Ed Brayton is a journalist, commentator and speaker. He is the co-founder and president of 
Bravo to the Air Force for rejecting a request for a flyover at the "God and Country Rally" put on by the Christian Defense Coalition in Idaho over the weekend. The group went ballistic over this, of course, putting out a press release full of self-righteous outrage.
"For years, flyovers have been allowed by the Pentagon at the 'God and Country Rally' in Nampa Idaho. These flyovers were not to endorse or promote any one religious faith tradition. Rather, they were held to honor and pay tribute to our heroic men and women who have served or are currently serving in our armed forces. "For the Obama Administration to deny a flyover for the first time, is a slap in the face to all those who proudly serve our country especially when we are at war. These flyovers have been a special part of the 'God and Country Rally' for many years.
But Mahoney is simply lying. Take a look at the "about" page from this event's website, where they spell out the purpose of the event quite plainly and it doesn't have anything to do with the military:
Our mission is primarily about spreading the Good News of Jesus Christ. We believe this Festival, started in 1967, is an incredible tool to share this Good News by strengthening the fabric of our society through our connection to family and country.We want to encourage believers everywhere to get out in their communities, not just to strengthen each other, but to encourage family, friends, neighbors, and coworkers to learn more about who Jesus Christ is and what He's done for each and every one of us.
To borrow a phrase from Michael Boerner of Mission Media,
In order to witness to people, you have to do the following:
* Bless people
* Fellowship with them
* Meet their needs
* Present the TruthThis, in a nutshell, is what the Treasure Valley God and Country Festival attempts to do. The stated purpose of the Festival is to meet the following goals:
1. Develop a sense of community spirit in a relaxed, social atmosphere, making all citizens of the Treasure Valley feel welcome in friendship.
2. Present a safe, pleasing, and inspiring fireworks display to commemorate our country's independence.
3. Dedicate a significant portion of the program to emphasize, particularly to young people, the precepts on which our country was founded: Individual rights, belief in God, a representative form of government guided by an assemblage of laws created by elected individuals, sanctity of human life, and all other rights outlined in the Constitution and its supporting documents.
4. Present the Good News of Jesus Christ in a clear and concise manner.
5. Avoid any pretense or appearance of a political rally.
6. Remind those who attend of their good fortune to live in a free society and also their responsibilities to maintain the freedoms which they enjoy.We are attempting to meet steps one and two, to bless people and fellowship with them, through music, kids' activities, and teens' activities.
After we have done that, we attempt to accomplish step three, to meet their needs, by promoting community activities such as "Communities in Action," and other organizations whose goal is to meet peoples' needs with a Christian heart.
At the end of the evening, we move to step four, presenting the Truth. Each year, we ensure that the message of the Gospel is presented, and information is provided for those who have heard and want to know more about Jesus Christ.
There isn't a single word in there about "honoring and paying tribute" to the military and the whole thing makes clear that when Mahoney says the purpose of the event is "not to endorse or promote any one religious faith tradition" he is lying through his teeth. Given the clearly sectarian nature of the event and its sole purpose of proselytizing for the Christian religion, it is entirely appropriate for the Pentagon to refuse to take part in the proceedings. And all the talk of how this means the Pentagon is refusing to honor the troops is pure demagoguery.
Politics
Comments
Decrying "the Obama Administration" as responsible for this decision adds another layer of absurdity. It's not as if he personally made this decision, or necessarily even appointed whoever did; unless shown otherwise, I would assume that whoever made it has probably been in his position at the Pentagon for years.
It's nice to see the military taking a non-Christian stance on a religious issue for a change. Not anti-Christian, of course --- simply maintaining neutrality with regard to religion here, as it should.
~David D.G.
Posted by: David D.G. | July 7, 2009 1:31 PM
I suggest everyone take the advice given on the homepage of this festival and contact the Pentagon. Only contact them to pat them on the back for making the correct decision. I know I did.
Posted by: Nick | July 7, 2009 1:39 PM
Yeah, some guy in a uniform probably decided those planes -- and the fuel, and the pilots, and the spare parts -- were better spent supporting the troops on the battlefield, not "honoring" them on the side of the planet where they were needed least. The fact that one bunch of "Christians" had a problem with that, really says a lot about their priorities.
Posted by: Raging Bee | July 7, 2009 1:39 PM
Someone is actually lying for Jesus?
Posted by: soboco | July 7, 2009 1:51 PM
It is good to know that the Air Force consists of nothing but trained seals willing to perform on the spur of the moments. Fishers of Men -- NOT!
Posted by: kehrsam | July 7, 2009 1:58 PM
I'm sure the same people were quick to condemn the infamous flyover of Airforce One above NY a few months back. Hey at least the administration is listening to you, It was probably considered a waste of taxpayers money to do so. The hypocrisy it burns.
Posted by: Doug Little | July 7, 2009 2:08 PM
...are they using "fellowship" as a verb?!
Posted by: Squiddhartha | July 7, 2009 2:27 PM
...are they using "fellowship" as a verb?!
Yeah, that's been pretty standard evangelicalspeak since at least my day (ie. almost 40 years). It might even be Standard English, though I can't think of an example offhand ("fellowship" has few uses outside of Christianity). But it's not worth getting critical over: all groups develop their own jargon.
Posted by: Eamon Knight | July 7, 2009 2:33 PM
Contrary to some assertions, there's not actually anything that says the military can't perform flybys of events that have religious content.
The discriminator is whether or not it is a patriotic event. Is this? That's a legitimate point of discussion. Whether or not the religious content is appropriate should be irrelevant.
