No Laws Broken, Too Bad Losers Jesus Wins Again

[Michael Tee]

<<Nice story, but not the point of my question. Would listing religious preferences on a dog tag be considered proselytizing?>>

No, your question was if anyone had a problem with the dog-tag showing the soldier's religion. 

I don't, if the soldier consents.  I think he has a right to be free of any religious tags if that's what he wants.  It's basically up to him.

As I understand it, I believe the religion is shown on the dog-tags in case the guy is mortally wounded and not able to communicate his religion to those around him - - he wants to be sure that he's given the proper last rites by those who really can get him through the Pearly Gates, and not by those other guys who can't.  Well, if the guy's prepared to sacrifice his life for his country, the least his country can do in return is ensure that, if he believes in the afterlife, he'll get his best shot at a good one from someone who he believes has the best credentials to deliver the goods.

And, no, I don't think religious dogtags are proselytizing.  I don't know of anyone converted to any religion from reading the dogtags hanging from anyone else's neck.  If I wanted to proselytize, I'd find some better way to get the message out.

[BT]

So you agree that Weinstein is basically full of shit with the proselytizing angle he and that other guy took on the gun sights?

It's not a religious issue it's a procurement issue.

[Michael Tee]

<<So you agree that Weinstein is basically full of shit with the proselytizing angle he and that other guy took on the gun sights?>>

Yeah, but the sights are otherwise objectionable

<<It's not a religious issue it's a procurement issue. >>

No, it's a procurement issue only because it's a religious issue.  A purely procurement issue might be where the manufacturer sold commercial advertising rights to liquor or tobacco product manufacturers or used an alloy with too much of one metal or another in it.  Wouldn't have raised hackles the way this one did.

"Establishment of a religion" prohibited by the First Amendment, seems to be broader than mere proselytizing.  While I don't think that the scopes are proselytizing, I think they do facilitate the "establishment" of the Christian religion by virtue of the fact that all Government-issue scopes bear a Christian message, raising the visibility of the Christian religion and its acceptability in powerful branches of the government (to the exclusion of all other religions) such as to confer certain perceived advantages on the religion and its adherents which could make it a more favourable choice to someone considering either taking it up or leaving it.

[BT]

The first's religious portion has two clauses: establishment of religion and prohibiting the free exercise thereof.

The sights do neither. Weinstein's actions however are a different story. They clearly are intended to suppress the exercise thereof of a 20 year tradition of inscibing biblical references as part of the serial number.

[Michael Tee]

On that logic, proselytizing is free exercise of religion and forbidding it in the Army would be unconstitutional. 

The sights promote the establishment of a religion and the rule against proselytizing is a lawfully necessary restriction of a constitutional right.  Interests have to be balanced one against the other and a decision made by the court.

[BT]

The only thing the sights controversy did was promote Weinsteins organization.

How much do you want to bet this incident is featured in his fund raising pitches?

[Michael Tee]

<<The only thing the sights controversy did was promote Weinsteins organization.

<<How much do you want to bet this incident is featured in his fund raising pitches?>>

What do YOU think his fund-raising pitches ought to feature?  The group's monthly general meeting at Hooter's?  If a group is organized around a special principle, and has some success raising public interest in a violation of that principle, why WOULDN'T the group want potential supporters to know that they're out there actually doing the kind of work they're supposed to be doing, and landing some solid successes in doing it?

I hope if you ever apply to any organization for the position of fund-raiser, you don't go out of your way to show any prospective employer your disdain for Weinstein's fund-raising techniques.

[BT]

No surprise that you would think manufacturing controversy for personal gain is ethical.

Weinstein's tactics are not much different than Hitler's.

[Michael Tee]

<<No surprise that you would think manufacturing controversy for personal gain is ethical.>>

Uh-uh-uh, we're missing a little step here, aren't we, BT?  Isn't there that little detail of having to prove that Weinstein's operation is for personal gain first?

<<Weinstein's tactics are not much different than Hitler's.>>

That much has been painfully obvious from the get-go.  But tell me in what ways you think Weinstein's tactics ARE different than Hitler's.

[Plane]

<<Weinstein's tactics are not much different than Hitler's.>>

That much has been painfully obvious from the get-go.  But tell me in what ways you think Weinstein's tactics ARE different than Hitler's.

Fewer thugs , more suits.

[Michael Tee]

And  what was the giveaway in Weinstein's financial statements that tipped you off to the fact that his operations were for personal gain?

BTW, when did you tip off the appropriate public authorities to your insight as to the disposition of the funds that Weinberg raised?

[Plane]

And  what was the giveaway in Weinstein's financial statements that tipped you off to the fact that his operations were for personal gain?

BTW, when did you tip off the appropriate public authorities to your insight as to the disposition of the funds that Weinberg raised?

What can his motive be?

He says he is worried about insulting Islamists when they find out , but he says this in print when ignoreing it would delay the Muslims finding it  , supposeing they ever would.

So he isn't really worried about makeing a bad impression on Muslims ,

[BT]

His financials are not on their website.

The Military Religious Freedom Foundation is a 501(c)3 nonprofit entity. Our Federal Nonprofit ID # is 20-3967302. If you need any further information or documentation, please contact Trish Corrigan at trish.corrigan@militaryreligiousfreedom.org and/or 1-800-736-5109 Ext. 3.

[Michael Tee]

<<What can his motive be?>>

Well, we see from the link posted in the first post in this thread, his organization is:

<< . . . Military Religious Freedom Foundation, an advocacy group that seeks to preserve the separation of church and state in the military.>>

It seems pretty obvious that his motive is to preserve the separation of church and state in the military.

<<He says he is worried about insulting Islamists when they find out , but he says this in print when ignoreing it would delay the Muslims finding it  , supposeing they ever would.>>

I think it's pretty obvious if the rifles were in wide circulation, it would only be a matter of time before the Muslims found out about it.

<<So he isn't really worried about makeing a bad impression on Muslims , >>

Huh? ? ?  Whaaaaat? ? ?

I hope you don't think that finding Christian religious scripture on the scopes of rifles used by Christians to hunt and kill Muslims on Muslim land would make a GOOD impression on Muslims.

[BT]

I hope you don't think that finding Christian religious scripture on the scopes of rifles used by Christians to hunt and kill Muslims on Muslim land would make a GOOD impression on Muslims.

They didn't imprint religious scripture on the scopes. They imprinted an alpha numeric sequence following the model number along with the item serial number. The alpha numeric sequence had a meaning just as the model number and serial number had a meaning. Weinstein made sure the Muslims knew that meaning.

A well placed bullet which the scopes aid would seem to be much more distressing to Muslims than some alpha numeric code.

Weinstein is to the military what Newdow is to schools.