Alexander's Column

Obama to DoD: Courts Martial God

By Mark Alexander · May 2, 2013
“While we are zealously performing the duties of good citizens and soldiers, we certainly ought not to be inattentive to the higher duties of religion. To the distinguished character of Patriot, it should be our highest glory to add the more distinguished character of Christian.” –George Washington (1778)

The DoD’s Frontal Assault on Faith

We observe the National Day of Prayer today, but if you’re active duty or reserve military, you’d better not mention that to any of your fellow compatriots in uniform, or invite them to join in a prayer vigil, lest you may find yourself in front of a military tribunal.

You read that correctly. It is no small irony that the Obama administration is suppressing faith rather than celebrating it this week, but this is the most faith-intolerant regime in the history of our Republic.

The Left is constantly endeavoring to replace Rule of Law with the rule of men. Because the former is predicated on the principle of Liberty “endowed by our Creator,” Obama’s administrators constantly look for ways to undermine Rule of Law by driving wedges between our Liberty and its foundational endowment.

The highest profile and most influential sector of government, where Obama and his cadres can exercise the greatest degree of immediate dictatorial power in order to dislocate that endowment, is the Department of Defense.

In 2010, unable to reverse the Defense of Marriage Act (an affirmation of timeless principles upheld by all faiths), Obama called on his party-controlled House and Senate to force the institutionalization of gender-disorientation pathology in the military ranks – a brazen internal assault on military order.

In a last legislative act on behalf of his most flamboyant constituency, Democrats passed and Obama signed his “do ask – do tell” legislation – just days before the resounding Republican 2010 midterm takeover in the House.

At that time, Obama declared, “This law will strengthen our national security” – this despite the fact that the greatest military breach of national security in history, the release of volumes of classified reports to WikiLeaks info anarchist Julian Assange, had just been allegedly committed by Army PFC Bradley Manning, because he was disgruntled over the breakup with his homosexual partner.

Republicans may now control the House, but that isn't stopping Obama from a far bolder assault on Liberty and our military – one that requires no legislative approval from Congress: expelling God from the trenches.

Under the pretense of “tolerance” and comporting with the errant assertion of a “Wall of Separation” grossly distorting the First Amendment’s succinct provision that “Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof,” Obama has decreed the removal of any expression or manifestation of faith within the ranks of the U.S. military.

From Day One of the Obama regime’s rise to power, there have been numerous instances of incremental implementation of this assault on faith within the ranks, and the Air Force has been the administration’s primary target since it is considered to be the most “faith-saturated” branch of service.

For example, in October of 2011, we discovered that the words “so help me God” have been deleted from the Air Force Academy cadet handbook’s Oath of Allegiance and the officer Oath of Office for Cadets and Officers. When The Patriot Post inquired with the AFA’s public affairs office as to why those words had been removed from the handbook, the PAO dodged the question for two days, and on the third inquiry, tersely responded that we could file a “Freedom of Information Act” request for an answer. In other words: “Take a hike.”

Obama’s latest endeavor to eradicate expressions of faith by military personnel, however, is neither subtle nor incremental.

The loudest indication of this audacious abolition initiative was the directive from Obama’s civilian leadership at the Pentagon last week that ultra-leftist Mikey Weinstein and Larry Wilkerson, former chief of staff to Colin Powell, should vet the Air Force’s new instructional guide on “religious tolerance.”

Weinstein, who graduated from the Air Force Academy in 1977, is now a left-wing lawyer and founder of the Military Religious Freedom Foundation, dedicated to freedom from religion, not freedom of religion.

This is the same atheist who, in 2011, demanded and received an apology from the AFA for its cadet support of “Operation Christmas Child,” which assembles and fills millions of shoe boxes with toys, school supplies and other gifts for impoverished children in 130 countries! Weinstein objected because OCC places a Christian tract in those boxes.

