Posted on Feb 16, 2015
ISIS would agree there shouldn't be Christians on RallyPoint. Is it right to strike one religion for the sins of another?
27.4K
276
184
3
2
1
How do you feel about religion.
Why are people sensitive about religion.
God bless everyone.
Why are people sensitive about religion.
God bless everyone.
Religion
Discrimination
Atheism
Freedom
God
Edited 10 y ago
Posted 10 y ago
Responses: 58
1
1
0
I have no problem with accommodating any religion that isn't trying to kill others in order to spread its influence, or trying to coerce the military into changing its dress code in order to accommodate its religious traditions.
* Muslims in our military? I'm not keen on it simply because their so-called "religion of peace" recognizes no higher governing authority than Islam, no greater justice system than Sharia (which hasn't advanced beyond 7th century barbarism), and thus their loyalty is always suspect. Maj Hassan is a prime example. I'm glad he got the death penalty. Part of me wishes that he could be put to death according to the Sharia customs as interpreted by the Daesh -- kind of like what happened with the Jordanian pilot... but we're better than that.
* Sikhs wearing turbans and not cutting their hair? I don't think so. If they can't conform to our military dress code, they always have the option to not volunteer for service.
* Mormons in the military? I see nothing wrong with that and have served with a few and they tended to be above norms...
* Jews wearing Yarmulkes in uniform? I've not witnessed it. If they put one on at the chapel I'm okay with that so long as they aren't doing it in the workplace or out in public.
* Wiccans? Not into their religion and in my own experience dealing with them, they tend to be odd ducks... But if they can do their jobs and act like professionals, there's no logical reason to be against them serving.
* Muslims in our military? I'm not keen on it simply because their so-called "religion of peace" recognizes no higher governing authority than Islam, no greater justice system than Sharia (which hasn't advanced beyond 7th century barbarism), and thus their loyalty is always suspect. Maj Hassan is a prime example. I'm glad he got the death penalty. Part of me wishes that he could be put to death according to the Sharia customs as interpreted by the Daesh -- kind of like what happened with the Jordanian pilot... but we're better than that.
* Sikhs wearing turbans and not cutting their hair? I don't think so. If they can't conform to our military dress code, they always have the option to not volunteer for service.
* Mormons in the military? I see nothing wrong with that and have served with a few and they tended to be above norms...
* Jews wearing Yarmulkes in uniform? I've not witnessed it. If they put one on at the chapel I'm okay with that so long as they aren't doing it in the workplace or out in public.
* Wiccans? Not into their religion and in my own experience dealing with them, they tend to be odd ducks... But if they can do their jobs and act like professionals, there's no logical reason to be against them serving.
(1)
(0)
Capt Jeff S.
@SGT Mick F., When I was stationed at Guantanamo, there was a difference of opinion between the Marines and the Navy. The Marines thought first priority should be to fix the areas that had washed out under the fence, and the Navy was more interested in raising the pitchers mound at the ball fields. Figure the odds that the Cubans would be attacking. So who had the right priorities? The USMC or the USN? As a Marine on the Navy Staff (I was the N-2) I was stuck in the middle. COMNAVBASE was my reporting senior. I told him what I'd do and it was in line with what the CO of Marine Barracks wanted to do. The Navy in general thought we were wound too tight. But then again, who's head would be rolling if the Cubans infiltrated the base by going under the fence?
The point of the digression is that the odds of NBC being used are remote yes, but still a matter that you can't discount. You should ALWAYS be ready. If they can't meet dress code, they should not serve. Or perhaps they should serve in the Army which (like the Navy) would rather assume the best than prepare for the worst?
The point of the digression is that the odds of NBC being used are remote yes, but still a matter that you can't discount. You should ALWAYS be ready. If they can't meet dress code, they should not serve. Or perhaps they should serve in the Army which (like the Navy) would rather assume the best than prepare for the worst?
(0)
(0)
1
1
0
I agree with Maj Dews and that it is so widespread that it becomes pandemic and spreading like wildfire. Stress Pandemic.
