More information continues to trickle out of the Air Force Academy (previous posts on this issue here, here, here, and here), and via Talk Left I see that the Superintendent of the Academy has dropped a bomb that should silence some of the apologists in my comments who claim there is no problem and that this is nothing more than an anti-Christian ‘crusade’:
The superintendent of the Air Force Academy acknowledged to leaders of a national Jewish group Friday that religious intolerance permeates the military school.
“As a commander, I know I have problems in my cadet wing,” Lt. Gen. John Rosa said at a meeting of the Anti-Defamation League’s executive committee. “I have issues in my staff, and I have issues in my faculty
Jim Henley
Nonsense! Al Qaeda manual Rule 18 told them to lie, that’s all!
Tim F
New superintendent. Tell me you don’t see that one coming a mile away.
Ask Bill Donaldson. As long as people in authority don’t ackowledge problems there won’t be any problems. Right?
Rick
“We sat down and said, `This is not right,’ and he acknowledged that,”
Like I said, the “market forces” tend to self correct.
Or did we just barely dodge a Talibanic Air Force?
It would be nice if these corrections were applicable to the intolerance of “PC” (vs. JC) on other U.S. campuses. But that’s another constituency.
Cordially…
Justin Faulkner
PC vs. JC? What is that exactly?
I’m waiting to see what the “apologists” come up with in response to this post.
Rick
PC as in politically correct, JC as in WWJD, as opposed to the JC that runs this dump.
Ya gotta buy the Blog Glossary at the Balloon-Juice Gift Shop in the lobby.
Cordially…
ppgaz
Gosh, imagine a government guy actually doing something right for his country?
Is this a great country, or what?
(Ask me in 3.5 years, if there is anything left of the country by then).
And for the record, there never has been, never will be, and is not now, any “anti-christian” crusade in this country.
That’s true on a number of levels, not the least obvious of which is that the manipulative, lying whiners who say there is such a crusade are in no position to speak for “christians” in general. They don’t own Christianity. The resistance they complain about … and foster, to stir up churn …is resistance to THEM, not to “christianity.”
They suck. May they all burn in the fires of Heck and may fleas infest their private parts.
DougJ
“And for the record, there never has been, never will be, and is not now, any “anti-christian” crusade in this country.”
Balderdash, the ACLU, the gay lobby, the whole freaking democratic party are engaged in an anti-christian crusade. Luckily, we’ve got a man in the White House who BELIEVES.
ppgaz
Right, of course.
And who elected him, or any of the BS for Christ brigade, to be in charge of “christianity?”
Who elected you to decide that the “gay lobby” is less christian than you are?
I declare you to be anti-Semitic. Why else would you oppose the party of Joe Lieberman?
Take your anti-Semitic attacks somewhere else.
Kimmitt
Balderdash, the ACLU, the gay lobby, the whole freaking democratic party are engaged in an anti-christian crusade.
Yeah, that gay ACLU series of fundamentalist Church bombings where the gay juries refused to convict the guys who obviously did it was really unjust.
No, I’m thinking of something else.
Tony Alva
DougJ,
Why is it so important for you to convert me or anybody else to your system of beliefs? Let me make this clear so you can avoid wasting your witnessing time, I DON’T WANT TO BE YOUR KIND OF BELIEVER. Niether do millions of other Americans. More over, I think you ought to spend a little more time on the message, not the man.
Moron…
Tony Alva
DougJ,
Why is it so important for you to convert me or anybody else to your system of beliefs? Let me make this clear so you can avoid wasting your witnessing time, I DON’T WANT TO BE YOUR KIND OF BELIEVER. Niether do millions of other Americans. More over, I think you ought to spend a little more time on the message, not the man.
BumperStickerist
Fools, the lot of you.
The more fundamentalist Christians in the military the safer we, as a nation, are.
In WWII we had the ‘Wind Talkers’ .. that won’t work for the Global War on Terror or, God Forbid, WWIII. The Native Americans will all be working in their casinos. We, as a nation, will have to use Glossolalia – speaking in tongues – a system where fundamentalist christians speaking in tongues to each other over open air waves, communicating the Lord’s will to the men in harm’s way, the forward firing positions, the forward air controllers, the tank commanders, the A-10 pilots.
The Glossolalia Code will be unbreakable to the unbeliever.
You simply can’t have that work with Jews … or Muslims, Buddhists, practioners of Shinto or Animism.
The use of the Glossolalia Code also rules out people who are members of iturgical Christian denominations including Catholicism, Lutheranism, Episcopalianism, and the Methodists.