Among many other examples of Weinstein’s crusade against Christianity, in 2012 he went after a Marine fighter squadron that changed its name from “Werewolves” to “Crusaders,” with a cross and shield insignia. That squadron was forced to revert to “Werewolves.”

In a vicious treatise on his view of faith and the military, actually entitled “Fundamentalist Christian Monsters,” Weinstein wrote: “Today, we face incredibly well-funded gangs of fundamentalist Christian monsters who terrorize their fellow Americans by forcing their weaponized and twisted version of Christianity upon their helpless subordinates in our nation’s armed forces. … We must vigorously support the continuing efforts to expose [these] agitators for what they are: die-hard enemies of the United States Constitution. Monsters, one and all. To do any less would be to roll out a red carpet to those who would usher in a blood-drenched, draconian era of persecutions, nationalistic militarism, and superstitious theocracy.”

Weinstein insists that Christians sharing their faith in the military are “enemies of the Constitution,” and that Christianity is “a national security threat. The Pentagon needs to understand it is sedition and treason. It should be punished. Until the Air Force or Army or Navy or Marine Corps punishes a member of the military for unconstitutional religious proselytizing and oppression, we will never have the ability to stop this horrible, horrendous, dehumanizing behavior. … It is a version of being spiritually raped and you are being spiritually raped by fundamentalist Christian religious predators.”

Apparently, Weinstein was inculcated with the same “god damn America” doctrine of hate and intolerance that Jeremiah Wright preached to Barack Obama.

According to Wilkerson, an MRFF Board member, “The armed forces are on the verge of falling apart,” because of “sexual assault, suicides, lowering entrance standards and war weariness. They are in trouble, and the … chain of command is compliant. Condoning of sexual assault or proselytizing is an abuse of command.”

So these are the people Obama recommends as gatekeepers for “religious tolerance and diversity” in the military? Of course, the problem is not “condoning faith,” but condemning it.

The 27 page Air Force directive, which notes on its cover, “COMPLIANCE WITH THIS PUBLICATION IS MANDATORY,” is by design, so ambiguous that virtually anyone could be brought up on charges: “Leaders at all levels must avoid the actual or apparent use of their position to promote their personal religious beliefs to their subordinates or to extend preferential treatment for any religion.”

“Actual or apparent use”?

Responding to an inquiry about whether Soldiers, Sailors, Airmen and Marines could be prosecuted for sharing their faith, a DoD statement this week concluded, “Religious proselytization is not permitted within the Department of Defense. … Courts martial and non-judicial punishments are decided on a case-by-case basis.”

According to Lt. Gen. (Ret.) William “Jerry” Boykin: “The very troops who defend our religious freedom are at risk of having their own taken away. … Christians within the military who speak of their faith could now be prosecuted as enemies of the state. It’s a matter of what do they mean by ‘proselytizing.’ … If you’re talking about the free exercise of our faith by individual soldiers, sailors, airmen and marines, especially for the chaplains, then I think the worst thing we can do is stop the ability for a soldier to be able to exercise his faith.”

Of course, the success of the Socialist Democratic Party assault on Liberty is predicated on the success of its efforts to oppress faith, especially in the military.

American Patriots in uniform are the frontline defenders of our nation’s foundation of Liberty. Unlike Obama and his government administrators, military Patriots uphold their oath to “support and defend” our Constitution with their blood, and for most, with the appeal, “so help me God.”

If they are ultimately accountable to a higher authority than Obama, that is a direct threat to his power.

I am left to ponder what would be the fate today of a Chairman of the Joint Chiefs if he issued the following directive to all military personnel: “While we are zealously performing the duties of good citizens and soldiers, we certainly ought not to be inattentive to the higher duties of religion. To the distinguished character of Patriot, it should be our highest glory to add the more distinguished character of Christian.”

That is an excerpt from the General Orders issued by George Washington on the 2nd of May 1778, after his Continental Army barely survived the brutal winter at Valley Forge.

A year earlier, just days after the signing of the Declaration of Independence, Washington decreed, “The General hopes and trusts that every officer and man will endeavor to live and act as becomes a Christian soldier defending the dearest rights and liberties of his country.”

