First Amendment Under Attack

[Hemodoc]

Here is another soldier relieved of his command because he disagreed with gay marriage due to his Christian beliefs. WOW. What is happening in our military???

Just out of curiosity - what would your reaction be if a soldier was relieved of his command if he disagreed with white and black soldiers serving together, due to his Christian beliefs?

Rocker, that is NOT a Christian belief. The Bible states ALL men are of one blood. We already settled the issue of race in the military a long time ago my friend.

I would suggest you look up the history of slavery in the US.  Almost all of the justifications were Bible-based (as well as the objections).  Specifically, Leviticus 25:44-46 states that you may enslave "foreigners", though not your countrymen.  Although Exodus 21:7 does give guidance on selling your daughter into slavery, so who knows. Surely you've heard of the "curse of Ham"?  How about the mark of Cain?  It was often argued that the only 'mark' that Cain could have that everyone could see at a distance was dark skin.

And of course, many good Christians have no problem with gay marriage. They argue that resistance to gay marriage is NOT a Christian belief.

But ok, if you want to use the criterion of what is "settled"?  The issue of gay marriage in the military has been settled a long time ago, my friend.  If this guy can't get with the program and obey orders from above, well, the military is not the place for him, is it?  You don't get to pick and choose which orders to follow, no matter how strong your opinion is.

Dear Rocker, if you wish to discuss slavery in America, please open a new thread and don't attempt to hijack this thread. The issue is abuse of first amendment rights against Christians especially in our military.

How many years did YOU spend in the military my friend?  I spent nine years and it was overwhelmingly a great experience and it is where I became a Christian. You once again display a lack of understanding of what a military order is and isn't. The first order/oath we all take when entering the military is to uphold and defend the constitution from all enemies foreign and domestic. In the Bill of Rights, the issue under discussion is the First Amendment which deals with freedom of speech and religious liberty.

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.

Traditionally, there has not been any hindrance against the free exercise of religion in the US which included from our inception all denominations and creeds and religious preferences.  None were established, all were treated equal. That is no longer the direction we are headed. An Islamic murderer is allowed his religious preferences even against military regulations but Christians are not any longer. This is an unequal application of religious regulations.

Homosexuality is not condoned in the Bible both in the OT and the NT. I derive my Christian beliefs. A Christian that states gay marriage opposition is not a "Christian" belief is not following what the Bible clearly teaches which once again you are in grave error.

Now orders in the military.  It appears you are unaware that only lawful orders are to be obeyed in the military chain of command. Folks in the military are actually trained to NOT follow an unlawful military order. To order a soldier to accept and condone and support homosexual marriage when they believe that is in error, a soldier is not under obligation to abrogate their free practice of their religion. This is now unequally applied to Christians who for over 200 years were allowed and even encouraged by many superior officers to freely express their religious preferences. That is why we have protestant, Catholic, Jewish and Islamic chaplains who are part of the military officer corps. They play a key role in the battlefield.

Today, Christians are not allowed to pray in the name of Jesus in public prayers and now a soldier is not even allowed to display his Bible. Many believe rightly that this is a violation of first amendment religious freedoms guaranteed in our constitution and Bill of rights.

That is the topic of discussion.

If you wish to discuss the errors of slavery, please open a new thread and I would be more than happy to point out the errors in ascribing OT admonitions to the nation of Israel and the so called "Christian" justification of slavery. That is simply not Biblical.

[Zach]

Last month, the New York Times published an article about how an American Sikh (Maj. Kamaljeet Singh Kalsi) won a special exception (in 2009) in the Army for his unshorn hair.  You see, unshorn (uncut) hair is part of the Sikh religion.

And as the article states:  "The Sikhs of northwestern India have for centuries cherished their rich military history. Wearing long beards and turbans into combat, they have battled Mughals in Punjab, Afghans near the Khyber Pass and Germans in the bloody trenches of the Somme."

