I have been following this issue very closely, so I am glad to see that the military is taking it seriously:
The Air Force has told its top commands worldwide to make sure officers don’t use their positions to advance religious beliefs, following criticism of religious intolerance at the Air Force Academy.
An Air Force task force spent several days at the academy two weeks ago looking into allegations that Jews and others were harassed by evangelical Christians. A new values statement was sent to all major commands on Tuesday.
“From an Air Force perspective, one of the reasons we did that is because we are taking what is happening at the Air Force Academy seriously,” Air Force spokeswoman Jennifer Stephens said Thursday from the Pentagon.
The statement, a copy of which was obtained by The Associated Press, said that “climate surveys at our Air Force Academy have pointed out instances where respect may be lacking or where declaring one’s religious beliefs may be perceived as imposing on others.”
“Commanders must be alert to the issue of religious respect throughout our Air Force,” the statement added.
Capt. MeLinda Morton, an Air Force Academy chaplain who says she was fired for criticizing the power of evangelicals at the academy, said the statement “speaks for the fact that they are beginning to recognize that they have a problem, and that it isn’t just at the academy and there needs to be some clarity.”
The report by the task force, under the leadership of Lt. Gen. Roger Brady, will be released later. In the meantime, the Air Force asked the Defense Department’s inspector general to look into whether Morton was demoted as executive officer in the chaplaincy and ordered transferred to Okinawa for her viewpoints.
The new statement updates a Jan. 1, 1997, statement in a document known as “The Little Blue Book” that said in part: “Military professionals must remember that religious choice is a matter of individual conscience.”
The new document notes: “Senior leaders, commanders, and supervisor at every level must be particularly sensitive to the fact that subordinates can consider your public expressions of belief systems coercive. Using your place at the podium as a platform for your personal beliefs can be perceived as misuse of office.”
One minor quibble- Using your place at the podium as a platform for your personal beliefs IS a misuse of office, not just something that can spawn the perception.
At any rate, this is a promising sign, and the military recognizes what the problem was, even if some refuse to deal with reality and instead choose to play the ever popular persecuted Christian card. Unfortunately, to some, politics and political advantage are the only thing that matters, so I expect the usual suspects will continue to try to spin this as somehow anti-Christian. That is one of their main fundraising techniques, and they have almost achieved permanent victim status in the minds of their base. You remember Focus on the Family’s immediate response to these charges:
Tom Minnery, an official at Focus on the Family, disputed claims that evangelical Christians are pushing an agenda at the academy, and complained that “there is an anti-Christian bigotry developing” at the school.
This is, however, not a matter of persecuting Evangelicals, but a matter of what appeared and in some cases was reported to be coercive and forced proselytization by Commandig Officers. Those who have not been in the military simply do not recognize how important and influential the behavior of leaders is- soldiers, in a good military unit, echo the behaviors of their commander. That is what is meant by ‘lead by example.’
If the example being set is, or as the new statement declares, can be perceived, as pressuring cadets about religious beliefs, then this will create a hostile environment throughout. A small example: In my OSUT unit (Bravo 2/13, Disney Barracks, Ft. Knox, KY, for those of you intertested) all those years ago, we had a particularly charismatic Drill Sergeant (Drill Sergeant Shirley Mason, for those of you still interested), who was fond of saying “Holy Cow!” Over the course of several weeks, in the pressure cooker environment, we bagan to adopt not only his sayings, but his mannerisms, and I would wager to this day some of us still say Holy Cow! much more frequently than others.
That is just a small example of how soldiers echo the sentiments and behaviors of their unit commanders. You can see how this would be a problem if cadets at the Air Force Academy are allowed, even innocently, to be exposed to what can be interpreted as a green light to behave in ways that smacks of religious tolerance.
And again, because I have to say this, this is not about the right of Evangelicals to worship, something I would go to bat for any day of the week. This is about the right of evangelicals to use their positions of authority to proselytize or to demonize the faiths of others. In short, they don’t have that right and shouldn’t for the obvious reasons.
AlanDownunder
So, John, why did you cut the USMC so much slack for not only tolerating a tank called “New Testament” butfeaturingit on their website?
What would have happened to a grunt in Iraq in a humvee or on foot patrol who complained to his superiors about his comrades giving the Christian bird to the Islamic street from the relative safety of their tank?
Yeah, boys will be boys but …
John Cole
I thought I explained why I cut them slack for painting that on their barrel. I thought it should be removed, but I don’t think it was an offense for having people removed from their position, written up, or demoted.
You know, there are reasonable reactions for differing situations. Official sanctioned intimidation and religious intolerance are, in my book, a worse offense than a couple of marines who painted something insensitive on their tank. Particularly, when you consider that the Academy is training the officers who will set the tone in the future Air Force.
You can disagree with that logic, but you better have something better than a lame equivalency argument that makes no sense.
AlanDownunder
Sure, John, I wouldn’t have busted the tank crew – a little talk to every marine in the chain from the crew to the website, more like.
What I’m getting at is that the tank name is a symptom of a pseudo-Christian leaning that blinds the military to its errors – the same pseudo-christian leaning that you addressed in your post.
Yes, an enemy in the classic sense needs to be objectified, and sectarian hostility is a good way to objectify heathens; but not in a counter-insurgency where the hearts and minds of non-participant locals need to be won – not gratuitously lost.
p.lukasiak
This kind of “social” pressure is endemic to all bureaucracies, but religious pressure of the kind being used by right-wing christians is especially insidious in the military, where “leadership” is key to promotion — and where evaluations of issues like “character”, and “integrity” can be heavily influenced by religious bias.
And within the context of the “war” on radical fundamentalist Islam, this kind of evangelical influence on the military is especially unwise. Lets face it, its difficult not to draw a direct line from William Boykin as deputy Sec. of Defense for Intelligence directly to the use of the denigration of Islam/desecration of the Koran as an interrogation
technique — a military organization that would put someone like Boykin in that position at this time is signalling to the world that it sees the war on terror as a “crusade” against Islam….
M. Simon
“The New Testament” on a tank barrel is a mocking of religion.
M. Simon
The “desecrations” of the Koran include touching it.
And inspecting it for contraband without gloves.
Just apalling disrespect. Off with their heads.
Simon
“There were people walking up to someone and basically they would get in a conversation and it would end with, ‘If you don’t believe what I believe, you are going to hell,’ ” Vice Commandant Col. Debra Gray said.
http://www.sunherald.com/mld/thesunherald/news/world/11437985.htm
Ms. Gray here, like so many on the left, complains about something that, however distateful she finds it, is perfectly within the rights of every American. It is because of statements like hers that I strongly suspect the Christians at the Air Force Academy are being unfairly maligned and why I think those hostile to Christian belief are misrepresenting the facts. The left now routinely abuses law, claiming a desire to protect the rights of others when in fact they remove the rights of us all. As presidents and other military leaders from Washington to Bush have demonstrated, it is our innate right as individuals to speak in favor of religion even should we occupy positions of authority; and as others have demonstrated from Thomas Paine to the political left today, Americans also have the innate right to reject the religious beliefs of others, to ignore religious speech or even to promote beliefs of our own. That is historic American Freedom of Speech. The left has destroyed this freedom so that now, like children, Americans are threatened with punishment, from their government Parent, should they merely speak certain ideas in certain venues. Certain religious speech in today’s America is perceived as so abhorrent, so threatening to some of us, that it is now censored. These are Orwellian times. The American way to handle ideas we oppose is with better ideas, not by censorship and forcing law upon the population by the dubious legal interpretations of activist courts.
