PDA

View Full Version : Religious symbols have no place on troops’ uniforms



thedrifter
09-05-06, 02:15 PM
September 11, 2006
Christianity in combat
Religious symbols have no place on troops’ uniforms

By Mikey Weinstein
Special to the Times

For many of us, hearing the term “crusader” conjures up memories of grade-school history classes filled with long lectures about hordes of armored Christian soldiers hacking their way across Europe and the Middle East to recapture Jerusalem.

The Crusaders of the Middle Ages were holy warriors fighting in the name of the Roman Catholic Church and Jesus. Their mission was no secret: They were embroiled in a sectarian religious war to militarily enforce adherence to their biblical worldview.

Their leaders pushed, coerced and pressured them to fight on religious grounds. Their battlegrounds were awash in blood.

As Americans, this should be something we never fear, as our founding fathers knew the critical importance of keeping religion and government separate. Most would find it unfathomable to think of modern-day crusaders existing within our armed forces — of our men and women wearing uniforms decorated with religious symbols.

However, as I recently discovered, crusaders do exist — and they’re serving in the 523rd Fighter Squadron of our Air Force.

The airmen of 523rd Fighter Squadron, based at Cannon Air Force Base, N.M., not only call themselves “crusaders,” they also use blatantly religious symbolism on the patches they affix to their uniforms and the official logo of their unit.

As we continue to engage in a war on terrorism against religious fundamentalists, we must take a moment to consider the sick irony of allowing Air Force combat personnel to dress in clothes displaying religious emblems. Our men and women are fighting ruthless terrorist organizations that exploit religion as a means to cause mass devastation and death. It is the job of our military to end this fundamentalism, remove the terrorists and bring safety, democracy and freedom to the areas where they operate — not to spread Christianity or represent America as a Christian nation.

Our military personnel are not crusaders. They are honorable and noble defenders of our constitutionally guaranteed rights and freedoms.

The “Crusaders” patch prominently features a large cross — an unmistakable emblem of the Christian faith — as well as other accouterments of the historical Crusaders: a broadsword and armored helmet.

There is no hidden meaning here, no effort to disguise the reference to the Christian religion. This Air Force F-16 combat squadron has taken the horrifying step of completely disregarding the Constitution, which, as service men and women, they should proudly uphold under the oath they all took to do so.

Christian, Jew, Muslim, agnostic and atheist alike should agree — there is no place for this display of religiosity within our armed forces. The uniforms of our military personnel should not be showcases for religious imagery, particularly when that imagery directly boasts of one of the most devastating examples of human bloodshed in recorded history.

Take a look at the Air Force handbook — you can find it online at www.af.mil. I assure you that nowhere in the Air Force mission statement does it say anything about fighting a crusade for religious freedom. What it does say is this: “The mission of the U.S. Air Force is to deliver sovereign options for the defense of the United States and its global interests — to fly and fight in the air, space and cyberspace.”

Even the ubiquitous and time-honored “Little Blue Book” of Air Force core values established in 1947 — and to which guiding principles on religion were specifically added in 1997 to stop “ethical corrosion” — clearly states: “Military professionals must remember that religious choice is a matter of individual conscience. Professionals, and especially commanders, must not take it upon themselves to change or coercively influence the religious views of subordinates.”

The men and women who choose to serve in our military should be able to do so without the fear of being pressured to lead a religious crusade, without fear of being coercively evangelized and without fear of having to wear the symbol of another’s faith.

Today’s U.S. military is the most technologically lethal organization ever created. We, as Americans, should never fear that religion will overtake this mighty military force.

There is no denying that religion is pouring into our government institutions — including our armed forces — at a rapid pace. It is our responsibility to stand up and raise our voices against these continued egregious violations of our Constitution.

Our Constitution guarantees us the right to pray freely and also prevents our government from imposing religion upon us. We must express our outrage to military and government leadership, and we must fight to protect our rights, including the right to worship — or not — our God, in whatever manner we choose.