It's a very interesting article that includes a bit of the history of the religion as well as the struggles for some Americans who want to serve in the U.S. Army while not giving up the basic symbols of their religion: a beard, knee-length hair and turban.

The article also states:  "Until 1974, Sikhs were allowed to serve in the United States military with unshorn hair and beards. But in the 1980s, stricter rules regarding personal appearance were enacted. Sikhs on active duty at that time were allowed to keep their articles of faith, but future recruits were required to seek case-by-case exceptions. No one succeeded until Major Kalsi in 2009."

http://www.nytimes.com/2013/07/08/us/taking-on-rules-so-other-sikhs-join-the-army.html?ref=usarmy&_r=0

 

[Hemodoc]

Zack, one of our doctors was Islamic and wanted to keep his beard back in 1995. That was not allowed and he had to shave. Today, the story as above, the Ft Hood murderer are allowed to keep their hair styles according to their religion and now Christians are told to stuff it and accept doctrines against our Christian belief.

That is unequal treatment and further it goes against our first amendment rights granted in the Bill of Rights.

[MooseMom]

Sorry you can't see the obvious discriminatory practices against Christians in today's military under Obama.

Why is this Obama's fault?

I was thinking about these discriminatory practices, and I wonder if perhaps the problem is that there is a perception that religion has crept into politics.  I reckon that if one calls oneself an evangelical Christian, others will, rightly or wrongly, assume you have certain political beliefs.  The "Religious Right" and the "Moral Majority" in the past may now color our view of "Christians".   The political landscape is quite different than it was when you were in the military, Hemodoc.  Just a thought.  There must be some reason behind this "discrimination", but I'm not sure it has much to do with Obama himself.  It's probably more a reflection of American society in general.

I don't see how the military forces anyone to condone homosexuality unless that is how you interpret allowing gays to join the military.  Is that what you are saying?

[Zach]

As in a previous post, the pendulum swings over time, sometimes for a reason:

http://ihatedialysis.com/forum/index.php?topic=28993.msg464902#msg464902
Scandal Over Proselytizing Hits Air Force

[MooseMom]

Sorry, Zach, I had missed that.

[Hemodoc]

As in a previous post, the pendulum swings over time, sometimes for a reason:

http://ihatedialysis.com/forum/index.php?topic=28993.msg464902#msg464902
Scandal Over Proselytizing Hits Air Force

Zach, sorry to disagree which is quite rare for us historically, but that so called scandal is nothing more than the start of the anti-Christian military policies.  As noted, the Christian faith has traditionally been a solid part of the military, not only tolerated but openly embraced up until most recently. What a soldier does in their own time off duty has until recently been out of bounds for military regulations unless it has a direct impact on the mission at hand such as bars off limits etc where fights have been occurring.

In addition, denying first amendment rights is MUCH more than just a simple pendulum swing in political ideology. Even Clinton respected first amendment rights despite his often quite anti-Christian politics. The current commander in chief has a great disdain for the constitution which restricts his actions as he has complained quite a few times about the restrictions he faces. He has thumbed his nose at the constitution on a regular basis and on following laws that he doesn't like. That exceeds his constitutional authority.

When a pendulum "swing" engages in denying constitutional rights, then it has over stepped and now becomes outright oppression. This is in light of the liberalization of actions towards other faiths while at the same time denying traditionally held tolerance of Christianity. Yes, the pendulum has now swung so far that Christians are now being oppressed and punished for their religious beliefs in opposition to the first amendment right.

[Hemodoc]

Sorry you can't see the obvious discriminatory practices against Christians in today's military under Obama.

Why is this Obama's fault?