So, repent people, get born again, get with the system – it’s for the safety of the Nation which is for the good of the children.
So long as there aren’t too many snake-handling casualties during off duty hours, we’ll be fine.
just fine.
MunDane
You know, there was something missing from the LA Times piece, and i had to read it twice to figure out what it was.
No where does he quote a cadet. 2000 words and not a single cadet quoted. Yep, that’s some good journalism there! Think maybe a cadet or two could offer some perspective to the writer?
I personally think this is going to turn out to be another case like the sexual harassment claims that the Academy went through a few years ago. A little substance and a whole lot of noise.
John, you have a current mad-on for the Religious Conservative, and anyone can see that who reads this blog. Hey, it is your bandwidth, we just come here to read and think. But do not get all crusading about this or you will end up like the Powerline yahoos with the Schiavo talking points memo. You seem all to eager to believe anything that makes the God Squadders look stupid. Pretty soon we will be seeing some analog of the “Fake, but accurate!” meme from you appearing about this stupidity at the USAFA.
ppgaz
Stupid is as stupid does, MunDane.
Do you think the AF story is ginned up? Make an argument, else don’t slide it out there as a straw cover and then duck behind it to throw rocks.
Resistance to arrogant, self-centered, egomaniacal and intolerant and browbeating behavior … is not a crusade. It’s simply rational self-defense. The country is not a fundamentalist construct of the right wing taliban. It is what it is, and it is going to sensibly and agressively resist this dysfunctional and ugly activity.
If you don’t like that, then argue that the resisted thing warrants acceptance. Argue that the large non-taliban majority in this country should just roll over and play dead for these assholes. Make your case.
And please, no preaching about journalism. The most excellent episode of journalism in the last 50 years is in the spotlight these days … and what do the Wingnuts have to say about it?
“Oh, that awful Mark Felt only talked to Woodward because he was disgruntled over not getting the FBI Director job.”
The fact is, Wingnuts don’t want good journalism, and more than they want real freedom of religion, or for that matter, real freedom, period. What they want is their Own Way.
Bzzt. Sorry, not on my watch.
dK
The USAFA infiltration was largely the result of the physical location of the Academy — Colorado Springs. It is home to Focus on the Family and dozens of other right-wing evangelical groups whose mission is to proselytize for their brand of Christianity and the Republican party. I wrote my take on it yesterday.
http://asilentcacopphony.blogspot.com
dK
The USAFA infiltration was largely the result of the physical location of the Academy — Colorado Springs. It is home to Focus on the Family and dozens of other right-wing evangelical groups whose mission is to proselytize for their brand of Christianity and the Republican party. I wrote my take on it yesterday.
http://asilentcacopphony.blogspot.com
Tony Alva
MunDane,
It does seem that there’s a mad-on for the God Squadder’s because there needs to be. One of the advantages conservative thinkers had in the last election was a common sense based position on the hotter topics. The converse way of stating that liberals lack basic common sense on some of the broader topics of the day (i.e. SS, “It’ll last forever untouched…”). The only roadblock to achieving a better crossover in most moderates minds is the wack jobs that make up the Christian Right. It is one area of the GOP that actually validates world opinion of our country as a bunch of prigish, prudish, crusaders. Blind faith in anything is dangerous. Our forebearers knew this all to well and did the best they could to ensure that our freedom didn’t fall prey to religious zealotry.
As a conservative moderate, zealotry in the middle east is as much of a concern as it is domestically.
ppgaz
Social security lasts forever untouched?
No complex program of any kind, woven into an even more complex set of fiscal scenarios with their various modes of taxation, revenue streams impacted by economies, changing demographics, and a fluid world situation, can survive without maintenance. No responsible person of any political persuasion could argue otherwise. No liberal holds the phony view you floated out there … can’t tell if you are joking, or not, but it doesn’t matter.
The view that liberals DO hold is that Social Security represents a desirable response to a real set of problems, and that it, and the fiscal environment around it, requires periodic adjustment and tuning. In a setting of sound fiscal policy and good faith politics, this process is doable, and so far, pretty successfull, especially considering the radically different scenarios that have played out in the last 70 years. Wars, recessions, inflation, wild swings in interest rates, pork barrel spending in Congress, huge shifts in earning and borrowing patterns in the middle class, and massive changes in the actuarial realities of the population … and yet Social Security is not only alive and well, but effective, and affordable. And it will be 20 and 40 years from now, unless the Cato Institute’s plan for tearing it down is successfully pulled off by a lying president and his disingenuous handlers.
