Ed Brayton is a journalist, commentator and speaker. He is the co-founder and president of 
On this week's Declaring Independence:
My first interview will be with Mike Lillis, the Congressional correspondent for the Washington Independent, about the auto bailout. The second interview will be with Mikey Weinstein, founder and director of the Military Religious Freedom Foundation, about the many examples he has found of Christian fundamentalist infiltration and coercion in the military. As always, I'll be giving out my award for the Wingnut of the Week.
You can listen here. And yes, we should have the online streaming working this week. Jeremy has identified the problem and anticipates that it will be solved by Thursday.
Comments
Ed,
I really appreciate your posting your guests' names in advance.
One question I would like to hear from Lillis is whether there are any caucuses within the Congressional GOP members who represent the traditional economic-savvy GOP rather than the current batch of southern social conservatives who are almost all populists with almost zero understanding of basic economics. Do people like Judd Gregg, John Sununu, Susan Collins or Olympia Snowe have a voice within the party through a caucus on the autobailout? If so, then we shouldn't have to worry about fillibusters.
The current member of the Senate that appears to be speaking on behalf of the all GOP members of Congress on the auto bailout is Sen. Shelby, who appears to not understand even freshman-level undergrad economics plus he appears to be representing his state's foreign car manufacturer interests rather than the national interest.
The powerful Senate Appropriations Committee appears to be stuffed with the loons from the GOP (Shelby, Theocrat Brownback, Domenici, "Wide Stance" Larry Craig, Mr. Earmark Ted Stevens - now "retired"). In fact, the GOP members are almost all from the south or western states, and those from the western states are not the libertarians but the social conservatives (e.g., Wayne Allard - 2nd most conservative senator and the one whose sponsoring the Federal Marriage Amendment to ban same-sex marriage by amending the U.S. Constituion). There appears to be hardly any representation within the GOP on the Appropriations Committee for the geographical areas where domestic auto manufacturers and their Tier I and Tier II suppliers are operating with the exception of Spector (and only to a small degree).
It'd be nice to understand whether there is a GOP caucus that understands that allowing the domestic auto mfg'rs to fail will greatly expand government spending and government debt well beyond the amount needed to get them through a credit crisis, not to mention adding risk this recession becomes an all-out depression. In Shelby's TV interviews, he does not appear to understand those businesses and their collective supply chain partners pay taxes and benefits even when they are reporting net losses, tax receipts which would be lost and would devastate government receipts at the very same time government obligations would rise if this industry failed.
Posted by: Michael Heath | December 10, 2008 11:17 AM
Ed:
I was going to send you an e-mail, but then I saw this serendipitous opportunity and as, the french say in France, Voylala!
This is an e-mail I received this morning from the fellow whose name appears at the bottom. Talk about being fucking clueless. FoMoCo has the lake of fire of burning stupid.
Dear Member,
I appologize for this email. I don't normally email the members but this is an emergency.
Today, (December 9, 2008) I received a letter from the law offices of Howard, Phillips & Andersen that represent the Ford Motor Company. Ford is forcing us to surrender the name 'therangerstation.com' to them and stop using it. Ford states that using the name 'Ranger' when used in reference to the Ford Ranger is a trademark violation. In addition they are wanting me to pay them $5,000.
As you may know, The Ranger Station has been around for the past 10 years and has been a valuable resource to Ranger enthusiasts.
If Ford does this to us, where will they stop?
I have 10-days to surrender the name and pay them $5,000. I'm asking that you contact Ford online and ask them to reconsider making us change our name and prohibiting us from using the word 'Ranger'.
You can contact them at:
https://secure.ford.com/footer/contact-ford/contact-us-email?contactMainTopic=PublicAffairs
a sample of what one of the members wrote is:
"To whom it may concern:
I am writing concerning your recent legal attacks on various "fan" websites for vehicles such as the Mustang and Ranger. I am insulted by this careless misuse of our legal system and am reconsidering any further vehicle purchases from your company until you cease and desist from any further legal action concerning this subject. I have been a Ford owner for many years and I had hoped to stay that way. These attacks are morally wrong since they are geared towards your customers, and do not instill the least bit of confidence in your brand. For the sake of your business, I ask you to please reconsider immediately.
Thank you."