Were a modern-day warrior to emulate the example set by the Father of Our Country, Obama and Weinstein would surely haul him before a military tribunal.

View all comments


rich bersett in belleville il said:

It is a sad time in America. Bullies with godless motives pushing around wimpy citizens. Pray that the nation will wake up to the disasters we are flirting with as we systematically deny God with increasing brazenness.

Thursday, May 2, 2013 at 12:16 PM

roger in NM said:

Is this initiative a suprise to anyone? No reason to make offense and cause any more workplace violence.

Thursday, May 2, 2013 at 12:17 PM

WOB in Texas replied:

Roger, what work place violence are you referring to? I've yet to have seen any such fracas regarding one employee sharing his personal experience with another. You seem to have experienced something different?

Thursday, May 2, 2013 at 1:07 PM

windskisong in Raleigh, NC replied:

Roger is referring to the jihadist terrorist attack in Fort Hood that was ruled "workplace violence" to avoid the appearance of a terrorist attack on the Dear Leader's watch, and to avoid paying for combat and purple hearts recognition to those injured and killed and their families.

Tuesday, May 7, 2013 at 10:04 AM

Hal Johnson in California said:

Have they lost what little sense God gave them?

Thursday, May 2, 2013 at 12:19 PM

Daylo in Small Town, GA replied:

Yes, Hal they have. They have murdered common sense as well. I fear that they have buried it so deep that we will never be able to recover it. As we sit idly by typing and reading on our computers and have let this occur. Is there something that the AVERAGE AMERICAN PATRIOT can do BESIDES complain online? I write my congressmen so much that they must dread to see another fax or e-mail....They remain tone deaf. But, even that seems too little too late. Is there an organization that we join for ACTION AGAINST THESE SOCIALISTS? If so, where do I sign up?

Thursday, May 2, 2013 at 12:37 PM

LibertyIsUS in Arlington, VA replied:

You can try the, or

Thursday, May 2, 2013 at 1:03 PM

Daylo in Small Town, GA replied:


Thursday, May 2, 2013 at 1:58 PM

tarymelon in Il replied:

SOS(Special Operations Speaks) ,Freedom Watch and Judicial Watch are doing something.

Thursday, May 2, 2013 at 4:54 PM

The Gent 1957 in Arizona replied:

That's the problem. God apparently didn't give them any!!

Thursday, May 2, 2013 at 2:49 PM



Tuesday, May 14, 2013 at 8:37 PM

Cathy in Colorado said:

In ancient times...Christians were purged from the military and then the military was used to persecute them...History always repeats itself.

Thursday, May 2, 2013 at 12:20 PM

The Gent 1957 in Arizona replied:

Especially when those who are subject to it fail to learn it's lessons!

Thursday, May 2, 2013 at 2:50 PM

Sandra Ponto in McMinnville OR said:


Thursday, May 2, 2013 at 12:24 PM

Marlene in Florida replied:

Obama is simply a puppet of larger interests, and purposes. The infection has been at work undermining Constitutional America for decades. Our controllers would simply put another puppet in his place, no doubt someone already prepped and ready to go.

Thursday, May 2, 2013 at 2:43 PM

The Gent 1957 in Arizona replied:

I said it in 2012... at the time of the election, even though he would have been well over 100 years old and had been dead for nearly 10 years, RONALD REAGAN was STILL a better man for the job than the two who were running!

Thursday, May 2, 2013 at 2:56 PM

windskisong in Raleigh, NC replied:

Well said

Tuesday, May 7, 2013 at 10:06 AM

Patrick Henry in New Mexico said:

If our founding fathers bowed to the king the way we bow to this administration..................

We would still be under England's rule.

Time to stand up and be counted.

Live free or die!!!

Thursday, May 2, 2013 at 12:26 PM

Gulliver Silvagi in Washington, Michigan said:

There are no atheists in fox holes !!!

