Religion should not in my opinion be allowed to influence day-to-day politics, otherwise there could be restrictive laws based on arbitary religous principles, pro-discrimination policies, religous brainwashing through state education and an unfair immigration system.

Also when religion integrates with the military wars against islamic states start to look like crusades. Government should govern, not intervene in personal freedoms like religion.

Okay...how about NOT intercede and share? Not talk to ambassadors, maybe? We don’t need a bunch of Christian people running a war against a predominantly Muslim opponent. (Yes, I recognize that not all terrorists are Muslim, and not all Muslims are terrorists, etc., but most of the people I’ve met around here don’t.) Church types here in ‘Bama seem to think that “war on terror” translates into “war on the non-christian enemies,” and that Bush just wants to spread God’s love...with bombs. The LAST thing we need is any kind of prayer group in the freakin’ Pentagon. I’m glad their encouraged, ‘cause the damned religio-nuts have caused enough harm, for one decade (or two, or ten...). This NOT seem like we are maintaining seperation of church and state to anyone else?

Yep...wrong word. I meant to say “...glad they’re encouraged...” Not “their.” Sorry for the double post, but I wanted to get that out of the way before I got disemboweled for said error…

Why infiltrate? If people didn’t want praying embasy would be left cold anyway. It has nothing with Bush or holy war. Christianity is liberal and hate-free religion. Anyone or any religion that can coexist should be allowed free practice anywhere in a appropriate manner that is.
Sometimes believers can look freaky, but praying before meals or on a brake ... What’s wrong with that? Doing that is not the same as imposing your believes to others. I don’t see how you could be threatened by that. Interrogation is lame comparison, religion can help you a lot, even in military, that is not for a discussion I hope. Court wants to decide only if promoting of embassy in official clothes is allowed. And that is discussible.

But, you seem to be missing a lot with your post.  Church and state are purposely separated in our country so we don’t relapse into a time where people were persecuted because they didn’t prescribe to a state sanctioned religion.  That and Americans enjoy their freedoms.

That said I don’t understand what you don’t get here.  Government employees are sponsoring a religious group that has threaded itself deeply into our government.  How do you not see something wrong with this?

People who make the decision to go to war are praying at the White House and the Pentagon during their breaks.  And you see nothing wrong with this?  What the fuck am I responding for?

“Christian Embassy seeks to help diplomats, government leaders and military officers find real and lasting purpose through faith and encouragement.

I agree with but.  And promoting embassy in offical clothes ought to be allowable.  Congressmen and business people in corporations are expecteed to wear business suits.  McDonalds employees have to wear uniforms.  I can’t imagine how it would be logical to require them to be out of uniform to promote anything.  In that very context they dissociate themselves with the people they are trying to associate with.  The uniform is like the ID badge it clearly identifies them as a coworker that they want to connect with.  How many people in the pentagon are a part of the Christian Embassy?  How many are an active member of some religious organization?  I’d like to see some evidence of strong Christian persuasion in the pentagon before everyone goes conspiracy theorist.

Politics and businesses with certain views (i.e. rupert murdoch) can also use the media to repeat stories of negative acts by one religion/other group of people more than another; just as the US media reports murders by the black population more according to the ‘Bowling for columbine’ docufilm.

It’s not necessary to bias individual stories, (which would damage the integrity of the story) just repeat certain ones more and hide the ones you don’t like, within enough reason to look balanced. (as public opinion shifts the way you want it you can be more and more unballanced without looking so as perceptions change). Think of how much more publicised killings by palestinians are, and how much more of a big thing is made of our troops being killed than the ‘evil’ taliban, so we always see ourselves as the victims and want justice.

This makes me think do religions which have their roots in oil rich or strategic sites have their image deliberately damaged to justify invasion and motivate troops? Intollerance is a very useful political tool.

I’d like to see some evidence of strong Christian persuasion in the pentagon before everyone goes conspiracy theorist.

What more evidence do you need?  This is not a matter of a government official praying at home.  This is a matter of government officials praying at work during their work period.  Some of it is on break, but it is still praying on government grounds.

That is what I have a problem with.  Imagine being of Muslim faith and working in the Pentagon on a project with the Major General I mentioned in the post.  The first thing he does when he meets people is tell them his faith.  Government work and religion should not be so intertwined.

Webs wrote…

Some of it is on break, but it is still praying on government grounds.

There’s nothing about the Separation of Church and State that prohibits people from praying on government grounds or, for that matter, from organizing together in order to pray during breaks on the job. So long as the people involved are not coercing others into participating and are not proselytizing or using their position to advocate their religious beliefs to others then there shouldn’t be a problem no matter how annoying it is.

The Major General you mentioned is treading a very fine line, however, and needs to be careful.

So long as the people involved are not coercing others into participating and are not proselytizing or using their position to advocate their religious beliefs to others then there shouldn’t be a problem no matter how annoying it is.

Yeah, right … and it’s a perfect world too. 

These critters are a concentrated sample of an acceptable group in the wider community and everyone now knows that the way to get on at the pentagon all ya gotta do is play happy xians with the right level of intensity and you’ll go to the top.
I’ll bet there are lotsa little Haggards in the pentagon talking, but not walking, the talk; scamming the scammers. 

I’d have thought the security of the country woulda been their top priority ... but I’m strange.

So much power in the hands of children who still believe their delusions to be real.

I’d like to think the Oz equivalent could never happen.

There’s nothing about the Separation of Church and State that prohibits people from praying on government grounds or, for that matter, from organizing together in order to pray during breaks on the job. So long as the people involved are not coercing others into participating and are not proselytizing or using their position to advocate their religious beliefs to others then there shouldn’t be a problem no matter how annoying it is.

My problem isn’t them praying during breaks necessarily.  If I work at Best Buy and want to pray with the church that has an office in the Best Buy corporate headquarters, then fine, as long as Best Buy is cool with it.

My problem is that the Christian Embassy has deeply threaded themselves in a government institution.  And for Christ’s sake they are inside the Pentagon.  This is what I have a problem with.  Government officials that make decisions about going to war, and ones that likely work with issues of war are praying on break.  If this is not illegal, in my mind it should be.

How much closer do they need to be for this to be called a conflict of interest?

Whether we allow praying in breaks or not, I draw the line at the point where it starts to influence policy, perhaps before policy is approved it should be proven to be neutral on relious and/or other grounds depending on what it is. For less important policy it may be difficult to justify the lost efficiency that comes with the extra step added, so there may always be some degree of low-level discriminating policy