Redstate

I know in our little zero-sum game, there are friends and foes and none in between, but was this really a defeat of lefty secularists?  The Air Force Academy was cleared of overt discrimination, but they spent two years reworking their approach to minority religious faiths and it would appear several administrators, including the football coach, had their knuckles rapped.  I don't think the Air Force Academy walked away from the experience saying "we were in the right."  

But this scorekeeping avoids the more important question, which is whether you think the behavior described was appropriate.  This isn't a case where a valedictorian was prevented from exhorting Jesus from the podium, or preventing prayers before football games.  This "insensitivity" would appear in conflict with the basic mission of our armed forces, defending this country.  Not proseltyzing.  

on FrightLine last night. Her base charges stem from her belief that the government is practicing "establilshing and condoning a certain religion" within the AFA scholastic framework (a government institution). She seemed to take particular offense to the notion that cadets, faculty and the chain of command believe that the idea of seperation of church and state is "a myth" of an idea, as she put it.

She contents that all religions should be represented equally and pressure to convert people from the native religion should end as well as other claims. Indeed, the AF offered Capt. Morton a new post that delivers substance and change to just those charges she indexed in her complaint. Essentially she was offered the opportunity to establish new religious centers and formal places of worship for as many denominations as she could identify, she declined the offer.

Nevertheless, you'll soon be seeing a multitude of these types of stories coming from the MSM in the next few weeks, and months and extending into election cycles. The issue should not be left to just fade away into the night. Instead, an active campaign to show the public that immediate steps have been taken and that the facility is establishing places of worship for all cadets and thier faiths. Additionally, counseling establishing religious practice guidelines should be drafted and reviewed by all military personnel. (This could be tricky) This tactic should begin to derail any attempts by the MSM to portray this as "religious bullying" which plays right into the hands of those wishing to portray the Republican's as power mongers.

"There is a lack of awareness on the part of some faculty and staff, and perhaps some senior cadets, as to what constitutes appropriate expressions of faith," said Lt. Gen. Roger Brady, Air Force deputy chief of staff for personnel.

The investigators' report said academy leaders and the Air Force should clarify policies on religious expression so religious minorities do not feel discriminated against or pressured.

Seven incidents were referred up the chain of command for possible investigation, but Gen. Brady did not provide details, saying only that "there's certainly insensitivity" at the academy.

I could be wrong, but isn't this exactly what the "lefty secularists" were after?  An acknowledgement that there was misconduct, a promise to change, and referring those in the wrong up the chain of command?

This reads a lot like an acknowlegement that the complaints were valid, but with the sugarcoating of calling the behavior "insensitivity" instead of "discrimination."  If the "lefty secularists" have lost, it's only on a very minor technicality.

The report (full text available in pdf format here) found that there was indeed a culture of insensitivity which had arisen at the Air Force Academy, although it said that administrators had been working to fix the problem for the past two years.

The report did find that a chaplain had exhorted the cadet attendees to his sermon to tell their classmates "to pray for the salvation of fellow BCT members who choose not to attend worship", but excused this behavior (and the unadmitted allegation that the same pastor had urged his flock to tell their classmates they would burn in hell if they did not accept Jesus) as being language "not uncommon" for his Pentecostal denomination.

The Acadmey superintendent (not a wishy-washy lefty, he fired the Lutheran minister/officer who complained the loudest) compared the whole thing to a plane crash: "When you go back, everything becomes very obvious, but while you are flying the airplane, the kind of things that lead up to the accident are not very obvious."

Even the football coach and the commandant of cadets acknowledged that they had gone too far in putting up posters for the football team referring to "Team Jesus", and commanding the use of a cadence call that included the phrase: "Jesus ... Rocks".

At Christmas 2003, some 250 individuals, many in the direct chain of command over cadets, signed their name to appear in an advertisement in the base newspaper (an official base publication, read by just about everybody) saying: "We believe that Jesus Christ is the only real hope for

the world" and "there is salvation in no one else, for there is no other name under heaven

given among mortals by which we must be saved. - Acts 4:12". A fine sentiment, which I agree with, but not one I would want shoved down my throat by a commanding officer. The Superindentent addressed it appropriately, and the ad did not run again the following year.