The AF could have communicated its refusal on those grounds; there was no need to say that a flyby was unauthorized because it was a Christian event. Religion should never have been part of the discussion. All that did was create unnecessary controversy.
To "congratulate" the AF for rejecting the request on religious grounds is no less self-righteous than those who are condemining it for the same reasons.
Previously discussed:
http://christianfighterpilot.com/blog/?p=362
Posted by: JD | July 7, 2009 2:35 PM
Squid, that was my first thought too. It's bad enough to use "interface" as a verb. But "fellowship"????
Posted by: Dr. Kate | July 7, 2009 2:35 PM
Doug Little,
What on Earth does one have to do with the other? I have absolutely no idea whether any one here condemned the NY flyover or not, do you? What is your point, and where do you see any sign of hypocrisy?
Posted by: Drekab | July 7, 2009 2:39 PM
Drekab, I think Doug means that the flyover-seekers probably condemned the AF1 flyover. Personally I wouldn't jump to that conclusion, though I can see why Doug would.
JD, perhaps the military can do flyovers at a religious event... but they shouldn't.
Posted by: Squiddhartha | July 7, 2009 2:45 PM
JD is apparently unfamiliar with the applicable Department of Defense issuances, such as DoD Instruction Number 5410.19, one of several that apply to aerial support at civilian events. The exact wording in Instruction Number 5410.19 is:
"Community relations activities shall not support, or appear to support, any event that provides a selective benefit to any individual, group, or organization, including any religious or sectarian organization, ideological movement, political campaign or organization, or commercial enterprise..."
Posted by: Chris Rodda | July 7, 2009 2:54 PM
JD - why not quit being such a hypocrite and admit that you do not like the fact that our government has been denied powers to promote your brand of the Christian religion. And that your obligation to serve your religion's evangelical mission is greater than your obligation to defend the Constitution.
People will respect your position far more if you're honest with them about where you are coming from rather than your continual attempts to insult our intelligence with your weasly attempts to argue for hairline fractures that do not exist in the plain meaning and original understanding of the Constitution.
The principle idea ratified in our Constitution is quite clear when it comes government endorsement of sectarian faith or government support to promote sectarian faith. I have yet to see your continual arguments attempting to outflank these principles fool anyone in this forum. At least for me, rather than considering your argument, I consider the dishonesty and hypocrisy in the argument itself.
Posted by: Michael Heath | July 7, 2009 3:10 PM
The discriminator is whether or not it is a patriotic event. Is this?
They're supposed to fly over every patriotic event in the entire freakin universe?
Posted by: 386sx | July 7, 2009 3:12 PM
Chris: How does that definition not prevent flyovers at the Super Bowl or regional air shows? These are highly commercial activities, are they not? I really don't see how any display not connected to a government or military event could pass that reg. What am I missing?
Posted by: kehrsam | July 7, 2009 3:15 PM
There are actually a few exceptions in the regulations for certain types of public events, such as air shows.
Posted by: Chris Rodda | July 7, 2009 3:19 PM
Here's what the the pentagon really said, by the way:
http://www.moaablogs.org/battleofthebilge/2009/07/godandcountry_flyover/
Oh, and the ever lovable happy-go-lucky Reverend Klingensmitt prays for the "cowardly bureaucrat in the Pentagon" to burn in hell, of course.
Posted by: 386sx | July 7, 2009 3:24 PM
The discriminator is whether or not it is a patriotic event. Is this? That's a legitimate point of discussion. Whether or not the religious content is appropriate should be irrelevant.
I'll have to remember that the next time I'm setting up a patriotic rally for the KKK. I'll call the Air Force and request a flyover, but only by white, protestant fighter pilots for my rally to honor the strength the white race has given Amerikuh.
Then we'll have activities for the happy, prosperous, white American children and a fireworks display after the lynching. And we'll have those red, white, and blue bomb pops and everyone will decorate their hooded robes with a stars and stripes motif.
[/sarcasm]
Posted by: Geds | July 7, 2009 3:25 PM
Rodda quoted:
And since the event in question was open to the public, your argument is invalid.
Yes, JD is quite familiar with DODI 5410.19, which is why I know the sentence that follows the one you're quoting:
Rodda, Weinstein, and the MRFF continue to carry the canard that association is equivalent to endorsement. If that were the case, the military would be endorsing NASCAR, Budweiser, "Eat Fresh," and every religious building that houses the funeral of a servicemember authorized a flyby. They're all non-Federal entities authorized community relations support.
The regulation doesn't say you can't support one; it says if you support one, you have to be willing to support them all in order to prevent the appearance of benefit.
The title to the paragraph you're citing is Selective Benefit and Preferential Treatment. If the "God and Country Festival" is a patriotic event, it is entitled to the same support as any other, as required by the DoDI you cited.
I'm not saying the event should necessarily have been supported; I maintain only that any decision regarding support should have been unrelated to religion.
Posted by: JD | July 7, 2009 3:25 PM
That all depends -- to him, his narrow sect isn't just "one religious faith tradition" -- it's the ONLY TRUE ONE and the rest are blasphemous spawn of the Devil.
Apparently he's used to the Air Force agreeing with him on that.