(1)
(0)
0
0
0
Sorry I'm so late dropping in. Had my colon removed at the OKC VA (wonderful bunch of folks BTW) and just now getting to feel social. Anywho, Daesh (derogatory term for ISIS/ISIL) are fighting and killing to further geo-political aims. "Religion" as in Islamic/Muslim beliefs have zip, nada, zilch to do with it. And yes their constant praying and braying on the media services may sound like your garden variety zealots, but they are being cleverly directed from (pick a Mideast capital city) and when they all get together it is this mess. The local madrasah and mosque are rich resources for the influentially powerful and rich beyond belief monsters who are 'lurking'. I don't, but someone in command knows these people by name. Glad bin Laden is dead. But he was a miniscule part of the crapstorm over there (which is now over here technically). I can't exactly type what my WW II battleship fireman father would have said to do to these so-called people. The gist goes something like fornicate them to death from a great altitude. While urinating. Collateral damages? These mass murderers love to surround themselves with family friends. Sooooo....no innocent bystanders. And the sooner we quit playing footsie with the real fiends behind this religion-tainted debacle, the better.
(0)
(0)
0
0
0
I'm an atheist but I think this is completely horrific. Its one thing to believe in your religion and to speak about it and show your zeal about it, its another to step over the line and oppress and hurt people and god forbid start killing people over it.
(0)
(0)
0
0
0
I feel the problem isn't religion, it's people. All Islamists are not bad people. Yes their faith has certain beliefs, but they should have full right to practice it. I feel like people and Christians forget (or don't realize) that during the crusades, many people were killed in the name of religion. While this does not condone the actions of current radical religious groups, one can not judge an entire faith because of a minority of individuals.
(0)
(0)
0
0
0
No one, including Muslims, should be excluded from RP because do or do not practice or embrace a particular religion.
That being said, religion has no place in the military, or on RP, and shouldn't be discussed here at all.
That being said, religion has no place in the military, or on RP, and shouldn't be discussed here at all.
(0)
(0)
0
0
0
Human secularism = absence of religion running government, is as bad as a dominant religion.
The problem is people who use religion or the absence of religion as their justification of claiming power over society/you. Can we all can agree to pluralism?
Government human secularist says to all the other groups, you are subordinate, this is a problem.
As a Christian, I see more secular humanistic motivation to eliminate any religious historical or belief reference. This has become as bad as Islamist tradition of one faith/one government.
The problem is people who use religion or the absence of religion as their justification of claiming power over society/you. Can we all can agree to pluralism?
Government human secularist says to all the other groups, you are subordinate, this is a problem.
As a Christian, I see more secular humanistic motivation to eliminate any religious historical or belief reference. This has become as bad as Islamist tradition of one faith/one government.
(0)
(0)
SSgt (Join to see)
You have a skewed idea of what secularims is and what it's aims are. Our founders created a secular government, and they did not wish to subordinate anyone, and today's secularists do not wish to subordinate anyone.
You are and should be free to privately practice any kind of ridiculous nonsense that you wish, but you are not free to inject that nonsense into our government.
In a world where the christian god really does exist, a secular government harms no one. In fact, your bible claims your messiah instructed you to "render unto ceasar what is caesars"
In a world where there is no god, a religious government hurts everyone.
Lets just agree to go with the option that hurts no one.
You are and should be free to privately practice any kind of ridiculous nonsense that you wish, but you are not free to inject that nonsense into our government.
In a world where the christian god really does exist, a secular government harms no one. In fact, your bible claims your messiah instructed you to "render unto ceasar what is caesars"
In a world where there is no god, a religious government hurts everyone.
Lets just agree to go with the option that hurts no one.
(0)
(0)
LTC John Shaw
@SSgt Jay S.
I guess you self-identify as secularist and are speaking for all secularist?
You are trying to tell me there is not a belief system for secularist?
I will tell you what I see from my Law background and last 30 years experience.
Today's secularist are codifying their STATIST superiority into federal law.
We agree on one area, pluralism and disagree on another, secularism intent.
I recommend you read the Federalist papers and understand the purpose of the 1st Amendment.
