In this case, it's the ironically mislabeled Military Religious Freedom Foundation (MRFF) objecting to canine handling soldiers expressing their Christian faith. It seems that putting Biblical scripture dog tags on their service animals offends MRFF's intention for a godless society. Once again, an organization who's soul purpose is to undermine America's Christian heritage chooses to oppose God and oppress good citizens under the misguided notion of separation of church and state. Not only has MRFF failed to understand the U.S. Constitution's First Amendment concerning freedom of religion, but it has demonstrated intolerance towards those who would express their faith in any public way. I'd hope that religious people of all faiths would see the problem with this and that irreligious people could learn to understand that in America we have freedom of religion, not freedom from religion - at least that's what the highest laws of the land hold. https://www2.cbn.com/news/us/shield...od-prohibiting-military-dog-tags-bible-verses
This time I am super confused Joseph. When I was in the military, everything, and I do mean literally everything, had to be done according to Army regulations. Everything we wore and how we wore it right down to the name tag had to be according to regs. Military insignia, decorations, rankings and even the way we laced our boots had to be just so-so. In essence, everything a soldier wears including the soldier himself belongs to the military and as such, will conform to whichever military code that is applicable. So far as dog tags go, the only thing that was allowed was our name (last name first, first name and middle name last) our rank, serial number and blood type. Nothing more. Moreover, the only thing that was allowed around a soldier’s neck Was his dog tags. How some soldiers got sidetracked into thinking they could have Anything other than name, rank, SN and blood type on the tag I have no idea. Note: Now, if someone had a dog tags in their pocket that had Bible verses or whatever on them, that would have been okay. One other thing that was within regulations was having a Bible in one’s footlocker. No Mark Twain, No Dickens and no porn. Just a Bible. I mean, I don’t know if they do it any longer but when one entered basic training, the Red Cross gave each new soldier a baggie of toiletries and the Gideons handed out pocket New Testament Bibles. What it boils down to is that at least when I was in, faith based soldiers were given a lot of freedom to worship as they needed to and even had their respective Holy Days honored to some degree but what we wore had to be pure military. Then again Joseph, there didn’t used to be any fracas in the military regarding sex changes either so maybe everything has changed.
As I read Joseph's post, I understood that the scripture dog tags were worn by the canine handling soldier's service dogs, not by the handlers.
That's right Joe. We're talking about the little tags on dogs, not the ones issued to human soldiers. Bobby, I too as a life-long law enforcement officer had to adhere to strict uniform requirements, though individuals were allowed to add subtle personal effects like watches, rings, necklaces, and duty belt gear. In this case though, DOD hasn't restricted the use of customized dog tags on the canine service units, but only the religious ones. That's their legal mistake - targeting Christianity specifically. And yes, the Bible used to be the primary text book in America's schools for over 200 years and was mandatory issue for the Pony Express riders, along with military personnel. It used to be the political, cultural, and spiritual foundation of our nation and society, but all has changed within our lifetime. It's a sad state of affairs, with a small minority of godless people overriding the silent majority of god fearing people.
Since posting the article, I have read another article that questions my whole premise. https://www.militarytimes.com/opini...ng-shields-of-strengths-bible-verse-dog-tags/ I concede that there's a significant difference between prohibiting a privately purchased religious dog tag under one's shirt (that wouldn't affect the uniform attire) or on one's dog collar (that wouldn't affect any vest/uniform attire) versus using an official government agency logo on one's personal retail-sale item, be it religious or not. Simply put, using an agency logo on anything would warrant agency approval. I find it hard to believe that Shields of Strength would think they could do this, and even more surprised that First Liberty (a good organization in my view) would defend them. Perhaps we haven't gotten all the facts out right yet and a future court case or settlement will affirm the truth. Until then, I'm sorry I raised the issue at all. The battle against separation of church and state is a just cause for anyone respecting America's Christian heritage, but this is not yet a proven good case to pursue. I suggest we all move on to other threads.