Thursday, May 2, 2013 at 12:27 PM

JoeBlowe in Illinois replied:

Yes, there are.

Thursday, May 2, 2013 at 12:40 PM

Zook7576 in South Carolina replied:

Joe, you're right, do BLOW...freaking idiot!!!

Thursday, May 2, 2013 at 1:05 PM

VoR in Ohio replied:

But he does happen to be correct.

Thursday, May 2, 2013 at 1:43 PM

John in Brillman said:

What amazes me is that anyone is amazed by this type of action from him.

Thursday, May 2, 2013 at 12:27 PM

The Gent 1957 in Arizona replied:

Not amazed.... dismayed.

Thursday, May 2, 2013 at 2:57 PM

John in Brillman said:

What amazes me is that anyone is amazed by his actions such as this. This is not America.[

Thursday, May 2, 2013 at 12:27 PM

Fed up with the BS in Wisconsin said:

I guess that means if a Muslim soldier gets handed an MRE with pork in it he better shut up and eat it or that would be "practicing or expressing his religious beliefs". Or maybe they are exempt from this rule because they are not Christian.

Thursday, May 2, 2013 at 12:28 PM

Daylo in Small Town, GA replied:

Yes. We warned by Jesus that this day would come and it is upon us. But, we really should not go quietly into the night. Where do I join?

Thursday, May 2, 2013 at 12:39 PM

JtC in TX replied:

Let us not forget that today Christians in some countries are being hunted down and killed like wild hogs.

Thursday, May 2, 2013 at 1:40 PM

Mike McGinn in People's Republic of Maryland replied:

Let's see now...of the three Abrahamic religions (Judaism, Islam, and Christianity) only one does not prohibit the eating of certain foods. Yes, Christianity calls for abstinance from meat on Fridays, but a soldier could save a veggie MRE for Friday and eat a beef stew MRE any other day of the week. Jews and Muslims are prohibited from eating certain foods. So, tell me where's the sense in that restriction?

Thursday, May 2, 2013 at 1:47 PM

rab in jo,mo replied:

There is no biblical basis for "meatless Fridays" in Christianity. A Christian can eat MREs without worrying about the day of the week.

Thursday, May 2, 2013 at 3:06 PM

JtC in TX replied:

On the contrary, the Word of God says eat whatever you want whenever you want. But if you share a meal with someone whose beliefs forbid them from eating certain foods then you should respect that. It cracks me up when people that don't have one single ounce of bible doctrine in their soul try to make a point using scripture.

Thursday, May 2, 2013 at 4:21 PM

Anita York in Newark replied:

Sorry, Mike, but Christians do not call for abstinence from meats on Fridays. Catholics do. The Apostle Paul said meats were to be received with thanksgiving (1 Timothy 4:4) and that forbidding meats was a sign of departing from the faith (1 Timothy 4:1-3).

No matter how a soldier believes, his right to honor his belief should not be controlled by the government. However, I agree with another commenter--probably no one else's will be; just the Christian. This flies right in the face of our Founders' intent. They said, "Congress shall make no law . . . prohibiting the free exercise" of religion. And for the Executive Branch to legislate, through its agencies and bureaus, is unconstitutional.

Saturday, May 11, 2013 at 2:54 AM

Bob in Hattiesburg, MS said:

The reason Obama wants to purge Christians serious about their faith from the U.S. military is to remove any who would oppose his statist and dictatorial designs. He wants in the military only those who will follow orders from above blindly and without regard to either the Constitution or unalienable rights. Christians in the military are an impediment to his totalitarian plans, which he has been implementing throughout the federal government since he took office.

Thursday, May 2, 2013 at 12:29 PM

JoeBlowe in Illinois replied:

Wait a second .... you are arguing against yourself. Religious people in the military are the MOST likely to NOT think for themselves and blindly follow orders from a totalitarian executive. Remember the crusades? Idiot Christians kept on following really, really stupid orders from theocratic superiors and killing innocent people in job lots. All you have to do is convince them that "God wants you to do this" and innocent people will die.