Mikey Weinstein, an Air Force Academy graduate and former White House counsel under President Reagan, is president and founder of the Military Religious Freedom Foundation.

Ellie

jinelson
09-05-06, 02:40 PM
Oh geeze here we go again. I just may buy into this crap when our sworn enemy stops screaming ALLAH AKBAR (God Is Good) after they blow our brave forces away with an IED or behead an innocent hostage in the name of their God! Lets just change Crusaders to Avengers then to keep them happy and see how they find fault with that. Just my humble opinion.

This is war lets fight it on the same terms as the enemy, no holds barred!

:mad:

Static_Sky25
09-05-06, 03:31 PM
our primiarily Christian fundamentalist country wouldn't stand for it :confused:

Osotogary
09-05-06, 03:42 PM
our primiarily Christian fundamentalist country wouldn't stand for it

Geez, Static Sky25, why did you have to be so prophetic? If your statement wasn't so close to what I believe probable, I'd be laughing my azz off at your satire.

I do believe that there are some "hard nuts" among the fundamental Christians, talkers excluded, who wouldn't mind getting dark and dirty if given the chance.

rktect3j
09-05-06, 04:07 PM
The Crusaders of the Middle Ages were holy warriors fighting in the name of the Roman Catholic Church and Jesus. Their mission was no secret: They were embroiled in a sectarian religious war to militarily enforce adherence to their biblical worldview.

Their leaders pushed, coerced and pressured them to fight on religious grounds. Their battlegrounds were awash in blood.

I don't know who this guy is but he sure does not know his history. Most of this is either a flat out lie or pure propoganda.

I am sure the masses ate it all up though.

iamcloudlander
09-05-06, 04:24 PM
When I was in Danang Vietnam I was assigned to
VMFA-122 our name was also Crusaders and our Squadron emblem was what could be construed as a cross
No one ever mentioned symbolic religion crap about us.
We did what the Marine Corps sent us to do that was to protect our grunts in the field and to bomb the Vietnamese.
No one could ever say that we were trying to promote any type of religion. We were Marines and we did our share of combat and all it entails.
I don't think that the man who wrote these article should invoke religion into our troops (whatever branch) as they have a hard enough job without bringing the religion factor against them. I say whatever emblem a unit desires to protray as a unit designation should be up to their superiors to either approve or deny it.
The troops when under fire from the enemy, are not being fired upon because of a patch they wear.
I am sure that no unit in combat purposely is trying to promote any religion to anyone.
It is afterall just a patch.

greensideout
09-07-06, 10:56 PM
September 11, 2006
Christianity in combat
Religious symbols have no place on troops’ uniforms

By Mikey Weinstein
Special to the Times

For many of us, hearing the term “crusader” conjures up memories of grade-school history classes filled with long lectures about hordes of armored Christian soldiers hacking their way across Europe and the Middle East to recapture Jerusalem.

The Crusaders of the Middle Ages were holy warriors fighting in the name of the Roman Catholic Church and Jesus. Their mission was no secret: They were embroiled in a sectarian religious war to militarily enforce adherence to their biblical worldview.

Their leaders pushed, coerced and pressured them to fight on religious grounds. Their battlegrounds were awash in blood.

As Americans, this should be something we never fear, as our founding fathers knew the critical importance of keeping religion and government separate. Most would find it unfathomable to think of modern-day crusaders existing within our armed forces — of our men and women wearing uniforms decorated with religious symbols.

However, as I recently discovered, crusaders do exist — and they’re serving in the 523rd Fighter Squadron of our Air Force.

The airmen of 523rd Fighter Squadron, based at Cannon Air Force Base, N.M., not only call themselves “crusaders,” they also use blatantly religious symbolism on the patches they affix to their uniforms and the official logo of their unit.

As we continue to engage in a war on terrorism against religious fundamentalists, we must take a moment to consider the sick irony of allowing Air Force combat personnel to dress in clothes displaying religious emblems. Our men and women are fighting ruthless terrorist organizations that exploit religion as a means to cause mass devastation and death. It is the job of our military to end this fundamentalism, remove the terrorists and bring safety, democracy and freedom to the areas where they operate — not to spread Christianity or represent America as a Christian nation.