It is not for a strictly secular government, but for a government influenced by all faiths and beliefs, a pluralistic society. The founders intent is prevent the establishment of a church supported by the state, trying to prevent what Britain had with Anglicanism.
The first amendment does not mean a government DEVOID of religion. It simply means no single STATE sponsored religion. Religion is incorporated into a number of government functions, it is only since the 1960s that the SCOTUS started forcing the separation of ALL religious activities.
I believe we agree on the pluralistic part, I am not seeking a Republic that holds Christian beliefs above all others. I am seeking a government that respects personal belief and honors the traditions of these beliefs in our institutions.
I agree with your option that hurts no one, sadly we are not there.
I am for secular government; but not for a government that becomes equal to religion.
Secularists seek to subordinate all to government and they have with the most recent administration, e.g. The Affordable Care Act, ignoring the Defense of Marriage Act, ignoring Immigration and Legalization laws, refusing to investigate outrageous acts of government intrusion by individuals under the authority of the Executive branch.
BTW, if you are going to bother to quote the bible include the whole set of verses so people have it in context, here I will use a secular reference:
http://www.quora.com/What-did-Jesus-mean-when-he-said-Render-unto-Caesar-the-things-which-are-Caesars-and-unto-God-the-things-that-are-Gods
I guess you self-identify as secularist and are speaking for all secularist?
You are trying to tell me there is not a belief system for secularist?
I will tell you what I see from my Law background and last 30 years experience.
Today's secularist are codifying their STATIST superiority into federal law.
We agree on one area, pluralism and disagree on another, secularism intent.
I recommend you read the Federalist papers and understand the purpose of the 1st Amendment.
It is not for a strictly secular government, but for a government influenced by all faiths and beliefs, a pluralistic society. The founders intent is prevent the establishment of a church supported by the state, trying to prevent what Britain had with Anglicanism.
The first amendment does not mean a government DEVOID of religion. It simply means no single STATE sponsored religion. Religion is incorporated into a number of government functions, it is only since the 1960s that the SCOTUS started forcing the separation of ALL religious activities.
I believe we agree on the pluralistic part, I am not seeking a Republic that holds Christian beliefs above all others. I am seeking a government that respects personal belief and honors the traditions of these beliefs in our institutions.
I agree with your option that hurts no one, sadly we are not there.
I am for secular government; but not for a government that becomes equal to religion.
Secularists seek to subordinate all to government and they have with the most recent administration, e.g. The Affordable Care Act, ignoring the Defense of Marriage Act, ignoring Immigration and Legalization laws, refusing to investigate outrageous acts of government intrusion by individuals under the authority of the Executive branch.
BTW, if you are going to bother to quote the bible include the whole set of verses so people have it in context, here I will use a secular reference:
http://www.quora.com/What-did-Jesus-mean-when-he-said-Render-unto-Caesar-the-things-which-are-Caesars-and-unto-God-the-things-that-are-Gods
What did Jesus mean when he said "Render unto Caesar the things which are Caesar's, and unto God...
17 Tell us, then, what you think. Is it lawful to pay taxes to Caesar, or not?” 18 But Jesus, aware of their malice, said, “Why put me to the test, you hypoc...
(0)
(0)
0
0
0
A person who kills in the defense of their religion is defending what they believe in. A person who kills because of their religion does not truly understand a belief in God by any name. People kill other people, religion can be used as an excuse just like the "I was only following orders" was a "good" defense at the Nuremberg trials.
(0)
(0)
SGT Anthony Rossi
What's interesting is how many lives have been spared in the name of religion as well!
Faith can help!
Faith can destroy!
It depends on ones motive!
Faith can help!
Faith can destroy!
It depends on ones motive!
(0)
(0)
SSgt (Join to see)
So Charles Brown, how are you in a position to know that ISIS does not truly understand their own religion?
(0)
(0)
0
0
0
Throughout the history of mankind, religious zealots have committed some extraordinary vicious acts against others. ISIS is no different. They want to create a Islamic Kingdom where fellow Shia and any other people are killed as a means to an end.
(0)
(0)
Read This Next
Continue with Facebook 
Continue with Google