Thursday, May 2, 2013 at 12:44 PM

COMZ in Greenfield replied:

1. Stupidity in the chain of command still exists especially now at the CinC level.
2. A 2nd grader today is better educated than most "leaders" in the Crusades.
3. And the real significance of the year 1492 is when Spain, finally defeated the Muslims (Moors, Berbers, Islamists) after a 700 year period of European Fighting.


Thursday, May 2, 2013 at 12:51 PM

Marcus Brown in Sautee Nacoochee, Georgia replied:

Wake up Joe! This is the 21st century. It's amazing how many anti-Christians must base their understandings on 500-1,500 years ago. It's not Christianity espousing beheadings and forced obedience to a militant theocracy. Try a touch of reality.

Thursday, May 2, 2013 at 1:28 PM

JtC in TX replied:

Just because they called themselves Christians doesn't mean they were. The Lord says we are known by our fruits. Murderous rampages are not carried out by Christians.

Thursday, May 2, 2013 at 1:42 PM

Anziani in Cat City replied:

You don't know your history. The Crusades were started AFTER the goat ******* muslims over ran Europe killing "infidels" by the 1000's! As usual Christians were just defending themselves and wanted to retake Jerusalem from those friendly, tolerant, woman loving muslims.

Thursday, May 2, 2013 at 1:47 PM

rab in jo,mo replied:

Really? So those SS troopers running the concentration camps hadn't sworn allegiance to Hitler (which is contra-Christian)? I suppose Stalin and Mao's death squads were all Christian as well, right? Hitler came to power because the German people had turned their backs on God (sound familiar?) not because they were devout Christians.

Are you really asserting that Christianity does not teach such things as honor and morality (e.g., the 10 Commandments and the Pauline epistles along with Jesus' own words)? Just because some people calling themselves Christian 1200 yrs ago went around raping and pillaging doesn't mean they actually practiced what they preached.

Thursday, May 2, 2013 at 3:18 PM

Wayne in Hinesville, GA replied:

When it comes to making stupid statements, you rank right up there with Joe Biden. I spent 22 years in the US Army and not once in those 22 years did I see or hear any Christian trying to force his or her beliefs on others. If you wanted to go to Chapel then you went, if you didn't want to go you most certainly did not have to. Your religious beliefs had no standing on your performance as a soldier. You were judged on your skill and abilities to do your job and not on how religious you were. The First Amendment clearly states the government will not interfere in the right to worship but that has been happening steadily for the last 50 years or more. because we have become a Nation not of the Free but the Home of the Offended.

Thursday, May 2, 2013 at 3:51 PM

windskisong in Raleigh, NC replied:

Joe appears to be an illiterate and ignorant troll, speaking bizarre atheist talking points from 1000 years ago. Who really led the Crusades, and what were they about? State military leaders, taking back territory that had been lost to Islamic invaders.
Who has not thought for themselves and blindly followed orders in the past 100 years?
WWI - State soldiers, following state leaders. Opposed by Christians.
Soviet Russia, atheistic communist leaders, lifting up the state over God and the individual. Opposed by Christians.
Nazi Germany, atheistic socialist leaders, lifting up the state over God and the individual. Opposed by Christians.
Japan, statist leaders, lifting up the state/emperor over God and the individual. Opposed by Christians.
WWII - Statist leaders, fighting for supremacy of states. Opposed by Christians.
Communism throughout 20th century: Statist, atheistic socialist leaders, lifting up the state over God and the individual, 150-200 MILLION dead. Oh yeah, Opposed by Christians.

All you have to do is convince statist followers that my State wants me to do this, and innocent people will die.