I was thinking about these discriminatory practices, and I wonder if perhaps the problem is that there is a perception that religion has crept into politics.  I reckon that if one calls oneself an evangelical Christian, others will, rightly or wrongly, assume you have certain political beliefs.  The "Religious Right" and the "Moral Majority" in the past may now color our view of "Christians".   The political landscape is quite different than it was when you were in the military, Hemodoc.  Just a thought.  There must be some reason behind this "discrimination", but I'm not sure it has much to do with Obama himself.  It's probably more a reflection of American society in general.

I don't see how the military forces anyone to condone homosexuality unless that is how you interpret allowing gays to join the military.  Is that what you are saying?

First, he is commander in chief and this is his watch. What occurs on his watch is his responsibility even though this man knows little about personal responsibility for his personal actions. Nothing is ever his fault but someone under him.

Second, you are quite wrong about the political atmosphere while I was in the Army. Clinton came into office and immediately began his "pink" Army stuff. He openly disdained the military even though he was commander in chief. Hillary was running a lot of stuff behind the scenes. In point of fact, politically, things are quite similar to the time I was in the Army.

Now, the "Moral Majority" issue. Moosemom, who stated that I support that charlatan who started this political entity. I would be more than happy to go over a very interesting Bible study on what the BIBLE states about Christians engaging in political actions as part of their church activity. Send me a pm and I will explain why this is NOT biblical even though many Christians have been deceived into this false belief. That is NOT what we are supposed to do as Christians, yet many deceivers have done just that in that last 40 years. In short, the GOP has used our numbers to help gain political power yet today they are embarrassed by their connection to us.

My take, good riddance to the GOP if Christianity is now an  embarrassment to them. Jesus lived under a repressive Roman dictatorship that eventually also crucified Him. Yet, he wasted not a second or an ounce of energy in a political movement against the corrupt Roman empire or their Jewish puppet kings. Instead, He preached the gospel.

As many of us said in our churches, the "Moral Majority" isn't moral and isn't a majority. Jerry Falwell was an embarrassment to many of us who knew better. Have you ever heard of an "agent provocateur?" Not sure if Falwell was actually an agent provocateur, but his actions were just as damaging to Christianity and the polarization of America against born again Christians as if he had been one.

If you wish to know the biblical answers to these issues, send me a pm and I will most happily explain them to you.

Thank you,

Peter

[willowtreewren]

As noted, the Christian faith has traditionally been a solid part of the military, not only tolerated but openly embraced up until most recently.

And you do not see this as a violation of church/state separation? Wasn't that discrimination of other faiths? or those without faith?

[Hemodoc]

As noted, the Christian faith has traditionally been a solid part of the military, not only tolerated but openly embraced up until most recently.

And you do not see this as a violation of church/state separation? Wasn't that discrimination of other faiths? or those without faith?

Not at all. First of all, "separation of church and state" was started first by a baptist preacher who founded Rhode Island for religious liberty. They tolerated all faiths, so your concept of church and state lacks historical accuracy.

Have you wondered why there is a Roger Williams Lodge of B'nai B'rith? Why the oldest synagogue in America is in Rhode Island? Have you ever wondered why Rhode Island never had a witch trial? Or blasphemy trials? Nor hanged, whipped or jailed people because of religion? All the other colonies executed witches, but not Rhode Island. Most had blasphemy trials, but not Rhode Island. Nearly everywhere else in colonial America, people of faith were persecuted, but not in Rhode Island. Massachusetts hanged four Quakers, and Virginia imprisoned dozens of Baptists. Maryland, which was created as a haven for Roman Catholics, came to outlaw Catholic priests and forbade Roman Catholics from inheriting property. These things did not happen here because Roger Williams founded Providence to be a "shelter for those distressed of conscience." Rhode Island's freedom of religion prevented such religious laws and abuses.

http://www.providenceri.com/archives/375th-essays-roger-williams-champion-of-religious

So the entire separation of church and state as originally brought to the US by the Baptists is greatly misunderstood today and that is in part your error in your false accusation against my position. Just because the US military openly engaged in accepting Christianity, it likewise afforded those same protections to men of other faith who were provided their own chaplains based on those faiths. Protestant, Catholic, Jewish, Muslim, etc.