Our military personnel are not crusaders. They are honorable and noble defenders of our constitutionally guaranteed rights and freedoms.

The “Crusaders” patch prominently features a large cross — an unmistakable emblem of the Christian faith — as well as other accouterments of the historical Crusaders: a broadsword and armored helmet.

There is no hidden meaning here, no effort to disguise the reference to the Christian religion. This Air Force F-16 combat squadron has taken the horrifying step of completely disregarding the Constitution, which, as service men and women, they should proudly uphold under the oath they all took to do so.

Christian, Jew, Muslim, agnostic and atheist alike should agree — there is no place for this display of religiosity within our armed forces. The uniforms of our military personnel should not be showcases for religious imagery, particularly when that imagery directly boasts of one of the most devastating examples of human bloodshed in recorded history.

Take a look at the Air Force handbook — you can find it online at www.af.mil. I assure you that nowhere in the Air Force mission statement does it say anything about fighting a crusade for religious freedom. What it does say is this: “The mission of the U.S. Air Force is to deliver sovereign options for the defense of the United States and its global interests — to fly and fight in the air, space and cyberspace.”

Even the ubiquitous and time-honored “Little Blue Book” of Air Force core values established in 1947 — and to which guiding principles on religion were specifically added in 1997 to stop “ethical corrosion” — clearly states: “Military professionals must remember that religious choice is a matter of individual conscience. Professionals, and especially commanders, must not take it upon themselves to change or coercively influence the religious views of subordinates.”

The men and women who choose to serve in our military should be able to do so without the fear of being pressured to lead a religious crusade, without fear of being coercively evangelized and without fear of having to wear the symbol of another’s faith.

Today’s U.S. military is the most technologically lethal organization ever created. We, as Americans, should never fear that religion will overtake this mighty military force.

There is no denying that religion is pouring into our government institutions — including our armed forces — at a rapid pace. It is our responsibility to stand up and raise our voices against these continued egregious violations of our Constitution.

Our Constitution guarantees us the right to pray freely and also prevents our government from imposing religion upon us. We must express our outrage to military and government leadership, and we must fight to protect our rights, including the right to worship — or not — our God, in whatever manner we choose.

Mikey Weinstein, an Air Force Academy graduate and former White House counsel under President Reagan, is president and founder of the Military Religious Freedom Foundation.

Ellie


It's the old story of change the subject to something other then what is really happening to serve one's interest. In this case, Mikey has a problem with the Christian faith.

His concern is not religious freedom but instead, an attack upon religious freedom that is guarenteed in the constitution.

The Airmen have a right to express their religious beliefs---YES, even when in uniform.

If their CO has no problem with it, then it's time for Mikey to take a hike!

jryanjack
09-08-06, 07:39 AM
GSO - I disagree with the airmen's rights to express their religious beliefs. I would agree that they have the right to practice their beliefs - unless the mission prevents it, but we do not have the right to express them. Would a Marine be allowed to openly display a cross on their uniform? Or if a muslim be allowed to wear a beard?

As a young PFC I used to wear a cross under my uniform but stopped the practice as if it was ever visable I would take heat from my NCO's - not religious persecution mind you, I was out of uniform - same as if I wore my dog tags outside of my skivie shirt.

As to the unit's insignia - its offical insignia - that's all BS - we've had Crusader aircraft in our inventory - the Navy A-7 I believe? If we extend Mikey's arguement about not offending the muslims we are working with by displaying christian symbols, should we then not eat pork (forbidden by their faith)? What about the drinking? I suppose we should next force all of our WM's to wear veils over their helmets? Sorry - we're Americans and we're not going to do that!

DWG
09-08-06, 08:17 AM
If we extend Mikey's arguement about not offending the muslims we are working with by displaying christian symbols, should we then not eat pork (forbidden by their faith)? What about the drinking? I suppose we should next force all of our WM's to wear veils over their helmets? Sorry - we're Americans and we're not going to do that!