John Cole
Nonsense. There is a difference between cadets advocating for their religion, which I have no problem with, and cadets, under the instruction of their chaplains, engaging in this sort of proselytization.
It is much bigger than you are trying to make it, and it does smack of a state sponsorship of religion.
von
John:
Infrequence commentator, here, but I wanted to compliment you on your last couple posts. In my view, you’ve been striking the right, common-sense balance again and again. Well done.
Simon
“Nonsense. There is a difference between cadets advocating for their religion, which I have no problem with, and cadets, under the instruction of their chaplains, engaging in this sort of proselytization.
It is much bigger than you are trying to make it, and it does smack of a state sponsorship of religion.”
I scarcely see the difference. A chaplain is not typically a chaplain of non-religion. He believes something. In the case of an Evangelical Christian chaplain he believes something that demands he advocate his belief to others. As an American Evangelical Christian chaplain he has a right to believe and advocate freely, and this is a right that cannot correctly be taken from him merely because he serves the United States military. If he ministers to cadets who also believe as he does, and should those cadets also appropriately advocate their beliefs, neither the chaplain who believes something nor the cadets to whom he ministers act contrary to American freedom. These are individuals who act as individuals. They do not act in response to any official law that compels acceptance of a religion (which law would be unconstitutional). They are instead enjoying individual freedom that is theirs by American right. The American government claims in its Constitution that it will not officially recognize any particular religion. But it also claims it will not hinder the free exercise of any particular religion. Your claim that this freedom of religion ‘smacks of state sponsorship of religion is a demonstrable distortion of our history and our law.
Michael
As an American Evangelical Christian chaplain he has a right to believe and advocate freely, and this is a right that cannot correctly be taken from him merely because he serves the United States military. If he ministers to cadets who also believe as he does, and should those cadets also appropriately advocate their beliefs, neither the chaplain who believes something nor the cadets to whom he ministers act contrary to American freedom.
If, while wearing the uniform of the Air Force (or any other branch), an officer, whether a chaplain or otherwise, tells someone of inferior rank that he or she is going to hell because of his or her beliefs, that officer should be discharged from the service. There’s a difference between preaching on the streetcorner and telling a subordinate to believe in a certain way. I speak as the brother of an Air Force chaplain who is too good an officer, Christian, and American to act as these idiots at the Academy apparently have.
Kimmitt
Simon underlines the basic conflict; in order to practice their faith according to their principles, several sects of American Evangelicals require proselytization at every opportunity. This is essentially in conflict with the concept of a state in which the State or its organs do not sponsor a particular religion. Fundamentalism and fundamentalists are doctrinally incompatible with freedom of religion.
We saw this in the 1600s and 1700s in Massachusetts; both Connecticut and Rhode Island were formed very much to escape the fundamentalist religious persecution in Massachusetts. This sort of thing is part of our history, unfortunately.
WhoIsJohnGuiltP
It’s probably inevitable that just as they reach the (I hope) apex of their temporal power, the evangelicals are redoubling their complaint of being “persecuted”. Sometimes they are, but more of the time it seems to (atheist Illuminist trans-humanist American) me like they’re complaining about not having absolute power to do exactly as they will (as if they were some sort of justified elect or something). Pretty soon, failure of the courts to recognize prophetic dreams as valid evidence will be called persecution.
Of course, perception tends to be logarithmic, and that last 5% of control looks even more tempting. The rich balk at not being allowed to buy absolutely anything (nukes, organs, lives); overly-permissively raised children balk at Gravity’s failure to go according to their wills.
Simon
Simon
J. Francis Lehman
Simon exemplifies the problem with all forms of fundamentalist: they are completely willing to use whatever rhetorical devices they find at their disposal to attempt to secure the right to use their faith to bludgeon all who do not share it.
This prosyletizing has nothing to do with saving souls, and everything to do with browbeating more sheep into the fold. The sad part is, these automatons don’t even realize that the whole procedure was cleverly created by the clergy, for the purpose of expanding their earthy dominance to encompass as many people as possible.
I find that the stronger my belief in God becomes, the more contempt I have for religion
M. Simon
If any one in a superior position is “selling” their religion to an inferior it is the wrong use of Power and Control.
Religion must be a free choice. I was under the impression that that was a tennent of Christianity as a whole. Evidently this is no longer true for some sects.
John Cole
Simon- Exactly how far are you going to go before you draw the line. What, pray tell, would be over the line for you.
I would submit that reasonable people would agree that if Chaplains at a military academy create a climate so hostile to Jews, Muslims, and non-evangelical Christians that they believe the only accepted religion at the acadmey is evangelical christianity, we are way past discussions of appropriateness and the creation of a state religion.
And you are simply wrong. Military officers do not have a right to tell their soldiers to insult other soldiers and bully them into believing one form of religion is appropriate. If anything, they havan obligation to do just the opposite.
M. Simon
Also what the other Simon does not get is that agressive proselytizing creates a resevoir of ill will.
Having grown up in the 50s when the church was much more influential in the public schools, I (a Jew) came away from that experience with an intense dislike of Christianity.
Every attemt to use power to encourage belief leads to a reaction. i.e. the ACLU.
Robert Fiore
As someone who is not at all religious, the “New Testament” on the barrel struck me more as soldiers’ humor than a statement of personal faith. Not likely to help win the hearts and minds of the locals, however.
opit
I was put aback some time past at the attitude of some Muslims to Christians : intolerant. Mutual respect means you don’t get to put others down. What is so tough about that. Brotherly love. Anything that relegates that to unimportance should be suspect. Pre-judice refers to the practice of making assumptions about others. That includes making their case for them.
Kevin
It seems to me that one issue we don’t address in this matter is that religion, in and of itself, is often an absolutist philosophy. It has no pretense of endorsing freedom or even representative government, as, in the example of evangelicals, it runs counter to their belief that there is only one approach to spiritual salvation.
That being said, there is most certainly a difference between the practice of free speech and using personal religious beliefs in a coercive manner when in a position of power. Cadets likely cannot just get up from a meeting, a dinner, a team sport practice, and walk away when the coach or commander begins proselytizing.
Moreoever, these people are in the employ of the people of the United States, not some specific church or religious belief. Frankly, I personally find it offensive anytime someone decides that I need to know about their religious belief as if I don’t have my own. But to do so in situations where teamwork is essential, the audience is captive, and the commanding officer is more loyal to the teachings of his church than to his duty, lays the groundwork for big problems down the road.
I don’t buy this crap that fundamentalists are “persecuted” because they aren’t allowed to dictate laws, define God, demand acquiescence of everyone else’s lives to their faith, and demonize those they’ve placed on this month’s waterslide to hell list.
I could care less what religious beliefs an individual chooses – but if you demand that I have to live by them, I’m sure going to question your security in those beliefs. But then, that is when I’m on an even playing field – the military is hardly that kind of an environment.
It should neither be difficult nor unsavory for a person of any faith to practice it to their personal fulfillment.But coercion is not freedom of speech – it is indoctrination.
