Wondering what attitudes toward Jews -- or atheists, Hindus, Muslims, and maybe even non-evangelical Protestants, for that matter -- the Bush Administration's Justice Department is willing to condone?
FOR THAT MATTER, wondering about the purported difference between "proselytize" and "evangelize?"
FIND OUT ON JUMP -- but here's a hint, and the word "unchurched" figures shockingly prominently, given that we're discussing the federal government and the American Constitution.
"The Justice Department claims an Air Force Academy graduate has no legal standing to sue the Air Force over allegations of proselytizing by chaplains, and asked a federal judge to dismiss the case.
The government claimed Mikey Weinstein and his co-plaintiffs haven't shown they would be harmed by the alleged proselytizing and said their allegations have no substance.
The motion, dated last week, also faulted the lawsuit for citing Brig. Gen. Cecil R. Richardson's quote from a New York Times article without including the next sentence of the story.
Richardson was quoted as saying, "We will not proselytize, but we reserve the fight to evangelize the unchurched."
Government lawyers said the next sentence read, "The distinction, he said, is that proselytizing is trying to convert someone in an aggressive way, while evangelizing is more gently sharing the gospel."
The government motion said that makes clear Richardson "rejects aggressive efforts to convert individuals.""
So... the Justice Department thinks there is no harm in efforts by a BRIGADIER GENERAL to persuade his subordinates that they might want to become Christian?
Can anyone come up with a way in which it would not be intimidating for a junior officer or enlisted man or woman to be deemed "unchurched" by a Brigadier General who then followed up by "gently" invoking Christ?
Is this our America?