Now, I have no truck with the atheist who found offense at the phrase "there are no atheists in foxholes", but I can certainly imagine contexts in which this would in fact be intentionally offensive and inappropriate prosletyzing.

All in all, it seems that the superintendent has been working hard to squelch inappropriate prosletyzing and overt introduction of religion into non-religious activities (the "Team Jesus" banner was removed the same day it was posted, once the Athletic Director talked with the football coach), but one has to wonder why it has been so difficult to get the message out to all military officers that it is not their job to prosletyze their own religion onto the cadets placed in their charge.

Keep in mind that this is a military organization. A cadet is expected to do as he (or she) is told by his commanding officers. That places a heavy burden on the officers to not abuse that responsibility. It's difficult enough for a civilian boss to take off his "boss" hat and merely "urge" his employees to do something. It's pretty much impossible for a commanding officer to do so.

What exactly is wrong with students and faculty purchasing an add that has a statement of faith in it?

I don't see this as being wrong, and it wasn't an official article, but an advertisement that I assume was purchased.

I think my concern from this whole episode, is that those complaining were and some probably are seeking to effectively place a muzzle on evangelical Christians.

Sorry, but I am not seeing the answer to discrimination as discrimination against another group.

Leftists do not want to debate their version of the "truth" but simply want us to say nothing.

My pet project is how to develop a modern form of governmental religious neutrality.  I have no desire to "muzzle" evangelical Christians, truly.  I read on this site how "tolerant" liberals are really intolerant of Christians, I see some truth to it, I'm trying to adapt my behavior.  But there has to be a line somewhere that defines inappropriate religious behavior.  Help me draw it.

I KNOW I KNOW I KNOW that CAPT MeLinda Morton is a Lutheran Minister, not a Catholic priest or nun.  But, I can't remember the technical term for the religious garments the Lutheran clergy wear.

My point is--I saw her on Nightline too, in full religious garb.  Why wear her ministerial garb?  

Is she trying to imply that her faith (the Lutheran Church) fully supports her position?  (I'd like to hear the Lutheran Church's position on this).

Is she putting the Air Force on notice that, if they deny or move slowly on her request for resignation, she'll play the martyr?

Is she implying that her actions were the "Christian" thing to do, that she was motivated by her faith to do what she did?  If not, if her actions were driven more by personal conscience than the dictates (as she understood them) of her faith--then, why parade around in the symbols of authority in one's faith while practicing advocacy?  

I watched Nightline last night, and was unsure--was I listening to MeLinda Morton or Reverend Morton?  When Supreme Court justices give interviews on TV, I've never seen them wearing their robes.  Perhaps it's because they recognize the importance of separating the authority of one's professional office from the expression of one's personal views.

If MeLinda Morton felt compelled as a Lutheran minister to act as she has, she should come out and say so clearly.  Yes, that will generate heat.  But, we'll know where she stands. And I, for one, would respect her for showing guts.  As of now, it seems possible that she's using her status as a minister as a shield against criticism.  If so, last night she showed a readiness to take potshots from behind that shield.

Let's not forget--it's a pulpit, not a sniper's post.  

private acts, should have no restrictions as to religious belief.

If the commandant of cadets wrote an article for the school paper, and made several statements of faith in it, I could see a problem.

But I think anyone at any time has the right to purchase an ad, and write whatever they darn well please, as long as it is legal in it-including a statement of religious faith-even if that statement may step on somebody else's toes.  

To tell an officer that outside his official duties, he can't make a statement of faith (which the purchase of an ad, at least to me is-since the purchase wasn't required by his job), is to impose your will on him, and effectively discriminate against him.

Being in the chain of command places higher burdens on an officer. In the military, chain of command is everything, and the people up the chain of command are expected to set an example not just 9 to 5 but 24/7. If your commanding officer tells one of his soldiers that the soldier is going to hell because he doesn't share the same faith of that officer, that wreaks havoc on the discipline necessary for the military to function. It doesn't matter whether the officer said it on his own time or in a paid ad. I don't have a problem with the private Christian group paying for the ad, I'm only criticizing the officers in the chain of command who agreed to put their signatures in the ad.