The people of this country maintain an air force academy for specific reasons. Those reasons do not include coercive training in a particular religious faith.
Simon
AlanDownunder
Coercion that is extraneous and counter to mission is just part of the problem. More pervasively problematic is acceptance of what is extraneous and counter to mission — even, ironically, to Christian mission.
In a real war, theistic bigotry objectifies humans into infidels and ups the kill rate. In a “war” for hearts and minds against islamic terrorism in a muslim theatre that could turn from dictatorship into either democracy or theocracy, theistic bigotry is more than daft. If it’s hard-wired into the military, Bush has a problem – one he appears to embody more than perceive
AlanDownunder
Coercion that is extraneous and counter to mission is just part of the problem. More pervasively problematic is acceptance of what is extraneous and counter to mission — even, ironically, to Christian mission.
In a real war, theistic bigotry objectifies humans into infidels and ups the kill rate. In a “war” for hearts and minds against islamic terrorism in a muslim theatre that could turn from dictatorship into either democracy or theocracy, theistic bigotry is more than daft. If it’s hard-wired into the military, Bush has a problem – one he appears to embody more than perceive.
AlanDownunder
Coercion that is extraneous and counter to mission is just part of the problem. More pervasively problematic is acceptance of what is extraneous and counter to mission — even, ironically, to Christian mission.
In a real war, theistic bigotry objectifies humans into infidels and ups the kill rate. In a “war” for hearts and minds against islamic terrorism in a muslim theatre that could turn from dictatorship into either democracy or theocracy, theistic bigotry is more than daft. If it’s hard-wired into the military, Bush has a problem – one he appears to embody more than perceive.
BobN
“The problem has never been with religious speech. The problem has always been with people who have been so weak of mind that they uncritically accepted or thought themselves pressured by mere speech concerning what some of us know to be pure nonsense.”
So, when Roman Catholics and Muslims killed each other by the hundreds of thousands in the crusades, which side was the weak of mind side?
Same question with the Catholics and various Protestant sects in Europe.
Kaunas
People seem to be saying that chaplains or officers have a right to say whatever they want to say and any attempt to restrict public expression of their religious beliefs is some kind of censorship or persecution. People in the Military have the right to believe in pretty much any religion they want as long as it is kept within the context of personal belief and is respectful of other people
atinsley
Let’s get back to Square One. What is the purpose of having chaplains? It is to provide spirital and emotional support to people of like mind. It is a blasphamey to use them to support a political agenda or to make use of their power of position to force, no matter how sublimely, the conversion of other faiths. The soldiers of christ were defenders of the faith, not the abducters for the faith.
A. nonymous
Are those darn Christians daring to pray and speak again?
This is not a freedom of speech issue, this is not a freedom of religion issue! Why? Because we have declared it as such. And any of those pesky theocons who disagree with us should as you put it have their “damned head examined.” No sense in even trying to disucss anything with them. Let’s just broadbrush them all as people in need of psychological help. After all, if they don’t agree with us, they simply MUST be nuts, right?
I mean how DARE they pray! Or in a publicaton take out an ad saying they are Christians! What kind of insanity is that? Why won’t they just go in the closet or church or whatever and just let us be? They must be silenced! Or as I said previously, re-educated!
Freedom of speech does not cover religious speech.
Freedom of exercise of religion does not cover actually exercise of your religion!
Of course no one answered my previous question: Should we dig up General Patton, who ordered his Chaplin to prepare a prayer for good weather, and court martial him? After all, that prayer got circulated to all the troops. I think we should. Make an example of him. Maybe Barry Lynn is already on this?
Or how about G. Washington who ordered days of prayer and thankgiving among the armed forces he lead at times of victory? Or wait, no. That was pre-Amendment 1, so I guess we can keep old George safely in his grave.
But all those other military leaders who ever prayed or used the word God in any order, command or official letter? Let’s dig them up and court martial them!
Because you simply can NOT SAY GOD OR PRAY when you don a uniform. ESPECIALLY if you are chaplain apparently.
So glad we are all in agreement as to what we are really talking about here.
A. nonymous
Oh my goodness.
People in uniform PRAYING! The theocons are coming! The theocons are coming!
People getting a government salary saying in pubic they are Christians! In a publication no less!
By the way, should we dig up General Patton, who ordered his Chaplin to prepare a prayer for good weather, and court martial him? After all, that prayer got circulated to all the troops. Cannot, simply cannot believe we let those people into the armed forces.
And to think CHAPLAINS are daring to lead people in these worship services?
Why they must be purged…oh wait no wrong word. Hehe.
Well, this is a place of higher ed, so let’s just say they need to be re-educated.
Don’t they know you are not allowed to say “God” anymore or Barry Lynn will freak out and sue you?
Tsk tsk. Why won’t these “Bible thumpers” just go into a closet…er…church and leave us alone? I don’t need to be exposed to them flaunting their religion all around. Not that there’s anything wrong with that, but when those people start to parade down the street or say stuff, I just wish they’d keep it in the privacy of their home or house of worship.
And to quote someone earlier up this thread, this is not a free speech issue! We need to silence them. After all, they are on government property saying the “G word”. Can’t have that. Oh no. But if they want to conduct courses in which those of religious faith in general or a religion in particular are depicted as an evil, white, male oppressive patriarchy, why that’s ok because that’s just being open minded.
John Cole
I see why you have chosen to remain anonymous.
A. Nonymous
Your Drill Sgt. saying “Holy Cow” is ok. BUT anyone says “God bless you” when they sneeze and they MUST be purged…er…re-educated to learn that you are not permitted to express any sort of religious belief, ESPECIALLY if it is a Christian one.
When will these theocons learn John?
Kimmitt
Nice use of the word re-educated, but, again, red-baiting is *so* 80s.
Simon
“People seem to be saying that chaplains or officers have a right to say whatever they want to say and any attempt to restrict public expression of their religious beliefs is some kind of censorship or persecution.”
This is not precisely what I am saying. I rather think both American tradition and simple reason forbid appeals to the Constitution to restrict anyone’s speech, religious or otherwise. The Constitution was in fact developed to protect freedom of speech. Yet the left has corrupted it so that it now forbids what it was designed to protect. It did not do this by the consent of the people, not by a vote, not by Amendment. It did it by stacking our federal courts with activists who have simply decreed that religious freedom should be restricted. We are now so fearful of free speech, so afraid to live as free Americans, that we force church leaders, contrary to our history, to pay a tax merely for speaking their minds to fellow citizens. I think the social right has a legitimate gripe against our courts. While we are often told that the Christian “idiots” are trying to “take over”, the truth is the Christians are fighting a defensive battle, not an offensive one.
“However once a chaplain, who is on the US government payroll, or an officer, who is talking to subordinates, starts to express religious beliefs, especially those that condemn other beliefs, this is crossing the line. Military people simply do not have the right to express any opinion that they want, especially in public.”
While agreeing that military people are subject to restrictions that do not apply to the rest of us (I have in mind speaking disrepectfully to and of the Commander, for example), I summarily reject the idea that it is Constitutionally valid to forbid officers to speak their minds to subordinates simply because their speech contains a religious component. There is no American tradition supporting our current restrictions. From the Revolt onward, religion has been handed down to subordinates and supported by our highest leaders. Here is one of our earliest battle flags used in the American Revolt http://www.loc.gov/exhibits/religion/f0307s.jpg. The flag explicitly preaches religious doctrine, perhaps making one wonder how we came from its use to our persistent whining today because a solider puts the words “New Testament” on a tank.
