Comments on: Air Force Statement on Religious Proselytizing and Religious Materials on Desks

By: Tom Van Dyke

Tom Van Dyke — Mon, 06 May 2013 03:28:37 +0000

I would think this is the real story, that a military officer sent an email to subordinates repeating the Southern Poverty Law Center’s anti-Christian propaganda. I just ran across it. Why the story has been turned around on the evangelicals seems backwards to me, but that’s the game these days. When your side screws up, attack the other guys.
May 1, 2013
http://news.investors.com/ibd-editorials/050113-654364-army-looks-for-christian-hate-group-members.htm
When Defense Secretary Chuck Hagel recently appeared before Congress, he was grilled by Rep. Randy Forbes, R-Va., about an email sent by an officer at Fort Campbell, Ky., to three dozen subordinates, warning them to be on the lookout for soldiers connected with “domestic hate groups.”
Among the groups listed in the 14-page email by Lt. Col. Frank Rich, the Second Battalion, 506th Infantry Regiment Commander at Fort Campbell, were Christian organizations such as the American Family Association and Family Research Council (FRC), immigration reform groups such as the Federation for American Immigration Reform (FAIR), and Atlas Shrugs, run by Pamela Geller and monitoring global jihadist activity.
Officers are advised to look for uniformed members of these groups, described as anti-gay, anti-immigrant and anti-Muslim.
The email listed the groups alongside actual extremist and hate groups such as neo-Nazis, the Ku Klux Klan and other supremacist gangs.
The list of “hate” groups in the email appears to be based on one compiled by the Southern Poverty Law Center.
Ironically, it was used by one Floyd Corkins, who, on Aug. 15, 2012, tried to go on a mass-shooting spree at FRC headquarters in Washington, D.C.

By: Tom Van Dyke

Tom Van Dyke — Sun, 05 May 2013 23:28:37 +0000

By: Patrocles

Patrocles — Sat, 04 May 2013 11:20:59 +0000

I agree with the official distinction bewteen “wanted” vs. “unwanted” sex, eh, religious communication.
Only, we shouldn’t expect too much of it.
As we homosexuals at least know, there’s a lot of asymmetric sex, eh, communication. In such cases, the weaker part, may be caught half way between inclination and fear (or digust).
If the sex, eh, communication is a success, he will mostly remember the inclination and revive the sex as wanted. If it fails or if he is caught and confronted with the irritation of his peers/ his family, he will mostly remember his negative feelings and look at the sex as unwanted.
For example, in Muslim countries, there’s officially a lot more “male-to-male rape” than “homosexuality”, and why? You bet that it’s much more comfortable for a young man to tell himself and others, that he was sexually harassed unwantedly.
You see perhaps, that it’s just the same with evangelization or speaking about the young Muslim’s possible conversion. He will not touch the subject without at least little feelings of fear and digust, and if he’s caught by his peers, he will improve his situation by far, if he tells them (and himself) that the conversation was, basically, unwanted.

By: Patrocles

Patrocles — Sat, 04 May 2013 09:53:27 +0000

We all wish that it’s possible to draw a clear line between the acceptable and the unacceptable.
But, as the Bible-on-the-desk example shows, everyday life is too complicated – you can’t foresee all possible situations, and the “superiors” will have to make decisions under uncertainty.
So, a lot depends on the general “attitude”:or “climate” spread by the administration: Will the superiors be encouraged to take, under uncertainty, a more allowing or a more forbidding stand?
I would always prefer definite rules, but in such matters of conduct it’s hardly possible to deny the relevance of factors like “attitude” or “climate”.

By: Patrocles

Patrocles — Sat, 04 May 2013 07:20:59 +0000