Imagine you are a Jewish cadet, who picks up the official base newspaper and sees his superior officer's signature in that ad, an ad which the officer expected that cadet (like all cadets) to read. Will you be more or less willing to go into battle with that officer as a result?

:-p

That said, I honestly think this is an instance of the guilty exhonorating the guilty.  You've got an organization flush with officers who believe a fierce degree of prostelization is perfectly acceptable (after all, you're saving the heathen souls) and its surprising if they all don't ademently support each other.  So you're never going to get confessions of overly harsh treatment and you're rarely going to find those willing to 'martyr' their friends in a society that teaches all evangelicals are part of an world-wide group of embattered individuals.

The culture is so inbred, you can't break it easily from the inside out until you find someone willing to defect and come forward with the whole story.  Until then it's just a he-said-she-said debate over who you want to believe - the victimized cadet or the overzealous preachers.  It's a bit hard to build a case off of hearsay.

My opinion is that religion has no place in the military leadership.  You play a dangerous game when you put people with such strong belief that the end of the world is on our doorstep in charge of our most potent military devices.  Might as well have Pat Robertson guarding the nuclear button.  People like this don't have a loyalty to the nation first, they have a loyalty to the Good Book and whomever happens to be reading from it with the most charisma.  And that bothers me.

Imagine that you are an Air Force cadet and one of your superior officers is Jewish. One day you pick up the official base newspaper and see an ad, signed by your Jewish commander who has control over every single aspect of your life in the service, that says that "Christians worship a false Messiah and will suffer God's wrath". How would that make you feel? Would you feel it appropriate for the guy who tells you when to wake up, when to brush your teeth, when to eat, when to take a leak, when to fire your missles and kill some other human beings, to be telling you you are going to hell?

I agree that by itself, the ad is nothing more than an expression of faith, perfectly acceptable.  I didn't have a problem with that.  In the context of the other things going on, I think folks latched onto that as an example of the strength of the movement on campus.

but honestly I probably wouldn't care a whole lot, as long as said officer was a good leader while on the job.

I am pretty much aware of the fact that Jewish people don't believe that Jesus is the Messiah, that is why they are Jewish and I am not.

I just have some issues, when we start requiring people to pretend like they aren't religious, or that their religion is something to be kept secret and hidden.  There isn't anything in the constitution that I can see, that requires religion to be hidden behind closed doors, and never viewed in public.

I think it is an imposition on a officers religious beliefs, to be told that he can't act in his capacity as a believer outside his capacity as an officer.

I honestly think one of the big problems with our culture, is that everyone is looking for a reason to be offended, when what we really need to do is grow up.

If these superior officers had signed their name to an ad in the Denver Post, I might agree with you. But it wasn't. It was an ad intentionally placed in the base newsletter which is expected to be read by each and every cadet. They were not making a private statement of faith, they were directing that message solely and specifically at the individuals who are beneath them in the chain of command.

I worked for a manager that wasn't religious.  Was known to poke fun at religion, and wasn't always happy that I wanted Sundays off, but she was an excellent manager on the job, her lack of religious belief, and the fact that she thought I was a sheeple didn't affect my ability to work or feel comfortable working there.

He just can't functionally command others in his charge to do so.

Indeed, the AF offered Capt. Morton a new post that delivers substance and change to just those charges she indexed in her complaint. Essentially she was offered the opportunity to establish new religious centers and formal places of worship for as many denominations as she could identify, she declined the offer.

Can you provide a source for this?  My understanding was that she was offered a posting to Guam, which she declined.  She has resigned her commission in the AF.

Cheers -

commanding anyone to do anything.

in the military you must either renounce your religious belief or become an atheist?

Bet that will help with recruiting.

If you really feel uncomfortable with the beliefs or non-beliefs of your manager you can appeal to the Human Resources department and if they won't help you can simply leave your job for another.

