Atheist soldier says Army punished him

[Shogun]

You clearly dont have the capacity to discuss anything other than your preconceived notions about what other say.

lecture on, fish on a hook.. lecture on!

 

[midcan5]

Because you apparently didnt see them...

http://www.usmessageboard.com/showpost.php?p=658267&postcount=173
http://www.usmessageboard.com/showpost.php?p=658594&postcount=197

Please let me know if you have any other questions.

I asked you, I did not ask what may happen in the military, or to speculate. Same question, does he?

 

[M14 Shooter]

I asked you, I did not ask what may happen in the military, or to speculate. Same question, does he?

You have the best answer I can give you.

The military has rules about free speech. This may or may not fall under the sort of speech that is prohibited. I cannot say if it does because I am not intimately familiar with those rules, and I will bet dollars to doughnuts that you are not either.

So, if the rules forbid this sort of free speech, then no, he does not have that right. If it does not forbid it, then he does.

Not sure how I can be more plain.

Now, you can think all you want that he -does- have the right, but the fact is the military can, under certain circunstances, constitutionally limit the right to free speech of servicemen -- and so if the military disagrees with you, you are wrong.

 

[Shogun]

You have the best answer I can give you.

HA!

uh, GOOD ANSWER.

 

[midcan5]

You have the best answer I can give you.

The military has rules about free speech. This may or may not fall under the sort of speech that is prohibited. I cannot say if it does because I am not intimately familiar with those rules, and I will bet dollars to doughnuts that you are not either.

So, if the rules forbid this sort of free speech, then no, he does not have that right. If it does not forbid it, then he does.

Not sure how I can be more plain.

Now, you can think all you want that he -does- have the right, but the fact is the military can, under certain circunstances, constitutionally limit the right to free speech of servicemen -- and so if the military disagrees with you, you are wrong.

"Forbids free speech!" then it would hardly be free speech. The point is he should have the same rights as the other soldiers, if he does not because of his beliefs then his rights are being infringed. Any 'rules' as you use the word would be religious based and would conflict with his constitutional rights and the separation. So your answer really is another dodge.

 

[M14 Shooter]

"Forbids free speech!" then it would hardly be free speech.

That's the point -- "free speech" means something different for servicemen than it does for civilians.

The point is he should have the same rights as the other soldiers

He does.

So your answer really is another dodge.

You think that only because you don't understand the answer.

 

[Shogun]

So your answer really is another dodge.
You think that only because you don't understand the answer.


it's like deja vu all over again, Yogi.

 

[mattskramer]

That's the point -- "free speech" means something different for servicemen than it does for civilians.


He does.


You think that only because you don't understand the answer.

Now wait just a minute. You just told me that if a discussion falls under the usual free speech preclusions that solders suffer, then no they don’t have free speech. You also said that you don’t know what is in the “speech preclusions”. What if the speech preclusions say that Christians may speak of their religion but atheists are not to speak of atheism?

 

[M14 Shooter]

You just told me that if a discussion falls under the usual free speech preclusions that solders suffer, then no they don’t have free speech. You also said that you don’t know what is in the “speech preclusions”.

Yes. That's exactly what I said.
Not sure why midcan5 doesnt seem to understand it.

What if the speech preclusions say that Christians may speak of their religion but atheists are not to speak of atheism?

Is that the case?

 

[mattskramer]

Yes. That's exactly what I said.
Not sure why midcan5 doesnt seem to understand it.


Is that the case?

You say that if a discussion falls under the usual free speech preclusions that solders suffer, then no they don’t have free speech. You also said that you don’t know what is in the “speech preclusions”. These statements are not compatible with your answer in post # 246 in which you conclude that he has the same rights as the other soldiers. You do not know that he has the same rights as the other soldiers with respect to freedom of speech unless you know what the free speech preclusions say.

 

[mattskramer]

Does anyone happen to have access to the free speech preclusions - so that we can see if his rights were violated with respect to the other soldiers' rights under such preclusions or to see if perhaps the preclusions are unfair?

 

[midcan5]

You say that if a discussion falls under the usual free speech preclusions that solders suffer, then no they don’t have free speech. You also said that you don’t know what is in the “speech preclusions”. These statements are not compatible with your answer in post # 246 in which you conclude that he has the same rights as the other soldiers. You do not know that he has the same rights as the other soldiers with respect to freedom of speech unless you know what the free speech preclusions say.

Good post. M14 has a hard time facing the fact rights should apply to all. It seems the military does have different rules for officers than we grunts. So the atheist should have the same rights as the religious observant soldier.

"Do members of the military have freedom of speech?

Good question. Article 88 of the UCMJ, 10 U.S.C. 888 makes it a crime for a military officer to use contemptuous words against the President, Congress, etc.