If you want the best indicator of how healthy the program is today, just look at the response of the public to the Texas Tinhorn’s balls-to-wall campaign to get people to lose faith in it: They’ve lost confidence in him, not Social Security, and it gets worse every time he opens his mouth.
MunDane
Actually, one could agrue, persuasively, that zealotry of any stripe is corrosive. Conservative/Religious whack-job, Liberal Moonbats and those who think theirs is the only way to save the country (channeling the Founding Fathers) are all creatures of simialr stripe.
The largest danger to this country are all, and I do mean all, of the people determined to shut someone or some group up “for the good of the nation”.
Go. Think what you want to think, say what you want to say and believe what you want to believe. Try and persuade me to change my mind if you want. But don’t be offended if I don’t.
J
While religious infection in our civil society is usually on the very top of things that worry me about America, I tend to agree with Tom Wolfe when he says he’d rather have a born-again Baptist from Iowa on the front lines (or, in this case, the cockpit) than like an agnostic secular humanist who thinks all war is a crime.
ppgaz
I cannot agree with you.
First of all, you are in no position, and have established no basis, for making a claim that any particular thing is “the largest danger to this country.” The hyperbole itself is imprecise and the underlying facts are constantly shifting.
There are numerous dangers to the country. One needs first to compile a list, and then laboriously rate them in some rational way.
A press which is cowed, addicted to public approval, and silent in the face of firehose streams of bad information especially from the centers of power, is clearly a danger. A strong and obnoxious press is the only thing standing between citizens and tyranny, ultimately. Not only that, it is the best thing standing there. Right now, that strong press appears to be on paid administrative leave.
A public that is easily manipulated by superstition and demagogic marketing tactics is a danger to the country. I offer you this warning:
“The American people are very vulnerable to demagogic appeal.”
Richard Nixon, 1968. I don’t question his expertise in this area. He was the master of demagogic appeal.
Unpreparedness in the area of public health is a clear and present danger. Watch what happens when a deadly flu pandemic breaks out of its cage in Southeast Asia. Worst case scenario? Nobody alive in this country today has ever seen bad things happen in this country, and in the world, on that sort of scale … and we are sitting ducks (poultry reference intentional) as we speak.
According to almost every student of long term national fiscal trends, the economic and budget trends now firmly established in the US are not sustainable and are almost certain to cause monetary and economic disaster within 20-40 years, if not sooner. A very real threat to this country. Huge deficits, currency power shifts, unrealistic patterns of spending and taxation … extreme danger ahead.
I could go on, but if you haven’t got the point by now, and I’d guess that you haven’t, then you never will.
John Cole
The largest danger to this country are all, and I do mean all, of the people determined to shut someone or some group up “for the good of the nation”.
Which is precisely why I am so upset at a majority group of evangelicals abusing their positions of authority and trying to force others to adopt their position or rot in hell.
DougJ
“Which is precisely why I am so upset at a majority group of evangelicals abusing their positions of authority and trying to force others to adopt their position or rot in hell.”
That is not an accurate portrayal. Evangelicals — like me — do not presume to say who does or does not rot in Hell. That is up to a higher power. What we do presume to say is that this country needs to returns to the Christian values upon which it was founded. George W is certainly a step in the right direction, but a lot of us would like to see someone like James Dobson appointed to Secretary of Health and Human Services. That’s where the rubber hits the road.
John Cole
That is not an accurate portrayal. Evangelicals — like me — do not presume to say who does or does not rot in Hell.
Do you have any idea what the hell you are talking about in this case, or are you just babbling incoherently in defense of some perceived threat? Because people most assuredly have been accused of telling non-evangelicals that they will rot in hell if they do not convert and other various offensive acts…
Just as a favor- go read what has been alleged is going on in the Air Force Academy before you comment here any more.
Ned Raggett
I do not recall electing you pope for America whose word is law, DougJ. Or W or Dobson for that matter. Kindly keep that in mind.
ppgaz
Nope, the country was not founded on “Christian principles”. There is plenty of literature on the subject.
Dobson’s reign of terror is just about over. The overreaching and arrogance of his various Pickett’s Charges against the government have slowly but surely, but more and more, built foundations of resistance. People are catching on. See the recent reaction to the Schiavo debacle that the Dobsonites and their sock puppets in DC tried to pull off. People are getting it.
People are getting the attacks on the judiciary. The attacks on science. The browbeating attacks on anything and anyone who dares to oppose them. The phony “patriotism” and the self-righteous holier-than-thou blunders.
Not only do “evangelicals” (although I seriously doubt thatn you speak for all, or even a majority of them) not have any particular expertise or authority that qualifies them to be the arbiters of “values”, they just can’t govern. Governing is not ruling. It’s managing diversity. These buttheads want to rule, and the country will not be ruled. For more on that, see “Revolution, American.”