Posted by: D. C. Sessions | July 7, 2009 3:29 PM
JD wrote:
This strikes me as nonsensical. Every event at which a flyby would be requested could easily be called a patriotic event - by the mere nature of having the Pentagon do a fly by. By JD's reasoning, all any other kind of event would have to do in order to qualify as "patriotic" is to take 5 minutes during the event to ask people to honor the military by observing this flyover. Voila, it is now a patriotic event. But if that was the case, why would there be any mention at all of restrictions on doing flyovers at events that would be viewed as benefiting a "religious or sectarian organization, ideological movement, political campaign or organization, or commercial enterprise"? Obviously, the mere fact that the flyover portion of the event is "patriotic" has no bearing on whether the flyover has to be done or not; if that was the case, the nature of the event aside from that flyover would be irrelevant and it's not. The very fact that there are standards that say they can't do flyovers under certain circumstances proves false the idea that the only thing that matters is that the event is "patriotic." And the fact that the military does flyovers at events that are not patriotic in nature, like the Super Bowl or a Nascar race, also proves that the patriotic nature of the event is simply not the relevant standard.
The nature of this event is not in dispute. The mission statement that I quoted above is absolutely clear that the sole mission of the event is to proselytize for Jesus. Surely it can't be true that all one has to do in order to qualify for a flyover is to take a few minutes in the middle of an event with an entirely different purpose for the flyover itself?
Can you imagine how different the response would be from JD and his ideological compatriots if, say, the Nation of Islam had a similar event, requested a flyover and was refused?
Posted by: Ed Brayton | July 7, 2009 3:41 PM
JD, since you've now Googled the regulation, why didn't you include the part that lists the following under "Unauthorized Community Relations Activities" --
"Activities that involve or give the appearance of involving the promotion, endorsement, or sponsorship of any individual commercial enterprises, religious or sectarian organizations, ideological movements, and political campaigns and organizations."
There is no "selective benefit" statement in this section to muddy the issue. And, none of the criteria that follow this section, which an event must satisfy at least one of to be eligible for military support, were satisfied by the "God and Country Rally." The description of the mission of their event on their own website makes this absolutely clear.
Posted by: Chris Rodda | July 7, 2009 3:53 PM
Yes, JD is quite familiar with DODI 5410.19, which is why I know the sentence that follows the one you're quoting:
"When DoD support is provided to one non-Federal entity, the DoD Component commands or organizations providing such support must be able and willing to provide similar support to comparable events sponsored by similar non-Federal entities."
Yeah but you have to get past the first part first:
"Community relations activities shall not support, or appear to support, any event that provides a selective benefit to any individual, group, or organization, including any religious or sectarian organization, ideological movement, political campaign or organization, or commercial enterprise..."
You have to get past the first part first in order to proceed to the stuff that is after it. You have to pass "go" first.
Posted by: 386sx | July 7, 2009 3:55 PM
JD wrote:
Would you stop playing dumb in your attempts at sarcasm? It's really annoying. I'm not going to buy that your reading comprehension skills are so poor that you could have read the regulations and just completely missed or didn't understand that the military's endorsement of certain commercial events is allowed if it is for the purpose is to promote the military for the benefit of recruitment or retention efforts. This is why the military sponsors monster trucks, a race car, sporting events, etc., but I'm sure you already know that.
Posted by: Chris Rodda | July 7, 2009 4:04 PM
Geds, the reg has you covered:
385sx:
Nothing requires them to support anything; they merely have to use objective criteria in the selection process, and the presence of religious content is not one of the listed criteria. Religion only enters the picture when there is the perception of endorsement of that religion.
D.C.:
Ed poorly summarized his quote. Mahoney said: "These flyovers were not to endorse or promote any one religious faith tradition." He didn't say the festival itself. Mahoney wasn't lying, he was talking about something different than that of which Ed is accusing him.
Ed said:
Ed, try reading for comprehension. The word "if" is conditional. I'm not asserting that the event was patriotic.
That wasn't an opinion. The reg says there are two kinds of approved support activities: patriotic events and aviation-related events. Since the event was obviously not aviation related, when the Pentagon statement said it "did not fall into either approved category," it indicated that it was not considered a patriotic event.
Ed said:
There are allegations that the NOI discriminates based on race, which would be explicitly precluded by the same regulation.
You might be interested to note that the DoDI does not prohibit support of activities sponsored by organizations that restrict membership based on religion.
Rodda said:
Because the flyby of the event would not promote, endorse, or sponsor the religion any more than a flyby of another event promotes, endorses, or sponors Sprint over AT&T. Really, do I keep having to do this research for you? The MRFF is going to have to start paying me.
386sx:
Your quote says it can't provide a selective benefit, not that it can't be religious.
Posted by: JD | July 7, 2009 4:06 PM
It's pretty clear that Mahoney, uhhhhh, forgot the purpose of the event, and that the event was "religious or sectarian" out the wazoo. And it's pretty clear what DODI 5410.19 has to say about that.
Posted by: 386sx | July 7, 2009 4:07 PM
Rodda said:
Interesting, inaccurate, and irrelevant. No one asked the Air Force to endorse the God and Country Festival.
My point of comparison was that if you are so ignorant as to believe that an AF flyby inherently endorses the viewpoint of those flown over, you must also believe that the AF endorses a variety of other things that it is merely associated with. The latter is not the case, and neither is the former.
Posted by: JD | July 7, 2009 4:18 PM
Interesting, inaccurate, and irrelevant. No one asked the Air Force to endorse the God and Country Festival.
Yeah but they're not supposed to give the "appearance" of endorsement. (I think yer just being silly. :P Have a good day though.)
Posted by: 386sx | July 7, 2009 4:23 PM
Actually, JD, the Air Force does out and out endorse and sponsor certain things, and there's nothing wrong with this -- if the military's sponsorship or endorsement is for the purpose of boosting recruitment. So, they sponsor events that target and attract an audience with a lot of military age, potential recruits, such as motocross events, NASCAR, football and baseball games, and things like that. This is a separate issue from the military's participation in patriotic events.
And, of course, since the Constitution contains no statement saying that 'Congress shall make no law establishing car racing or football,' it's apples and oranges to compare these things to religious events.