Tuesday, May 7, 2013 at 10:15 AM

Anita York in Newark replied:

Joe, you are really "blowing" on this one. Blowing hot air that has no substance whatever. Before you make comments, you need to check them for historical accuracy. The Crusades were never a truly Christian endeavor. Jesus said clearly that His servants did not fight on literal battlefields but through the power of the Gospel alone. Read what He said to Pilate about being a king. His Kingdom is not, nor was it ever, nor will it ever be, of this world. "If it were," Jesus said, "then would my servants fight." Since it is not of this world, His servants do not fight. The Apostle Paul said plainly that we do not war after the flesh, but after the spirit. True Christians do not pick up carnal weapons to fight the Lord's battles. Certainly our Founders fought, literally, against tyranny, but it was a civil warfare, against a tyrant king, not a solely spiritual, or religious, one.

Saturday, May 11, 2013 at 3:04 AM

billy396 in ohio replied:

Little by little the Marxists are revealing their true feelings. Today, they remove the words "so help me God" from an oath. Yesterday they added the phrase "and will execute any orders given to me by a superior officer" to the oath to the Constitution that soldiers have taken for decades. It's obvious that this was done to give cover for orders against American citizens, against the Constitution of America, and against any and all laws. Posse Comitatus is no more, and indeed this administration enforces and refuses to enforce laws at will, with no penalty whatsoever for their lack of sincerity in their Constitutional oaths of office. Impeach - Prosecute - Execute NOW!

Thursday, May 2, 2013 at 1:07 PM

Bennie in Los Angeles, CA replied:

You are exactly right, Bob. Obama is already building his own private, armed army. George Soros is pulling the strings.

Thursday, May 2, 2013 at 3:39 PM

Delores K Miller in Rogers Arkansas said:

. Our nation was build on freedom of religion we can never win a war or have any blessings if God is taken out. I stand with our Consitution and Bill of Rights leave them alone please. Our country does not need this kind of change this only helps our soildier boys in times of fighting they come closer to the word of God do not take freedom of religion and bible away from them. I stand for truine God and we can not take him out of our country. I will stand firm on my belief the soildiers need this freedom. My truine God is a mighty God. Delores K Miller.

Thursday, May 2, 2013 at 12:31 PM

JoeBlowe in Illinois replied:

The Constitution says "Congress shall make no law regarding an institution of religion..." which means that institutionalizing ANY religion in the U.S. military is CONTRARY to the Constitution. Why do you not understand this? Would you be OK if, say, Islam were to be encoded into the military codes books and everyone had to stop and bow down to Mecca 5 times every day? Use your head, if Christianity can be forced into the military, so could any other religion someday.

Thursday, May 2, 2013 at 12:48 PM

Louis in NJ replied:

You seem to have conveniently left out the rest of that part of the Fist Amendment:
Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech...

Thursday, May 2, 2013 at 1:05 PM

COMZ in Greenfield replied:

The meaning of the second clause is often missing in discussions.
"Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances."

Indeed Congress wrote the UCMJ per the Constitution. When one signs the contract required for military service one gives up many of the priveleges one has a civilian. There is no freedom of speach and if you think you are going to take a out for a prayer service during a fight and put you squadmate in jepordy, you are in for a very rude awakening.


Thursday, May 2, 2013 at 1:11 PM

Louis in NJ replied:

This is from the UMCJ. It seems to say that one does not give up ALL freedom of speech, so I think your interpretation is incorrect.

This statement is from the UCMJ:

Article 134—Disloyal statements

See Paragraph 60.


(1) That the accused made a certain statement;

(2) That the statement was communicated to another person;

(3) That the statement was disloyal to the United States;

(4) That the statement was made with the intent to promote disloyalty or disaffection toward the United States by any member of the armed forces or to interfere with or impair the loyalty to the United States or good order and discipline of any member of the armed forces; and

(5) That, under the circumstances, the conduct of the accused was to the prejudice of good order and discipline in the armed forces or was of a nature to bring discredit upon the armed forces.

Each Branch then has Regulations governing the behavior of their members. Wearing your uniform to a political protest is way up there on the list of things that will hang your young American butt out to dry.