Thank you for your support and I applogize for this email.
Jim Oaks
TheRangerStation.com
Posted by: democommie | December 10, 2008 12:03 PM
Interesting, democommie. I know someone who works as an attorney for Ford. I'll have to ask about this.
Posted by: Ed Brayton | December 10, 2008 12:25 PM
Great, I can't wait, especially for the Weinstein interview.
Posted by: Sadie Morrison | December 10, 2008 2:12 PM
If the draft were to return, as some democrats like Wrangel have lobbied for, would Christians be subject to it?
If so, would that count as "infilration"?
And, if so, would they be allowed to proselytize? After all, they would be defending "freedom" including relgious freedom.
And if they were in a danger zone, but continued to proselytize, would they be sent home?
I mean, you can't have it both way. Have them serve, but shut up about what they are supposed to be defending.
Keep in mind that some of them will refuse to be silent, and then you will just have to do what you have to do.
Posted by: Jake Barnes | December 11, 2008 4:11 AM
Nice straw man you're beating up there, Jake. No one objects to Christians being in the military, for crying out loud. No one even objects to soldiers sharing their faith with other soldiers. We're objecting to the use of religious coercion by officers against subordinates, soldiers being forced or coerced to attend religious events, soldiers being used as missionaries to convert local populations in direct contravention of military policy, soldiers being withheld for advancement because they're not religious, harassment and intimidation of religious minorities and non-believers, etc. These things are far more serious than your attempt to trivialize them.
Posted by: Ed Brayton | December 11, 2008 9:26 AM
I'm getting dead air, anyone out there able to listen on-line?
Posted by: Michael Heath | December 11, 2008 6:04 PM
Dead air here to...
Posted by: pensy | December 11, 2008 6:07 PM
I was listening to the Democracy Now show just prior to Ed's and had no problem connecting to that show.
Posted by: Michael Heath | December 11, 2008 6:10 PM
Yup, dad and I were disappointed to get the dead air, after being so strongly assured that the problems were ironed out. La sigh. A blue, gloomy night of not hearing the show again....
Posted by: DuWayne | December 11, 2008 7:17 PM
Sorry again, guys. Jeremy figured out the problem from last week. A switch needs to be made to route the audio from the studio to the streaming computer. But when he made that switch, the software crashed on it. So no streaming tonight. But it went out fine over the air and it was recorded, so we'll have a podcast up tomorrow. We'll get these technical glitches solved, I promise.
Posted by: Ed Brayton | December 11, 2008 7:27 PM
Sure you will. You'll get us all excited, then we'll all be crushed again, when we can't hear you live...
Posted by: DuWayne | December 11, 2008 7:32 PM
When will it be updated for itunes?
Posted by: JakeS | December 11, 2008 8:11 PM
Or maybe I should read all the comments before I post.
Posted by: JakeS | December 11, 2008 8:13 PM
Ed:
No need for the podcast, my man. After reading the letters from the atheist haters on the other thread I can pick up the transmissions through my fillings.
Posted by: democommie | December 11, 2008 8:37 PM
No one even objects to soldiers sharing their faith with other soldiers.
The problem with broad statments is that they're hard to defend. The Secular Coalition for America and the Military Association of Atheists and Freethinkers recently called on Obama to ensure that very thing. From their press release, they want Obama to:
"Explicitly prohibit all military personnel, including chaplains, from proselytizing."
They made no qualifications, as you did, and as even military regs do. In the past, Weinstein has said the military allowance for "sharing of faith" was a violation of the Constitution.
We're objecting to the use of religious coercion...etc.
Those are all allegations. None have been proven, even though Weinstein's MRFF has sued three times over the past 3 years. You know, though, some of those allegations may be true. The problem is that Weinstein wants to show that they prove an institutional bias, which is something else altogether. It may be fairly easy to prove that Sgt X used "harassing" language with respect to Pvt Y because of his beliefs/non-belief. It is much harder to prove that the reason Sgt X did that was Defense Secretary Gates has permitted a culture of Christian favoritism, as Weinstein asserts.
The assertion of Christian bias in the military is comical to some, because it is so very far from the truth. That'd be like saying Obama was a Christian Dominionist because he has said he felt God "beckoning him."
The military is far less the bastion of radical evangelicalism than you may think it is.