Posted by: Chris Rodda | July 7, 2009 4:32 PM
I suppose that a subsidy to the tune of five-six figures doesn't necessarily count as "endorsement."
Posted by: D. C. Sessions | July 7, 2009 4:35 PM
Yikes, from the Idaho Press-Tribune:
I can't believe the reporter printed that without criticism. At least he presented a view of someone in touch with reality in the next two paragraphs.
Posted by: Johnny Clamboat | July 7, 2009 5:48 PM
Posted by: James Hanley | July 7, 2009 8:25 PM
"God and Country Rally". Even without reading their mission statement, with that title, how could anybody not realize the event is wholly religious and wholly associated with one particular religious viewpoint? And that its organizers do not know how (or refuse) to read their Constitution and history books?
Posted by: Gray Gaffer | July 7, 2009 8:35 PM
Let them have their fly over and then hand them a bill for fuel, wear and tear on the aircraft, ground crew pay, maintianance costs, and pilot pay!!!!!
Posted by: Ed | July 7, 2009 8:44 PM
"4. Present the Good News of Jesus Christ in a clear and concise manner."
Gee, who could ever think that a military flyover over an event with the above as one of its goals would be endorsing or promoting "any one religious faith tradition?"
Posted by: daniel rotter | July 7, 2009 8:56 PM
Posted by: James Hanley | July 7, 2009 9:51 PM
386sx:
Well, your link provided JD another place to spread his disinformation. I left a note for him.
Posted by: democommie | July 7, 2009 9:52 PM
JD,
That's irrelevant. Reread the bit 386sx posted:
""Community relations activities shall not support, or appear to support, any event that provides a selective benefit to any individual, group, or organization, including any religious or sectarian organization, ideological movement, political campaign or organization, or commercial enterprise...""
The God and Country Festival provides a selective benefit to Christianity, so the Air Force can't support it. It doesn't matter if the Air Force doesn't actually endorse the religion itself. If it looks like it's supporting the event, that's a no-no. And how could providing a free flyover be anything other than support?
Posted by: Anton Mates | July 7, 2009 10:01 PM
Chris said:
Actually, Chris, I am unaware of any exception that allows the US military to endorse anything. At the risk of doing your research for you (again), if you go to the Air Force "sponsorship" website (at which you can find the links to the monster truck, NASCAR, etc.) it says clearly across the bottom:
As before, your own example proves your point invalid.
The Air Force certainly has sponsored things, by, for example, contributing money to them. It is forbidden by law from endorsing them. And before somebody calls word police, I wasn't the one to invent that distinction.
Just because you think, incorrectly, that the military endorses some things merely by being associated with them does NOT mean that is the case. The military is capable of co-existing with a variety of organizations without lending them an endorsement.
A flyby is not an endorsement of the views, opinions, or feelings of those that are overflown (otherwise, no flyby would ever be permitted). The Air Force DOES take sponsoring organizations into account and forbids, for example, support for events sponsored by racists. It does not include religion in that restriction.
The criteria for deciding whether or not a flyby is permissible does not include the religious viewpoints of those sponsoring the event. That isn't because the Air Force is ignoring religion or simply hasn't thought of it: for example, if the event was open only to Christians (or some other religion), the regs do prohibit support of that.
Consistent with DODI 5410.19 para 6.7.2, since this event did not provide a selective benefit to any individual or group, the whole issue of endorsement or religion is irrelevant.
The only legitimate question (and, as I have repeated, it is valid) is whether or not the event is inherently a patriotic one--because the AF flyby rules only indicate support for two kinds of events: aviation-related or patriotic events near holidays. Religion, as it pertains to this case, is irrelevant.
Posted by: JD | July 7, 2009 10:25 PM
Are you on active duty, JD?
Is this part of your mission?
Posted by: democommie | July 7, 2009 10:31 PM
Mates,
The US Department of Defense defines "selective benefit" as:
Now its up to you to specify the "support or assistance" that the God and Country Festival is making to Christianity but is not normally, or could not be made, available to another. Since the event was open to the public, I suspect it will be difficult to do so.
Feel free to toss out "what if an Islamic group asked for a booth" argument. That's called argumentum ad speculum. (Never pass up the opportunity to put Latin (or the word "speculum") in an asinine argument on the internet.) I'd recommend you mark that on your calendar and try again next year.
If you want to use the government's words against them, you have to use their definitions. You can't make up your own.
Posted by: JD | July 7, 2009 10:40 PM
JD,
Um. How exactly is an event that is, explicitly, "primarily about spreading the Good News of Jesus Christ," not of selective benefit to certain religious organizations?
Posted by: Anton Mates | July 7, 2009 10:41 PM
That's easy. The festival is "spreading the Good News of Jesus Christ." Next!
Why would it matter? Even if an Islamic group had a booth, it still wouldn't receive the same benefit as the sponsoring churches and Christian universities from a festival overtly celebrating Christianity.
Posted by: Anton Mates | July 7, 2009 10:53 PM
JD:
Can you answer the question I asked? If not, I'll assume it would be "Yes" and "No".
Posted by: democommie | July 7, 2009 10:53 PM
We're already past the "selective benefit" issue.
The "Unauthorized Community Relations Activities" section of the DoD instruction prohibits military participation in "Activities that involve or give the appearance of involving the promotion, endorsement, or sponsorship of any individual commercial enterprises, religious or sectarian organizations, ideological movements, and political campaigns and organizations."
This is actually the more applicable section to this situation, and was the section cited in the letter denying the flyover. There is no "selective benefit" clause attached to it, and it also it also contains the list of criteria that an event must satisfy at least one of in order to be eligible. This event didn't satisfy any of the things listed.