You have neither option in the military.  If your commanding officer is allowed to proselytize to his subordinates about his religous beliefs he is creating an environment of coercion.  

The are a lot more restrictions on military personnel than on civilians.  They aren't allowed to campaign for politicians.  Why?  Because it can create an environment of coercion for his subordinates.

The military has a very specific job and EVERYTHING else, including the desires and beliefs of the soldiers, is secondary to that goal and those desires and beliefs cannot be an obstacle to  executing that job.

your religous beliefs take a back seat.

this think called the first amendment, and I realize liberals are all about the separation clause, but there is also this thing called the expression clause, and last time I checked, you weren't denied the right when you join the military-as a matter of fact that is why the military provides chaplains.

In the performance of your duties in the military, religion should have little bearing (unless you are a chaplain), but I start to worry when people start talking about limiting a persons right to express their religion.

That's why the football coach shouldn't be putting up "Team Jesus" posters, and the commandent of cadets shouldn't be training students to chant "ROCKS!" when he makes the hand signal meaning "Jesus".

 about "minority faiths". One the religions which some overzealous Protestants were bashing was the Roman Catholic Church, which happens to be the single largest denomination in the country. This sort of orgiastic sectarian behavior has absolutely no place in the armed forces, or in any locus of the public square. Severe reprimands are in order for those who engage in it.

What ever happened to common sense and reasonable leadership?

It looks like a few evangelicals were overzealous. That can be a problem, and it can be annoying, but it's not a federal case. A good leader simply turns down the heat.

The Chapel at the Academy is, perhaps, its most famous landmark. It's a monument to ecumenism and has been for years. Let's put this in perspective. We've got an annoying but trivial management and leadership issue that's getting handled.

Now for some insensitivity. Were I an officer commanding an over zealous cadet, an off the record conversation might go something like this: "Young man, we're not having this conversation because you're a Christian. We're having it because you're annoying the he*l out of your fellow cadets, and you're annoying the he*l out of me. Knock it off. If we have to have this conversation again, you will like me even less. Do I make myself clear?"

Soldiers have agreed to work at a job.  As such they forfeit certain rights in order to work at that job.  This is really no different than any other employer.  The only difference is that a soldier is ALWAYS on duty in the sense that their personal lives are controlled.  

The military does not deny you the right to practice your religion PROVIDED that practicing that religion does not conflict with your duties as a soldier.  If, otoh, practicing your religion DOES confict with your abilities to perform your job they will most certainly kick you out.

FTR, soldiers have very limited political speech rights and have virtually no rights to create a free press.  Matter of fact most of your Bill of Rights rights are severely curtailed if not completely discarded.

on the job, but telling somebody they can't express their religion while off the job.

If you are really in favor of that, then you advocate a very scary world, and I don't think it is one the founding fathers ever intended or would recognize.

Liberals have fallen so in love with the establishment clause, that they have now decided that the expression clause is worthless.

Apparantly, those in the military must now pretend like they aren't religious in order to prevent adults from becoming uncomfortable.

Sorry, but that is just silly.  If an officer is performing their job as a leader, then what they do on their own time, regarding their personal religion should be up to them.  

things.

It is the idea that you seem to think officers can't make a statement of faith on their own time-even if it is as a group and in a purchased ad.

That is the one that bothers me-I see that as being a legitimate expression of faith-as long as government funds didn't purchase the ad, it was their money.

is that a soldier is never OFF THE JOB.

This isn't a 1st Amendment issue.  It is a chain of command and coercion issue.  

Generally speaking if an officer wants to go to church every night there is nothing wrong with that, provided it doesn't interfere with his duties.

But once he publicly proselytizes in favor of his religion he is INTERFERING WITH HIS DUTIES.  

When I was in the Army they were allowed to tell me where I could go and when I could go.  They were allowed to restrict the type of clothing I wore off-duty.  They were able to control what I ate.  Heck they could control just about every facet of my life if they so chose to do so.  

No different here.  Officers proselytizing to their subordinates damages morale and that is unacceptable.

I know this.