DougJ
“He said he admonished the academy’s No. 2 commander, Brig. Gen. Johnny Weida, a born-again Christian, for sending an e-mail promoting National Prayer Day.”
What’s wrong with that? Let me add that I would also have no problem with an Orthodox Jew sending out an email along these lines. Or with an Islamic person doing the same. I feel that objecting to sending out an email about National Prayer Day IS an example of anti-Christian parnaoia.
And while you are certainly right that there are SOME evangelical Christians who tell people they will rot in hell, the majority of us do not.
ppgaz
Read the backstory. The Prayer Day email is a tiny sesame seed on the bun of this hamburger. This isn’t about an email. It’s about a corrupt culture in the Academy.
Whether there is that corruption or not, outside of the scope of this post. If there is, then the email is barely a blip. If there is not … it’s barely a blip. Either way, it’s not significant.
The underlying issue here is whether the larger and serious problem exists, and if so, what should be done about it.
John Cole
And while you are certainly right that there are SOME evangelical Christians who tell people they will rot in hell, the majority of us do not.
I am going to use small words so this sinks in.
I am not upset about most of you.
I am mad at the ones who are in charge and are behaving badly.
This is not about your right to worship.
This is about people abusing their office and their position to create a hostile environment for those who don’t believe as they do.
MunDane
[i]Which is precisely why I am so upset at a majority group of evangelicals abusing their positions of authority and trying to force others to adopt their position or rot in hell.[/i]
Then we agree.
I think that many people, and I include people I know in this, think that THEY are the arbitrators of what is and is not A Good Christian, instead of the G*d they follow. There is a great of arrogance in presuming to make judgements like that.
The other problem is that we, you know the EVEEEL Religious Ones, are supposed to be different than the world around us. If we make the world conform to us, that is Christianity on the cheap. If we forbid, by fiat of law, those things that our Law, Commandments or conscience says we are supposed to give up, then what exactly have we gained? How does this show self-control?
ppgaz
You are the clever one, Mun.
“Fiat of law?”
Law is fiat when it is imposed by command, arbitrarily by authority.
Law is not fiat when it is made by a democratic process, by the legistlative processes typical of our republic.
Man made law is the law of this land. The person who has a problem with that actually has two dilemmas:
One, you have to decide whether you are going to respect properly made law, whether you like the law or not. That’s your choice. As WF Buckley only recently said, democracy depends entirely on the submission of the minority.
Two, if want to impose the fiat of pseudo-christian law, you are going to have to negotiate the resistance of those who don’t agree with you. That resistance is what you are feeling now.
The good news is, this is exactly what the Founders intended.
What a country! While your “side” is infuriating, crazy, intolerant, mean, bullying and self-righteous, at least you’ll still have a voice when the fight you wanted is over, and you lost.
rebcon
My favorite quote at the moment:
“We condemn bigots who inject religious prejudice into public and political matters. Bigotry is unamerican and a danger to the Republic.”
1952 Republican Platform
Why has the party that has represented my philosophy of governance moved so far away from its traditional principles?
MunDane
PPqaz,
Umm…Dude, are always this nasty with people who agree with you?
ppgaz
I’m never nasty except in person.
But I can be rude, not to people I don’t agree with, but to people like you, whom I don’t like, or trust.
However, this is not personal. We’re talking about laws and democracy here.
As Mr. Ed said to Wilbur in the pilot episode, “This is bigger than both of us.”
Jon H
DougJ: “That is not an accurate portrayal. Evangelicals — like me — do not presume to say who does or does not rot in Hell. ”
The Left Behind series, which has sold upwards of 63 million copies, certainly *does* do this.
Given the sales numbers, it seems that quite a few people agree.
DougJ
John Cole and Jon H: Fair enough. I see your points.
Rick
John, you have a current mad-on for the Religious Conservative, and anyone can see that who reads this blog.
So glad someone else notices.
Cordially…
Tony Alva
Bottom line is that I have no issue whatsoever with DougJ or Rick believing what they do. I think it’s great, but when I can’t buy a beer on Sunday in my state (GA) on account of the Baptist Convention’s influence on state government that’s when I come out of my shell.
Substitute beer purchasing on Sunday for intelligent design stickers in text books, prayer in school, etc…
Rick
Man, do I ever get a bad rap. As I’ve droned with near Abe Simpson redundancy, I’m scarcely a believer, and far from a practicing religous. Quite a heathen, by the lights of the Church of Rome.