The "selective benefit" issue would only be relevant if the event was eligible for this "benefit" in the first place, which this one wasn't.
Posted by: Chris Rodda | July 7, 2009 11:13 PM
While I understand Chris Rodda's point, I would like to point out the weakness of the J.D.'s "no selective benefits claim." That is, to note that his argument fails on whichever grounds are used.
J.D. notes that, "the event was open to the public," in defense of the argument that there's no selective benefit. But there is no plausible argument to be made in support of the claim that any substantial numbe of people from the public who are not Christian will attend. If J.D. can demonstrate that a substantial portion of the crowd in Nampa, Idaho *((!!!))* will be Jewish, Buddhist, Muslim, Hindu, atheist, etc., then I'll grant him his claim. But simply saying that an event is "open" to the public does not mean a wide cross-section of the public will feel welcome there or have any interest in attending. And the very title, along with the location, works to ensure that it will in fact be a very narrow slice of the public that attends.
Posted by: James Hanley | July 7, 2009 11:25 PM
Rodda-
The "Unauthorized Community Relations Activities" section you are so confidently citing is in the checklist at the back of the instruction, and "is not intended to provide all-inclusive guidance...the implementing procedures in this Instruction shall be the final determinant."
You're citing the Cliffs Notes and ignoring the parent regulation.
You also said:
The "selective benefit" in question is that which the supported organization bestows, not that which the organization receives.
I'm tired of correcting your continuous misreading and misapplication of publicly available government policies. Feel free to make further incorrect citations and insinuations without my input.
Posted by: JD | July 7, 2009 11:31 PM
True, but JD has already applied his mad hermeneutic skillz to "promotion, endorsement and sponsorship" in the same way he has to "selective benefit." I think he's more or less equally butchered both phrases so far.
Posted by: Anton Mates | July 7, 2009 11:31 PM
Let's think about this "open to the public" rationale for a minute. The evangelical Christians would like nothing better than to draw non-Christians to their event so that they can evangelize them, and their event being open to the public means non-Christians can come. But, obviously, non-Christians aren't going to show up for the Christian music and preaching, so they need to have something cool at the event that will make these non-Christians come to their event in spite of the fact that it's a Christian event. Hey, how about a really cool military flyover? I bet a bunch of non-Christians who would never go to a Christian event would come to see that, and then they would be a captive audience to hear some Jesus talk. So, the military would unquestionably be aiding the promotion of Christianity by providing the thing that would draw non-Christians to the event.
Posted by: Chris Rodda | July 7, 2009 11:33 PM
JD,
No, it's not. For the third time:
"any event that provides a selective benefit to any individual, group, or organization,"
See how "event" is the subject of "provides" and "organization" is the indirect object? That means that the benefit in question is received by the supported organization, and bestowed by the event. Just like, for instance, Christian organizations receive a selective benefit from a festival which is intended to spread the Gospel.
Posted by: Anton Mates | July 7, 2009 11:38 PM
Dowty (JD's last name, since he annoyingly insists on addressing me as Rodda)...
Are you saying that the enclosures to a DoD Instruction aren't considered to be part of the Instruction? If you are, that's got to be the funniest thing I've ever seen you post!
Go read the references listed for the sections of the enclosures to DoD Instruction 5410.19 that I cited. The references are to DoD Directive 5410.18 -- not an enclosure, but the body of the Directive. Get it? The enclosure to the Instruction lists the corresponding applicable parts of the Directive, as is often the case. You haven't read too many of these things, have you?
Posted by: Chris Rodda | July 7, 2009 11:57 PM
Dowty wrote:
Huh? What the f*ck are you talking about? The "benefit" in "selective benefit" is what the organization receives from the government.
Posted by: Chris Rodda | July 8, 2009 12:06 AM
Rodda said:
In the face of such a compelling argument, I stand corrected. This rendering of the subject sentence makes more sense:
Given that, however, it still doesn't show that the flyby benefited an individual or organization in a unique way not available (or capable of being made available) to another, as required by the DoDI.
This conversation has come full circle, and is now going in circles.
Posted by: JD | July 8, 2009 12:54 AM
I'm new to this blog, never posted before, but found myself reading thru the give-and-take between JD and everyone else. Why bother? JD seems to be one of those people who enjoys stirring other people up. He's clever, but not wise. He just likes to get a rise out of everyone. Ignore him.
Posted by: stumpy | July 8, 2009 1:01 AM
Oh, why stop there, JD? How about:
I think that must be what the DoD meant to say, don't you? Silly people, always dropping important words like that.
Posted by: Anton Mates | July 8, 2009 2:24 AM
The Bible instructs Christians "Be not of this world," and what could be more of this world than an American warplane? Bearing in mind the warning against wolves in sheep's clothing, what could be more anodyne sheeplike than an event dedicated to "God and country"? Is it remotely possible that this event is a Satanic front?
Posted by: pastor kayle | July 8, 2009 3:39 AM
Yes, the American military is a hotbed of anti-Christianity extremism. Please, somebody call Amnesty International because these folks is getting there rights taken away by evil old socialists. If the paperwork had been denied by People for the American Way that'd be one thing but the military is about as pro-Christian of an institution that you can get in our government since so many of its members are evangelical Christians.
IF there was a legal way to read the law in the favor of the group I'm certain the military would've read it that way and favored the group. And I am also certain with the countless lawyers at the AF's disposal that they are the ones interpreting the law correctly as opposed to some blogger who wants to dissect what the word is is all about as opposed to realizing some common sense: the military is both conservative and heavily Christian by nature so if JD's assertions were correct somebody at the AF would've interpreted the rules in the asinine way JD insists they be interpreted.