But what some of you apparantly seem to be arguing is that religious expression on private time should be controlled, and the military can't do that, they can't even deny you religious expression, when on the job-that is why they have Chaplains.

There are some types of religous expression that are wrong while on the job, but making a statement of faith with private funds is not wrong IMO.  ON this one I just disagree.

"My opinion is that religion has no place in the military leadership.  You play a dangerous game when you put people with such strong belief that the end of the world is on our doorstep in charge of our most potent military devices.  Might as well have Pat Robertson guarding the nuclear button.  People like this don't have a loyalty to the nation first, they have a loyalty to the Good Book and whomever happens to be reading from it with the most charisma.  And that bothers me."

You appear to have a fairly sour view of religious people. Fortunately, your view is not prevalent.

I am Catholic, not Evangelical, and I have my disagreements with them on many issues but your take on them is unfair, at best. You suggest it is problematic to have Evangelicals with an "end of the world is nigh" idea in charge of powerful weapons in such a way that you seem to suggest they would be more willing to "push the button" and cause the end of the world via nuclear holocaust. Problem: Evangelicals also have a belief that suicide is wrong and is a direct ticket to hell. There are other reasons your take is off-base, but that's the most obvious one.

Also your assault on whether or not a Christian can be patriotic is, frankly, ridiculous. This nation was founded by Christians. Deeply committed Christians. The idea may be repugnant to a secular humanist mindset, but our political and legal systems, from day one, are based on Christian principles. (Principles that may also appear in "natural law," but a) all natural law jives with Christianity for reasons both theological and philosophical I'll not get into right now; and b) the Founders did in fact see those principles through the lense of their Judeo-Christian background) Loyalty to the society, and loyalty to a just body politic resonates throughout Christianity. Even under a totalitarian regime, we're exhorted to "render unto Caesar that which is Caesar's." So even believers who live in less-than-democratic nations (like first-century Palestine) have Christian reasons to maintain their peace and support of the state -- up to the point that doing so becomes immoral, as in the case of a tyrant.

Catholics have long endured this charge in reference to alleged political allegiance to the Pope and Vatican City, I've never seen it leveled against Evangelicals before. But in both cases, though there are Catholics and Evangelicals who will make the case that Christians owe no allegiance to the state for various reasons, those factions are very small, and bear no credibility among the mainstream adherents of the several faiths.

I will turn that table on you, though, and argue that secular humanists are just as unreliable in loyalty as are Christians -- in fact, I'd say moreso. "Irreligious" people tend to set their own self up as their personal "god." (All people have a religion, it's human nature. Some people accept the God of Revelation, others do not. Those who do not latch onto one of the counterfeit established religions or set up something else as the "god" of their personal credo. That said, let's continue...) If the self is the object of a person's religion then they have a thin reason to honor connections demanding loyalty to a nation, a culture, a chain-of-command. They would recognize that being held in a place of honor by others as a good, which may lead them to recognize that holding to commitments and oaths is good since it would lead others to hold them in high esteem, but the oath itself and the nation to whom one pledges oneself are not, in and of themselves, good, are not worthy of loyalty -- the loyalty is a means to the end of self-promotion. However, if the loyalty leads to a situation where the self is threatened, and "glorious martyrdom" does not resonate in their personal credo of self-promotion (though some may see it as the ultimate means of living forever if the circumstances are right) then the "irreligious" person may break the oath in order to preserve that which is their ultimate good: their self.  Self-preservation is, after all, also an animalistic instinct -- the strongest one, if I recall my high school environmental biology class correctly.

Contrarily, those who are religious in the Judeo-Christian tradition would recognize, as part of their religion, the value of the "other" as a fellow unique child of God worthy of protection. They would recognize the value of sacrifice as a matter of religion and recognize that there are causes and cases worth dying for, not as a means of self-promotion, but as a means of promoting, defending, upholding, the truly good, because the truly good, by definition, can only be of God. So I contend that religious are far more likely to make good comrades-in-arms than non-religious.