No, I plop my turds in John Cole’s anti-fundie punchbowl because I believe that of all the potential threats to liberty–and organized forces to herd American citizens into an ever increasing state of servility–the numerous factions and splinters of “conservative” Protestantism are really way, way down the list.
Cordially…
WhoIsJohnGuiltP
“[…] a lot of us [politically conservative evangelicals] would like to see someone like James Dobson appointed to Secretary of Health and Human Services. That’s where the rubber hits the road.”
Yeah, but once Dobson’s in power, will you be able to buy that rubber, and will you be able to afford that privatised road? And, having put on that rubber, why would you want it to hit the road in the first place—is it some sort of scourging with fast gravel?
Incidentally, all references in posts super to an evangelical majority of our population are off the mark; they’re at [be|wor]st about 20% of the populace, and maybe a quarter of those are liberal or quietist.
ppgaz
Tony, look at it this way.
The idea that you should have to wait to buy beer on Sunday is such a complex, convoluted thing that we must conclude that only an intelligent supreme being could have designed it.
Behold his mighty power!
— Charlton Heston, as Moses
Simon
As a reformed ‘born-again’, I’d like to point out that for a lot (again slowly, “n-o-t a-l-l”) of these people, the false persecution complex is a built-in facet of their faith. They must look for it in any and every public discussion of faith by non-believers because to not do so would go against their very narrow interpretation of the Bible. Trying to tell them you aren’t actually attacking them or their faith just won’t work. Attempts at logic-based reasoning in this regard bounce right off. I saw this quite a bit at numerous run-of-the-mill churches and with a lot of people, so it’s not a fringe perception.
Simon
No, I plop my turds in John Cole’s anti-fundie punchbowl because I believe that of all the potential threats to liberty–and organized forces to herd American citizens into an ever increasing state of servility–the numerous factions and splinters of “conservative” Protestantism are really way, way down the list.
Rick:
LOL. Hilarious.
A few things:
I don’t think anyone here, contrary to John Cole’s hyperventilated claims, has made an
Kimmitt
Deny, deny, deny.
Simon
Other Simon (or is that really Jimmy D), two questions. First, I may have missed something, but you appear to have secret, undisclosed evidence of ‘anti-Christian activists’ involved in this case. Could you please source that claim for us? If not, then you’re doing exactly the same thing you railed against for 3 paragraphs. Only your accusation didn’t even warrant any press.
Second, if the accusations are confirmed, what would your highly esteemed judgment be for what has happened. You’re clearly already setting up for a defense of this situation by your twisted reading of the establishment clause.
By the way, did you read this line?
Rosa said, adding there had been other incidents that crossed the line.
Cause, ya know, that kind of sounds like an admission to me.
M. Simon
BumperStickerist,
The more Jews we have building military eqpt. the safer we are as a nation.
Just take a look at the atom bomb guys. A predominantly Jewish club if there ever was one.
Christians for cannon fodder, Jews for cannon designers.
M. Simon
We slapped Keyes down HARD in Illinois. I voted for the Communist Obama just to send a message. A lot of people who voted for Bush in Illinois did the same.
Evidently the message did not get to the proper recipients. I guess it will need to be sent again until the Repubs get the message.
I think the Rs have reaced their high water mark.
M. Simon
Evangelicals rule!
Just the way Jesus did.
Ah? Well never mind then.
M. Simon
I think prayer in school is an excellent idea.
It gave me an intense dislike for Christianity.
Couldn’t ask for any better advertisement than that.
Simon
Second, if the accusations are confirmed, what would your highly esteemed judgment be for what has happened.
It really depends upon what happened and its context. I think in certain contexts telling people they are going to hell is out of line, not because of any Constitutional ramification, but simply because it can destroy unit cohesion. On the other hand, if amidst a religious discussion a leader declares his belief that those who reject Christ
BumperStickerist
~ BumperStickerist,
The more Jews we have building military eqpt. the safer we are as a nation.
Just take a look at the atom bomb guys. A predominantly Jewish club if there ever was one.
Christians for cannon fodder, Jews for cannon designers. ~
Well, in point of fact, General Leslie Groves was the head of the Atom Bomb Club, recruiting the members.
fwiw – General Groves was the son of a Presbyterian minister. And he was played by Paul Newman in ‘Fat Man, Little Boy’
Which, I guess, makes the Presbyterians the religious group who must be feared and respected.
Whoda-thunkit?