Today, all faiths are openly and really openly tolerated accept Christianity. Where does that fall in your view of the constitutional protection of the first amendment which is now being unequally applied against Christianity alone?

[MooseMom]

Hemodoc, I never claimed that you believed in the "Moral Majority" etc.  I was just using it as an example of why many people who, even while being people of faith, are made uncomfortable by those who define themselves as Christians.  It may well be a feeling based in a misperception, but often perception is everything.  I think I really do understand your feeling of having been hijacked by politicians; I hope you don't think me presumptuous in saying that.  Forgive me if I've made a false assumption.

It must be hard to be a military commander and try to be fair to everyone.  In civilian life, everyone seems to be constantly outraged about someone else having something that they themselves believe they have lost, and I'd imagine the same holds true in the military which only adds to the stress of military life.  My opinion means nothing, really, since I've never served, but I personally see faith and bible study for those who want it to be a comfort to those in the military.  Or study of the Koran or the Torah.  As long as all faiths and spiritual beliefs are respected.

[Hemodoc]

Hemodoc, I never claimed that you believed in the "Moral Majority" etc.  I was just using it as an example of why many people who, even while being people of faith, are made uncomfortable by those who define themselves as Christians.  It may well be a feeling based in a misperception, but often perception is everything.  I think I really do understand your feeling of having been hijacked by politicians; I hope you don't think me presumptuous in saying that.  Forgive me if I've made a false assumption.

It must be hard to be a military commander and try to be fair to everyone.  In civilian life, everyone seems to be constantly outraged about someone else having something that they themselves believe they have lost, and I'd imagine the same holds true in the military which only adds to the stress of military life.  My opinion means nothing, really, since I've never served, but I personally see faith and bible study for those who want it to be a comfort to those in the military.  Or study of the Koran or the Torah.  As long as all faiths and spiritual beliefs are respected.

Then these Christians fail to under some of the basic precepts of Christianity which is not surprising given the great number of political deceivers engaging the Christian Right for our votes.

As far as treating equally as a military commander, I believe you are mistaken on how easy it is to apply the constitutional protections equally. I was promoted to the rank of Major which is a field grade officer along with LTC and Col. I had 12 docs I supervised, half of which were Mormon, one was Episcopalian, One was Catholic,  One was Muslim, and two were Baptist among those that had a religious preference. We never had any religious issues other than the Muslim who wished to keep a beard. He appealed and the Commanding General said no. All soldiers were to adhere to military standards especially officers. Remember, the military at that time and a long time before was an all volunteer army.

So, Obama simply needs to enforce the constitution right to religious freedom guaranteed in our constitution and Bill of Rights. Quite easy as I know as military commander myself.

[willowtreewren]

Here is another soldier relieved of his command because he disagreed with gay marriage due to his Christian beliefs. WOW. What is happening in our military???

Just out of curiosity - what would your reaction be if a soldier was relieved of his command if he disagreed with white and black soldiers serving together, due to his Christian beliefs?

Rocker, that is NOT a Christian belief. The Bible states ALL men are of one blood. We already settled the issue of race in the military a long time ago my friend.

Whoa! But slavery is condoned in the Bible. So how does that make it not a Christian belief? Are you cherry picking the Bible? I thought the Bible was supposed to be the word of the Christian God. So, is it only SOME of the Bible? Who decides which parts ARE Christian belief and which parts aren't?

I find Rocker's question quite apropro. You have poo-pooed it as something that has been "settled" by the military, but Rocker was pointing out a similar issue based on Christian belief, based on the most reliable Christian document, the Bible.

[Hemodoc]

Here is another soldier relieved of his command because he disagreed with gay marriage due to his Christian beliefs. WOW. What is happening in our military???

Just out of curiosity - what would your reaction be if a soldier was relieved of his command if he disagreed with white and black soldiers serving together, due to his Christian beliefs?