So to an extent you loose a part of your 1st amendment speech rights while actually wearing the uniform. You can attend these events you just cannot make disloyal statements or appear in uniform. I am not going to check at this time if you can identify yourself as a member, but it would not be a wise move.

SSG US Army 73-82

Thursday, May 2, 2013 at 1:29 PM

Louis in NJ replied:

You can disregard what appears after point 5. I copied this from another post of mine addressing a different issue. Everything up through point 5 is relevant to this discussion.

Thursday, May 2, 2013 at 1:33 PM

Harry J Tippie, Jr in Belpre, OH replied:

Read the Biible, Joe: go to if you don't own one!

Thursday, May 2, 2013 at 1:17 PM

LibertyIsUS in Arlington, VA replied:

Mr. Blowe,

You show yourself as a dupe being used by someone or some group. When you quote The Constitution at least quote it accurately. "Congress shall make no law RESPECTING AN ESTABLISHMENT OF RELIGION, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances."

Thursday, May 2, 2013 at 1:29 PM

Brian in Newport News replied:

Joe, you are so like many who only quote parts of things that support your position. Once you read the WHOLE phrase, your argument falls apart: “Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or the free exercise thereof.” By telling a soldier he cannot share his faith, you are violating not only this constitutional right, but also his right to free speech.

Thursday, May 2, 2013 at 2:03 PM

William in New Mexico replied:

No religion is intitutionalized in the military. There are chaplains from every major religion and some minor ones (yes, there are wiccans, but sorry there are no festivus chaplains).

Thursday, May 2, 2013 at 4:36 PM

MNIce in Minnesota replied:

JoeBlowe, listen to your own argument. It is contrary to the Constitution for Congress to establish any religion INCLUDING ATHEISM. Banning the free exercise of religion is contrary to the Constitution.

The First Amendment was written at a time when Christianity in various denominations was the predominant religion of the United States, and the founders were very familiar with the Scriptural instruction to teach the Law and the Gospel "to all nations." It should be very obvious to even the most casual historian that there was absolutely NO objection to "proselytizing," otherwise an exception against it would have been written into the First Amendment. The point of the First Amendment is to keep government from interfering in religion, not to keep religion away from government.

The real threat to national security comes from radical anti-theists who actively seek to deprive our troops, and the civilians they guard, of the wisdom and comfort of the Scriptures and the protection of the Almighty. It is no wonder that morale has suffered.

"The fool has said in his heart, 'There is no God.' They are corrupt, they have done abominable works, there is none who does good. … Have all the workers of iniquity no knowledge, who eat up my people as they eat bread, and do not call on the Lord?" Psalm 14: 1,4 (NKJV)

Thursday, May 2, 2013 at 10:41 PM

windskisong in Raleigh, NC replied:

Joe is historically and constitutionally illiterate.

Tuesday, May 7, 2013 at 10:16 AM

Anita York in Newark replied:

Joe, you are blowing hot air again! The Constitution says nothing about forbidding the honor of God in governmental affairs. Read our history and the writings of our Founders. This whole "establishment clause" nonsense is nothing but a leftist ruse to force God out of America. Unfortunately, too many Americans don't know the truth on this, and our schools have brought this about. Here are the words of the original 2nd Amendment, penned by James Madison, who was dubbed "the chief architect of the Constitution." He clearly reveals what the "establishment clause" was intended to convey: "The civil rights of none shall be abridged on account of religious belief or worship, nor shall ANY NATIONAL RELIGION BE ESTABLISHED, nor shall the full and equal rights of conscience be IN ANY MANNER, or ON ANY PRETEXT, infringed." [Emphasis added.)

Two members of Congress, Peter Sylvester of New York and Benjamin Huntington of Connecticut, worried that subsequent revisions of the 2nd Amendment might be misused to hurt religious freedom. Sylvester, in objecting to a Congressional Select Committee version, said, "It might be thought to have a tendency to abolish religion altogether." And Huntington said, "The words might be taken in such latitude as to be extremely hurtful to the cause of religion."