Tony Alva
“I, for example, in view of the knee-jerk bitterness and rancor here toward Christians that is now the honored tradition of the left…”
I don’t know Simon, I think the many who are growing tired of the Christian zealots driving GOP policy are FASTLY becoming a bipartisan group. The Schivo thing was the last straw for me. I’ve voted republican in every election since I turned eighteen, but if this kind of church/state line graying continues they will certainly lose my vote in 08.
Simon
I don’t know Simon, I think the many who are growing tired of the Christian zealots driving GOP policy are FASTLY becoming a bipartisan group. The Schivo thing was the last straw for me. I’ve voted republican in every election since I turned eighteen, but if this kind of church/state line graying continues they will certainly lose my vote in 08.
I am not sure any church-state graying took place with Schiavo. We had a group of people who, informed by a certain point of view, thought Schiavo should die. We had another group who, informed by a contrary point of view, thought that as long as her parents wished to care for her, Schaivo should live. That the latter group was comprised significantly of Christians gives us no reason to claim any sort of graying of church and state took place. The Christians have a right to petition the government as much as anyone else. They do not lose this right merely because they are Christians. It is this sort of thinking that I believe threatens all of us. We are actually claiming that the innate human right to utter sounds should be destroyed because we fear the sounds will motivate people. That is awfully limp-wristed in my view. If our ideas and words are so weak that they cannot compete against Christians without infringing upon their innate rights, then perhaps our views are more worthless than we are willing to admit.
Ironically, the Schiavo incident found me in agreement with the Christian point-of-view. We had this woman who because of her condition could not defend herself. We had a husband who wanted her dead and who had quite an interest in making sure she died. On the other hand we had parents who wanted to take care of their daughter, such as she was– parents who claimed their daughter was in some way present with them. I could never very well reconcile the husband
Simon
from people whose view of the Constitution is not informed by history
Whose view is not informed by history? Try this one on for size: Article 11 of the 1797 Treaty of Tripoli (which was drafted during George Washington’s second term and was unanimously approved by the Senate and signed by President John Adams) states As the Government of the United States of America IS NOT IN ANY SENSE FOUNDED ON THE CHRISTIAN RELIGION [emphasis added]; as it has in itself no character of enmity against the laws, religion, or tranquillity, of Musselmen; and as the said States never have entered into any war or act of hostility against any Mehomitan nation, it is declared by the parties that no pretext arising from religious opinions shall ever produce an interruption of the harmony existing between the two countries.
And please stop conflating the general group of all Christians with the power mad likes of Dobson, Robertson, Falwell, et al who are actually the ones pushing for a ‘Christian nation’. Have you ever heard of Christian Reconstructionists or Dominionists? Look it up.
I do not have that sort of comfort with the Christian
Ben
Simon,
You don’t think any church/state graying took place with Schiavo? How can you not see that? The evangelicals thumbed their noses at states rights, the Florida court system and Florida law to intervent in a case that had been decided on religious grounds. It is fine for christians to find the Schiavo case distasteful or lobby to change the law. But, the fact remains there was no reason for the feds, jeb bush, randall “whackjob” terry or any other evangelical to get involved in this case. The fundies disagreed with the Schiavo ruling on religous grounds and tried to subvert current state law to “save terri”. That is most definitely a case of church/state graying.
Another example is FMA… an attempt to write discrimination into the constitution due to religious objections. Marriage is nothing more than a civil ceremony and legal entanglement between two people. Gay people have constitutitonal individual rights like everybody else. Yet another graying of the church/state line.
Other…
Faith based initiatives
Teaching ID in school
Air Force academy scandal… the lsit goes on.
Rick
had a group of people who, informed by a certain point of view, thought Schiavo should die. We had another group who, informed by a contrary point of view, thought that as long as her parents wished to care for her, Schaivo should live.
Ben,
Simon is much more reasonable than your lugubrious characterization. After all, it was Michael Schiavo who “dragged in” the state, government, what have you– seeking its acquiesence in terminating a life.
Cordially…
Simon
After all, it was Michael Schiavo who “dragged in” the state, government, what have you– seeking its acquiesence in terminating a life.
BECAUSE THAT IS WHAT SHE WANTED! Get it through your head. Her parents are the ones who “dragged in” the state, government, etc. Then it was up to the rule of law, which rightly sided with her husband. Then all the freaks “dragged” themselves into a private family affair. As Ben said, if you don’t like the law, try to change it, but you have absolutely zero right to go around it.
Simon
Whose view is not informed by history? Try this one on for size: Article 11 of the 1797 Treaty of Tripoli
Simon
It is common knowledge that a Christian pastor merely needs to denounce a politician in his church to cause the left to immediately bring the federal government down upon his head, infringing his innate freedom to speak his mind… Historically, Americans have been free to speak their minds wherever they existed, without threat of government force.