The American Congress itself once explicitly recommended that the American army and navy take “steps to see that Christian morality prevailed in both organizations. In the Articles of War (http://www.loc.gov/exhibits/religion/vc006576.jpg,http://www.loc.gov/exhibits/religion/vc006577.jpg) governing the conduct of the Continental Army (adopted, June 30, 1775; revised, September 20, 1776), Congress devoted three of the four articles in the first section to the religious nurture of the troops. Article 2 ‘earnestly recommended to all officers and soldiers to attend divine services.’ Punishment was prescribed for those who behaved ‘indecently or irreverently’ in churches, including courts-martial, fines and imprisonments. Chaplains who deserted their troops were to be court-martialed.” http://www.loc.gov/exhibits/religion/vc006525.jpg http://www.loc.gov/exhibits/religion/vc006526.jpg
Military officers have instructed their subordinates in religion, urged them toward religion, prayed with and for their troops in private and publicly since the Revolt and to this very day. We have seen it mentioned here, but it is worth a repeat simply because it underscores just how free we once were about speech, including religious speech. In December 1944, General George S. Patton ordered 250,000 prayer cards distributed to every soldier in the Third Army. Now what is most interesting here is that he also sent 3,200 training letters to his officers and his chaplains telling them to
The Phnom Penh
I think what’s missing from this discussion is power. If a man says to a woman in a bar, “Hey baby, wanna screw?” he’s guilty of being insensitive. If the same man says the same thing to his employee, it’s sexual harrassment. The difference is that in the second case, the employee is not as free to say no.
The same is true when an officer tries to convert an enlisted man – it will always be coercive, because of the power relationship between them.
A soldier in uniform represents the state monopoly on violence. The threat, overt or implicit, is that the soldier has been given the right to kill. When the soldier speaks, he speaks for the state, and if that speech includes attempts at religious conversion, it’s as if the state, with its monopoly on deadly force, is trying to impose a religion. Ethically, it’s no different from Mohammed’s armies converting people at the point of a sword.
The Phnom Penh
I think what’s missing from this discussion is power. If a man says to a woman in a bar, “Hey baby, wanna screw?” he’s guilty of being insensitive. If the same man says the same thing to his employee, it’s sexual harrassment. The difference is that in the second case, the employee is not as free to say no.
The same is true when an officer tries to convert an enlisted man – it will always be coercive, because of the power relationship between them.
A soldier in uniform represents the state monopoly on violence. The threat, overt or implicit, is that the soldier has been given the right to kill. When the soldier speaks, he speaks for the state, and if that speech includes attempts at religious conversion, it’s as if the state, with its monopoly on deadly force, is trying to impose a religion. Ethically, it’s no different from Mohammed’s armies converting people at the point of a sword.
Simon
I don
efg
I come late to this chain. But the one thing that appears to be true for almost all responders is: None has aver been in the military, or certainly a cadet a service academy.
There are two seperate dynamics at work here. One is the general First Amendment right of all americans not to be pressured on matters of religious belief by those who hold some kind of power (either civilian or military) over them. Thus it is not appropriate for my boss, nor his boss, all the way up to the chairman of the company to proselityze in the workplace. Nor is it appropriate for a police officer, or schoolteacher, or DMV clerk to do so.
In the military, and especially at an academy, we add extra layers of virtually unquestioned obedience and loyalty to the insitution, Officers, whether chaplans or ordinary commanders, have influence way, way beyond anyone in civilian life.
Lets try a little role reversal. Let’s suppose the new head chaplain at the academy is a very orthodox Jew (it will never happen in real life, but let’s suppose). As such, he sees his mission to include several new rules, including: no activity of any kind except prayer from sundown Friday to sundown Saturday; no pork or shellfish in the cafetirias; no dairy products served with meat meals…. see where this goes? Just because the Evangelicals are in charge now, doesn’t give them any more right than any other religion to impose their views. Period.
Simon
Lets try a little role reversal. Let’s suppose the new head chaplain at the academy is a very orthodox Jew (it will never happen in real life, but let’s suppose). As such, he sees his mission to include several new rules, including: no activity of any kind except prayer from sundown Friday to sundown Saturday; no pork or shellfish in the cafetirias; no dairy products served with meat meals…. see where this goes?
It goes nowhere. If I were in the military with a Jewish leader who decided to implement these rules, I would be faced with one or a combination of three choices: 1. to follow the rules, 2. to protest them on personal grounds (perhaps even seeking to oust the leader), or 3. to leave the military. These are the same options available to the non-Christians today. Equality does not mean we have a right to get our way despite our abilities. It simply means we have the same legal right to strive toward the same goals as anyone else. The left has turned this on its head so that now even those with the least accepted view can destroy the freedoms of those whose views are most accepted. This is un-American.
According to the Constitution, America will not legally prefer a religion, it will not infringe on the freedom of religion or the freedom to speak on religion. America is an open forum where all views have the same right to contend for the minds of the participants. But contrary to popular oppressive belief, all views do not legitimately have the same right to command the minds and behavior of the citizens even if the citizens reject the views.
John Cole
A more breath-taking display of ignorance and excuse-making for Evangelical abuses will not be found.
You, Simon, quite simply do not know your ass from a hole in the ground when it comes to the military.
Rick
According to the Constitution, America will not legally prefer a religion, it will not infringe on the freedom of religion or the freedom to speak on religion. America is an open forum where all views have the same right to contend for the minds of the participants….
How is this ignorant excuse-making? John, you’re just over-reacting (now *there’s* a shock!); even in the military, there’s a “market” that will self-correct. That’s the greater officer corps of the chaplaincy. There are Catholics, Jews, Muslims, “old-line” Protestants, and perhaps a couple of other religions represented. They’d be expected to push-back. Not only through the official channels and employing regulations, but the freedoms cited by Simon. Ignorant excuse-maker that he is.
So there’s ample protection for the USAF’s leaders of tomorrow. I hope the same can be said for the “accused,” because there does seem to be a fever for Salem-in-reverse.
BTW, in a strict life-or-death calculus, I’m much more concerned with Muslim prostelityzing in U.S. prisons. Maybe Barry Lynn can find grounds to “investigate.” It’s a truly captive audience, after all.
Cordially…
John Cole
Rick- Because the onus is not on the cadets to ‘fight back,’ but rather for the Officers to behave appropriately.
What if the Officer was running around telling the cadets that ‘niggers are bad and anyone who associates with a nigger cadet will burn in hell.’
Would it be up to the cadets to fight back, leave the military, or follow the rules?
Or maybe, just maybe, we could recognize that the Officer was at fault.
Simon
What if the Officer was running around telling the cadets that ‘niggers are bad and anyone who associates with a nigger cadet will burn in hell.’
The analogy is quite obviously flawed because the Constitution
Simon
John, you’re just over-reacting (now *there’s* a shock!); even in the military, there’s a “market” that will self-correct. That’s the greater officer corps of the chaplaincy. There are Catholics, Jews, Muslims, “old-line” Protestants, and perhaps a couple of other religions represented. They’d be expected to push-back. Not only through the official channels and employing regulations, but the freedoms cited by Simon. Ignorant excuse-maker that he is.