At one point, Madison suggested inserting the word "national" before the word "religion," showing again that the "establishment clause" had nothing to do with civil honor of God and everything to do with avoiding a situation in America like existed in England, where the Church of England reigned supreme and those who didn't line up were punished.

Madison agreed with Huntington and Sylvester and believed "that the people feared one sect might obtain preeminence . . . and establish a religion to which they would compel others to conform." Fisher Ames of Massachusetts suggested these words: "Congress shall make no law establishing religion, or to prevent the free exercise thereof, or to infringe the rights of conscience."

Another version, proposed by the Senate, said, "Congress shall not make any law infringing the rights of conscience, or establishing any religious sect or society."

This Amendment went through several more revisions before the final wording was adopted, but in NO CASE did the intent move from protecting religious freedom to excluding religion from any and all civil activities.

Saturday, May 11, 2013 at 4:04 AM

Alan in Colorado said:

FOX News featured a story about female soldiers serving in Afghanistan and the story focused on the the empathy these women soldiers provided in encounters with local females. The soldier they filmed was in battle dress and had a Muslim headscarf on. (I wonder how much stopping power that scarf provided?)

This is a critical moment in our national life and it is incumbent on modern Patriots to warn of the dangers we face. Even the most powerful nations have been laid low from within.

Thursday, May 2, 2013 at 12:32 PM

Mr. John in Colorado said:

What additional proof does one need as evidence of the non-Christian nature of this adminstration? How long is it going to be before succession by Christians conservatives from the heathens that currently are dictating such oppressive policies becomes an outspoken rallying point? We are headed down a path of submission if we do not take on and challenge these decisions that are made to control the populace by those that seek to rule and not govern this nation.

Thursday, May 2, 2013 at 12:32 PM

Jim Turner in NEW HAVEN said:

Well Court Martial me then because I won't stop believing in Christ and telling others the reason for my hope and faith.

Thursday, May 2, 2013 at 12:35 PM

JoeBlowe in Illinois replied:

You are welcome to your own beliefs. Just proselytize on your own time.

Thursday, May 2, 2013 at 12:49 PM

Craig in Emeryville replied:

"You are welcome to your own beliefs. Just proselytize on your own time."

Well put.

Thursday, May 2, 2013 at 12:53 PM

Anita York in Newark replied:

Joe and Craig, you just simply don't know--or don't want others to know--the facts. According to you two, and to this administration, George Washington himself would be court-martialed. One of the founders of the Lutheran Church here in the states noted this about Washington: "His excellency General Washington rode around among his army yesterday and admonished each and every one to fear God, to put away the wickedness that has set in and become so general, and to practice the Christian virtues." So, as a soldier, while on duty, Washington "proselytized" and witnessed to his Christian faith. DON'T TELL ME WASHINGTON, chairman of the Constitutional Convention, leader in our fight for independence, and first President of this nation, DIDN'T KNOW WHAT WAS PROPER FOR CHRISTIANS TO DO IN THE MILITARY!

Saturday, May 11, 2013 at 4:45 AM

VoR in Ohio replied:

The administration at AFA was promoting Christian beliefs and failing to accommodate those of non-Christians. This was in violation of freedom of religion.

Thursday, May 2, 2013 at 1:53 PM

SemperFi Patriot in Kalifornia replied:

Horse Pucky! They were providing an opportunity to serve others, and in the U.S., most often the most effective way to do that is through a Christian ministry. But anyone at the AFA could have chosen to serve through another channel or not at all. And to assert this constitutes a "violation of freedom of religion" is just stupefyingly dullard and utterly baseless.

Thursday, May 2, 2013 at 3:08 PM

Anita York in Newark replied:

So, the leftists are promoting the beliefs of non-Christians and failing to accommodate those of Christians. Is there a difference, in the name of fairness? But true Christians never, ever, try to force anyone to believe in Jesus because Jesus, Himself, won't.

Saturday, May 11, 2013 at 4:50 AM