Now, if I’m understanding all involved correctly, it sounds like this may have gone a bit too far in endorsing the Christian Embassy, but I really don’t see anything that would merit a court martial; sounds to me like the report has the right idea, to correct what sounds like a relatively minor problem.
God bless.

I can understand members of the service belonging to an organization such as the Christian Embassy, etc., but on their own time, and not in the Pentagon to enact a video where many people of different faiths also work. I don’t think this would be allowed in working situations outside of the Armed Services, to infer the company they are employed with endorses what they believe, either.

No, this is not a minor issue. America is a secular nation (which just means we are not a theocracy). Representatives of the American government, including politicians and military officers, certainly have a right to their religion, but they must not allow that religion to be seen as reflective of our government and our nation. If the military is Christian, then soldiers are crusaders. This is monstrous.

Thank God for people that stand for God and thier country it is about time.

Sure Carl, but whose version of God are you talking about??? Yours? I’m a Christian, but certainly not the version that these fellows were endorsing or probably a version that your vision of theocracy would tolerate.

There needs to be some real house cleaning at the Pentagon. When someone can say “the Christian Embassy helped him become a “director on the joint staff.” that’s saying people are getting appointed because of their religion, or perhaps religiosity. I want people appointed because of their skills and I do not want proselytizers running the military.
This outfit and any such outfit needs to be kept at arm’s length from government, and any government official who campaigns for it on government time should be severely reprimanded.

I have to admit, Nnmns, that particular line caught me too; I’m not at all sure how these kinds of appointments are made (anybody does?), but I’m not sure any special-interest group should be allowed to push for someone there.
As for the video, again, I think it should be pointed out that what’s the issue is the APPEARANCE of an official, Pentagon endorsement, which should have been avoided. But again, it’s not like this hurt anyone or anything, so while the issue needs to be resolved, I don’t think anything as drastic as a court-martial is necessary; the rules regarding this thing need to be clarified or altered for the future.
God bless.

nnmns-
“There needs to be some real house cleaning at the Pentagon. When someone can say “the Christian Embassy helped him become a “director on the joint staff.” that’s saying people are getting appointed because of their religion, or perhaps religiosity.”
Actually, I think he was saying he got appointed because of the strings that were pulled by people within the Christian Embassy and/or because of people he met as part fo the Christian Embassy. Either way, I agree with you….I believe people should be appointed based on their skills.
Peace!

The strength of character needed to effectively lead our troops emanates directly from and proportionally to the faith of these Christian military leaders. No other skill set or belief system can replace this essential ingrediant. All morality, ethics, rule of law, and the very character of good individuals are based upon God. You skeptics would be out of work if God did not exist, and the world would operate on the Evolutionary principle of strength; only the strong survive.
One more point to those who would weaken our military by denying access to faith based organizations: the power of the Islamo-nazis is such that if we lose our place in the front lines of the battle against them, remember one thing – run – because when they take over they will not greet you with the same open minds you afforded them, but with the sword – they hate atheists more than Christians.

“because when they take over they will not greet you with the same open minds you afforded them, but with the sword – they hate atheists more than Christians.”
Which is why we need to keep religous organizations out of running goverment. No one here would deny someone their faith if it makes them a better person. But there comes a time when you must not be secritarian and come together with those of different and no fatih. As you say look to Islamic run countries to see what happens when you hold religion above reason. You can similarly look to the Soviet Union to see what happens when you make the state “God”. You say you do not believe in survival of the fittest but fighting extremists with more extream behavior is more survial of the fittest than anything. A good balance involves people of faith and no faith comming together to support everyone not just thier sect. Otherwise the secritarianism that has ruined the middle east with consume us all.

“The strength of character needed to effectively lead our troops emanates directly from and proportionally to the faith of these Christian military leaders.”
This is totally without basis. I challenge you to provide any legitimate proof for that spurious claim.
“You skeptics would be out of work if God did not exist” False. No god exists and yet people believe in a wide variety of them.
“and the world would operate on the Evolutionary principle of strength; only the strong survive.” Actually that’s a misunderstanding, though a common one, of how evolution works. Groups of people or other animals can survive better because they cooperate and even because they care for their young, old , ill and poor.
And as livindesert points out, this battle requires we all come together and share our strengths, rather than using positions of influence to proselytize like these officers.