Posted by: JD | December 11, 2008 10:54 PM
JD stated:
JD, how do you dispute this: http://www.talk2action.org/story/2008/11/30/11914/687/Front_Page/Creationism_The_Latest_In_Military_Suicide_Prevention
Are you claiming the above was not a commander's call requiring attendence? Or are you claiming this is not proselytizing?
If this event happened as described, this is not merely Sergeant X harassing Private Y as you try to minimize the work MRFF does by using extremes on both ends.
Do you agree with the content of the presentation? Do you think it's wise to tell young people that if you accept scientific findings and not submit as a slave to Christ as defined by this presentation that it is you that are "in bondage"?
Posted by: Michael Heath | December 12, 2008 6:54 AM
Michael Heath:
Is there video to go with that "bondage" thing? I might be interested in becoming a bornagin airman or as they would have called them in my day, a Righttolife Lifer.
Posted by: democommie | December 12, 2008 8:36 AM
Michael Heath: "JD, how do you dispute this:..."
The same way I dispute everything Rodda puts out for the MRFF (on the dozen websites she posts the identical information on). It's unsubstantiated, unrebutted, and out of context. There is insufficient evidence presented with which to draw a valid conclusion.
If the MRFF spent less time grandstanding with hyperbolic press releases and more time actually supporting their accusations, they might sound a bit less like self interested publicity hounds and more like concerned advocates.
Posted by: JD | December 13, 2008 12:58 AM
How is it "unsubstantiated"? It was pulled directly from an Air Force server, it was delivered at a mandatory event and it contains egregious nonsense from start to finish. It was preaching and proselytizing being done at an event that was mandatory to attend for those stationed at the base. What context could change that? What needs to be validated? Or how about the fact that we now have video of Christian missionaries being embedded with troops in Afghanistan, going along with civil affairs officers and handing out Bibles translated into Darri to Afghani people? What part of this is unsubstantiated?
Posted by: Ed Brayton | December 13, 2008 1:34 AM
Substantiate: "to establish by proof or competent evidence"
Just because Rodda or Weinstein say something doesn't make it so. In order to substantiate it, they need to present evidence. I realize you're on the team, so you see things others don't, but there has been no public release of any "evidence" of their accusations, other than a PowerPoint presentation. With only that, the accusations are unsubstantiated.
"how about the fact that we now have video of Christian missionaries being embedded with troops in Afghanistan..."
From the freely available video, I noticed that Weinstein's carefully edited version took out the reason the missionaries gave the military for their presence: humanitarian work, aid to locals, and medical treatment. (Which would be in line with support from civil affairs.) In addition, he edited out the fact that when the missionaries did their missionary work, they did so without the presence of the US military (they walked on their own--against the advice of the military).
This CONTEXT demonstrates that, contrary to your accusation that they were "going along with civil affairs officers and handing out Bibles", the military actually had NOTHING to do with their missionary work.
On a related note, you emphasized the "we now have..." That video is more than 3 years old. To substantiate an accusation, you'd need proof that it was going on now. Given the reality tv nature of the show, I highly doubt that's the case.
So the real question is: Did you even research this, or did you just blindly take Weinstein at his word?
Remember, if two people are thinking exactly the alike on everything, one of them probably isn't thinking at all.
Posted by: JD | December 13, 2008 2:16 AM
It makes no difference that the missionaries "went off on their own" to preach. They were embedded with the military and taken to villages by them, where they then preached to the people and tried to convert them. The military has an explicit policy against this kind of thing and for very good reason. We have tried very hard to maintain to the Muslim world that our war against Bin Laden is not a religious crusade. It obviously undermines that claim to have Christian missionaries riding along with our troops and then working to convert people. Tommy Franks' orders from 2001 were put in place for exactly that reason. Do you seriously think that sort of thing is either wise or in line with Pentagon or administration policy? If so, you're out of your fucking mind.
As for the powerpoint, we have the entire thing. It was taken from an Air Force server. We have confirmed with soldiers who were there that it was presented at a mandatory meeting. All of this more than substantiated and it will be presented in court.