Rocker, that is NOT a Christian belief. The Bible states ALL men are of one blood. We already settled the issue of race in the military a long time ago my friend.

Whoa! But slavery is condoned in the Bible. So how does that make it not a Christian belief? Are you cherry picking the Bible? I thought the Bible was supposed to be the word of the Christian God. So, is it only SOME of the Bible? Who decides which parts ARE Christian belief and which parts aren't?

I find Rocker's question quite apropro. You have poo-pooed it as something that has been "settled" by the military, but Rocker was pointing out a similar issue based on Christian belief, based on the most reliable Christian document, the Bible.

If you wish to discuss the biblical errors folks made ascribing slavery to the Christians in the American south on another thread, go for it. But that has nothing to do with this thread and is a grave biblical error. In short, America is not the nation of Israel. We are under the admonishment of the New Testament, not the Old Testament. Israel was the instrument of God's judgement against nations who put others into slavery, killed woman and children etc. The OT was an eye for an eye and a tooth for a tooth. When a nation that put others into slavery did not submit to God's laws and attacked the people of Israel, God judged that nation with the same policies that they had against the nations they conquered.

Here is a direct proof of that in the OT.

Judges 1:6     But Adoni-bezek fled; and they pursued after him, and caught him, and cut off his thumbs and his great toes.
7     And Adoni-bezek said, Threescore and ten kings, having their thumbs and their great toes cut off, gathered their meat under my table: as I have done, so God hath requited me. And they brought him to Jerusalem, and there he died.

Adoni-bezek understood quite well that he reaped what he had sown against his enemies. So, all OT verses attributing slavery to the American experience are taken out of context and applied only to God's judgement against other nations during the time that God brought Israel back to the land He gave them.

God created the heavens and the earth and all the people on the earth. The people of the earth turned their back on God and God started His walk again to redeem mankind from their own evil starting when he walked once again with Abraham and Isaac and Jacob and their descendants that we call the Jews. Jesus is Jewish as were all of the 12 apostles.

So, if you wish to start a thread on the Bible and slavery, go for it. It is an interesting study, but it has nothing whatsoever to do with this thread, nor does it provide any basis for slavery in America, that was pure greed, evil and gross misconduct against the word of God. We can further discuss on another thread the Christian basis for the abolitionist movement in England and America and the "Great Awakening." Further, let's also review the history of a slave trader named John Newton who repented of this evil sin and became a Christian preacher and song writer whose song Amazing Grace played a large part in meetings during the civil rights movement. Yes, it is a very interesting topic, but once again, it has nothing to do with the infringement of first amendment rights in the US military today. If you wish to discuss it with Rocker, then lets give it due respect on its own thread.

[MooseMom]

Here is a blind vet still in the Army, the only officer who is on active duty who is blind who is told he can't wear a uniform to church or political meetings, yet gay servicemen are allowed to wear a uniform in gay rights parades.

http://video.foxnews.com/v/2600565716001/christians-in-the-military-barred-from-expressing-faith/?intcmp=obnetwork

The military was once one of most vocal supporter of first amendment rights but today it is leading the bandwagon against Christians expressing their faith while a muslim extremist who killed over a dozen soldiers is allowed to grow a beard in expression of his religious faith.

I've just watched this video, and this young man suffers from a persecution complex, which is probably why he is on Huckabee.  I'm sorry, but I just didn't believe him.  Either he is lying or else he really has the wrong end of the stick OR he is purposefully misleading the audience in an effort to sell more of his books.

I would really like for you to show us specific military regulations that say that a soldier on Active Duty or who is a Reserve on Active Duty cannot wear his/her uniform to church.  I tried to do a search on the topic, and the best/most recent info I came up with is this:

http://answers.yahoo.com/question/index?qid=20120909200421AA6KT8N

I guess I could go to the Uniform Regulations Manual, but I have other things to do on a Friday night.  Since you are more knowledgeable about military affairs, maybe you would have a better chance in sussing it all out.  Let us know what you find out.

