Another Example of intolerable extremists.

[Sir Joseph]

In this case, it's the ironically mislabeled Military Religious Freedom Foundation (MRFF) objecting to canine handling soldiers expressing their Christian faith. It seems that putting Biblical scripture dog tags on their service animals offends MRFF's intention for a godless society.

Once again, an organization who's soul purpose is to undermine America's Christian heritage chooses to oppose God and oppress good citizens under the misguided notion of separation of church and state. Not only has MRFF failed to understand the U.S. Constitution's First Amendment concerning freedom of religion, but it has demonstrated intolerance towards those who would express their faith in any public way.

I'd hope that religious people of all faiths would see the problem with this and that irreligious people could learn to understand that in America we have freedom of religion, not freedom from religion - at least that's what the highest laws of the land hold.

https://www2.cbn.com/news/us/shield...od-prohibiting-military-dog-tags-bible-verses

 

[okidoke]

I don’t understand. Are these tags in addition to regular tags or replacing regular tags? Did military personnel have a choice of tags with or without the biblical phrases or not?

 

[TropicalStarfish]

Qouted from the article:

"Further, please refrain from submitting items for approval that are clearly of a religious nature and which bear USMC trademarks," the letter continued.

So, they can't be using some one else's Trademark, if they are. That's what a Trademark does: protect exclusive rights to a Trade-Mark. You need permission for that.

In the U.S. though, yes, freedom of religion/faith is constitutionally protected. So, one would hope, that would be a pretty easy case.

I just hope none of those wufs/doggos are Sufists, however; their religious freedom would be trampled... Now that would be extreme!

 

[Sir Joseph]

I don’t understand. ags in addition to regular tags or replacing regular tags? Did military personnel have a choice of tags with or without the biblical phrases or not?

I can't find the certain answer for that on-line Okidoke, but having worked for the governement and knowing DOD's extreme nature of administrative control and accountability, I'd expect each handler to be issued official tags for his dog which contains necessary ID information. Whether the handlers are replacing or supplementing the issued tags isn't the issue of concern since it appears that custom tags are allowed by DOD. The agency's targeting of only religious dog tags versus all personal tags is the legal (and moral, persecuting) mistake.

 

[Sir Joseph]

Qouted from the article:


So, they can't be using some one else's Trademark, if they are. That's what a Trademark does: protect exclusive rights to a Trade-Mark. You need permission for that.

In the U.S. though, yes, freedom of religion/faith is constitutionally protected. So, one would hope, that would be a pretty easy case.

I just hope none of those wufs/doggos are Sufists, however; their religious freedom would be trampled... Now that would be extreme!

By easy case, I trust you mean DOD will lose and have to retract their new policy.

You know I hope that the U.S. Constitution only yields rights to people, thus dogs don't have a legal right to religious freedom. And to date, I've not read of any dog trying to make such a case. I think I catch your humor.

No, the organizations and individuals objecting to religious expression here aren't concerned about dogs; they have an agenda to rid society of God. It started in the schools, expanded to all public arenas, and is now progressing even into private lives.

 

[Sir Joseph]

Since posting the article, I have read another article that questions my whole premise.

https://www.militarytimes.com/opini...ng-shields-of-strengths-bible-verse-dog-tags/

I concede that there's a significant difference between prohibiting a privately purchased religious dog tag under one's shirt (that wouldn't affect the uniform attire) or on one's dog collar (that wouldn't affect any vest/uniform attire) versus using an official government agency logo on one's personal retail-sale item, be it religious or not. Simply put, using an agency logo on anything would warrant agency approval.

I find it hard to believe that Shields of Strength would think they could do this, and even more surprised that First Liberty (a good organization in my view) would defend them. Perhaps we haven't gotten all the facts out right yet and a future court case or settlement will affirm the truth. Until then, I'm sorry I raised the issue at all. The battle against separation of church and state is a just cause for anyone respecting America's Christian heritage, but this is not yet a proven good case to pursue. I suggest we all move on to other threads.

 

[kaetic]

In the words of Benjamin Franklin:

“When a religion is good, I conceive it will support itself; and when it does not support itself, and God does not take care to support it so that its professors are obliged to call for help of the civil power, 'tis a sign, I apprehend, of its being a bad one.”

They used this quote and I love it. I'm not trying to insult christianity at all. Just thinking that there are those in every religion that will twist it to fit their own agenda... and I can't help but wonder if that's what's happening here.