Posted by: Ed Brayton | December 13, 2008 2:43 AM
Here are the claims asserted by Rodda here regarding the Powerpoint Presentation: http://www.talk2action.org/story/2008/11/30/11914/687/Front_Page/Creationism_The_Latest_In_Military_Suicide_Prevention
1) Then I [Rodda] was sent a PowerPoint presentation by an airman at RAF Lakenheath, the largest U.S. Air Force base in England.
2) In March 2008, this presentation, titled "A New Approach To Suicide Prevention: Developing Purpose-Driven Airmen," was shown at a commander's call that was mandatory for an estimated 1,000 of Lakenheath's Air Force personnel,
3) and sent out by email to the entire base of over 5,000 the following day.
The PowerPoint presentation as Rodda presents it is blatantly unconstitutional; I assume it also does not meet military regulations. Not only is it unconstitutional, many of its assertions are untrue. The fact that someone would promote lies rather than promote what we do know that reduces the threat of suicide is also morally repugnant. If the presentation's content was radically different when presented at a commander's call, or there was no commander's call, why have we not heard protests from the military command given the putrid content of this presentation?
The educational background of the claimed presenter, Capt. Christian Biscotti, is consistent with the content of his alma mater, Regent University. Pat Robertson is the founder of Regent. The base character of the person needed to present such a grossly dishonest presentation regarding a critically sensitive subject as this to others is also consistent with the attributes promoted at Regent.
It appears to me that JD is displaying one of the best examples I've ever experienced of childishly putting his hands over his ears and screaming, "I'm not listening, I'm not listening".
He also miserably fails my test of character by focusing his energies on attempting to discredit the MRFF rather than insuring optimal practices to treat the mental health of the Airmen at Lakenheath that were supposedly exposed to such trash by their command.
I look forward to following this story. I doubt JD does.
Posted by: Michael Heath | December 13, 2008 7:11 AM
Ed: "[The missionaries] were embedded with the military..."
Not in a manner inconsistent with any other humanitarian group who were providing medical aid, etc.
"...with the military and taken to villages by them, where they then preached..."
As I pointed out in my previous reply, that statement is inconsistent with the publicly available video. Do you have a citation, or are you just making it up?
"The military has an explicit policy against this kind of thing..."
No, the military does not have an explicit policy of not supporting humanitarian groups who, as civilians, may be free to do other things on their own outside of the military's purview. Or would you like to give me a citation where they do?
Michael Heath: "Here are the claims asserted by Rodda..."
You must have missed my first sentence. Just because Rodda says something does not make it fact. In fact, the "evidence" I cited of the creative editing of the aforementioned video makes me even more skeptical. That tells me they're coloring the allegations they make to conform them to their message. Not very ethical.
"... why have we not heard protests from the military...?"
Probably because it was written into a lawsuit before anyone actually complained to the military. If there was a complaint, they would have answered it. Once it entered litigation, they are restricted in their responses.
"...best examples I've ever experienced of childishly putting his hands over his ears..."
On the contrary, it would appear I'm one of the few willing to concede that the MRFF's statements may not be as they say they are. You two seem to assume some level of omniscient perfection on their part.
My energies are not focused on discrediting the MRFF. They are focused on facts, substantiated by evidence. The fact that the MRFF frequently cites unsubstantiated allegations as evidence of a conspiracy is a fault of theirs, not mine. Ed is now the third person speaking for the MRFF (he said "we") to respond with my request for evidence by "you'll see it in court." Fine. If you're only willing to support the accusations in court, stop spreading the unsupported accusations around outside of it. To continue to do so is intellectually dishonest. Without supporting your accusations with true facts (rather than altered videos and standalone PowerPoint files), you become nothing more than a sensationalist rumor monger. It may get you on CNN (which is what Weinstein says he wants), but it may also makes you look a little foolish.
Posted by: JD | December 13, 2008 11:06 AM
JD wrote:
But so what? Other humanitarian groups don't try and convert Muslims to Christianity while providing such aid. That is a rather obvious difference. One is unconstitutional and inconsistent with military policy and one is not.
Utter bullshit. The missionaries were embedded with the troops. They say themselves on the tapes that they rode around with the military. The video shows them being driven around by the military. They went to the villages with the military's civil affairs officers. Yes, the video shows one day where the two missionaries decided to go off on their own to talk to people, but that hardly changes my point at all. The military was facilitating their proselytizing of the local population.