Bingo!
Rick
Rick- Because the onus is not on the cadets to ‘fight back,’ but rather for the Officers to behave appropriately.
John,
You’re not reading me. I specifically said the push-back would come from what might be analogized as an operating “market” in the militiary: the chaplain corps. Other represented denominations would resist/blow the whistle on the misbehavior you so fear to be consuming our cadets.
And then there would be the application of regulations. So the cadets aren’t having any onus thrust on them.
A grip, please.
Cordially…
Tom Darby
As a former Airman who had been assigned to the US Marine Corps and is currently a Pastor I see the situation as much simpler. The pulpit is no place to denounce or promote ‘faith’ this makes it a ‘religion.’
At the US Air Force Academy, both Officers and Cadets operate on a system of ‘honor’ therefore ‘telling’ on someone is reasonable, because not to makes one as guilty as the next party.
As for the tank, it was defaced and that is against the UCMJ. The punishment should have followed whatever is standard and proper.
Psych1
In the acadamies and on large bases chaplins may tend to their own flocks. But, on smaller bases and in deployment situations, chaplins are assigned to care for the spiritual needs of entire units.
Military chaplins are not supposed to be spokepersons for their own belief system – ever
John Cole
You’re not reading me. I specifically said the push-back would come from what might be analogized as an operating “market” in the militiary: the chaplain corps. Other represented denominations would resist/blow the whistle on the misbehavior you so fear to be consuming our cadets.
So, anything goes in the self-correcting military. All abuse is relative and, indeed, is not abuse unless enough people complain. Otherwise, it is just ‘the way things are.’
I guess you have no problem with the ‘self-correction’ taking place right now- in the form of new rules and military investigations and public charges of outrigh abuse by members and former members of the academy?
Likewise- if enough cadets and fellow officers decide that Scientology is the only true religion, and that they can loudly bully, threaten, and run academy offered events that endorse Scientology as the preferred and, in their view, only acceptable religion, you won’t have a problem with it?
All we would need is some good Xtians to come forward and we could have a jolly swell battle of ideas in the self-correcting marketplace?
A. Nonymous
John:
As per usually you are correct. I mean, who do these Christian theocons think they are daring to pray or say publically they are Christian?
Where do they come off thinking that this sort of thing is to be tolerated? What do they think they have, freedom of religious expression or something?
And the chaplains. What a joke, John. I agree with you: they need to be put in check and corrected. I mean, a Christian chaplain daring to say the word “Christ”? Or pray?
That praying thing is just bullying I tell you. Bullying. And I am glad people like you John and the People For the American Way, the ACLU and others will not stand for these people coming out of their closets…er…churches and daring to speak about their religion.
Let’s purge them! Purge the Christians! Prohibit them from speaking the word “Christ” or praying. Why can’t they keep their disgusting lifestyle choice in the closet..er…church where it belongs?
How about Don’t Ask/Don’t Tell when it comes to Christianity. Will that solve the problem for you John?
Rick
John,
I could quote you responding to another comment-dropper: go fuck yourself.
Or I could try to go more slowly in explanation. But I don’t know if it’s possible.
The chaplain corps and military regs combine to form a bulwark against improper behavior.
And we see this happening: I guess you have no problem with the ‘self-correction’ taking place right now- in the form of new rules and military investigations and public charges of outright abuse by members and former members of the academy? Why *would* I have a problem with it, proving as it does my point? It wasn’t you that got the correction going.
Your “Likewise…” scenario just doesn’t flow or follow the point of discussion. Bad Things can happen in the military/a large military constituency is opposed to Bad Things/a large body of military regulations prohibit Bad Things. Thus, you have a market that opposes/corrects Bad Things.
If you can’t get a grip, please hone your gripe towards a detailed solution to these miseries.
Cordially…
John Cole
I could quote you responding to another comment-dropper: go fuck yourself.
You mean where Tom Scott, in a post linking to Jon Henke’s very ratinal discussion of why torture and abuse hurt the military and the country, chose to compare me with that traitorous bitch Jane Fonda?
I thought a ‘go fuck yourself’ was appropriate. Not sure how a disagreement rises tothe same level as a Fonda smearing, but, knock yourself out.
The chaplain corps and military regs combine to form a bulwark against improper behavior.
Except, in this case, it didn’t The first member of the chaplain corps to try to do something worked from within for months and then was summarily dismissed and shipped to Guam before it was time for to be transferred. Then the nonsense continued until there was public exposure.
At least you are finally admitting, partially, that there are military regulations against this sort of behavior.
Your “Likewise…” scenario just doesn’t flow or follow the point of discussion. Bad Things can happen in the military/a large military constituency is opposed to Bad Things/a large body of military regulations prohibit Bad Things. Thus, you have a market that opposes/corrects Bad Things/
Hunh?
If you can’t get a grip, please hone your gripe towards a detailed solution to these miseries.
I have a grip- I am following what is going on and I am happy the military is takng it seriously and doing saomething.
You appear pissed off that anything was done at all- that abuses of authority and power should be left to the ‘self-correcting’ marketplace of ideas, and that Jews who don’t like being told that they killed Jesus and are going to hell should either quit the military, ‘fight back,’ or merely stfu and take it.
All of your anger appears directed not at the people who have done wrong- but at the anyone who seems intent on changing the situation.
John Cole
Anonymous- When you write something worthy of wa response, let me know.
I have no desire to ‘purge’ Christians from the Academy. Anyone who says otherwise is an idiot.
John Cole
BTW, Rick- Ted Haggard of New Life Ministries would appear to disagree with you:
A. Nonymous
John sayeth; “I have no desire to ‘purge’ Christians from the Academy. ”
Really? So then you’d “let” them actually pray and say Christ in public?
That’s NOT what you were posting when this broke a few weeks ago, John.
I guess the theocons got to you, too.
You were right when you started: there’s NO place for prayer or people in uniform saying “Christ”.
This is not a freedom of speech issue, this is not a freedom of religion issue! Why? Because John Cole did declare it as such. And any of those pesky theocons who disagree with us should as John put it have their “damned head examined.” No sense in even trying to disucss anything with them. Let’s just broadbrush them all as people in need of psychological help. After all, if they don’t agree with us, they simply MUST be nuts, right John?
John Cole
Anonymous:
That’s NOT what you were posting when this broke a few weeks ago, John.
Show me where I once said people can not pray publicly. Show me.
You can’t, because you are lying.
A. Nonymous
John sayeth: “Show me where I once said people can not pray publicly. ”
Nice change of phrase. You are correct, you dodn’t say “people” can not pray publically.
Your reference was to people IN UNIFORM and people SERVING AT THE A.F. ACADEMY.
Just to clarify.
But as I said then I say now, I AGREE with you man! We are on the same page! Let’s just make sure those Christians stay in their churches and are never, ever allowed to say “Christ” in uniform, on government property, or both.
Otherwise, that’s just “bullying” and if they claim they have a 1st Amendment right to pray or say “Christ” they, again to quote you, need to have their “damned heads examined”
John Cole
Oh, Jesus. I am going to be praying publicly by the time this conversation is over.