Also, I'm curious what you think about the military paying chaplains. I've had the opportunity to know a number of chaplains in the last few years and hear their first-hand accounts of CO's thanking them for their assistance, advising them on how to handle the troops (even those not of the chaplain's particular tradition) acting as counselors and generally being indispensible in maintaining troop morale. USMC Gen. Mattis came right out and said (sorry, no link, it's a personal anecdote from a friend with first-hand knowledge) that the efforts of Fr. Devine during the November liberation of Fallujah kept Marine morale up during the toughest parts of the fighting and he is certain that if Fr. Devine weren't there, his Marines would not have been able to take that city as "easily" as they did. Do you think Fr. Devine was just giving a firm pat on the back to a bunch of secularists? Or was he affirming their Faith, strengthening his brethren, so they might not despair while death raged around them?

my husband was in the Navy, and funny thing they never told him he couldn't go to church, or even that he couldn't state what his beliefs were, when not at work.  Shoot they didn't even try to restrict his speech in this regaurd while he was at sea, and not on watch.

What some of you seem to be advocating is taking the establishment clause, and carrying it to the point that it muzzles the right or expression.

I think we can all determine when something is or isn't appropriate, but I dont think requiring somebody to shed their faith when they join the military is the correct way to go.

there were several officers and NCO's who were Sunday School teachers, and involved in local churches.  Sometimes they even had their suboridinates in their classes with the, nad low and behold, some of them actually went out to knock and doors, and share their faith in their communities.

Is it your contention that this should be against regulations?  That all officers and NCO's should be prohibited from becoming involved in their church?

curtail freedom of religion of its members, as it can their freedom of speech. If one of our men in Iraq were to go into mosque and start proselytizing there, do you not think he would be speedily (and rightfully) disciplined for such a crudely impolitic action?

it in private.

I have no issues with the military or private company's curtailing religious speech, while on the job, it is the idea that expression should be curtailed outside the job that I object to.

you'll have to get the transcript of the NightLine program and find the reference, but it is there.

By the nature of the military, proselytizing must be seriously limited. Religious talk in general must be done with consideration and respect, but outright proselytizing causes problems.

...from what he's saying.

I see him saying that these sorts of activities are perfectly acceptable. Even going door to door. His point is proselytizing in military settings, in military uniform (I think).

In essence, what I get from what he's saying, is that those folks with authority in the military must not do anything that puts undue religious pressure on their subordinates. If a subordinate freely chooses to come to Sunday school taught by the superior, so be it. The superior may even be fine mentioning, on the job, that he/she teaches Sunday school. But the superior officer must be careful not to make it seem like any career pressure would be applied based on religious considerations and attendance at Sunday school.

Talk about religion, if appropriate, but be careful to not cross lines into pressure.

It's a balance that must be struck, but then, so is most of life.

and if that is what he is saying then we aren't in disagreement.

I was under the impression that he was saying that religious belief takes a back seat, when you join the military-which shouldn't be the case, and that officers shouldn't be able to express their religious beliefs period.

There certainly should be a balance between expression and harrassement, but we should be careful that in our zeal to avoid harrassement, that we do not in turn oppress those we accuse of oppressing.

I just realized I had two posters confused (sort of happens when the threads get long).

I was confusing the discussion in the thread with this opinion with the above discussion-although flyerhawk did seem to make a defense of the statement in that thread as well-maybe he can give some better clarification:

My opinion is that religion has no place in the military leadership.  You play a dangerous game when you put people with such strong belief that the end of the world is on our doorstep in charge of our most potent military devices.

A statement from the Catholic League about this whole kerfuffle...

Catholic League president William Donohue commented today on the release of a report on the religious climate at the Air Force Academy:

 

"The report concludes that there is no `overt religious discrimination' taking place at the Academy, but there are examples of `insensitivity.'  What is not being reported is the insensitive climate that has been created for practicing Christians. 

 

"Comments from various `Focus Groups' are revealing.  The cadets said that `Reverse religious discrimination is rampant and evangelical Christians are under constant attack,' even to the point of despair: `The Air Force I signed up for didn't say I had to leave my religion at the door.'  Other cadets said the Academy is too `politically correct' and that Christians cadets `are now being discriminated against.' The AOCs (Air Officers Commanding) said that `the pendulum has swung too far and now open discussion is discouraged among cadets.'  And so on.