As for the Ft. Hood killer, what are they going to do, force him to shave?  How would they do that?  Who cares? 

Anyway, have a good weekend.  Have you moved permanently to Idaho by now?  How's your wonderful granddaughter?  Are you still getting to see her pretty often?  I hope so!

[Hemodoc]

Wow, in a short post, you have questioned the character of a decorated veteran to which I do take offense. He is a graduate of West Point. After his injury, he was the first and only officer to return to active duty that was blind. He went back and taught at West Point, then at another base and now is teaching students at Gonzaga University here in Spokane. There is no way a liar and man lacking character would have achieved what he did at West Point before and after his injury nor since in his other assignments. Dismissing this brave man's character WITHOUT any objective reason to do so is quite unkind Moosemom and totally without any merit.

Read his blog and you will see a man of extraordinary character and courage. Your dismissal of his views are not supported by any objective measure.

http://www.hopeunseen.com/blog

You likewise denigrated Mike Huckabee, a respected Governor and popular as well, a good Presidential candidate with solid support winning several primaries and is a well respected conservative talk show host. Sorry Moosemom, that is beneath you to dismiss this very respected people just because you disagree with their conservative views. I dare to say that both of these men have accomplished much more and earned the respect of more people than any of us here on IHD ever will in our lifetimes and deservedly so.

So you are going to state that a West Point wounded war hero is a liar? Sorry, you truly have lost me on that outrageous denunciation of this brave man.

[MooseMom]

Yes, I am definitely going to question the character of this decorated veteran, and I am also going to question the character of the ex-Governor turned talk show host.

I am not so naïve that I will unquestioningly believe that military decorations innoculate one from self-aggrandizing behavior.

This soldier stated unequivocably that an active duty officer was refused permission to wear his uniform to church.  I believe this is an untruth, but if you can show me specific military regulations that support his claim, then please do.

I do not dismiss these people because of their political views.  In fact, I am very much interested in views that I may not at first agree with.  I am always willing to change my mind.  I am not so egotistical to think that it is weakness to be open minded and to be swayed by an opposing opinion.  What does make me lose all respect for people like this soldier and Mr. Huckabee is the fact that they are members of a strange population that promote seething resentment. 

They themselves give a prime example of what I mean.  They are outraged that the Fort Hood killer is growing a beard.  All that is important to them...all that they see is this beard as a symbol of the expression of religious belief that they themselves perceive has been taken away from them.  This is the resentment that they are fostering in order to hike ratings or to sell books.  What they seem to be missing is the fact that this killer will never ever see the light of day again.  They should be rejoicing, but instead they seethe with resentment because he is growing a stupid beard.  I'm sorry, but these two men have their priorities seriously misplaced.

So yes, I most certainly denigrate both of these men for fostering resentment and ginning up feelings of "why do they get that and I don't" kind of persecution complex.  A decorated veteran should know better, and so should a "respected" Governor who, frankly, was laughed out of the Presidential race at a very early stage. I am deeply disappointed in both men, and I question their motives.  The fact that one is a decorated vet and the other was a governor surely does NOT mean that they can never act ungraciously.  Being in the military, I have learned, does not make one morally superior by any stretch of the imagination.

A West Poingt wounded war hero can certainly be a liar just like anyone else can be.  If he is not a liar, then he is distorting reality for his own gain.  He may well be brave, but that doesn't mean he is immune from being a part of fostering this seething resentment that shows like Huckabee's seem to gobble up like it was honey.

I'm sure this soldier has earned the respect of many people, but after viewing the links to both the interview and to his blog (which is rather like navel-gazing), he has not earned mine.  My dismissal of his views do not have to be supported by any objective measure if I don't need them to be.  If you think this is beneath me, so be it.  I'm OK with that.