At this point we have become muslims! War over, they won! I think we should pummel these hadjis with pork rinds until they submit. <!-- / message --><!-- sig -->

sgtrock1970
09-08-06, 08:47 AM
Again we are more concerned about political correctness than reality. If the muslims can't deal with christiam symbolism, tough! We've kissed their backsides far more than we should have already.

OLE SARG
09-08-06, 09:45 AM
Sgtrock1970,
I wish more of our fatass, lazy, politicians in Washington would be aware of your statement. Screw the muslims and their beliefs - slice and dice!!!!!!

SEMPER FI,

MillRatUSMC
09-08-06, 11:22 AM
I think Mikey is full of it...case in point just yesterday on my home page there was something on Richard I and the Crusades.
Some did go on those Crusades for money, and land, yet some did go for religious urgings from the Pope.
Than on seeing something on the Crusades on the History Channel on Richard and Saladin.
Saladin had a great number or Crusaders beheaded.
After Richard sacked Acre and took a good number of Muslim prisoners.
On moving to recapture Jerusalem.
He could not take those prisoners along, as he had very limit resources and he could not leave them in his rear.
He had them all beheaded as Saladin had done to the Crusaders.
On arriving before the City of Jerusalem, he saw how much confront him, and saw it was beyond his limited means.
He turned back towards Acre.
I think all these Squadrons Marine or Air Force use the symbol of the Knights Templar a Red Cross on a white background.
Its just a symbol nothing more, and we must not read more into that symbol than what those Squadron want it to mean.

FistFu68
09-08-06, 11:23 AM
:evilgrin: IT'S TIME THAT OUR ENEMY;SHARE'S OUR DREAD!:evilgrin:

MillRatUSMC
09-08-06, 11:28 AM
OH! why on Richard I...well seeing that my first name is Ricardo (Richard) how could I past on Richard I.
Its to my grief, that there suggestions that Richard I, was "gay", but yet he married and fathered a son, not by his legal wife but a mistress.
Pray that they are not correct on him being "gay"...

Osotogary
09-08-06, 11:44 AM
Again we are more concerned about political correctness than reality.
Another sad but true commentary.

Ricardo-
Richard I - Can one be gay and lion-hearted at the same time? LOL

MillRatUSMC
09-08-06, 01:18 PM
GARY!!! that would make for a great cartoon, I about choked on reading your words...Can one be gay and lion-hearted at the same time?
Now the hard part would be drawing the cartoon...

Osotogary
09-08-06, 02:20 PM
Ricardo-
Did you mean Gay as in frivolous and happy? If you did then I'd feel better about drawing the cartoon. LOL

MillRatUSMC
09-08-06, 03:19 PM
Gay as in...
King Richard had to be ordered by a hermit to reunite with and to show fidelity to Berengaria(his wife) in the future. The language he used - "remember the destruction of Sodom and abstain from illicit acts" - is the basis for J H Harvey's 1948 theory that Richard was homosexual. Harvey also placed a homosexual interpretation on his relationship with Philip of France. Some later writers, elaborating on this, have alleged that Berengaria's brother, the future Sancho VII of Navarre, was one of Richard's lovers. Nevertheless, when Richard died in 1199, Berengaria was greatly distressed, apparently having loved her husband very much. The picture is further muddied by the fact that she had to sue the Church to be recognised as his widow. The fact that the marriage was childless is inconclusive: Richard had fathered at least one illegitimate son, Philip, who was an adult by 1201. It is possible his history of serious feverish illnesses may have compromised his fertility.

That was from a very long article on King Richard I and the one I think most babies are named after.
Wonder if Moms and Dads would chose the name Richard, Ricardo, Rickey...if they knew all this?

Static_Sky25
09-12-06, 10:51 AM
http://i38.photobucket.com/albums/e140/Static_Sky25/crusader.jpg