Show me where I said people in uniform could not pray publicly.
Peace Monger
You know, there is an AFI that covers the equal treatment of Airmen. It is AFI 36-2706. Chapter 7 defines Equal Opportunity and Treatment Incidents. This paragraph is particularly interesting:
“7.1.2. Incidents may include, but are not limited to, the following elements: The use of a slur(s) based
on race, color, national origin, religion or sex, vandalism/degrading graffiti, hate group activity, dis-criminatory
epithets, signs or symbols.”
Chapter 8 is also very relevant. Here is my favorite passage:
“8.1. Religious Accommodation.
8.1.1. Religious accommodation is based on the constitutional right of the free exercise of religion in
accordance with DoDD 1300.17.
8.1.2. Commanders will approve requests for accommodation of religious practices when accommo-dation
will not have an adverse impact on military readiness, unit cohesion, standards or discipline.
8.1.3. Commanders should respect the religious beliefs and practices of all Air Force members in a
manner that is consistent and fair to all.
8.1.4. Support of religious accommodation practices does not necessarily reflect agreement or belief
in such practices by a commander, chaplain, unit or the Air Force.”
Hopefully all of the posters here can agree that Air Force Academy personnel should be held to the standards of Air Force Regulations.
rebcon
You are right on target with this one, John. As Reverend Haggard’s statement shows, good Christians recognize what was going on at the Air Force Academy for what it was: coercive abuse. I certainly agree with your previous statement that “reasonable people would agree that if Chaplains at a military academy create a climate so hostile to Jews, Muslims, and non-evangelical Christians that they believe the only accepted religion at the academy is evangelical christianity, we are way past discussions of appropriateness and the creation of a state religion.” While loath to criticise the mindset, rather than the argument, of other posters, it would seem to me that certain of the posters do fall outside of the “reasonable people” category, not because they hold differing viewpoints than you or I, but because of either the absolutism of their apologism, or their intellectually dishonest recasting of your position. One may be for freedom of religion but against religious coercion. One may be for allowing fundamental evangelistic Christians to practice their religion but against allowing them to abuse secular positions of authority to impose those religious beliefs upon others.
Lt Col USAF
There is a dearth of first hand knowledge here.
Perhaps I can fix that.
I have been a squadron commander, and know full well the success of a unit is due very much to that unit’s cohesion.
Simon’s line of reasoning is completely contrary that fundamental requirement.
As a commander, who has ultimate authority over duty assignments and promotions, those under my charge must never be able to conclude their religious beliefs, whatever they might be, have any place in those decisions.
That means ANY sort of proselytizing by someone within the chain of command is absolutely out of bounds.
I had a commander once who was a Born Again Christian. He created an antagonistic atmosphere dividing his fellow believers from everyone else.
And trashed unit effectiveness in the process.
Rick
You appear pissed off that anything was done at all- that abuses of authority and power should be left to the ‘self-correcting’ marketplace of ideas, and that Jews who don’t like being told that they killed Jesus and are going to hell should either quit the military, ‘fight back,’ or merely stfu and take it.
John,
You are very wrong. Again. Like Abu Ghraib (sp?), the military is and was dealing with reported problems. That’s what the JAG corps is for (as seen on teevee). Public exposure may only accelerate the military beat-down, and not likely to launch it.
At least you are finally admitting, partially, that there are military regulations against this sort of behavior.
What’s this “finally admitting” bidness? When I tilt lances against you, it’s because *YOU* seem to think servicepeople are lumps of clay without an institutional hope and a (punning here) prayer, and lost causes without the–of course selfless and financially disinterested–good offices of Barry Lynn.
Enjoy your break. I fear you need it.
Cordially…
Simon
So, anything goes in the self-correcting military. All abuse is relative and, indeed, is not abuse unless enough people complain. Otherwise, it is just ‘the way things are.’
John: I think you unfairly mischaracterize your opponent
Simon
I have been a squadron commander, and know full well the success of a unit is due very much to that unit’s cohesion. Simon’s line of reasoning is completely contrary that fundamental requirement.
It is not. Simon’s lin of reasoning makes clear allowances for the unique needs of the military (and they always have). Simon merely assaults the left’s knee-jerk tendency to exploit the Establishment Clause against every day Americans’ freedom of speech when in fact that clause was written to protect freedom of speech.
I very much wish in these discussions that we might not get so emotional that we fail to see our opponent’s true views. I am beginning to feel this entire discussion is just one gigantic waste of time.
John Cole
Rick
You are very wrong. Again. Like Abu Ghraib (sp?), the military is and was dealing with reported problems. That’s what the JAG corps is for (as seen on teevee). Public exposure may only accelerate the military beat-down, and not likely to launch it.
Yes, they were dealing with it. By sending the offending chaplain who raised a stink to Guam, cutting short her appointment.
If you are arguing that the military will just ‘fix itself’ without public scrutiny, we are just going to have to agree to disagree.
Your position undemocratically destroys the freedoms of the majority for the peculiar interests of the miniscule few.
Always the victim. It was not the majority who was the problem- it was a few selected officers who created a hostile climate, violated general military rules as well as specific Air Force Rules, and, whether you like it or not, did appear to be breaking the Establishment clause.
For some people, merely hearing a positive discussion about Christianity is “abuse” worthy of deadly retaliation, while others could be told they are going to hell and literally laugh at it, even encouraging additional speech to learn more. I myself have seen both happen and very much else in between. So you may insist that such conversations, especially from officers, amount to
John Cole
I can’t keep up with you guys:
It is not. Simon’s lin of reasoning makes clear allowances for the unique needs of the military (and they always have). Simon merely assaults the left’s knee-jerk tendency to exploit the Establishment Clause against every day Americans’ freedom of speech when in fact that clause was written to protect freedom of speech.
So of everything that has been expose, what really upsets you is the reaction to the alleged abuses, and not the abuses themselves?
No one is going to try to keep soldier’s from practicing their religious views. This would be impossible, if nothing else, not to mention illegal and a myriad of other things.
You have nothing to be afraid of- when the Establishment clause is invoked in discussion or in allegations, the remedy, continuously, has been to end the violations of the establishment clause. Not to end the observance of religion.
No one is advocating that…
Rick
If you are arguing that the military will just ‘fix itself’ without public scrutiny, we are just going to have to agree to disagree.
John,
Again, with conscious pun in mind: God Damn It! I hope you’re not suggesting that I’ve been hinting that scrutiny is out of bounds, because that’s not the case. Just that the military is, even more than you, the press, and special interest astroturfers, most interested in correcting wayward sheep (more ironic language).
And, in a spirit of magnanimity, I hope you’ll welcome public scrutiny and criticism of the judiciary. Or would that scrutiny be limited only to L. Tribe approved perspectives, because you had an “episode” a month or so ago condemning that scrutiny? If it’s a moral monster like Tom Delay, outrage!!!
Scrutiny, and public discussions such as you sponsor in this space, are very uplifting, in spite of some swims through the gutter.
Cordially…
John Cole
Just that the military is, even more than you, the press, and special interest astroturfers, most interested in correcting wayward sheep (more ironic language).
I would agree and disagree. They may, in cases, be more interested in giving the appearance that there is no problem than actually fixing the problem.