Although it raises intriguing First Amendment issues, no one has been prosecuted this century for contemptuous language, so this remains an open issue."

http://law.freeadvice.com/government_law/military_law/military_freedom_speech.htm
http://writ.news.findlaw.com/commentary/20030619_falvy.html

 

[LuvRPgrl]

arent you the guy acting like the Declaration of Independance is a legal precedent? It really is hilarious that you run to the Constitution now despite the first Amendment..

Answer the question, you run from it like a coward

I was going to unload on you with a shotgun blast of sources but, frankly, you are not worth the effort..

HAHHAH, always the refuge of a COWARD. Cowards like you line up on the internet because its the only place you can safely make personal insults and not worry.

Alas, since the Flying Spaghetti Monster loves you though,.

I dont know who that is. You are the only one who can understand or enjoy your own writings. I know you think you are clever, but the fact that you arent published proves you are the only one who thinks you are clever.

The Jefferson Library
http://www.monticello.org/reports/interests/religion.html


To say that Jefferson was not a Deist is the cherry on top your your goofiness. On June 25, 1819, he wrote to Ezra Stiles, "I am of a sect by myself, as far as I know."[/B].

HAHAHHA, HAHHAHA, BWAHHAHAHAHHA, THAT PROVES HE IS A DIEST? JUST HOW DOES IT DO THAT?

I mean, christians usually DO rewrite the bible nixing all of the divinity and miracles.. For realz.

If you say so, bwahhaha

God bless you, Jesus still loves you and the other fools and cowards.

Im really enjoying this In all my years of posting, I havent had such and easy and enjoyable time shoving crap onto someone.

 

[LuvRPgrl]

so did racism and sexism. Do you want to make a similar arguement for those variables of their colonial society? You should read a little bit about Jefferson and his religious views before jumping the shark.

If he did READ A LITTLE BIT, it would be more than you have.

 

[LuvRPgrl]

Don’t give me that. I have always given my opinion and answers to questions put to me (as right or wrong – as educated or uneducated – as biased or unbiased as they may be).

Well, you are half right,,,,"wrong, uneducated and biased."

 

[LuvRPgrl]

No-one's rights come from any god, that is complete bullshit and I want to argue it here or in another thread. The referral to a god in any argument is simply an appeal to superstition and is intellectually dishonest.

Gp tell that to George Washington, errr, the Father of our Nation. He prayed while being engaged with the Brits in WAR, he says he prayed ALOT

I guess he, Newton and many others are just superstitous idiots of whom you enjoy intellectual superiority over.

 

[LuvRPgrl]

No, they really didn't.?

Yes they did. Read G Washington's writings, Franklin and more.

ready to address the treaty of tripoli yet?

Its been answered, It was written LONG after the founding of our nation, so how can it prove anything about the mindset of the signers of the DOI, The COTUS or its precursor, written at the original Constitutional Convention.

You, seriously , are really desperate. Is that all you got? Jefferson and the treaty>

 

[LuvRPgrl]

Ya know, I would be quite embarrased if I accused others of stupidity, yet repeatedly showed I cant even figure out how to click 'quote"

Yes you have.
And you have no idea why its irrelevant to my point, even though I have tried to explain it to you.


yea.. it's about as irrelevant as a carfax history at "honest" johns used car lot. Feel free to avoid the fact of this primary document though.. I mean, it's ONLY ratified by congress and signed by an acting president of the united states of America.. a man whose own status as a FF is unquestioned.


Why shoudl I address something that has nothing to do with my argument?


um, I guess because it would be smarter to debate a primary document than trying to pretend that a bunch of deists in post-enlightenment america who were already waist deep in semi-pagan organizations really meant jebus instead of Creator when imploring a theocratic king of england?


Not too quick in the morning, are you?

 

[LuvRPgrl]

hey man.. make ANY excuse you need to make.. It's not like this is the first time people have commented on your avoidance in this thread.


it's cool, dude. go lick your wounds.. come back after you've had a chance to fabricate some nutty fucking theory about the capitolized words in the Treaty.

IF YOU REALLY KNOW, THEN
Hey man, just tell M14 what his arguement is. You've spent ten times as much energy proclaiming you know what it is, than if you just said it.

 

[LuvRPgrl]

Good post. M14 has a hard time facing the fact rights should apply to all. It seems the military does have different rules for officers than we grunts. So the atheist should have the same rights as the religious observant soldier.

"Do members of the military have freedom of speech?

Good question. Article 88 of the UCMJ, 10 U.S.C. 888 makes it a crime for a military officer to use contemptuous words against the President, Congress, etc.

Although it raises intriguing First Amendment issues, no one has been prosecuted this century for contemptuous language, so this remains an open issue."

http://law.freeadvice.com/government_law/military_law/military_freedom_speech.htm
http://writ.news.findlaw.com/commentary/20030619_falvy.html

The courts have ruled that not all constitutional rights remain when you join the service. Some you do forfeit.