Another Example of Intolerable Extremists

[Sir Joseph]

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

Yes I did in this case. I know soldiers wear dog tags, but for some reason I was thinking the issue concerned the tags that K-9's wear also - because they do. I regret making this inference but it doesn't change the post's separation of church and state issue, be it with service dogs or service personnel.

 

[Sir Joseph]

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?

I assume the religious dog tags in question, whether being bought for people or dogs, are being purchased privately. Why? My own 30 years of Federal service and knowledge of our secular environment considers it unfathomable that any Federal government agency would purchase obvious religious items for official use.

As personal items, if a higher court rules that religious dog tags are allowed by the U.S. Constitution's First Amendment freedom of religion clause, then all religions would be protected, not just Christianity.

Personally, I want freedom from all false religions since they offend both God and me, but as a Christian and American who believes in the First Amendment as interpreted by the Foundng Fathers who wrote it, I tolerate the presence of false religions and respect an individual's right to follow them so long as they don't hurt others by their actions.

Now here's a final response to your last question that will certainly draw oppostion from those here who don't respect our nation's Christian heritage. Written documents firmly demonstrate that our Founding Fathers established America as a Repubic based upon Christian beliefs and Biblical moral values. The Federal government supported the Christian religion extensively, starting with its first act of funding production of a new American Bible, establishing a juresprudence system based upon the Bible, and establishing a public school system for the purpose of reading the Bible. Understand also that many of the States had designated churches that were actually funded by the governments. There was no Constitutional separation of church and state as interpreted today until Hugo Black's Supreme Court Ruling in 1947 where he misinterpreted and canonized Jefferson's phrase.

Yes, I would support government/public funds being spent to advance the Christian faith as was done for the first 300 years of our nation. Sadly, I recognize that our society has turned it's back on having God's hand in the nation's affairs, as well as embracing Christianity and Biblical moral values. I believe America's on a downward spiral, and reclaiming our Christian heritage is the only thing that will save it.

 

[Sir Joseph]

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.

Having worn a government uniform all of my career for 3 different agencies, I respect the need for a uniform to have tight restrictions on personal adaptations. This case involves dog tags though that I assume would be worn inside of one's shirt or inconspiculously on a canine. Is this not similar to wearing a personalized watch, ring, or necklace that's reasonably allowed?

If a court rules religious dog tags are allowed, then yes, all religions would be accommodated. As much as I disdain false religions, I respect the Constitution's First Amendment and freedom of religion clause.

 

[Astrid]

I assume the religious dog tags in question, whether being bought for people or dogs, are being purchased privately. Why? My own 30 years of Federal service and knowledge of our secular environment considers it unfathomable that any Federal government agency would purchase obvious religious items for official use.

As personal items, if a higher court rules that religious dog tags are allowed by the U.S. Constitution's First Amendment freedom of religion clause, then all religions would be protected, not just Christianity.

Personally, I want freedom from all false religions since they offend both God and me, but as a Christian and American who believes in the First Amendment as interpreted by the Foundng Fathers who wrote it, I tolerate the presence of false religions and respect an individual's right to follow them so long as they don't hurt others by their actions.

Now here's a final response to your last question that will certainly draw oppostion from those here who don't respect our nation's Christian heritage. Written documents firmly demonstrate that our Founding Fathers established America as a Repubic based upon Christian beliefs and Biblical moral values. The Federal government supported the Christian religion extensively, starting with its first act of funding production of a new American Bible, establishing a juresprudence system based upon the Bible, and establishing a public school system for the purpose of reading the Bible. Understand also that many of the States had designated churches that were actually funded by the governments. There was no Constitutional separation of church and state as interpreted today until Hugo Black's Supreme Court Ruling in 1947 where he misinterpreted and canonized Jefferson's phrase.

Yes, I would support government/public funds being spent to advance the Christian faith as was done for the first 300 years of our nation. Sadly, I recognize that our society has turned it's back on having God's hand in the nation's affairs, as well as embracing Christianity and Biblical moral values. I believe America's on a downward spiral, and reclaiming our Christian heritage is the only thing that will save it.

We don't inhabit the same world
so your analysis v mine has no
particular import.

Which is good, as we'd be on opposing sides of nearly every point.

 

[RileyG]

Dogs tags are for military personnel. Not actual dogs.

Wait, I’m confused now.

 

[FireDragon76]

Dogs tags are for military personnel. Not actual dogs.

Wait, I’m confused now.

Dogs used by the military are actually considered military personnel (non-commissioned officers), and a higher rank than their handler. They are even sometimes given military funerals and other honors.

All religious jewelry worn by military personnel must be conservative and discrete. The dogs also aren't the property of the soldiers they work with.