You didn't answer my question so I'll ask it again: Do you seriously think that sort of thing is either wise or in line with Pentagon or administration policy? The Bush administration has gone to great lengths to communicate to the Muslim world that we are not involved in a religious crusade, that this is not at all about Islam vs Christianity.
Recognizing the danger of inflaming religious passions against the troops and against the United States, Tommy Franks issued a directive that requires American military personnel to follow local law when in country and forbidding them from trying to convert the local population, and this applies to civilians accompanying the troops as well. General Order 1-A says that the order "is applicable to all United States military personnel, and to civilians serving with, employed by, or accompanying the Armed Forces of the United States, while present in the USCENTCOM AOR...". It further says:
And it explicitly forbids "Proselytizing of any religion, faith or practice." And it even goes so far as to give penalties for doing so:
This applies to civilians who are accompanying the troops and the directive applies anywhere in the AOR.
Posted by: Ed Brayton | December 13, 2008 12:29 PM
JD, you may not be aware of all internet traditions, so forgive me for pointing out that this is what we would call getting "pwned".
Posted by: Jeff Hebert | December 13, 2008 12:41 PM
Ed, your explanation eliminates (or ignores) an important distinction. That is convenient for your argument, but does not negate the validity of the point. Neither the Constitution nor GO-1 prohibit the military from mere association with organizations that may have religious intent.
Your use of the term "embed" is in vogue but inaccurate. The military works with a variety of NGOs who provide humanitarian assistance--who may, on their own time, do a variety of other things.
Your repeated question isn't germane, because it is based on a hypothetical. The fact is that there is no publicly available evidence that the military aided anyone in the act of evangelizing. And since the missionaries were not accompanied by the military during their "proselytizing," the very text you quoted indicates that GO-1 does not apply.
Incidentally, I was unaware that GO-1 was publicly available. Do you have a link to an official text?
Posted by: JD | December 13, 2008 2:17 PM
JD stated:
The only way that Army Spc. Dustin Chalker and the Military Religious Freedom Foundation could "color the allegation they make to conform to their message" is:
1) Change the content of the presentation embedded in this link: http://www.talk2action.org/story/2008/11/30/11914/687/Front_Page/Creationism_The_Latest_In_Military_Suicide_Prevention.
2) Lie about the event either having taken place where the presentation was reviewed and/or it requiring attendance.
So JD is now claiming, "that tells me they're [Chalker & MRFF] coloring the allegations they make to conform them to their message". This is presented as a statement of fact by JD, not mere conjecture.
JD - I also noticed you have not responded to our queries regrading the actual content of the presentation. Is such a message constitutional? Is such a message up to military standards? And most importantly, is such a message helpful to the troops in preventing suicide?
The idea that JD promotes that the MRFF would file a federal lawsuit with "colored allegations", like an edited presentation claimed to have been presented and distributed will be easy to validate or not validate at trial and will be a critical finding is incredulous.
I remain disgusted that people like JD would continue to attack the messenger rather than the alleged message, especially given how dangerous the message presented to us is to those who are suicidal. So until we validate whether this presentation was in fact presented and distributed at Lackenheath; if I were in command I would damn sure verify that Mental Health professionals are proactively accessible to the soldiers along with seriously investigating this Regent alumni Chaplain.
I found an apt quote in a MilitaryTimes.com forum on what Commanders who truly care about their troops administrate:
Source: http://www.militarytimes.com/forums/showthread.php?t=1569516 . Posted by LogDog_guest at 10-07-2008, 03:26 PM (60% down the thread).
Posted by: Michael Heath | December 13, 2008 2:19 PM
JD wrote:
And I never said anything like that. The problem is not that the military "merely associates" with a religious group. The problem is that the military allowed a group that was actively proselytizing Muslims in Afghanistan to travel along with them, provided them with protection and endorsed their work. And that is a clear violation of GO-1, which explicitly states that any civilians who are accompanying the military are covered under the same rules.
What they may not do is violate GO-1. The order makes that very clear. Your silly distinction here is irrelevant. When the military takes those missionaries around, provides them protection, houses them on a military base and has them working with them side by side handing out aid to the locals and those missionaries then go back and hand out Bibles to the locals, there is no meaningful distinction between what they do and what the military does. The perception is going to be that they are acting on behalf of the military. That is why GO-1 explicitly applies to civilians who are "serving with, employed by, or accompanying the Armed Forces of the United States." Your attempt to pretend that this doesn't apply here is simply ridiculous. And you're still dodging the question.