 

"Interestingly, ten years of cadet survey data on the subjects of race, gender, discrimination, reprisal, intercollegiate athletics and religion, show that `religion was consistently the first and second most positively rated climate area.'  So why all the fuss?  Because some cadets put a flyer (as they do for many films) at the place setting in the dining facility advertising `The Passion of the Christ'?  Or because `God Bless America' was sung at an event?  Or because a Protestant chaplain at a Protestant service asked Protestant cadets to chant, `This is our chapel and the Lord is our God'?  All of these incidents are eminently defensible: What is not defensible are efforts to censor them.

 

"In my letter to the Air Force Academy, I will stress the need for members of minority religions to exhibit greater tolerance for Christians: minorities have rights, but not among them is the right to trump the rights of the majority.  Moreover, I will ask that all cadets understand that freedom of speech includes religious speech.  Finally, I will ask the Office of the Chaplain to report instances of anti-Christian bias to us."

understand what proselytizing is.  What was alleged was not that secular leftists were mad that devoutly religious were advocating for their God, or trying to convert people to their brand of religion- in other words, proselytizing.

What was alleged was that a climate of hostility had been created and that the actions of individuals in power had created a climate where it was perceived by some that evangelical christianity was the only acceptable religion.

And Justme is just wrong about his sentiments that 'religious beliefs don't have to take a back seat when you join the military.'  Everything takes a back seat when you join the military.  Your religious views, your ehtnicity, your wife, your hobbies, your politics.  Everything.  This isn't Amway.

That doesn't mean that you are not allowed to worship, and that doesn't mean the military doesn't take religion seriously because of obvious morale issues.  However, if D-Day is on Sunday morning, I don't care if you are James Dobson, if you are in the Air Force, your ass is going to be doing in a plane or on the flight deck or doing whatever, but it is not going to be in a pew.

The author ofthis post paints a picture of everything being rosy and no problems- that is not the case.  There were serious allegations, serious problems, and they have been or are being addressed.

This report was not a win for the secular left- this was a win for everybody who wants everyone in the Air Force Academy to be allowed to advocate for their religion and to proselytize.

This report was also a defeat for anyone who labors under the assumption that authorities are allowed to use their positions of authority to create an environment in which the practice of and observance of religion is not free for differing religions.

IN other words, the real victory is for the freedom of all to worship as they see fit free from persecution, prosecution, and official coercion.

That is a good thing, I would submit.

Forced or coercive proselytization- bad.

Proselytization- good.

The Nightline transcript will set me back $14.95, so I'm gonna have to take a pass.

The Reuters and AP wire stories on the Nightline site do not mention the reassignment you refer to, nor does any other article I've read on the topic, nor did Morton in any number of interviews I've heard with her.  Morton was offered a reassignment to Okinawa (not Guam), which she declined by resigning her commission.

With respect, I believe you are mistaken.  I'd be happy to see evidence to the contrary that I don't have to buy.

Cheers -

that I would support somebody refusing to go to war on Sunday morning?

My husband was in the stinking Navy for 6 years, he worked Sundays two of four weekends (either through the night or during the day on his duty days), not once did I ever consider this as being a requirement for his religion to take a back seat.

Maybe we are taking the phrase to mean two things.  When I hear "religion should take a back seat" that means that religions in all ways is subservient to the military, and this isn't the case.  Even if it is Sunday morning, and the military has ordered an invasion that doesn't mean my husband is denied his right to pray, before he goes into battle, or seek counsel from a chaplain (who has been sent to the battlefield with him), or his right to be who he is.

I think sometimes secularists think that Christianity is like a suit-you put it on come Sunday morning, and take it off, when you get home (For some this very well may be what that is), but for my, and my husband Christianity is who we are, it is part and parcel of what make us tick, informs our values, and informs our choices.  This aspect of our religion can't ever take a back seat to anything in our lives.

from the Air Force on the offer that was made as of 5:00 p.m. yesterday. Give them some time to get it to me.