Posted by: brentbent | July 8, 2009 4:27 AM
...are they using "fellowship" as a verb?!
It means "to ship a fellow", presumably in a shipping crate. It is typically done by terrorists and slave-owners.
Posted by: ??? | July 8, 2009 8:23 AM
JD, of christianfighterpilot.com, hypocritically bewails thusly:
This conversation has come full circle, and is now going in circles.
And why is that? Because JD refuses to acknowledge the fact, repeatedly explained here, that showing support for a clearly religious/sectarian event is against clear and fundamental rules of the Air Force, not to mention the US Constitution. Like so many other religulous bigots and liars, JD has done everything he can to ignore reason and facts, twist the argument in circles, then pretend to blame others for the circular agguments.
And no, an Air Force flyover at a Pagan event would not make things better; it would still be both unconstitutional and against Air Force rules. Showing support for two religions, or three or a hundred, is no more acceptable than showing support for just one.
And besides, as I said before, aren't those planes, pilots, parts and fuel needed elsewhere? Funny how our oh-so-patriotic Christian fighter pilot didn't address that issue.
Posted by: Raging Bee | July 8, 2009 9:27 AM
When you mis quoted the guy did you do it on purpose to make your point ?!?
He said "These flyovers were not to endorse or promote any one religious faith"
You said he said ? "when Mahoney says the purpose of the event is "not to endorse or promote any one religious faith tradition" he is lying through his teeth."
Posted by: Forrest | July 8, 2009 10:04 AM
The USAF should have done a flyover -- and dropped some napalm on these demon-ridden idiots.
Posted by: Eddie Van Helsing | July 8, 2009 10:11 AM
Well stated Raging Bee at 60.
This has always been the case with JD since he first appeared in this forum several months back. Like many conservative Christians, he wants to create a false position that the objectives of his sect's faith are in line with Constitutional law and the principles inherent in the Constitution. Yet it's clear through his actions he has complete disregard for the Constitution relative to the objectives of the religious right who want, and often succeed, in unconstitutionally leveraging the power of government on behalf of their religious objectives.
I do not think he's delusional regarding this contradiction like so many who share his position given the disingenuous of his arguments; instead it appears he's just plain dishonest.
Posted by: Michael Heath | July 8, 2009 10:14 AM
JD @16
It does prevent flyovers at the Superbowl (and regional airshows are permitted under the regulation). This is why special waivers of that regulation are required in order to do flyovers at sporting events. The waivers are granted because the flyovers at sporting events are part of recruitment activity, not simply community relations.
Posted by: W. Kevin Vicklund | July 8, 2009 11:25 AM
It's high time that tax money is NOT spent entertaining religious gatherings anywhere. War spending is bad enuf, we don't need grandstanding christians bellyaching about nonsense.
The question is: Why did the pentagon get this one right?
Posted by: MNGuy | July 8, 2009 8:40 PM
To #61: How exactly would a flyover over an event celebrating one religion and one religion only not "endorse or promote any one religious faith?"
Posted by: daniel rotter | July 8, 2009 8:45 PM
Im not saying it does or does not. I'm just blown away by the blatant misquote - followed by the unnecessary insult.
Posted by: forrest | July 13, 2009 5:36 PM
Several years ago my husband took a patriotic and historical trip to Washington DC with our son. In looking at the pictures and souvenirs when they came home, I became very aware of a few things. Already aware that "In God We Trust" is written on our US currency, I was rather amazed to see references to God written EVERYWHERE throughout our nations capitol...written on buildings, in famous speeches, and in official government documents. I was never more aware that our country was based on Christian principles. God is referred to in our National Anthem..."God" is in the US Pledge of Allegiance (or at least it USED to be - so I am told) Like it or not, THAT is our HISTORY, our HERITAGE. That is where we came from! We are still a free nation, you can worship whomever you want - or no one at all if you so choose...we have the freedom to even debate on these issues! For me, I am an American, and a patriot. I know our country has made mistakes...but I don't want to change our heritage! With all this in mind, I truly do not see how a "God and Country" rally could NOT be considered patriotic! They should have permitted the military fly-over tradition at a festival that is held in honor of our MILITARY!
Posted by: Mom in CA | August 23, 2009 11:48 AM
Mon in CA: Hate to break it to you; all that "Ceremonial Religiosity" dates back to the 1950's. The 'Founding Fathers' of the US would probably be appalled at the modern government's insistance that private citizens have to be religious, even if they aren't. -DJ
Posted by: DingoJack | August 23, 2009 12:06 PM
It should also be noted that if you want to be taken seriously, you should not capitalise random words. It does not add emphasis it just makes you come across as slightly nuts.
Posted by: Ramel | August 23, 2009 12:17 PM
DJ...."Ceremonial Religiosity" began long before the 1950 marker you are talking about. Let's go way back to the Colonial Times. The main reason many people came to America was to search for religious freedom. They came to America to escape the religious persecution they faced in their home countries. America was much more "religious" then, than it is now. I'm so sorry you feel pressured about religion. Some people believe in a "higher power" - and it works for them. That is their right. You have the right not to believe as well. That's America. But, America is far from the "One Nation Under God" that our Forefathers intended. They would roll over in their graves at the apathy and impudence in the world today.
Ramel....Thank you for your grammar lesson. I guess this isn't a venue for a mature discussion of beliefs, information, and opinions that we may be PASSIONATE about. This is apparently a venue for some people's insulting comments.