You’re living in a dreamland my friend and plainly making shit up. What “threat of government force” exactly are you speaking of? Provide some evidence or stop spreading the lie. Anyone is free to say anything they want. If a minister endorses a politician or engages in politicking in the church, then the church should lose their tax exempt status. That is all anyone has ever advocated and to my knowledge, that has yet to even happen. So please spare us with your ridiculous, over-the-top accusations in that regard – you are wrong.
I personally feel less threatened by such people than by those who actually seek justification for
Simon
Ben:
Though I reject this characterization, let us accept it for argument
Simon
Anyone is free to say anything they want. If a minister endorses a politician or engages in politicking in the church, then the church should lose their tax exempt status.
In other words, the federal government comes down on the church simply because a minister speaks his mind
Kimmitt
In other words, the federal government comes down on the church simply because a minister speaks his mind
Simon
In re your last comment – a blatant ad hominem attempt to get out of the situation – you are the one who continually fails to address what I write. I am fully interested in having a reasonable conversation. It’s difficult though when the person speaking to you continually accuses you (of whom you have zero personal knowledge) of wanting to kill someone or “would have me killed”.
…the federal government comes down on the church…
Where? Give us cites of this. If you can’t, you are spreading lies and propaganda, plain and simple. And please stop with the overheated rhetoric; you’d think the Air Force was dropping bombs on these churches.
neither establishing any particular church nor prohibiting any church
Tony Alva
Simply stated, when the president and other Washington power brokers cut short vacations to rush back to DC to pass “special” legislation after appeals have been exhausted, I’d say a graying of church/state seperation has occured. Can’t be spun any other way.
Simon
Kimmitt:
The church has historically been exempt from taxes even before the establishment clause separated the church from the state. From 1777 onward churches were either effectively or explicitly exempt. The church would not cross the wall between church and state to be promoted by government (Madison disallowed, for example, the federal government – not states – to pay for people to teach Christianity), and the government would not compel taxation, thereby using funds to prohibit free exercise of religion (which happened in Europe). In all this time, from the colonial era right up to 1954, church leaders enjoyed their Constitutional right to free speech.Indeed, churches in general, as bodies of freely associating individuals, had the right to engage politically while remaining separate from the state.
Today the individual rights of pastors is being infringed. It is Constitutionally invalid and against our history to employ extra-constitutional federal policies as a means to infringe upon individual rights. It is against our history and law to craft “policies” that push the federal government across the wall of separation merely because individuals enjoy their innate human rights. Else, there is no need for the Constitution.
Simon
Tony:
We will just have to disagree. I see no religion even in the special legislation. Religious people have as much right as anyone to lobby the government, and just because the government responds to them is no reason to claim the church and state line is blurred. To agree with you is to claim government should at all times ignore religious people simply because the religious people are informed by religious views. That is un-American.
The Disenfrachised Voter
Denying churches tax-exempt status if they endorse a candidate is a violation of their freedom of speech?? Wow! You are one scary mofo Simon.
Read this again, and again, and again until you realize the absurdity of your claim above:
You: “neither establishing any particular church nor prohibiting any church
Simon
Prior to 1787 local religious communities, fearful that a federal government that would limit their existing freedoms, wanted and received assurances from the Founders that the federal government would be constitutionally prohibited from in any way restricting religion. The Founders (specifically Jefferson) explained that a wall would exist between the church and federal government, leaving the church to operate freely, to serve the particular needs and desires of local populations as she has always served them. From these assurances came our existing Establishment and Free Exercise clauses.
The church in America has historically been free to operate as she sees fit, as long as she did not steal the rights of others (i.e. break the law). That she spoke to politics caused no breach in the Establishment Clause because there is no true line between the political and religious. Everything is religious, including abortion, marriage, taxes, congressional campaigns, the
The Disenfrachised Voter
Simon. I already understand your case, so you didn’t need to type all that. With that said you are wrong. No one is being oppressed in the church.
It is simple. A church can endorse a political candidate if they choose to do so. No one is stopping the church from doing this. However, if they choose to do so, then they are no longer a religious organization and should expect to lose their tax exempt status. Strictly religious organizations do have the right to not be taxed. Their tax exempt status is a priveledge that they receive by sticking to delivering a religious message. Once they choose to cross the line and deliver an endorsement of a political candidate, well then they are no longer just a religious organization but rather a political one. They LOSE their tax exempt priveledge. Political organizations DO NOT, I repeat, DO NOT, have the right to remain free from government regulation because they do not fall under the free exercise clause.