Posted by: Ed Brayton | December 13, 2008 3:00 PM
MH, you're mixing my statements. The justification for altered evidence was the MRFF-edited video of the missionaries in Afghanistan, not the PPT slides. I said as a result of their editing, which changed the video in such a way as to make it appear things happened that didn't, it makes me less likely to take MRFF statements at face value.
Also, Chalker is irrelevant to the PPT show; the injunctive relief he seeks involves public prayer only. Weinstein is riding his coattails for the other stuff.
"you have not responded to our queries regrading the actual content of the presentation."
Yes, I did. I said there was "insufficient evidence from which to draw a valid conclusion." You can speculate to no end, but without an airing of the facts, as presented by both sides, it would be difficult to judge it, because, as I said, it depends on substantiation and context.
For your amusement, however, I will say that, by itself (that is, not referencing venue or circumstances), the PPT show is not impermissible. Chaplains are explicitly permitted to speak in accordance with the tenets of their faith.
"continue to attack the messenger rather than the alleged message"
You must have me confused with someone else. I have critiqued only two things--the message and its presentation. I'll steal the thunder though: no conversation on this topic goes far without someone saying the words "ad hominem."
"So until we validate whether this presentation was in fact presented and distributed..."
Ah, so you agree with me that there are yet outstanding facts to be proven? Ed doesn't seem to.
The quote from the message board you cited is interesting, but it makes the same mistake others do: it negates context. Everyone is assuming that this is the only presentation anyone saw on suicide. Who's to say that was actually the case?
I also note that my questions are also being ignored; so, Ed, did you research the issue over the video, or just take Weinstein at his word?
Posted by: JD | December 13, 2008 3:16 PM
Ed: "I never said anything like that..."
Weinstein has, and you indicated you supported his efforts.
"...endorsed their work. And that is a clear violation of GO-1..."
The only apparent endorsement was of humanitarian, not missionary, work, which is not germane to GO-1.
I didn't dodge your question, I said I wasn't going into hypotheticals. On the other hand, you've ignored two of mine to you. But I'll make you a deal. Answer my two questions, and I'll answer yours.
"working with them side by side handing out aid...then go back and hand out Bibles to the locals, there is no meaningful distinction."
That's your opinion, to which you're entitled. Just because you think that, though, does not obligate the military to act on your behalf.
Posted by: JD | December 13, 2008 3:27 PM
This is not a hypothetical. We have actual missionaries embedded with American troops, going to villages with them and handing out aid and then proselytizing them. The question you continue to dodge is quite relevant: how do you think the Afghani people view that? They aren't going to make the silly technical distinction you're trying to make, they're going to see it as Americans coming to convert them. And it was exactly that concern that led to GO-1. You can't deny that, of course, it is obvious to any reasonable person. You know as well as I do that Franks issued that order precisely to avoid having that perception spread because it fuels religious fervor on the other side and puts our troops at more risk. Allowing that to do so only feeds their religious hatred. President Bush knows that and that's why he's gone out of his way to reassure the Muslim world that we are not engaged in a war against Islam but only a war against terrorism. And allowing missionaries to accompany our troops and proselytize Muslims in their own countries clearly violates that principle and undermines sound policy. Again, you can't deny that, which is why you haven't even tried.
Posted by: Ed Brayton | December 13, 2008 3:37 PM
And by the way, this is hardly the only example of this kind of thing going on. We've got an entire squadron in the Air Force, the 523rd Fighter Squadron, that refers to themselves as the Crusaders. They have an emblem, which they wear on their flight suits and jackets, that contains a cross and a sword. Again, this is exactly the opposite of the message that President Bush and the Pentagon have tried so hard to send to the Muslim world.