Posted by: Mom in CA | August 24, 2009 1:37 AM
But DJ is right. One nation under god isn't from the birth of the US, it's from the red scare.
Posted by: tincture | August 24, 2009 2:03 AM
Mom in CA - Yes, some came to avoid religious persecution (such as Puritans and Quakers for instance), but certainly not all. The Southern Colonies, (Virginia, the Carolinas and Georgia) were much closer to the first English colonial plan, a commercial plantation model, rather than a theocracy of dissenters.
One hundred years later, religious persecution in England (excepting the 'old enemy', Catholicism) had waned away, so the American Revolution was really more a quarrel over political and financial rights and responsibilities. Religion was only mentioned in the Constitution in the sense that it was thought prudent to keep religion (a private thing) from becoming intertwined with government (a public thing) and vice versa.
The 'Founding Fathers' would have disliked (I think) even the idea that one's private religious beliefs getting involved in the business of the republic (from res publica; thing belonging or concerning the people as a whole), even in a purely ceremonial way, but they certainly would not have tried to prevent private citizens from expressing their private religious views in any way not intrusive on the public (I think they would approved of your evident strong faith, as much as someone else's strong disbelief).
The inclusion of 'In God we Trust' on legal tender and 'under God' into Oaths of Allegiance and Loyalty were products of the Eisenhower Administration, as a way of weeding out Communists (such things were also used in England from the 16th century to weed out secret Non-Conformists, Jews and Catholics who subsequently were sent, immigrated or fled to the colonies, ironically) - DJ
Posted by: DingoJack | August 24, 2009 3:32 AM
@Mom in CA: I'm sorry if you feel insulted but my point is still valid. The topics covered by this blog often cover issues that are politically or socially controversial, including things like health care reform, creationism, church/state separation, bigotry, and idiots who believe that president Obama is actually a muslim infiltrator from Indonesia. An unfortunate side effect of this is that in the comments at this blog we often get drive-by rants from people who are simply nuts and not interested in any kind of reasonable debate. The most common symptom of this type of comment is the use of capitalised words, or in some cases entire comments written in all caps (others include Godwin violations and and failing to break long posts into paragraphs).
Posted by: Ramel | August 24, 2009 8:27 AM
DJ and tincture....(Sorry, I am short on time this evening but I wanted to briefly respond.) Basically, what I am hearing you tell me is that you believe "God" was only entered into our nations capitol (for lack of a better way to put it) as a type of "pacifier." No one in government really believed, it was all just a ploy to ward off Communism and give the public some false sense of security?
Posted by: Mom in CA | August 25, 2009 2:31 AM
The quote "Under God" was first used by President Lincoln in the Gettysburg address in 1863.
The US Treasury states,"The motto IN GOD WE TRUST was placed on United States coins largely because of the increased religious sentiment existing during the Civil War." Reading further, "IN GOD WE TRUST first appeared on the 1864 two-cent coin." Also, "The motto has been in continuous use on the one-cent coin since 1909, and on the ten-cent coin since 1916. It also has appeared on all gold coins and silver dollar coins, half-dollar coins, and quarter-dollar coins struck since July 1, 1908." President Eisenhower made "IN GOD WE TRUST" the national motto in 1956, and yes, according to the US Treasury account, it was finally placed on paper money in 1957.
The point I am trying to make here is the fact that God, (whether you believe or not) has been a huge part of our heritage. Why insist on taking God out of the picture?
Referring to an in-depth study of American's religious beliefs; a June 24, 2008 Washington Post article stated, "The study detailed Americans' deep and broad religiosity, finding that 92 percent believe in God or a universal spirit -- including one in five of those who call themselves atheists."
So, if a majority of US citizens "believe," why is it that the minority wins? Why are the "believers" such a threat, that our government would deny the "flyover" at a Christian-sponsored event where our US Military were honored? Who are they hurting?
Posted by: Mom in CA | August 26, 2009 12:42 AM
No one in government really believed, it was all just a ploy to ward off Communism and give the public some false sense of security?
Close enough. The pledge itself, written by xtian socialist, Francis Bellamy, did not originally contain the phrase. This stuff isn't exactly secret history. It's common enough knowledge for anybody who doesn't get their history lessons from chain emails.
Posted by: tincture | August 26, 2009 12:57 AM
PS, about your final point.
A representative democracy is not the same thing as mob rule.
92% believing in god or a universal spirit is not the same thing as 71% being absolutely certain, 17% being fairly certain & 4% being not too certain, which is what the poll actually said.
71% believing in god or universal spirit is not the same thing as 71% christian. If you're going to include atheists, people who by definition don't believe in any gods, then the number of actual christians only gets smaller.
The number of christians who are ok w/ breaking the law to have the state massage their spiritual ego is even smaller than that.
None of which matters, because as I already noted, a representative democracy is not the same thing as mob rule and state endorsement of religion is against the law.
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/graphic/2008/06/23/GR2008062301409.html?sid=ST2008062300818&pos=list
Posted by: tincture | August 26, 2009 1:16 AM
It doesn't. What secularists want is not an officially atheistic state. Such a state might, for instance, print reminders on its currency that "God is Imaginary", insert "Godless" into the Pledge of Allegiance, and chisel "There Is No God" into the architecture of the capital. In contrast, simply removing religious references from government is the neutral alternative that is fair to everybody.
Posted by: DaveL | August 26, 2009 5:53 AM
I don't have a degree in history. I have no planned agenda. However, I did not get my history facts from any "chain e-mails." (That was really an unnecessary comment.) I just did a little research - just like you. I am merely a private, 50 year old US citizen who always took pride in our country's heritage.