 

[RocksInMyHead]

I assume the religious dog tags in question, whether being bought for people or dogs, are being purchased privately. Why? My own 30 years of Federal service and knowledge of our secular environment considers it unfathomable that any Federal government agency would purchase obvious religious items for official use.

Again, this has nothing to do with uniform regulations or what anyone (soldier, civilian, or canine) is permitted to wear. The point of contention is a company selling merchandise (which happens to be dog tags) displaying licensed US military logos alongside bible verses. The government worries that this could be seen as an official endorsement of a religion, which would violate the 1st Amendment.

 

[RileyG]

Dogs used by the military are actually considered military personnel (non-commissioned officers), and a higher rank than their handler. They are even sometimes given military funerals and other honors.

All religious jewelry worn by military personnel must be conservative and discrete. The dogs also aren't the property of the soldiers they work with.

Thanks for the info!

 

[Pommer]

Dogs used by the military are actually considered military personnel (non-commissioned officers), and a higher rank than their handler. They are even sometimes given military funerals and other honors.

All religious jewelry worn by military personnel must be conservative and discrete. The dogs also aren't the property of the soldiers they work with.

Ah, to be the dog-Walker at the Pentagon, what a job!

 

[Sir Joseph]

Again, this has nothing to do with uniform regulations or what anyone (soldier, civilian, or canine) is permitted to wear. The point of contention is a company selling merchandise (which happens to be dog tags) displaying licensed US military logos alongside bible verses. The government worries that this could be seen as an official endorsement of a religion, which would violate the 1st Amendment.

You've made your point twice now RocksInMyHead, but now I find and post the article that shows you're likely quite right.

I concede that there's a significant difference between prohibiting a privately purchased religious dog tag under one's shirt (that wouldn't affect the uniform attire) or on one's dog collar (that wouldn't affect any vest/uniform attire) versus using an official government agency logo on one's personal retail-sale item, be it religious or not. Simply put, using an agency logo on anything would warrant agency approval.

I say "likely" above, because I find it hard to believe that Shields of Strength would think they could do this, and even more surprised that First Liberty (a good organization in my view) would defend them. Perhaps we haven't gotten all the facts out right yet and a future court case or settlement will affirm the truth. Until then, I'm sorry I raised the issue at all. The battle against separation of church and state is a just cause for anyone respecting America's Christian heritage, but this is not yet a proven good case to pursue. I suggest we all move on to other threads.

The real reason the Marine Corps is disallowing Shields of Strength’s Bible verse dog tags

The author of this commentary says no one is stopping Shields of Strength from making dog tags with Bible verses, but the dog tags can't be officially licensed by the Marine Corps or have the USMC's trademarked emblem on them if they promote religion.

www.militarytimes.com

 

[waitingforourLord]

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.

So you believe that because the dogs belong to the US government, (which I don't dispute), that they cannot be allowed to put religious symbols on government property?

Then you also believe that soldiers themselves should not be allowed to wear the symbol of their faith on their persons.
I have served my country in the army.
If, when they told me " you are now the property of the united states government", that I also would not be allowed to wear a cross, i would have bailed.

how would you propose to solve this dilemma then?

 

[RocksInMyHead]

how would you propose to solve this dilemma then?

I would suggest you start by reading the thread, where you will learn that you're completely off-base and that this has absolutely nothing to do with dogs or what soldiers are permitted to wear.

 

[Hans Blaster]

As previously noted, the OP got the article wrong and part of the responses in the thread are in response to that error. The article was about merchandise sold with service branch insignia and religious themes that implied the DOD endorsed a particular religion. It does not.

Now I will respond to your post as written.

So you believe that because the dogs belong to the US government, (which I don't dispute), that they cannot be allowed to put religious symbols on government property?

Dogs don't have religions. The dog handlers don't have the right to use them for expressing their religion. (That is not the actual story.)

Then you also believe that soldiers themselves should not be allowed to wear the symbol of their faith on their persons.
I have served my country in the army.
If, when they told me " you are now the property of the united states government", that I also would not be allowed to wear a cross, i would have bailed.

I have never seen a soldier wearing a cross on their uniform except chaplains.

how would you propose to solve this dilemma then?

There is no dilemma. The company will not be permitted to use DOD insignia on their religious products.

 

[Niels]

Aren't dog tags typically hidden under clothing? My understanding is that their purpose is to help identify military personnel who are killed or wounded in action. In order to identify fallen soldiers, for instance, medics search for dog tags under the wearer's shirt etc. Having regulations regarding shape, material, colors, and obscene images makes sense to me. Nothing to draw attention away from the uniform aesthetic in case they're exposed. However, I don't see how having a little symbol or inspirational quote engraved on the tag, depicting the wearer's religious beliefs or lack thereof, harms anyone. It's not like we're talking about a patch or a medal. I imagine that's how this went uncontested for 20 years without issue. Dog tags are not on public display.

