personnel swear allegiance to, does not grant rights but guarantees them and does so by imposing prohibitions upon the government.
If indeed the rights guaranteed by the Constitution were surrendered upon enlistment, then why does the Fifth Amendment contain a clear exception for armed forces?
But what is new is the recent effort to drive ALL faith and specifically the Christian faith out of public areas. It won’t stop with the uniform.
I have seen the progression over the decades.
My statement was mostly rhetorical but I now realize that it is a very real possibility. Maybe not tomorrow but definitely in the future.
This all part of the Lefts effort to destroy the military.
The answer is “yes”. What people are failing to understand is, in the military you don’t have time for debate. You do what you are told. Even if it means certain death. The mission is paramount. Anything that detracts from the mission becomes an obstacle. Obstacles are removed. In this case it was a insubordinate soldier who appears to have problems showing up on duty days and using religion as an excuse for bad behavior.
The court rightfully saw through her ruse.
Incidentally check this out too. If a military academy cadet/midshipman leaves the academy in the last two years they are sent to the ranks as an E-5 if the military keeps them.
Indeed so, and that is exactly why I quoted Patrick Henry — it's rather intriguing how many people [even here] seem not to get his point.
(I blame decades of public schooling indoctrination.)
That includes the barracks and family housing on base? After all, the housing is also on public property. And that includes any place of worship on base. Get rid of them all.
Can you serve the Constitution by working against the rights that it guarantees?
If so, how? — Give two examples.
But enlisted agree to serve their officers and lawful orders, which is an agreement to a status of granted privileges and not rights.
Incorrect, first and foremost enlisted pledge their allegiance to the Constitution, and that takes up a good 2/3rds of the oath.
Contrary to popular belief, and what you see in the movies, the military has never been religious. It doesn’t promote or deny a person’s right to practice thier religion. It provides chaplains,from all faiths,for those who wish to practice. They also provide chapels that are shared by all religions. That is where you go to express your faith, not the workplace or your uniform.
Oh, I'll take this one!
The Constitution prohibits the Congress from passing any law abridging free speech, just as you cite; moreover, the particular amendment doing so expressly applies the prohibition of passing any such law directly and specifically to the Congress. The UCMJ is a law passed by Congress — if then the UCMJ does indeed restrict free speech then by the first amendment it is null and void.
QED
.
AMEN!
.
.
>> “When you join the military you are subject to the UCMJ. The UCMJ restricts constitutional rights, such as free speech...” <<
Then the UCMJ is utterly null and void!
Congress lacks the power to unilaterally nullify the constitution.
.
If this is true, then we have no standing whatsoever to condemn Hillary and Obama over Benghazi.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.