While I have more faith in the military than any other institution in the country (or world for that matter), some do not always tell the truth, they do not always do the right thing, and in many cases, the solution is to close the books on a case, refusing to discuss it, and then considering everything is ‘fixed.’ In other cases, they simply normalize the behavior- “It’s just the way things are or always have been.”
It appears that is what they tried to do both here, and, fortunately, got caught.
Rick
John,
Okey-dokey. We have consensus: that the military acts like any institution. More forthrightly than higher education, I suspect, though.
In terms of religious nutters in the military, I think the greater concern is with the types like that Airborne Muslim fragging fellow. But that takes me way back upthread, and here the peace pipe is all fired up.
Priorities, J.C., priorities.
Cordially….
Lt Col USAF
Simon:
“Free Speaking Americans” and the Establishment clause have not the first thing to do with the military.
Those who choose to serve in the military voluntarily give up most of their constitutional rights.
As a military officer, I most certainly have foresaken free speech, and (thanks to Peace Monger for the chapter and verse citations) may not allow my religious convictions have any relationship with my position.
The only thing I may be concerned with is ability to perform the unit’s mission.
Injecting religion is the height of stupidity.
NB: In a ship’s wardroom, there are two topics of conversation that have always evidenced bad judgment: Politics and Religion.
Simon
So of everything that has been expose, what really upsets you is the reaction to the alleged abuses, and not the abuses themselves?
As I have expressed several times, I do not exactly accept the alleged abuses because they are not confirmed by sources that I think are worthy of my trust. The allegations are at this point only hearsay, mere accusations made by people who have so much of an ax to grind against religious speech that they have taken what has historically protected religious speech and corrupted it so that it now condemns such speech. I do not trust the accusations, do not think all of them amount to true abuse, and of those that are in my opinion truly uncharitable I do not think the Constitution offers anyone legal recourse against them. In short, I think the accusers, based upon their tendency to over emote, their obvious tendency to exaggerate and consistently mischaracterize their opponents’ views and actions, do not warrant my trust.
On the other hand, I know of a certainty that many of the same people who have made these accusations against the Christians at the Academy have exploited the Judiciary so that the Constitution is now routinely brought down on the heads of every day Americans, denying them what has always been their right, and forcing all Americans to legally condemn religious behavior that has in many cases long been protected by the Constitution. This I know factually, and I have a great deal of evidence supporting it. So I cannot make such a great issue of untrustworthy reports of someone
Simon
Lt. Col:
Those who choose to serve in the military voluntarily give up most of their constitutional rights.
I am well aware of this and agree with it. I think you misunderstand my position.
Lt Col USAF
Simon:
Maybe, if so, I apologize.
But perhaps not. The violations occur when someone in a position of authority promulgates a particular sectarian view to those within the chain of command. That is a far cry from praying before a meal.
This has nothing whatsoever to do with the Constitution.
I would have prohibited any group within my command, no matter how “clear and vast the majority” from conducting any religious observance.
Were I to do otherwise, that would constitute implying the existence of a command approved religious belief.
Which is precisely what this whole kerfuffle is about.
Simon
I have no problem with the military saying “hey, despite that we used to pray in public together and worship and stuff, we’ve decided to stop because we think stopping this will make us closer than keeping it.” I have no problem at all with this. Military leaders should have the latitude to do for the military what they think works best (though, were I in charge and the military consisted of a million evangelicals, one Jew and one atheist, I would without hesitation encourage the evangelicals to worship, proselytize and preach as they wish. I’d do this even as an atheist and I would have little problem with it as long as they don’t force me to do anything.)
I have a problem with the left taking the guns of the government and pointing them at the heads of a roomful of Christians to keep them from praying, simply because one atheist is “uncomfortable,” though the atheist is being forced to do nothing. I have a problem with the left doing this while claiming the Constitution approves, which it most certainly does not and never has.
The Constitution did not forbid the American Commander in Chief to write this: http://www.loc.gov/exhibits/religion/vc006493.jpg and it still doesn’t.
The Constitution did not for bid the following either – and it still doesn’t:
THE STATE BECOMES THE CHURCH:
JEFFERSON AND MADISON
It is no exaggeration to say that on Sundays in Washington during the administrations of Thomas Jefferson (1801-1809) and of James Madison (1809-1817) the state became the church. Within a year of his inauguration, Jefferson began attending church services in the House of Representatives. Madison followed Jefferson’s example, although unlike Jefferson, who rode on horseback to church in the Capitol, Madison came in a coach and four. Worship services in the House–a practice that continued until after the Civil War–were acceptable to Jefferson because they were nondiscriminatory and voluntary. Preachers of every Protestant denomination appeared. (Catholic priests began officiating in 1826.) As early as January 1806 a female evangelist, Dorothy Ripley, delivered a camp meeting-style exhortation in the House to Jefferson, Vice President Aaron Burr, and a “crowded audience.” Throughout his administration Jefferson permitted church services in executive branch buildings. The Gospel was also preached in the Supreme Court chambers.
Jefferson’s actions may seem surprising because his attitude toward the relation between religion and government is usually thought to have been embodied in his recommendation that there exist “a wall of separation between church and state.” In that statement, Jefferson was apparently declaring his opposition, as Madison had done in introducing the Bill of Rights, to a “national” religion. In attending church services on public property, Jefferson and Madison consciously and deliberately were offering symbolic support to religion as a prop for republican government.
http://www.loc.gov/exhibits/religion/rel06-2.html
Leaders today may behave religiously precisely as Jefferson and the “Father of the Constitution” once did, and in nothing will they break the Constitution. The left has just sold us quite a lot of lies about what the separation of church and state really means.
In state governments worship was often official, open and sectarian, and in nothing was any state considered against the Constitution.
Religion and the military have long been close bedfellows, and from the top down too. And in none of this did anyone break the Constitution.
Once again, I have no problem with a state or with the military ending or beginning religious worship. I have a problem with how the left has condemned religion by falsely using the Constitution. The Constitution actually protects the freedom of religion. If you wish to change it so that religion is no longer protected, you must Amend it as it describes. But it is plain un-American to do to that document what the left has done.
I am personally appalled that so many who call themselves “conservatives” can’t bring themselves to see what has happened. These “conservatives” now boisterously sound like liberals, defending the wrong as if it were right. Strange indeed.
Rick
Simon,
Thoughtful, even-tempered posts you make. I believe you may even have soothed the savage John Cole breast.
So easily lost is that the “wall of separation,” besides being an “emanation and penumbra,” in fact is to protect religion *from* government, and not really the other way around, as the Barry Lynns would have it.
Cordially…
John Cole
Rick. Not hardly. We are not even arguing the same topic, so what is the point.
He is mad about the invocation of the establishment cause, I am angry that the Commandant of the acadamey would create a hostile environment by promoting a particular religion and denigrating others.
I would argue the commandant’s (and those like him) behavior makes free worship by all more difficult than any invocation of the establishment clause.
But we arent even arguing the same thing, sow hy bother?
Peace Monger
You know, Rick and Simon can go on and on about where they think religion should and should not be, that makes good ranting material but isn’t the real core of this case.
