-
Welcome to Baptist Board, a friendly forum to discuss the Baptist Faith in a friendly surrounding.
Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to all the features that our community has to offer.
We hope to see you as a part of our community soon and God Bless!
You are using an out of date browser. It may not display this or other websites correctly.
You should upgrade or use an alternative browser.
You should upgrade or use an alternative browser.
Military strips religious rights from wounded Solders
- Thread starter freeatlast
- Start date
By telling anyone they can't bring in a bible, whatever version it might be, they're placing a restriction on religion, because such restriction prevents the visitor from exercising their religious viewpoints, and prevents the patients from possibly receiving a visit that could change the status of their soul.Religion is not being restricted - in essence patients are being protected from unwanted proselyting. The policy would also apply to JW's, Mormons, Muslims, those folks in sleepwear :smilewinkgrin:, ect from bothering Born again Christians.
Unfortunately, a policy that recognizes any religion, must recognize all religions.
Again, apply the policy that the visiting individual announce their reason for the visit; if refused, they move on to the next room, no further discussion. If they act like a telemarketer and try two, three, more times to convince the individual to let them in, or receive pamphlets, etc.; or, as in the case of the time I was visited in England by a J.W., results in the "visitor" referring to them as only being there because they want to kill people; then call Security and remove them from the premises.
freeatlast
New Member
More excuses for the corruption in the military?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.
Are you covering for them again because this is military?
You need to get rid of that muilitary training on how to cover for evil.
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.
You need to resolve the bitterness toward those who are and were in the military.
You need to resolve the bitterness toward those who are and were in the military.
Pure hatred it is.
More excuses for the corruption in the military?
Another quote for the collection.
Pure hatred it is.
Could it be considered practicing sin when bitterness is expressed as repeatedly as it has been?
freeatlast
New Member
Could it be considered practicing sin when bitterness is expressed as repeatedly as it has been?
There is no bitterness. Just the truth.
More excuses for the corruption in the military?
Yep, that statement right there is making excuses for corruption in the military, isn't it?Don said:Any policy that addresses restriction of religion is a bad policy.
Could it be considered practicing sin when bitterness is expressed as repeatedly as it has been?
Yep...........
There is no bitterness. Just the truth.
Unrepentant self-justification.