I'd still like to see the specific regulations that prohibit an active duty solider from wearing his/her uniform in church.  Show me he is not a liar.

[Hemodoc]

Dear Moosemom, you have failed to understand the objections with about the Ft Hood beard issue. I am sure most folks who are Christian care less whether he has a beard or not. That is not the issue. The issue is the unequal application of religious expression in the military. I would suggest you look into this issue that has been building for several years.

Christian Chaplains often are not allowed to give Bibles to troops who want them, nor are they allowed to pray in the name of Jesus. Those restrictions are not given against Islamic chaplains for instance.

You have fabricated a complaint against two honorable men without any evidence against them to substantiate your claim. I will simply agree to disagree with your outrageous accusations against a decorated war hero who must still have the respect and admiration of some very important people he was associated with at West Point. Your allegations are completely the fabrication of your own imagination. Perhaps you should look for some proof of your statements. I suspect you will not find any. Obviously this is a man of very high character and integrity and a man who has sacrificed much for this nation and you have the gall to impeach him based on your own imagination. Nothing more I can say.

[MooseMom]

Hemodoc, please provide the military rules that prohibit an Active Duty soldier from wearing his/her uniform to church.

[Hemodoc]

Hemodoc, please provide the military rules that prohibit an Active Duty soldier from wearing his/her uniform to church.

Dear Moosemom, no thanks. I have no issues with his veracity or his statements since they are consistent with many other military officers complaints in the last couple of years. If you feel this man is liar prove it. You are fabricating and imagining his word is not trustworthy with no evidence of that which you admit you don't have. That is called libel and slander.

[MooseMom]

I asked you a simple question three times believing that you, of all people, could provide links to the specific military regulation(s) which prohibit active duty military personnel from wearing their uniform to church.  Yet you refuse to answer, which is an answer of sorts.

As for "proof", please click on the link I provided in which a proud mother of two young soldiers asked if it was OK for them to wear their uniforms to church.  As you will note, the Uniform Regulations manual does not prohibit this at all.

If you have a need to believe this young man because it feeds into some persecution complex, feel free.  I guess that soon we will be subjected to yet another cry about the War on Christmas.

He is a liar and wants to sell as many copies of his book as he can to others who feel "persecuted".  Mr. Huckabee enables him.

They should both be vastly ashamed.

I am sorry if you feel disappointed.  I know I do.

[Jean]

According to Wikipedia, if a military member is on active duty, or a reservist on active status, then, yes, they can wear their uniform to church. If retired or (other) there are restrictions.

[willowtreewren]

Hemodoc, please provide the military rules that prohibit an Active Duty soldier from wearing his/her uniform to church.

Dear Moosemom, no thanks. I have no issues with his veracity or his statements since they are consistent with many other military officers complaints in the last couple of years. If you feel this man is liar prove it. You are fabricating and imagining his word is not trustworthy with no evidence of that which you admit you don't have. That is called libel and slander.

In other words, you believe this man because you want to, not because there is any proof. It is a common tactic to attack those who insist on evidence when there is none. It is damaging to your argument, Hemodoc. If there is no evidence for these claims, the correct response would be to adjust your thinking instead of attacking those who would like to see the evidence.

Another tactic when confronted with the uncomfortable truth is to simply say you are no longer interested in the argument. I have witnessed you do this in the past.

Jean, thank you for your input. While Wikipedia may not be the most reliable of resources, it is better than no citations.

[Hemodoc]

Nope, this is an honorable and brave man filled duty and honor. Your criticisms are unfounded and offensive. But that is the way things go on IHD.

http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-3445_162-6837189/a-blind-army-officers-challenging-vision/

[monrein]

Is the issue not simply related to the fact that a member of the military is prohibited from wearing the uniform if he/she is presenting something to an audience whether that be in a church, in a mosque, in a mall or on a soapbox?