You mean the one that says, "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof?"bdickens wrote:Ho, hum.
Hardly an "assault on liberty." More like enforcing a policy strictly in line with the First Amendment."Religious proselytization is not permitted within the Department of Defense...Court martials and non-judicial punishments are decided on a case-by-case basis...”. [emphasis mine]
And so the military's decision to jail a soldier because he or she shares their faith during a voluntary and personal conversation? How is throwing someone in jail for that NOT anything but prohibiting the free exercise thereof?
I guess we're all constitutional purists when it comes to defense of the 2nd Amendment, but not so much in defense of the 1st. There, we're willing to fudge the meaning?
From the article:
REALLY? "Spiritual RAPE?" Treason? What a crybaby.(From our earlier report: Weinstein is the head of the Military Religious Freedom Foundation, and says Christians--including chaplains--sharing the gospel of Jesus Christ in the military are guilty of “treason,” and of committing an act of “spiritual rape” as serious a crime as “sexual assault.” He also asserted that Christians sharing their faith in the military are “enemies of the Constitution.”)
I really can't bear listening to constitutional hypocrites.