Mr Zuelke
You have shown a complete misunderstanding of evolution and a misplaced appreciation for stereotypes and ignorance.
Evolution – if only the strong survived then T-Rex and and Tigers would rule and the rest of us cower in the shadows. Evolution favors the adaptable, not the strong. Those who adhere to inflexible religion and intolerant theology may be as ferocious as T. Rex, but they are also as vulnerable.
Using phrases like “Islamo-nazi” is inflammatory (like a fever) and helps nothng an no one, except those who feel vulnerable and at risk. Some attempt at creativity and adaptability may lead not only to survival, but also to understanding, hope, and – though it may be hard to believe – faith. If we want to get into namecalling, how about this one, “Christ-fascists”. The imposition of one particular type of religion would certainly meet the meanng of the phrase. Instead, lets set the names aside and get back to the intended community of hope that Jesus (and the prohets and poets) spoke about.

O those rascally typos. The actual name I was going for is “Christo-fascist”. It just sounds so much more authoritative in pseudo-latin.
There is sure something going on with the air force. Their arrogance is becoming a real concern. They take that whole angel / wings thing a little too literally and way too seriously. Maybe they need to spend a little more time contemplating the mythology of fallen angels.

Joey,
“it’s not like this hurt anyone or anything”
Unless, of course, you are a NON-”Christian” trying for promotion in the Defense Department. Such a narrow, short-sighted vision of what actual harm may/does come from imposing one’s faith/values on others. Better hope you are in ‘good standing’ and on the ‘right’ side. Or else, eh?

Mark Zuelke,
“The strength of character needed to effectively lead our troops emanates directly from and proportionally to the faith of these Christian military leaders.”
Balderdash. I know many effective leaders who are not Christian.
“No other skill set or belief system can replace this essential ingrediant.”
More poppyc0ck!
“All morality, ethics, rule of law, and the very character of good individuals are based upon God.”
This is laughable. There are just too many a-religious/atheist/non-”Christians” of VERY good character to believe such a preposterous statement.
Oh, and isn’t using “Islamo-fascist” against the Rules of Conduct here on B’net???

The military folks shouldn’t be making videos endorsing Christian (or any other religion)in uniform. What they do when not in uniform is up to them. Nor should they be pushing their religion on the other soldiers. No one should be promoted in the military due to their religion.
It is interesting that some folks(MSZ) think all leaders get their skills from a god. Wonder how he explains the leaders who don’t believe in any god? And how about the leaders of some countries who do believe in only their god and feel that it is OK to kill those who don’t follow in that path? (extremists)

Survival of the fittest is based on strength. Adaptability, when driven by survivability, is based on strength. If there exists such a thing as “good” (as in “good and evil”) then those who develop their character upon good principles will be good leaders. The notion of good and evil is universal, and I know there is no way to explain this except to say it is that way due to an ultimate judge – and we know who that is. None of your arguments can be made without refering to good-this or bad-that, so even you are not free. God alone is good, and we cannot approach his presence without a mediator, a supreme sacrifice, to atone for our blemished existence. One last thing. God is also love, pure unadulterated, essential love. And just as you would not, right now at least, desire to be cooped up with someone like me for eternity, neither can God abide evil, pure love casts out all evil. Thus the good and evil divide, thus love, alone rules the universe and “good” character is based on love. Though history of religion does not totally bear this out, as evidenced by the actions of men, still, it is with a closer look that we see love is at the core of belief in God and in any actions legitimately taken in His name. Men may fail, but God does not. All good comes from God, including the ultimate good – a way back to Him through faith in his son.

M.S. Zuelke: “All good comes from God, including the ultimate good-a way back to Him through faith in his son.”
In your opinion…..

“Pagansister” has a clear opinion – don’t show Christians working at the Pentagon in a video. That is what started all this. PS has an opinion, strongly held, like mine. Where do we get our ability to form these opinions? How do we know what material happens to be right or wrong as content of a stupid video? This is the basic issue. If right and wrong exist, there must be an ultimate judge, with ultimate morality, no matter who is wrong or right in any discussion, we still have a knowledge of right and wrong. Where does this come from? PS, you and I are on the same page.