Furthermore, you should know that the government is pretty lienent when it comes to politics and churches. Unless a pastor deliberately comes out and endorses a candidate, the church doesn’t have to worry about losing their tax exempt status. Not only that, look at that case in NC that just passed in which the pastor said that people who voted for John Kerry needed to either confess their sins and promise to vote republican or get out of the church. That church did not lose its tax exempt status. So yea, they are quite lienent about the issue, and I think you need to keep that in mind.
Simon
A church can endorse a political candidate if they choose to do so. No one is stopping the church from doing this. However, if they choose to do so, then they are no longer a religious organization and should expect to lose their tax exempt status.
You are saying here that churches can speak freely if they wish, but if they do the federal government is going to hammer their traditional rights, rights long promised them by the Founders and by the Establishment Clause. That is not freedom and it is not American.
Churches have long spoken freely on politics since there is no objective place where one ceases to be
Kimmitt
Simon — what’s to keep me from calling my political campaign a church in order to give my political donors tax-exempt status under your approach?
Simon
Kimmitt:
I am not sure I follow you. This is not
The Disenfrachised Voter
“There is nothing to keep you from calling your political campaign a church, and since, like a church, your campaign will not generate a profit, it should pay no taxes.”
Which would extend the free exercise clause to political organizations. Where exactly is this in the Constitution?!
Thank you for proving you are indeed a dumbass, keep living in your delusional world where the evil leftists have brought down religious freedom, Simon.
Simon
Which would extend the free exercise clause to political organizations. Where exactly is this in the Constitution?!
It is in the first ten Amendments. The Free Exercise Clause was given not to give the church any additional rights above everyone else. It was given in response to fearful ministers to clearly establish that the church, any church, would be free to enjoy its traditional freedoms without federal infringement.
If your political campaign wants to call itself a church, there is nothing prohibiting it from speaking its mind or doing anything else.
Merely that you are a member or pastor of church does not prohibit you from running for office because the Constitution has NO RELIGIOUS TEST for or against you.
Merely that you operate as a pastor of a church does not unconstitutionally mingle church and state because your actions do not pass law upholding, promoting or respecting the establishment of your specific church doctrine to the exclusion of others.
This is how America has always operated – until recent years. Contrary to popular belief, we live on a round earth. (g)
Simon
Original Simon here.
Let me just close out this comments thread by saying that the other Simon has over and over again proven himself incapable of rational, logical thought. He’s a just a scared little boy afraid of the left bogeyman that has nearly zero power in this country at the moment.
Simon, please do me two favors.
1) Do some historical research on the damage done when religion is in any way infused in the government, like say the problems in England/Ireland. Just check it out and understand why, just as you are afraid of the government crossing the line and influencing religion, there is very ample reason for fearing the influence of government by religion. It just never, ever works out well. Look it up.
2) Take a hyperbole management class. You’ve used the words “hammer” and “destroy” when talking about the right to not be taxed and even compared it to having the government murder us all. All anyone’s talking about here is… wait for it… taxes. Maybe you should check out Robertson’s and Falwell’s bank accounts as well, because there seem to be some profits there. If the churches are being DESTROYED by taxation (even though this hasn’t actually happened to my knowledge), then those two pharisee leeches can give back some of their millions they’ve sucked off of suckers like you.
3) This one’s a bonus. Think before you speak and do a little more reading, because it’s rather easy to DESTROY!?!?! most of your arguments. Mwahaahahahahahahaha!!!!!!
p.s. – sorry, I’m listening to the new System of a Down.
Simon
1) Do some historical research on the damage done when religion is in any way infused in the government, like say the problems in England/Ireland.
The Founders did not insert the Establishment Clause to destroy the free speech of church leaders. This destruction took place only recently. Merely because the left is afraid of what happened in the past is no reason to take what the Founders created and then corrupt it by destroying rights that belong to individuals.
Just check it out and understand why, just as you are afraid of the government crossing the line and influencing religion, there is very ample reason for fearing the influence of government by religion.
Indeed. But the solution is not to eliminate the rights of individuals simply because they work in a church. That is to allow government too much power. This was never the desire of the Founders.
2) Take a hyperbole management class. You’ve used the words “hammer” and “destroy” when talking about the right to not be taxed and even compared it to having the government murder us all.
If the church has historically been separate from the state so that the state was unable to tax the church, and then merely because church leaders decide to speak their minds the state taxes the church, then the state punishes the church, illegally, merely because individuals enjoy their constitutional rights. This is un-American.
All anyone’s talking about here is… wait for it… taxes.
The American Revolution was fought over