Southern Baptists Fights Back Against...

Southern Baptists Fights Back Against Prostelytizing Court Marshal Lie

There are 12 comments on the lezgetreal.com story from May 12, 2013, titled Southern Baptists Fights Back Against Prostelytizing Court Marshal Lie. In it, lezgetreal.com reports that:

The Southern Baptist Convention is actively fighting back against a conspiracy theory that military personnel can be court marshaled for evangelizing.

Join the discussion below, or Read more at lezgetreal.com.

“God made in the image of man”

Since: May 07

Sausalito, CA

#1 May 12, 2013
Proselytizing is free speech, hence protected under the 1st Amendment. Unless the Pentagon intends to curtail the free speech of all military personnel, they should not -- and would not -- ban evangelizing or proselytizing.

Having thus supported the christians' right to proselytize ... I affirm also my own right to despise them for it. It is what makes christianity the most virulent strain of all the world religions -- their insistence that their salvation depends on converting the rest of the world to their despicable beliefs based on Hebrew mythology.

“ reality, what a concept”

Since: Nov 07

this one

#2 May 12, 2013
If it weren't for sensationalism and faux outrage, most of these folk wouldn't have a whole lot to talk about. Got to give credit where credit is due, especially when it so rarely happens when it comes to folk who identify as Baptists, they got the whole concept of not bearing false witness right for a change. Good on them.

Sei

Since: Nov 08

Rutland, VT

#3 May 12, 2013
Umninimuzi wrote:
Proselytizing is free speech, hence protected under the 1st Amendment. Unless the Pentagon intends to curtail the free speech of all military personnel, they should not -- and would not -- ban evangelizing or proselytizing.
Having thus supported the christians' right to proselytize ... I affirm also my own right to despise them for it. It is what makes christianity the most virulent strain of all the world religions -- their insistence that their salvation depends on converting the rest of the world to their despicable beliefs based on Hebrew mythology.
Actually, what they have banned is religious harassment, which thye are calling proselytizing. Soldiers can still evangelize.

Since: Mar 09

Location hidden

#4 May 12, 2013
Link to the DoD statement ...

http://www.defense.gov/news/newsarticle.aspx...

“God made in the image of man”

Since: May 07

Sausalito, CA

#5 May 12, 2013
Sei wrote:
<quoted text>
Actually, what they have banned is religious harassment, which thye are calling proselytizing. Soldiers can still evangelize.
Good point, SEI -- harrassment should never be legal.

Since: Dec 08

Toronto, ON, Canada

#6 May 13, 2013
I would say atheists need to proselytize, but one usually has to have some intelligence to become an atheist. In the US, that is only 1% of the population.
Beaumec

San Juan, Puerto Rico

#7 May 13, 2013
Umninimuzi wrote:
Proselytizing is free speech, hence protected under the 1st Amendment. Unless the Pentagon intends to curtail the free speech of all military personnel, they should not -- and would not -- ban evangelizing or proselytizing.
Having thus supported the christians' right to proselytize ... I affirm also my own right to despise them for it. It is what makes christianity the most virulent strain of all the world religions -- their insistence that their salvation depends on converting the rest of the world to their despicable beliefs based on Hebrew mythology.
Actually, evangelizing is not "free speech" per se. Free speech only is only applicable to political speech and even that is not absolute. As there is (in theory) separation of religion and government, proselytizing isn't covered. However, the government cannot inhibit the practice of religion unless it is deemed detrimental to society as a whole (like human sacrifice for example). So it's a question of where to draw the line. But the government (in theory) can put limits on religion speech.

“God made in the image of man”

Since: May 07

Sausalito, CA

#8 May 13, 2013
Beaumec wrote:
<quoted text>
Actually, evangelizing is not "free speech" per se. Free speech only is only applicable to political speech and even that is not absolute. As there is (in theory) separation of religion and government, proselytizing isn't covered. However, the government cannot inhibit the practice of religion unless it is deemed detrimental to society as a whole (like human sacrifice for example). So it's a question of where to draw the line. But the government (in theory) can put limits on religion speech.
I do not see that. "You may not speak about god in public"? Far be it from me to stick up for the religionists (I'm an atheist), but I'm only interested in the facts. I'm not convinced that the First Amendment applies only to political speech. If that were the case it would have been possible to shut up the Westboro crazies long ago. But hey -- I'm open to correction. Let the debate begin!

