Another Example of Intolerable Extremists

[Sir Joseph]

In this case, it's the ironically mislabeled Military Religious Freedom Foundation (MRFF) objecting to canine handling soldiers expressing their Christian faith. It seems that putting Biblical scripture dog tags on their service animals offends MRFF's intention for a godless society.

Once again, an organization who's soul purpose is to undermine America's Christian heritage chooses to oppose God and oppress good citizens under the misguided notion of separation of church and state. Not only has MRFF failed to understand the U.S. Constitution's First Amendment concerning freedom of religion, but it has demonstrated intolerance towards those who would express their faith in any public way.

I'd hope that religious people of all faiths would see the problem with this and that irreligious people could learn to understand that in America we have freedom of religion, not freedom from religion - at least that's what the highest laws of the land hold.

'Shields of Strength' Gets Greenlight to Sue DoD for Prohibiting Military Dog Tags with Bible Verses

The faith-based seller of military-themed dog tags engraved with inspirational Bible verses has been cleared to pursue a

www2.cbn.com

 

[Hans Blaster]

In this case, it's the ironically mislabeled Military Religious Freedom Foundation (MRFF) objecting to canine handling soldiers expressing their Christian faith. It seems that putting Biblical scripture dog tags on their service animals offends MRFF's intention for a godless society.

The service animals are not the private property of the soldiers who handle them. They belong to the US government. Putting religioius slogans on these dogs is no different (and equally prohibited) as painting religious slogans on the general's jeep.

Once again, an organization who's soul purpose is to undermine America's Christian heritage chooses to oppose God and oppress good citizens under the misguided notion of separation of church and state. Not only has MRFF failed to understand the U.S. Constitution's First Amendment concerning freedom of religion, but it has demonstrated intolerance towards those who would express their faith in any public way.

MRFF very well understand the First Amendment and its promise of separation of religion and government. That is what they are defending.

I'd hope that religious people of all faiths would see the problem with this and that irreligious people could learn to understand that in America we have freedom of religion, not freedom from religion - at least that's what the highest laws of the land hold.

I would hope that the religious people of all faiths would see the problem in using government resources to promote your religion and violate the religious freedom of others.

 

[Offline4Better.]

The service animals are not the private property of the soldiers who handle them. They belong to the US government. Putting religioius slogans on these dogs is no different (and equally prohibited) as painting religious slogans on the general's jeep.

MRFF very well understand the First Amendment and its promise of separation of religion and government. That is what they are defending.

I would hope that the religious people of all faiths would see the problem in using government resources to promote your religion and violate the religious freedom of others.

Ooh, I see your point. However, would it be okay for the scriptures to on the dog tags only during times when the dogs are being handled by the soldiers? Then, when the dogs are not being handled, then the tags could be removed? Say, a soldier is with their dog for 4 hours a day, then for 4 hours, could the dog tag be placed on the dog? After the 4 hour period, the tag could be removed by the soldier when the dog is handed off to someone else.

 

[BCP1928]

Ooh, I see your point. However, would it be okay for the scriptures to on the dog tags only during times when the dogs are being handled by the soldiers? Then, when the dogs are not being handled, then the tags could be removed? Say, a soldier is with their dog for 4 hours a day, then for 4 hours, could the dog tag be placed on the dog? After the 4 hour period, the tag could be removed by the soldier when the dog is handed off to someone else.

Posting Bible verses on government property? You guys really don't get it.

 

[Offline4Better.]

Posting Bible verses on government property? You guys really don't get it.

I do understand this (well, at least I hope, cos I am not in the military).

Well, say that you are a pilot who flies an F-35 plane, and you have an icon of Saint Joseph. Then, you stick the icon to the dashboard of the plane during a long mission. It would be perfectly okay to stick the icon of St. Joseph in a non distracting area of the plane, as long as you do not cover up the instruments (radar, speedometer, etc). At the end of the flight, you can remove the St. Joseph icon (be sure to use tape that does not leave residue).

It is kinda similar to a cab driver who hangs his cross/crucifix on the rear view mirror during his shift. When he returns to base, he takes the cross off the mirror, and puts it back in his pocket.

 

[BCP1928]

I do understand this (well, at least I hope, cos I am not in the military).

Well, say that you are a pilot who flies an F-35 plane, and you have an icon of Saint Joseph. Then, you stick the icon to the dashboard of the plane during a long mission. It would be perfectly okay to stick the icon of St. Joseph in a non distracting area of the plane, as long as you do not cover up the instruments (radar, speedometer, etc). At the end of the flight, you can remove the St. Joseph icon (be sure to use tape that does not leave residue).

