*Groan* Yet another sneaky way the US armed forces push religion.
The Army also pays for Xian "entertainment" and even requires attendance. Why Is the Military Spending Millions on Christian Contractors Bent...
Not only is the music itself overtly Christian, but during the concerts there are light shows of large crosses beamed all over the stage, and the performers typically give their Christian testimony or read Bible verses between songs. [emphasis mine]
I would think that the FFRF could give him legal aid -- he just needs to report that to the legal team. They win many cases involving keeping church and state separate.
Our xian hordes are indeed a problem. Dominionists want to replace the Constitution with the OT.
Some of America's church/state separation organizations are taking on the military xians in both lawsuits and political action. Also, I've seen at least one military c/s separation organization icon on A/N's home page.
This is a very good question, which I have often pondered at length. As I can best deduce from observation it has a somewhat "porous" answer.
Neocons, like conservatives, tend to desire defense of the cherished "big business interests" of the old dominionists(oil, banks/finance, pharmaceuticals, insurance)through tax-breaks and financial incentives that would never be afforded to smaller businesses. They even demand the representation of corporations as human beings with the same-and often more-rights as citizens. (In economics this is usually refered as the concept of "business entity").
They often cite that since businesses produce revenue-something which few human beings do on their own-that corporations in fact, deserve more rights than human beings.
They differ from the old guard conservatives only in that (following Ayn Rand's lead,) many neo-cons are atheists with no or little regard for religion. In Ms. Rand's times this was the cause of many republicans distancing themselves from her. Many of Rand's devotees of the 1950's found firm grounding in the Ayn Rand Institute-which became a germinal think-tank for the neoconservative movement (students of this school of thought tended to be somewhat "bookish" or detached from crowds-many of them sought jobs as behind-the-scenes political advisors, where they could employ their powers of persuasion without having to deal with people). Think Dick Cheney or Newt Gingrich.
Most Rand-ians displayed open disrespect for anything involving faith or religion-likening it with soft-headed sentimentality and bemoaning the fact that faith can stand in the way of some folks going along with declaration of wars which always benefit the dominionists or with open destruction of the environment for financial gain as "disrepect for God's creation".
However later it became evident to many of the architects of the movement that religion is always the quickest to step in line where money is to be made and in today's neo-conservative arena, populism has made a comeback and the trend to employ the good ol' church/state/military complex for mass effect as a political ploy remains popular due to it's effectiveness.
I hope this kind of points out the "finer points" of the definition between "con" and "neo-con" and you're not looking at the screen right now like "say what...?" I know that sometimes I'm not real good with putting my thoughts into words, sooooo....
For now, I'll just say "'kay, bye"!
Perhaps it's some sort of masonic code thingy. Maybe if you take away some of the letters it makes more sense. Let's give it a try:
"neo-con thinking"= "n(eoc)-on thinking"="non-thinking"
Yeah. That works!