If Cadets are proselytizing at the Academy during military time they are breaking USAF regs. If the Commandant is either allowing or encouraging this, he is breaking USAF regs. It is pretty black and white. The gray of what can and cannot be said or done has already been decided by the military heirarchy. Disobeying established regulations in order to promote one’s own personal religious beliefs is an indicator of seriously inadequate military leadership. If the charges are proven true, I hope the Commandant has the personal integrity to resign both his post and the position he abused.
Rick
P.M.
Sure, if real investigation–that is, not by press release–reveals violations of that Chapter 8 you usefully posted.
Truly, I believe Simon’s comments, and yes, mine, have been the farthest things from rants. That’s the host’s perogative…..and maybe ppaz’s.
Cordially…
Simon
He is mad about the invocation of the establishment cause, I am angry that the Commandant of the acadamey would create a hostile environment by promoting a particular religion and denigrating others.
They are parts of the same argument. I am simply cutting through the non-essentials to get at the root of the matter. You are angry that “the Commandant of the acadamey would create a hostile environment by promoting a particular religion and denigrating others.” The problem with this is that it is an unproven accusation made by Barry Lynn, one who is hardly unbiased in these matters and whose emotional attachment to the issue might legitimately cause one to hold the accuracy of his accusations suspect. What Lynn may call “denigration”, the Commandant might legitimately call “encouragment.” We need more information before we condemn the people at the Academy. We need to see the manner in which the conversations were held and discover their context. We need to hear from more than Barry Lynn, yourself and those who think like you, those who, to my mind are too emotional to be trusted here. I don’t mean to claim you and your group are being intentionally dishonest, but that you are obviously too emotional on this issue for one to assume you capable of being fair-minded. After all, without an investigation, without an admission and agreement from the other side concerning the raw facts of the accusation, you have hotheadedly sided with Barry Lynn and continually condemned the Christians at the Academy. I think few fair minds would assume you capable of being fairminded. This is chiefly the reason why I am not yet prepared to accept your views. But there is another reason I cannot yet accept them.
Your argument (borrowed essentially from Barry Lynn) is that the Christians did something wrong because of the Establishment Clause. You may beg to differ, but stick with me a moment. Your side claims something wrong has taken place. Were you making a purely moral argument about this alleged wrong then I would have to seek the basis of your morality and test whether it was defined enough and at least objective enough that reason would compel its acceptance. But I don’t really think you are standing purely on morality. In other words, I don’t think you are actually claiming the Commandant is wrong because he is “unkind” or “ungodly” or whatever else serves as the basis of your morality. The clue is how harshly you take your stance. To you it is obvious the Commandant is wrong. Your mind is closed on the matter. Your position is too categorical to be the result of something so shaky and subjective as personal morality. It appears to me you are a Person for the American Way and you are angry because you are convinced something has occurred that is against the Nation’s Way, your Way. There is only One Thing in America to which everyone must equally bow and that is the law. I believe Your Way is being informed by the perspective of the left, that perspective which says religious speech in the mouth of authority has no place in the government lest some minority be offended. And this perspective itself is being informed by a misreading, indeed by a wholesale corruption of the Constitution and American tradition.
Now if you claim your ire is not informed by your view of the Constitution, that you argue purely as a matter of military regulation (again, you cannot truly argue so categorically from morality), then your complaint has very little power and even less national relevance. Few people should care about highly local disagreements between military people over their own regulations. Were the dispute concerning, for example, the color of uniforms, you very likely would not care at all and we would not hear your passions here. You care so much about this issue because you assume this is a church vs state issue and that you are absolutely correct in embracing the New Orthodxy that claims religious speech has no place in government authority. In other words, you are appealing and being informed by the left’s flawed view of our Constitution. We are indeed arguing the same issue. I am simply cutting immediately to the chase.
Rick
Rant, rant, rant! The spittle fairly leaps from the screen. ;)
Cordially…
John Cole
Rant, rant, rant! The spittle fairly leaps from the screen. ;)
My job, thank you very much.
Peace Monger
Simon, this was originally reported by the Rocky Mountain News (17 Nov 2004) in regards to results of an internal Academy survey. These surveys are given annually at every military comman. The quote from the article follows:
“About half the cadets reported some type of religious slur, comment or joke, academy superintendent, Lt. Gen. John W. Rosa said during a meeting of the academy’s Board of Visitors on Capitol Hill on Tuesday. More telling than the numbers, he said, were comments from people who felt ostracized because of their religious beliefs – or lack of beliefs.”
To back up the survey data there were also 55 reported incidents of religous intolerance over a five year period.
What I found even more telling, though, was an article about a talk Florida State University coach Bobby Bowden gave to the Southern Colorado Fellowship of Christian Athletes. He brought up the AFA’s football coach, Fisher DeBerry. Here is the quote from the 17 May 2005 Rocky Mountain News:
Last season, DeBerry was asked to remove a banner from the locker room that displayed the “Competitor’s Creed,” including the lines “I am a Christian first and last . . . I am a member of Team Jesus Christ.”
“Fisher is fighting a heck of a battle over here at your academy (with) the U.S. government,” Bowden was quoted as saying in The Gazette of Colorado Springs.
“He’s fighting a heck of a battle because he happens to be a Christian and he wants his boys to be saved. I want my boys to be saved.”
Trying to blame this particular scandal on Barry Lynn and his organization ignores the fact that he came into the picture after the USAF had already stated there was a problem. In fact, the accusation against the Commandant originally came from Yale Divinity School professor Kristen Leslie during a visit to the Academy.
Rick
PM,
I think that goes to show that Lynn is a publicity seeker. I know–shockingly unusual behavior for a special interest mogul.
Cordially…
Simon
Merely because a newspaper reports that someone accused another of a violation does not prove the violation occurred. It does not even prove the alleged behavior occurred. It only supports that someone has a gripe against someone else, which, when it comes to religious freedom in modern America, is something we have known for quite some time. I am aware of the claims compiled using the Air Force survey, but even here there is no proof of violation because the evidence is all prejudiced, mere reports from people who generally have an interest in suppressing what may be the Constitutional rights of Christians. We are simply assuming a Constitutional wrong has taken place when we have not even heard both sides of this issue. After considering the bitterness of your side, I conclude that I must hear the perspective of the accused before I judge them to be the wanton
Peace Monger
First of all, I did not call for the head of Coach DeBerry. I said it concerned me. Personally, I believe that athletics paid for by tax dollars should not support one religion over another. I don’t think I am alone in my belief that most Jews (and other non-Christians) don’t want to play on “Team Jesus Christ.” If someone wants to coach “Team Jesus Christ,” maybe they should coach at a Christian school, which the Air Force Academy is not. I haven’t read anything about Barry Lynn referring to the locker room incident, so I have no idea whether your claim that Barry Lynn wants Coach DeBerry’s head is any more fact based than your claim that I do.
I previously stated that I thought the Commandant should be punished if the charges against him were proven to be true. I am no more inclined to believe claims from a newspaper than I am to believe claims from you. I did point out that it wasn’t Barry Lynn who made the original accusation against the Commandant, as you had inferred in a prior post. I’m not personally interested in Rev Lynn’s opinion. I am interested in what the facts are determined to be by the military investigation.
Feel free to pontificate on your version of the Constitution and government support of religion. It doesn’t seem to have done very well in the US court system.
Simon
PM:
It is not apparent to me that a public school coach who uses personal religious speech as part of his leadership compels us to conclude