Are present day fighter pilots allowed to put stuff like that (religious or otherwise) in their cockpits any more?

It is kinda similar to a cab driver who hangs his cross/crucifix on the rear view mirror during his shift. When he returns to base, he takes the cross off the mirror, and puts it back in his pocket.

And the cab isn't government property and he is not in the military. The handler can't have Bible verses on his dog tags, either. Where's your complain about that? And the dog isn't even a Christian.

 

[comana]

These are replica “dog tags“ ( military identification tags) not tags for actual dogs. Anyway, it seems the Army and Marines have responded claiming that using their trademarks with religious quotes is the issue.

”
The anti-religion group sent letters to the Pentagon, the Army, and Marines complaining about the Bible-based product.

"The letter of the law states that you cannot do this because that would be in this case breaching the separation of church and state and applying, in this case, an endorsement by the Department of Defense and military branches on a clearly proselytizing message," said MRFF.

After reviewing the complaint, the Marines and the Army sent Vaughan cease and desist letters. One of them said in part, that it could not "...tolerate merchandise that had a) Marine Corps trademarks and b) a religious theme. This is in direct violation of the Department of Defense Instruction..."

 

[Offline4Better.]

Are present day fighter pilots allowed to put stuff like that (religious or otherwise) in their cockpits any more?

And the cab isn't government property and he is not in the military. The handler can't have Bible verses on his dog tags, either. Where's your complain about that? And the dog isn't even a Christian.

Well, I am not sure about the cockpits, but I see your point about how the hypothetical cab driver's taxi is not government property.

This is my weakness, understanding military stuff. And yes, dogs can not be Christian. Hmm, I'll let the others here talk about this, cos I am not good with understanding the nuances of military and religion in the military.

 

[RocksInMyHead]

In this case, it's the ironically mislabeled Military Religious Freedom Foundation (MRFF) objecting to canine handling soldiers expressing their Christian faith. It seems that putting Biblical scripture dog tags on their service animals offends MRFF's intention for a godless society.

Once again, an organization who's soul purpose is to undermine America's Christian heritage chooses to oppose God and oppress good citizens under the misguided notion of separation of church and state. Not only has MRFF failed to understand the U.S. Constitution's First Amendment concerning freedom of religion, but it has demonstrated intolerance towards those who would express their faith in any public way.

I'd hope that religious people of all faiths would see the problem with this and that irreligious people could learn to understand that in America we have freedom of religion, not freedom from religion - at least that's what the highest laws of the land hold.

'Shields of Strength' Gets Greenlight to Sue DoD for Prohibiting Military Dog Tags with Bible Verses

The faith-based seller of military-themed dog tags engraved with inspirational Bible verses has been cleared to pursue a

www2.cbn.com

I always find it entertaining when the OP completely fails to read/understand their own article. This has nothing to do with military service animals or their handlers, or even what soldiers are allowed to wear on-duty. "Dog tags" are the standard military identification - metal tags stamped with the soldier's name, military serial number, blood type, and religious preference (for chaplain/last rites purposes). It's common for companies to produce novelty/commemorative tags for sale though for those who like the aesthetic. The particular issue here was a company selling novelty tags with official, licensed military logos (i.e. the USMC coat of arms) alongside bible verses. The concern is that this could give the appearance of government agencies promoting a particular religion.

No one is being "oppressed" here - the only thing restricted is the ability of this manufacturer to sell items with a particular combination of features. They can still sell dog tags with licensed military logos, and they can still sell dog tags with bible verses. They just cannot sell dog tags with both licensed military logos and bible verses together.

 

[jayem]

I'd hope that religious people of all faiths would see the problem with this and that irreligious people could learn to understand that in America we have freedom of religion, not freedom from religion - at least that's what the highest laws of the land hold.

There are about 6,000 Muslims in the US military. So you'd be fine if they display quotes from the Koran as part of their jobs. There are over 24,000 native American and Alaskan personnel in the military. Why shouldn't they also express their beliefs openly on their insignia? And the same should apply to the 8,000 to 10,000 Jewish servicemen and women. Who might want to wear the Star of David on their uniforms. The same would apply to Hindu personnel. We live in a multicultural, multireligious society. Things get compilcated.

 

[Offline4Better.]