M S Zuelke,
Pagansister can speak for herself but you are way off base, imo.
“Pagansister” has a clear opinion”
She has more than an “opinion”; she has her beliefs. They are different from yours, that’s all. Why should your beliefs trump hers?
“don’t show Christians working at the Pentagon in a video.”
Here is where you make your mistake that it is just her “opinion”. The video shows that in order to be promoted at the Pentagon, it ‘helps’ if you are a “Christian”. Since the Pentagon is a branch of Government, and the Government shall not establish ANY one religion over another, this is clearly a violation of the Constitution.
“That is what started all this.”
You got that part right.
“How do we know what material happens to be right or wrong as content of a stupid video?”
Wrong question. Instead of focusin on (your version of) what content is “right and wrong”, you should be asking either “WHY a video in the first place?”, or, if it is found that a religion-based promotion system in the Pentagon is NOT a clear violation of the Constitution, then “WHICH religion is the ‘right’ one to include in such a video?” If you can ask THAT question, it becomes much clearer that this IS such a violation. Hardly just a “stupid video”.
“If right and wrong exist, there must be an ultimate judge, with ultimate morality, no matter who is wrong or right in any discussion, we still have a knowledge of right and wrong. Where does this come from?”
Well, clearly you think it ‘comes from’ God. Others disagree. Your religious beliefs do not, can not, MUST not trump the religious beliefs (or lack of same) of others. However, issues of “morality” have NO place in a Government instituion such as the Pentagon.
“PS, you and I are on the same page.”
Methinks Pagansister would disagree with you.

M.S.Zuelke: How are we on the same page?

Struggling with issues of what is right and what is wrong go beyond our Constitution, to ultimate questions concerning the source of right and wrong, good and evil. The ability to discern right and wrong is universal and we will usually fight for what we believe is right and fight against what we believe is wrong. There is only one truth from which all ideas of right and wrong eminate or the world would be nonexistent, chaos would rule the universe, everything from the simplest chemical reactions to the most complex philosophical treatise would be impossible without a right way and by default a wrong way to do anything whatsoever. Without truth there would be no communication possible in this exchange, no language, no computers, no nothing. Humanity agrees on everything, necessarily so. Evil occurs when truth is distorted. Whose truth? That is an ultimate question, because there is a way that leads to ruin, and one that leads to love, joy, peace and life itself. Follow the threads of your own thoughts back to the source and examine them carefully.

M.S.Zuelke: “Follow the threads of your own thoughts back to the source and examine carefully”. That would be my parents and my 60 plus years of life….not,for me personally, a higher power….
You are saying that there is, IYO, a god-like being that is the source of all truth…and going against that “Being” leads to evil, or distortion of that truth?

Okay, we are all condemning what we consider to be the sin of another. The difference is; Christians have only invisible proof, vis a vis faith. Pagans are blind, as far as faith informs the Christian – from the vantage point of light. Christians are mindless, as far as the Pagan can see. But I understand faith and no one can know the content of faith without first embracing faith. A very fitting illustration would simply state that no individual can know exactly what it means to be any other individual, it is impossible. This is typical when worldviews clash. The question remaining is; how does a pagan know what is right? Is it a feeling? Did you read it in some obscure book? Did you dream it? Did your yoga teacher tell you? Even more, what if the things you decided to be right all turn out to be wrong – a frequent challenge you make to Christians? Where will you turn? I am not saying Pagans cannot know truth, because you certainly do, but because you don’t recognize or even understand the source, there is no where to turn when the truth you do know fails because of inconsistency, misunderstanding, having been mislead, etc. There is only one source of truth, and if you embrace faith, in the very first moments you will see that.
You probably recognize this, from my other posting, but it fits here, too.

M.K.Zuelke:
The most truthful statement you made was when you said that no one can know exactly what it means to be any other individual. Pagans learn just like Christians learn…from their religious leaders and centuries of history. The Goddess and God have been worshiped for centuries, as has the Christian god and divine beings of other religions. You seem to be sure that Pagans don’t recognize or even understand the source of their beliefs… I disagree. Your source of truth works for you…. and I’m happy where I am. Spent the first 17 years of my life being raised in the Methodist church…questioning as I hit my teens. Pulled away at that age when I met a UU and married him….the answers were there…and they all made sense.

Sorry, I meant, M.S. Zuelke