Congressman Freaks Out Over Military Bibles


The reaction from planet wingnuttia to the news that the Pentagon is no longer going to allow the official emblems of the four branches of the armed services to be placed on the cover of Bibles continues to range from the ridiculous to the utterly moronic. Rep. Tim Huelskamp (R-TX) makes it sound as though they’re banning Bibles from the entire country:

Perkins: Your thoughts on this latest attack, it’s the only way I can describe it, on the religious freedom of men and women who serve in the military?

Huelskamp: You just mentioned in a way it was simply a capitulation and the fact that the Department of the Defense and this administration will bend over backwards to protect, I guess, the rights of atheists to determine our policies in the military, which simply does an incredible disservice to the brave men and women who defend and guarantee our rights. The idea that a particular Bible is a national security threat, that would be silly if it wasn’t so serious in terms of the threats that are coming from the folks on the left that would like to delete, exclude and repeal any religious liberties or any religious values throughout our entire government and our entire society, it is a real threat to the future of this country I believe.

No one’s religious freedom is even relevant here. Soldiers aren’t being forbidden to own Bibles, for crying out loud. But what else do they have to sell other than irrational lies and paranoia?

Comments

  1. Who Knows? says

    I wonder what God thinks about having the military emblems being stamped on his holy word?

  2. csadams says

    Unfortunately, Huelskamp represents the Big 1st District in Kansas. But Texas is more than welcome to him!

  3. jeremydiamond says

    The idea that a particular Bible is a national security threat

    This turn of events came about because it’s an establishment clause violation, but since you brought it up, congressman, I’d rather not risk that bible falling into enemy hands and becoming an easy tool for propaganda.

  4. michaellatiolais says

    Yeah, sadly enough, this yahoo is a Kansas loon. He has these moderated townhall meetings which he robocalls to have me attend on a regular basis.

  5. Doug Little says

    You would think that being a representative he should know his constitution as they swear an oath to support it.

    “I do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will support the Constitution of the United States.”

    Maybe we need to start having pop quizzes for members just to make sure that they understand what they are supporting.

  6. Sastra says

    “The idea that a particular Bible is a national security threat…”

    This is probably a garbled rephrasing of a concern that it’s probably not very diplomatic to make it look like the United States Government is officially endorsing converting people to Christianity when it sends troops to the Mideast. My guess is that it’s mixed up with anger over atheists saying that the OT shows God in poor light and is not a good moral guide — but I could be mistaken on that.

  7. d cwilson says

    Maybe we need to start having pop quizzes for members just to make sure that they understand what they are supporting.

    Well, if you remember, at the beginning of this session, Congress made a big show of reading the Constitution (or at least most of it) out loud. I guess repeating the words and understanding them are two different things.

  8. Gvlgeologist, FCD says

    Who Knows? says:
    June 18, 2012 at 12:52 pm

    I wonder what God thinks about having the military emblems being stamped on his holy word?

    Somehow, when I saw this, I visualized a swastika and German eagle on the book, along with “Gott mit uns”.

    Sorry about the Godwinning.

  9. Quantum Mechanic says

    Doug Little

    Maybe we need to start having pop quizzes for members just to make sure that they understand what they are supporting.

    I like that idea. Monthly essay tests, consisting of legislation which is either in line with the Bill of Rights, or clearly violating part of them: please explain which and why. Fail too many and you’re out of Congress. Never going to happen, of course.

  10. Doug Little says

    Quantum

    Don’t kick them out just publish the results and then let the voters do the rest. Problem is at the moment the fuckers in congress talk a good game and sound convincing to someone who doesn’t know better but given hard facts about their actual knowledge level should wake a few people up. Of course it would be painted as a gotcha lame stream media has a librral bias blah blah blah setup.

  11. Quantum Mechanic says

    Unfortunately, what I have learned in all of my kerfluffles with conservatives is that they care far more about screwing the “other” and giving lip-service to the Constitution than upholding it. I would anticipate the negative results to increase support for Congresscritters from many districts. That, and stupid voters probably wouldn’t bother to pay attention to it. It would be more effective to just give ‘em the boot.

    Of course, the system starts getting interesting when you try to break it…

  12. Robert B. says

    There’s that “four branches of the armed services” thing again. There were only four Bible designs, IIRC, but the US armed services actually have five branches – Army, Navy, Air Force, Marines, and Coast Guard.

  13. dan4 says

    I miss the days when Kansas voters elected Republicans of the non-loon variety. You wouldn’t hear Nancy Kassebaum or Bob Dole going off on a silly rant like this.

  14. Artor says

    “I wonder what God thinks about having the military emblems being stamped on his holy word?”

    Well, knowing what I do about that asshole, I expect he gets a woody from it.

  15. thisisaturingtest says

    To these people, “freedom of religion” is a catchphrase, a slogan, nothing more- it’s long since lost any resemblance to its actual meaning in the Constitutional context. I’ll bet if you told these people that every freedom is limited, that yours ends where mine begins, their heads would explode. They also confuse the Constitutional right of individuals to practice freely the religion of their choice with an assumed but unjustified right of an institution (church or army) to impose that belief.

Leave a Reply