Although no one in my family is/was in politics or the military, I was raised to respect our flag, our country, our government, and our military. No one in my family was ever a religious leader of any kind, and it may sound ridiculous from your stand point, but I was raised with God in my life. Pure and simple. It wasn't "imagined"...not in OUR lives. God is and has been very real to us. I understand those that don't believe in God. I understand that not everyone will, and that's ok. I don't disrespect those that don't believe. I do not see myself as superior to anyone, but I don't understand the incessant need to erase any reference to God from our history when...for whatever reason (secular or religious) just the reference to God has offered many people some kind of strength, or comfort. Why must you take that away? There is so little comfort in the world today.
I am sure you all are much more intelligent than I, and have all kinds of ammunition to defend your secular point. I am certainly not trying to push Christianity - or any religion down your throat. But in the same breath, don't erase or deny bits of our nations Christian heritage just to make it match your secular view of the world. It was what it was.
Back to our original argument, (and I guess we'll just have to agree to disagree) I stand strong that the flyover should not have been denied at the God and Country Festival.
Posted by: Mom in CA | August 27, 2009 3:09 AM
Dear Mom in CA,
Please don't be offended by the comments posted above.
(On my part at least) I had no desire nor intention to make you feel foolish or wrong. Like you I am not a historian and was simply expressing my view as a private person, not as any kind of expert.
However you also should be aware that there are "trolls" who use sites like this to push their own agendas and air their mental illnesses by posting deliberately provocative statements. Often it is extremely difficult to tell the genuine enquirer from the agent provocateur.
So apologies if you got mistaken for 'the wrong sort'. I would certainly encourage you to discover things for yourself and sites like these can be a great resource in that endeavour (and a great way to share your discoveries too).
Regards - DIngoJack
Posted by: DingoJack | August 27, 2009 3:46 AM
Retconning history to give your chosen sect is pushing christianity. Nobody is taking your god away from you, only correcting your mistaken beliefs about history upon which you based you original rant. You may not have gotten your history from chain emails, but it reads like something verbatim from http://myrightwingdad.blogspot.com/
Posted by: tincture | August 27, 2009 5:08 AM
So, Mom in CA, you believe that the federal government should endorse a political rally run by your cult using other people's tax money? That's what you're really asking for, when you strip away the whining and the lies.
Well you can't have that. You don't get to hijack the government to promote your cult. It's that fucking simple. "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion". If you have a problem with that, move to fucking Iran, they've got a nice little theocracy going. Oh, yeah, I forgot for a second you're a raging hypocrite and you'd never stop screaming if any cult OTHER than yours got government endorsement. Well boo hoo, cry me a river, poor poor you, how dare anyone enforce the law or point out that you're lying!
Posted by: phantomreader42 | August 27, 2009 8:33 AM
I'm bored this morning, so let's deconstruct this, shall we?
From mom in CA:
That part has become blatantly obvious. But having a degree is not the point. The simple fact that you phrase it in such a way indicates you probably think of people with degrees as 'elitist' or 'pointyheaded'. Not having a degree is fine, being completely ignorant is not. Worse, being somewhat cognizant of the history, and still coming to such a blatantly wrong conclusion is a sign of either very poor decision making, or over dishonesty.
I doubt that. Or, more accurately, you probably have an agenda, but it may not be 'planned'.
Really? Go back and read your previous post where you actually had some facts presented. Let's assume for a moment that your research was correct and 'IGWT' was placed on coins first, in 1864. Do you know what year the US was founded?
This is nothing but ridiculous, and dishonest, demogoguery. You accuse us of trying to take away your comfort? And then pretend to be morally indignant when many of us simply try to defend the constitution, and our right not to have xianity forced on us, or our tax dollars support a religion in stark contrast to the constitution.
I grew up in the military. I did not serve active duty, but I did search and rescue for many years as part of an unpaid volunteer service. I had to move every few years as part of growing up in the military. [Something a lot of people don't understand or appreciate when talking about veterans and active members of the armed forces (for which I have a great deal of respect, but not unconditional) is the families that often get very disrupted by that service.]
As for your platitudes aboutgod being 'real', that's fine and dandy...for you. There are likely more muslims who believe the same way about thier god. Your belief does not make it real.
I am sure you all are much more intelligent than I, and have all kinds of ammunition to defend your secular point.
They are called facts.
Liar. Either admit that you are trying to push your particular cult, or retract the accusation that we are trying to erase or deny history. The facts are on our side here.
I thought you weren't trying to push xianity? Liar.
Posted by: FastLane | August 27, 2009 9:36 AM
And now that she's been caught Lying For Jesus™, Mom in CA ran away. Typical. Dishonest, stupid, willfully ignorant, delusional, AND a coward.
Posted by: phantomreader42 | August 28, 2009 9:50 AM
DingoJack: JEASH! Thank you for explaining the type of "communication" that happens on these blogs. I have never been moved to voice my opinion on one of these type of sites before. I never expected to exit feeling so...."hated" for having a difference of opinion/belief.
Anyway, I do understand now, and I appreciate YOU giving me a chance to express my thoughts and beliefs. This has certainly been educational.
With this, I turn and WALK....not "run" away.
Regards to you as well.
Posted by: Mom in CA | August 28, 2009 3:18 PM
You had a chance to express yourself, and your chosen mode of expression was to LIE. You got the response a liar deserves. If you don't like being exposed as a liar, there's a simple solution: stop lying! But apparently this is beyond your capacity. You never learned how to tell the truth, because your cult doesn't give a flying fuck about the truth.
Goodbye, and good riddance, whining Liar For Jesus™
Posted by: phantomreader42 | August 28, 2009 5:06 PM