I always find it entertaining when the OP completely fails to read/understand their own article. This has nothing to do with military service animals or their handlers, or even what soldiers are allowed to wear on-duty. "Dog tags" are the standard military identification - metal tags stamped with the soldier's name, military serial number, blood type, and religious preference (for chaplain/last rites purposes). It's common for companies to produce novelty/commemorative tags for sale though for those who like the aesthetic. The particular issue here was a company selling novelty tags with official, licensed military logos (i.e. the USMC coat of arms) alongside bible verses. The concern is that this could give the appearance of government agencies promoting a particular religion.

No one is being "oppressed" here - the only thing restricted is the ability of this manufacturer to sell items with a particular combination of features. They can still sell dog tags with licensed military logos, and they can still sell dog tags with bible verses. They just cannot sell dog tags with both licensed military logos and bible verses together.

Yeah, I was wondering what was going on. Thank you for enlightening me.

 

[Hans Blaster]

Ooh, I see your point. However, would it be okay for the scriptures to on the dog tags only during times when the dogs are being handled by the soldiers? Then, when the dogs are not being handled, then the tags could be removed? Say, a soldier is with their dog for 4 hours a day, then for 4 hours, could the dog tag be placed on the dog? After the 4 hour period, the tag could be removed by the soldier when the dog is handed off to someone else.

Nope. Not going to "cure" the issue. People learn to leave well enough alone and stop trying to use government power/property to promote their particular religion.

 

[Bradskii]

It seems that putting Biblical scripture dog tags on their service animals offends MRFF's intention for a godless society.

You thought that dog tags were tags they put on dogs?

 

[Hans Blaster]

You thought that dog tags were tags they put on dogs?

That's what I get for trusting the OP's summary. (I knew what dog tags are, but...)

 

[Bradskii]

That's what I get for trusting the OP's summary. (I knew what dog tags are, but...)

Likewise. Thanks to @RocksInMyHead for giving us the heads up.

 

[Astrid]

In this case, it's the ironically mislabeled Military Religious Freedom Foundation (MRFF) objecting to canine handling soldiers expressing their Christian faith. It seems that putting Biblical scripture dog tags on their service animals offends MRFF's intention for a godless society.

Once again, an organization who's soul purpose is to undermine America's Christian heritage chooses to oppose God and oppress good citizens under the misguided notion of separation of church and state. Not only has MRFF failed to understand the U.S. Constitution's First Amendment concerning freedom of religion, but it has demonstrated intolerance towards those who would express their faith in any public way.

I'd hope that religious people of all faiths would see the problem with this and that irreligious people could learn to understand that in America we have freedom of religion, not freedom from religion - at least that's what the highest laws of the land hold.

'Shields of Strength' Gets Greenlight to Sue DoD for Prohibiting Military Dog Tags with Bible Verses

The faith-based seller of military-themed dog tags engraved with inspirational Bible verses has been cleared to pursue a

www2.cbn.com

Which gods and religions would you exclude from
dog tags? ( they are federally funded, your money
IF you pay taxes.)

Is there any religion frim which you want freedom?

The old Aztec human sacrifice one, say?
Any prob with yiur taxes going tomsupport / spread it?

 

[Offline4Better.]

That's what I get for trusting the OP's summary. (I knew what dog tags are, but...)

Same, I knew what dog tags are also (worn by people in the military, as a form of ID in war zones), and OP's summary confused me. Man, even the AI on my laptop could summarize an article a bit better. I used to use AI to summarize articles a lot more here, but I do not do that as much.

 

[The IbanezerScrooge]

I always find it entertaining when the OP completely fails to read/understand their own article. This has nothing to do with military service animals or their handlers, or even what soldiers are allowed to wear on-duty. "Dog tags" are the standard military identification - metal tags stamped with the soldier's name, military serial number, blood type, and religious preference (for chaplain/last rites purposes). It's common for companies to produce novelty/commemorative tags for sale though for those who like the aesthetic. The particular issue here was a company selling novelty tags with official, licensed military logos (i.e. the USMC coat of arms) alongside bible verses. The concern is that this could give the appearance of government agencies promoting a particular religion.

No one is being "oppressed" here - the only thing restricted is the ability of this manufacturer to sell items with a particular combination of features. They can still sell dog tags with licensed military logos, and they can still sell dog tags with bible verses. They just cannot sell dog tags with both licensed military logos and bible verses together.

oof

 

[The Barbarian]

The service animals are not the private property of the soldiers who handle them. They belong to the US government. Putting religioius slogans on these dogs is no different (and equally prohibited) as painting religious slogans on the general's jeep.

Today's winner. Religious freedom is expressing your faith on your own dime, not on appropriating government stuff to do it for you. Seems like a pretty simple and fair rule.

 

[FireDragon76]

Dogs don't have religion... why do they need religious slogans around their necks?