(in the sense that I am agnostic or atheist) but the way Evangelicals "do" Christianity strikes me as if they are indeed putting on a shiny, or rather, gaudy, suit and parading themselves around in public so attired to gain the approbation and accolades of others. Yes, that was just a broad tarring, and I will immediately apologize to the many who are not of that persuasion! Yet I have known more than a few such people who seem to confuse faith with the appearance of faith, and virtue with its mere protestation. I tend to prefer the Gospel's advise on these matters: fast, pray and practice in one's own private life for the sight of the Heavenly Father and not for the praise of men.

and a brief summary.

Morton had said in May that she was fired from her chaplain post at the school and a transfer to Japan was hastened because she spoke out about the academy's religious climate. But last week, Superintendent Lt. Gen. John Rosa offered Morton an assistant position on his staff to work on religious issues and help develop two new phases of religious training, academy spokesman Johnny Whitaker said.

http://webcenters.compuserve.com/compuserve/celebrity/story.jsp?id=20050622
10580001538299&dt=20050622105800&w=APO&coview=

There were 55 reported incidents over a 4-year period. That's a little over 1 per month at an academy that has 4300 students (I don't know the size of the faculty). This is not as big a problem as is being reported.*

*Note I did not say that it wasn't a problem, just not as big as some are trying to make it.

I don't care what anyone believes in.  But if you are in the military you are REQUIRED to be avoid putting coercive pressue on your subordinates.   And just because you think you are being benign in your proselytizing doesn't make it so.

In 4 years of the military I can't recall a single time a commanding officer approached me about religion.  I had peers do it all the time.  But it is very clear that your DUTY to your soldiers is to make them good SOLDIERS and not good Christians, at least as the military sees it.  

but I don't agree with it.  Seems more shrill than thoughtful.

do for the praise of men.

But we are also told to be not be conformed to this world, but to be transformed (Romans 12:2)

We are also admonished to put on Christ in Romans 13, and live accordingly.

We are told we are the salt of the earth, but if the salt loses its flavor it is good for nothing (Matthew 5:13)

We are told to let our light shine before men, not hide it under a basket (Matthew 5:16)

We are told to do everything in the name of Jesus Christ, giving thanks to Him (Col 3:17)

We are told to walk in the newness of life (Romans 6).

I can provide more if you like.

Thanks for the link.

What appears, to me, to be the case is this:

Morton delivered a report critical of the USAFA.  Morton was rewarded with being fired from her job and reassigned to Okinawa.  Since then, the topic has become an embarassment to the AF, and the report, which contrary to Erick's sanguine headline is not likely to reflect well on the academy, is about to be released.

Suddenly, a new post is offered to Morton, in which she would be given the mandate to encourage religious tolerance at the academy.

I can readily understand her lack of enthusiasm, and her decision to stick with her original plan of resigning her commission.

Thanks again for the link, I appreciate your taking the time and effort to track it down.  I was not previously aware of the recent offer made to Morton.

Cheers -

they have also been told to conform to Air Force guidelines, in this report and in previous declarations and commmands.  Which, in the Air Forces view, takes priority?

I don't need to provide more.  

Feel free to be as religious as you want, but you aren't allowed to force others through your position in power to make them accept your religious viewpoints.  

that appears to be the case.

What you're describing is the Pharisaical behavior Christ condemned so many times: "do as they say, not as they do," the parable of the Pharisee and the publican, etc.

People of all religious persuasions -- including those who don't believe in any supernatural deity at all -- can be guilty of this, however, and it is harmful and offensive in any case.

REligion needn't be completely confined to your sealed away private life -- indeed, that's impossible by nature of humanity -- but the manner in which folks wear their religion on their sleeve needs to be self-monitored.

exhortations. But where does it say we should exalt ourselves above our brethren or use our piety not as a shield against the griefs and temptations of the world, but as sword against those we dislike? I am not objecting to true faithful devotion, but with that devotion I expect to see humility and the abasement of the self (and there may well be a certain conflict in that sort of attitude in a properly martial solider of course). Remember, The last shall be first and the first last.