Separate names with a comma.
Discussion in 'News / Current Events' started by freeatlast, Dec 6, 2011.
The Walter Reed Medical Center is where our wounded soldiers go...
Your opening statement is not exactly correct. No religious rights were taken away from any wounded military members.
That said, this policy--which stripped the religious rights of people visiting wounded military members--has been rescinded.
Three things. Yes their rights were denied. A catholic uses certain items to give last rights. Under this prohibition the Priest could not offer the last rights which is the solders right. Also the solder could not have a bible read to them which is their right.
Second I am glad it is being rescinded but as usual you try and cover for the corruption in the military. Like I told you before the military teaches its own to deny wrong no matter how wrong it is just like you have done here. Because of people who deny the evil that is coming by the military we will become a military state and again UI would expect you to deny it or some how justify it.
Third even though this was rescinded it should have NEVER happened. Those who made the policy should be given a court marshal, stripped of all rank and given dishonorable discharge for violating the constitution.
Upon further reading from other news sources, you're correct. This policy could have been interpreted as preventing these things.
You misunderstand; what I was pointing out was that you posted a link to a news story for something that's already been rescinded. If you're going to post the truth, post the whole truth.
(for spelling and grammar's sake, it's "court-martial," not "court marshal")
It is very possible that it was a civilian who made the policy and he would not be subject to a court marshal (sic) and even if it were a sailor who made the policy - it would not even come near the possibility of a dishonorable discharge! The most - if even considered - would be a letter of reprimand.
Free, please be careful about showing your ignorance of the military. I would recommend you check out this web site.
Though I am not familiar with the entire story - I would assume it means you can not go from room-to-room passing out Bibles, and ect.
I am confident that a pastor would be free to give religious material to someone to whom the pastor was invited to see.
My other question is why the Navy is making a ruling, as Walter Reed is an Army Hospital - oh well.
No that was not what it was. No religious material could be brought in period even through a pastor.
Don I did post the whole truth as far as I can see. The report of rescinding the rule is only a report and there is no evidence it has happened.
Do you believe everything that you read (even) in a respected publication?
When I ran for public office the local newspaper reported that I was a truck driver. - but I wasn't.
Everyone makes mistakes - even journalist
Ultra religious groups such as FRC tend to jump on a story without knowing all the facts.
Thats why it is important to do some research on your own.
From a official Walter Reed letter
Of course you have never made a mistake, have you
As I stated before - it was meant to prohibit proselyting - and the reason it was written up is because there probably were some folks doing that very thing at the hospital. And that is one place where patients need some R & R.
You can read the rule yuorself if you like.
I did, I also use common sense - ie I research items that I have doubts about.
I have a habit of believing what is written.
Then you believe the written public announcement from Walter Reed that they've rescinded the policy?
For the record: You posted a link to a story that mentioned only the policy, not that within 24 hours Walter Reed announced it was rescinding the policy; nor did you make any mention of any rescinding of the policy. That's what I mean when I say you have a responsibility to post the whole truth.
No I believe based on the second link I posted they said they would rescind the rule, but as of this date they have not done so in writing.
So like I said I posted thw whole truth as I know it. Are you covering for them again because this is military?
Go back and read Salty's post, post #9 in this thread; there's a link there to the Walter Reed website, where they've publicly printed that they've rescinded the policy.
Not covering for anyone; if you had actually researched the subject before you posted the initial link, you would have found that it was rescinded before you posted it. The initial report was last Friday; Walter Reed rescinded the policy within 24 hours; you post on Tuesday, which is over 48 hours after the rescinding of the policy.
As I stated before, it was a bad policy. Don't know how you're confusing that statement with trying to cover for the military.
Like I said I posted what I knew was correct. I listened to a Congressman speak about it today and he was going to have a meeting with some General tomorrow about this. If the hospital got enough flack to change it good, but what I gave was as update as I knew and the issue is not about them rescinding it. The issue is about them doing it all. You need to get rid of that muilitary training on how to cover for evil.
Just wondering why Free didn't read the link in my post (#9) or maybe he only believes certain things he reads.
You know free the bible says "and Judas went out and hanged himself"...... "Go do thou likewise"
Actually it was a good policy (see my post # 5 ) it was only poorly written .
If it was good they would not have done away with it so quickly. Even several congressman are looking into this trying to find out who made this rule so they can be disciplined, but my guess is that standard military policy will cover for the ones involved.
I saw the post; I disagree. Any policy that addresses restriction of religion is a bad policy. A policy requires enforcement, and there's no way to enforce any policy that covers religion without trampling all over constitutional rights.
I imagine this policy was started because of exactly what you wrote: Someone tried to prosyletize, and it offended a patient. Instead of making a blanket policy, they should have explained the problem to the one offender; and upon refusal to comply, banned the one offender from the premises. Instead, they attempted to apply a strategic/operational solution for something that affected one small tactical aspect.