Military personnel put their lives on the line to defend our freedoms. They are allowed to have personal religious beliefs or lack thereof. As a taxpayer, it's no skin off my back if somebody wants to wear custom dog tags that reflect their own religious or cultural affiliations. Christian, Muslim, Jew, Atheist, or other. It is a private item that is worn under the uniform and close to the heart.


Point of reference:
There are military members in my family, but I've never seen their dog tags. It isn't something I've asked to see. I have no idea if theirs have religious symbols or inspirational quotes because this item is worn under clothing and they haven't brought up the subject.

 

[Hans Blaster]

Aren't dog tags typically hidden under clothing? My understanding is that their purpose is to help identify military personnel who are killed or wounded in action. In order to identify fallen soldiers, for instance, medics search for dog tags under the wearer's shirt etc. Having regulations regarding shape, material, colors, and obscene images makes sense to me. Nothing to draw attention away from the uniform aesthetic in case they're exposed. However, I don't see how having a little symbol or inspirational quote engraved on the tag, depicting the wearer's religious beliefs or lack thereof, harms anyone. It's not like we're talking about a patch or a medal. I imagine that's how this went uncontested for 20 years without issue. Dog tags are not on public display.

Military personnel put their lives on the line to defend our freedoms. They are allowed to have personal religious beliefs or lack thereof. As a taxpayer, it's no skin off my back if somebody wants to wear custom dog tags that reflect their own religious or cultural affiliations. Christian, Muslim, Jew, Atheist, or other. It is a private item that is worn under the uniform and close to the heart.


Point of reference:
There are military members in my family, but I've never seen their dog tags. It isn't something I've asked to see. I have no idea if theirs have religious symbols or inspirational quotes because this item is worn under clothing and they haven't brought up the subject.

The company in the article linked in the OP is selling souvenir "dog tags" with stuff written on them. They are not official or for use by soldiers as ID tags. The objection is to the authorized use of DOD insignia and religious text on the same "dog tag".

 

[JosephZ]

There are military members in my family, but I've never seen their dog tags. It isn't something I've asked to see. I have no idea if theirs have religious symbols or inspirational quotes because this item is worn under clothing and they haven't brought up the subject.

US government issued dog tags are stamped with the full name of the soldier, social security/DOD number, blood type, and religious affiliation. Below are what mine issued by the US Army look like.

The Navy, Marine Corps, and Coast Guard also include the branch of service, and the Marine Corps also includes gas mask size. Anything else printed or stamped on dog tags, such as religious symbols or inspirational quotes, would be prohibited.

 

[waitingforourLord]

As previously noted, the OP got the article wrong and part of the responses in the thread are in response to that error. The article was about merchandise sold with service branch insignia and religious themes that implied the DOD endorsed a particular religion. It does not.

Now I will respond to your post as written.

Dogs don't have religions. The dog handlers don't have the right to use them for expressing their religion. (That is not the actual story.)

I have never seen a soldier wearing a cross on their uniform except chaplains.

There is no dilemma. The company will not be permitted to use DOD insignia on their religious products.

No, soldiers don't wear crosses embroidered on their uniforms, but there have been many instances where Christian soldiers have been put in a position where they have had to stand up for their faith or face repercussions in the military, and if I wanted to wear a cross on my uniform, they shouldn't have any say in the matter. The Constitution says freedom OF religion, not freedom FROM religion!!!!
I agree that the company should not be allowed to use DOD insignia on their merchandise, but i disagree for a different reason. I simply don't believe a private company should be allowed to profit off of what the US citizen pays for.

 

[waitingforourLord]

US government issued dog tags are stamped with the full name of the soldier, social security/DOD number, blood type, and religious affiliation. Below are what mine issued by the US Army look like.

View attachment 351105

The Navy, Marine Corps, and Coast Guard also include the branch of service, and the Marine Corps also includes gas mask size. Anything else printed or stamped on dog tags, such as religious symbols or inspirational quotes, would be prohibited.

 

[waitingforourLord]

I am NOT saying they should allow anything on an animals tags, on a soldiers tags or anything of the sort!
what I AM saying is that the military has been slowly and methodically taking God OUT of the military for the last 20 years by not allowing certain things to be worn, or read!!
When I served, I served for the good of my country not my government, and even though I was under their control, I and ALL soldiers have personal freedoms, the MOST important being freedom OF OF OF religion not FROM religion.
you guys are on a CHRISTIAN forum, and yet many of you almost sound like you think the government should have the right to tell a soldier what he can and cannot worship!

 

[Bradskii]

...many of you almost sound like you think the government should have the right to tell a soldier what he can and cannot worship!

Matthew 6:6-7: But when you pray, go away by yourself, shut the door behind you, and pray to your Father in private. Then your Father, who sees everything, will reward you.

There ya go...you get rewarded into the bargain. Sounds like a win/win to me.