“ reality, what a concept”

Since: Nov 07

this one

#9 May 13, 2013
Umninimuzi wrote:
<quoted text>
I do not see that. "You may not speak about god in public"? Far be it from me to stick up for the religionists (I'm an atheist), but I'm only interested in the facts. I'm not convinced that the First Amendment applies only to political speech. If that were the case it would have been possible to shut up the Westboro crazies long ago. But hey -- I'm open to correction. Let the debate begin!
The freedom of speech applies to all speech, not just political. It applies to not only the spoken word, but written communications and nonverbal acts (flag burning is considered free speech). In the military, the individual's right to freely express their religious beliefs ends at their audience's desire to hear about them. If you tell them no and they bring it up again, you have the military's prohibition on proselytizing. "Good Order and Discipline" is a right of the government when it comes to the military, civilian Courts have always been reluctant to limit it.

“God made in the image of man”

Since: May 07

Sausalito, CA

#10 May 13, 2013
Rick in Kansas wrote:
<quoted text>The freedom of speech applies to all speech, not just political. It applies to not only the spoken word, but written communications and nonverbal acts (flag burning is considered free speech). In the military, the individual's right to freely express their religious beliefs ends at their audience's desire to hear about them. If you tell them no and they bring it up again, you have the military's prohibition on proselytizing. "Good Order and Discipline" is a right of the government when it comes to the military, civilian Courts have always been reluctant to limit it.
A great summary, Rick -- thank you! That's how I've understood it, although I wasn't too clear on the military portion. Your explanation of where the line is drawn between proselytizing and harassment makes perfect sense. Wish I could shut up some of the people around me in the same way! "Thanks, but no thanks -- I'm an atheist" seems to make for some very sour relationships around the workplace; could even get me fired under some pretext, he-he-hehhh ...

That's probably our next civil rights struggle -- first get a woman into the White House and next an atheist. Then we'll know we're truly in the 21st century.

“God made in the image of man”

Since: May 07

Sausalito, CA

#11 May 13, 2013
Correction ... you're saying proselytizing IS repeated speech about religion to one who has expressed a desire not to hear it. So in the military the definition of proselytizing is a form of harassment. Got it.

“ reality, what a concept”

Since: Nov 07

this one

#12 May 13, 2013
Umninimuzi wrote:
A great summary, Rick -- thank you! That's how I've understood it, although I wasn't too clear on the military portion. Your explanation of where the line is drawn between proselytizing and harassment makes perfect sense. Wish I could shut up some of the people around me in the same way! "Thanks, but no thanks -- I'm an atheist" seems to make for some very sour relationships around the workplace; could even get me fired under some pretext, he-he-hehhh ...
That's probably our next civil rights struggle -- first get a woman into the White House and next an atheist. Then we'll know we're truly in the 21st century.
You're welcome, glad I could help. Unfortunately, keeping Good Order and Discipline only applies to the military, unless we have the power to do something about it, we get proselytized.

Tell me when this thread is updated:

Subscribe Now Add to my Tracker

Add your comments below

Characters left: 4000

Please note by submitting this form you acknowledge that you have read the Terms of Service and the comment you are posting is in compliance with such terms. Be polite. Inappropriate posts may be removed by the moderator. Send us your feedback.

Gay/Lesbian Discussions

Title Updated Last By Comments
News 'Free Kim Davis': This is just what gay rights ... (Sep '15) 7 min Strel 15,808
News Colo. gay discrimination alleged over wedding cake (Jun '13) 12 min Frankie Rizzo 38,737
Maybe god is gay! (Dec '09) 19 min June VanDerMark 11,286
News Pastors Rarely Asked to Wed Same-Sex Couples 34 min Fa-Foxy 57
News Study: Children Of Same-Sex Parents More Likely... 1 hr Phyllis Schlafly ... 6
News This gay Senate candidate is running in the lan... 1 hr UnPolitically Cor... 42
News Seefried not guilty in sex assault case 1 hr Rainbow Kid 2
News Judge who said she wouldn't marry gays fights b... 1 hr okimar 16
The gay cafe for GLBT, friends and family (Oct '09) 3 hr Frankie Rizzo 68,957
More from around the web