We have Christian organizations sending thousands of Bibles translated into Arabic to the troops, which can only be for one purpose: to hand out to local citizens and try to convert them. We've had soldiers handing out religious tracts and medallions urging them to convert to Christianity. The one who was handing out the medallions in Iraq was removed from duty. Why do you suppose that was done? Because him doing so fuels the anger of Muslims and gives them the idea that our soldiers are there representing Christianity and that the war against the terrorists is really a war to convert them. That is exactly the message we need most to avoid sending, and having missionaries embedded with our troops handing out Bibles and trying to convert people in Afghanistan clearly sends that very message. And again, you make no effort to deny this because you know damn well that there is no reasoned argument against it. So you change the subject and try to focus on the minutiae of legal technicalities rather than the obvious reality.
Posted by: Ed Brayton | December 13, 2008 3:45 PM
Re: the 523rd. No, we don't "have." We had. That squadron no longer exists, and hasn't for some time. But Weinstein continues to beat that drum, and you obviously regurgitated his assertions without bothering to look up the facts. I thought you "declared independence?" You've indicated only an ability to repeat what Weinstein/Rodda/the MRFF have told you.
"We have Christian organizations sending thousands of Bibles translated into Arabic to the troops..."
And? Would you have the US government restrict the actions of free civilian citizens?
"We've had soldiers handing out religious tracts and medallions urging them to convert to Christianity."
The circumstances of that incident, which are known, indicate that the Marine (not soldier, and yes, there is a difference) in question was undoubtedly violating orders. His poor judgment does not mean that the US military is out on a holy war brought about by institutional Christian bias, which Weinstein continues to assert.
You fail to understand that if the missionaries weren't in violation of GO-1 (which they weren't), the fact that it doesn't look good to you doesn't give anyone the ability to do anything about it. The reason that the GO says "with US armed forces" is because the US military has no jurisdiction over American civilians who are overseas of their own accord. Once they leave the compound, the military has no control over them.
The only way to fairly enforce your interpretation of the GO is to ban military interaction with any NGO, because you never know when one might go out and do something that the military might be held accountable for. It's an untenable position.
You may think I'm overcome with minutia, but that's because I understand the far-reaching effects of broad-swath statements on behavior in the US military. The impact of some of these discussions goes far beyond just the topics at hand.
Posted by: JD | December 13, 2008 5:06 PM
Psst JD, better not tell Col. Michael L Bartley that the 523d Fighter squadron "...no longer exists, and hasn't for some time." He'll be pissed to find out that he was the Operations Officer for a phantom unit (as will the folks at Cannon AFB, NM - They seem to think that 'The Crusaders' are part of the 27th Fighter Wing). -DJ
Posted by: DingoJack | December 13, 2008 6:14 PM
Christ, you are dense, JD. No, I take that back. You're not dense, you're intentionally spewing what you must know is bullshit because it serves your ends. You are absolutely part of the problem of that MRFF exists to fight, one of the many people in the military who thinks that their job is to convert people to their religion rather than to do what is in the best interests of the country. You know damn well that having Christian missionaries traveling with American troops trying to convert Muslims undermines the mission and fuels anti-American hatred. You just don't care because you have a different mission. Every distortion you throw out and every idiotic argument you make to defend this is more evidence that MRFF is on the right track.
Posted by: Ed Brayton | December 13, 2008 7:53 PM
DJ-
Bartley was DO in 2001--nearly 7 years ago. The entire 27th FW was BRAC'd in 2005. The 27th Fighter Wing, and the 523rd, no longer exist. Cannon is now home to the 27th Special Ops Wing. The folks at Cannon are quite aware of that, though you apparently aren't.
Cannon's website: http://www.cannon.af.mil/
"...one of the many people in the military who thinks that their job is to convert people..."
That assertion has little fact behind it.
"you're intentionally spewing...every idiotic argument you make..."
It's been nice having a civil conversation with you.
Posted by: JD | December 13, 2008 8:58 PM
JD - Sorry problem of definition at this end "For some time" to me means longer than a mere 3 years, I thought you meant it was nonexistent for 10 years or something*.
Air Force Link 30 August 2007As for the 27th Fighter Wing:
So I'll give you that one on a technicality. :)
What's "BRAC'd" mean? Bear in mind I'm not in any AF, and I'm a stupid foreigner. - :D DJ
*However I also found:
Air Force Link 19 Jan 2007
Weird huh? Perhaps they meant the 524th Aircraft Maintenance Unit or something.
Posted by: DingoJack | December 13, 2008 9:28 PM