Deceitful Response To Military Injustice

I received the following letter from a reader who had written to voice his condemnation of the anti-God Pentagon initiative that Obama has sanctioned which penalizes (including court-martial) military persons for sharing their faith.

D.W.,
Your accusation of censorship reveals an incredibly shallow, possibly nonexistent, understanding of the meaning of the word or its relevance in regards to our rights guaranteed by the 1st amendment. If you have ever voted, I’m sure your aware that campaigning within close proximity of polling places is prohibited. Time, place, and manner restrictions on our 1st amendment rights exist for a reason. These restriction are very often due to co mpeting claims of individual rights.

As a Christian (Episcopalian in fact) supporter of MRFF, I truly enjoy efforts to proselytize the Christian faith to everyone here at MRFF. In this private non-governmental setting it is both appropriate and appreciated. I have the freedom (as do you) to demonstrably agree with a proselytized message, disagree or totally ignore with no chance of repercussions. If on the other hand the proselytized message was being delivered to me in a government controlled situation where your official capacity was superior and mine subordinate, your message becomes immediately oppressive due to the loss of my freedoms as listed above.

Let me use the words of another in further explanation:

No one will be prosecuted simply for sharing one’s faith in the military. Sharing your faith – in a non-official context – is fine. What’s wrong is when it is in a mandatory, official, or any other context in which the power dynamic between the individuals is out of balance (e.g., a commander recommending church attendance to subordinates).

Finally, you should also be aware that MRFF fully supports the military chaplaincy role in its passive (i.e. without proselytization) ministrations to the religious needs of all U.S. Service Members.

Peace be with you,

Andy Kasehagen

Thanks to Clinton and Obama appointees the Pentagon is doing its best to have our armed forces imitate a homosexual club “fed” complete with epaulettes, medals, shiny shoes, muscles, crew cuts, group showers, and retirement pay.

Applying Kasehagen’s logic for making the sharing of your faith a criminal offense under military law is as he puts it necessary because: “If on the other hand the proselytized message was being delivered to me in a government controlled situation where your official capacity was superior and mine subordinate, your message becomes immediately oppressive due to the loss of my freedoms as listed above.”

Let’s turn his concerns around. What happens if a big boy (read homosexual) with higher rank comes up to a guy of lesser rank and propositions him? Wouldn’t his analogy of “official capacity was superior and mine subordinate” mean the subordinate would feel threatened? Following Kasehagen’s logic, wouldn’t that situation “immediately [become] oppressive due to the loss of [his] freedoms” as Kasehagen listed them?

Or are we to believe homosexuals wouldn’t do that? Kasehagen and those like him are trying to convince the public that the sharing of one’s faith is more dangerous to individuals than having unchecked homosexuality endorsed and advocated in military settings.

This would be laughable if it were not such foolishness that has been mandated into existence.

I have another question for this Kasehagen person. What happens if a lesbian commanding officer repeatedly comes on to a woman of lesser rank who confides to her boyfriend or husband that said is taking place and the boyfriend or husband takes offense (as they should)? Continuing with this analogy, what happens if the officers hearing the complaint against her superior officer are themselves homosexual and one or more of them decide to make the subordinate’s life miserable in ways she can never prove? Or are we to believe there’s no chance that could ever happen?

Of course, to believe that would never happen means we would have to dismiss the instances, specifically in California, where homosexual judges overturned valid and legal ballot initiatives rejecting same-sex marriage.

It’s not someone sharing their faith on a military base we need to be concerned about; it’s those Obama has approved to deprive men and women in the military of hearing the word of God in the skewed belief that if God cannot be shared no one will be able to disapprove of homosexuality in military settings.

And one final thought that shows Kasehagen’s duplicitous double standards and dishonesty. His claiming membership in the Episcopal Church is a specious and deceitful declarative used to anchor his support of censoring God in the military. Because for those who are unaware, the Episcopal Church split over the issue of homosexuality.

Parishes across the nation have left the church’s national body in recent years specifically because the leadership of those churches leaving the national body is committed to following the word of God not the homosexual agenda. Maybe Kasehagen would care to tell us which part of the church he belongs to or should we guess?