|
 |
||
|
Latest Stories
Recent blog posts
|
July 22, 2008 - 10:13am.
While religion, particularly Christianity, played a key role in the settling of this country, the framers of the Constitution were concerned enough by the potential dangers of its influence on the government to mandate a separation of church and state. With a republic that is now growing rapidly in ethnic and religious diversity, the wisdom of their efforts is increasingly apparent. But religious proselytizing in off-limits settings is always hard to prevent, especially where there are captive audiences like the military academies. A nasty bit of it took place not long ago at the Air Force Academy where non-Christian cadets found themselves under evangelical pressure from members of the staff. In response the school issued guidelines discouraging public prayer at official events and meetings, a stance that has not been adopted by its sister institutions, the Army and Navy academies. Those two institutions of higher learning, which also are completely funded by federal taxpayers of all religions, are more intractable when it comes to banning religion from day-to-day mandatory activities outside the classroom, causing accusations that neither service has a strong commitment to follow the separation clause of the Constitution. Nine midshipmen at the Naval Academy have asked the American Civil Liberties Union to help them persuade the school to end mandatory prayer at lunch. So far they have been turned down, setting the stage for a potential lawsuit based on an appellate court decision that barred pre-meal prayer at the Virginia Military Institute, a state college. A survey by a national newspaper found allegations by cadets and even officers that at West Point evangelical Christianity is a staple in the institution's regimen and that the message being sent to cadets was that if one wanted to succeed in the Army, a show of faith is necessary. The religious tradition goes back to the very founding of these schools and the expression of devotion to God was taken for granted. But for much of their histories there was little problem because most Americans counted themselves Christians except those relatively few who practiced Judaism and were too intimidated to protest. Public institutions from elementary to secondary to college included prayer in their daily routines until the middle of the last century when the Supreme Court banned references to God in classrooms and official activities. Even the observance of religious holidays like Christmas was barred; setting off a major howl of protest that still hasn't subsided entirely. There has been justifiable concern that evangelism of whatever stripe is disruptive in a military that relies on the teamwork and tolerance of its members for success. Forcing a specific religious value system on those who don't agree with it is never conducive to harmony. Also, the constitutional prohibition that prevents public schools from sponsoring prayer and Christmas decorations should apply here. Why should the most public of all colleges -- the service academies -- be exempt from the same constitutional restrictions? These schools are totally funded by taxpayers and those who attend them are actually paid by public money to do so. The Air Force Academy's scandalous proselytizing brought the proper response, although it may not have gone far enough according to some observers. Army and Navy officials responsible for the oversight of those two institutions should try to understand that religion is a private matter and that every one has his own brand. Forcing those who don't believe to observe one variety is what those who founded this country tried to escape. Some officials apparently deny that cadets or midshipmen are pushed into participating in anything religious. But the mere reference to "God" at a mandatory prayer session carries a far different implication. In a recent farewell address to the cadets, a former West Point superintendent urged the assembled corps to draw their strength from their faith in God. While that seems harmless enough to most of us, it still is an intimidating factor when added to an accumulation of such talk to those who have no specific religion or don't believe in a higher being. As a card carrying Methodist, I personally would not be offended by this. But as a longtime observer of the workings of government, I must agree that this is a country with no established religion and that should be adhered to in the conduct of the public's business. If we rely only on those in our military who subscribed to our Christian tenets or any other religious belief, our national security would be in grave doubt.
(E-mail Dan K. Thomasson, former editor of the Scripps Howard News Service, at thomassondan(at)aol.com.)
Capitol Hill Blue's columnists, blogs and reader comments Capitol Hill Blue is an independent, non-partisan news site that belongs to no political party and subscribes to no political or philosophical point-of-view. Our columnists are welcome to their opinions but readers should understand that their views do not necessarily reflect the editorial policies of this web site. We also welcome comments to selected opinion columns and in our popular ReaderRant discussion forum. Please remember, however, that we believe in civility on this web site and comments may be reviewed, moderated or removed if we feel they contain obscenities, racism, bigotry, anti-Semitic remarks or attack other posters. Our goal is reasoned discussion on issues facing this nation and we do not feel that goal is served by personal attacks and by seeing how many cute adjectives you can attach to an elected official or politician's name. Copyright © 2008 Capitol Hill Blue
|
User login
 |
Technorati Tags: 
Delicious
Digg
Reddit
Magnoliacom
Newsvine
Furl
Google
Yahoo
Technorati
While I agree with your
Submitted by almandine on July 22, 2008 - 1:12pm.While I agree with your general premise, as well as the potential negative effects of untoward pressure placed on cadets by the service academies, the actual words in the Constitution go thusly... "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof..." Separation of church and state was never called for, and any suggestion that individual or group religious proselytizing is "off-limits" goes squarely against the Constitutional language. There is also nothing there about government funding as a benchmark either for or against religious observance, nor should the question of what religious beliefs persons hold be factored into decisions about their fitness for conducting the public's business. Whether our national security would suffer from relying only on military personnel with religious beliefs is unknowable and certainly not as cut and dried as you state.
Bottom line, the purpose of
Submitted by ekaton on July 23, 2008 - 1:29am.Bottom line, the purpose of the military is to murder other human beings for political reasons. Do you believe in a "loving god"? Do you think this "loving god" would approve of this killing? Do you not think it might just be a tad of an affront to this "god"? How arrogant of human beings to pray to their "gods" for assistance in the murder of others of that "god's" creations for nothing but politics, for nothing but stealing land and resources from other people. Come on you religious people. Get a grip.
-- Kent Shaw
Get a grip ???
Submitted by almandine on July 24, 2008 - 8:17am.Get a grip ???
Well Kent, I'm not "people" but as the only previous commenter you must be addressing me.
My intent was to address the Constitutional issues alone, without debating the virtues of religion in government. In fact, I somewhat agreed with DKT - a rare phenomenon.
My thoughts ran to non-discrimination of religious folks with regard to government service, not using religion (or lack thereof) as a litmus test for ability to govern, and not assuming prima facie that national security suffers in the hands of a military with a religious core. The reference to the Great Crusades below makes the military point. Additionally, as as far as government service goes, I know many avowed religious types who can separate their personal beliefs from the jobs they are asked to perform. Even some in the military. (Sounds like a debate on homosexuality, huh?) Rational middle ground is where I was coming from.
Your rant on Christianity misses the flavor of my argument and, frankly, your usual perceptiveness had led me to expect more. I think there is a hangover here from other current opinion pieces that clouds your typical view.
The troubling part of
Submitted by Elmo on July 23, 2008 - 7:07am.The troubling part of semi-institutionalized evangelizing is that it creates a climate which suggests that if you do not espouse the faith of those up the chain of command, your prospects for advancement will be limited. This applies to more than religion, it's a variation on the theme which underlies the story of the Emperor's New Clothes.
If you do not agree with the prevailing attitude, you risk losing your position and you will not reach such a position if you have merely accepted or espoused the prevailing attitude, you have to embrace it and make it your own. Only those who drink the Kool Aid are given access to the reins of power.
Kent is right, "Praise the
Submitted by keith on July 23, 2008 - 7:18am.Kent is right, "Praise the Lord and Pass the Ammunition" seems to be at odds with the basic moral and ethical teachings of every religion I've ever heard of.
And while I have no issue with anyone holding or practicing their own personal religious beliefs in their own private way, when that practice becomes institutionalized and combined with the "Yes, Sir..No Sir..Right away, Sir" nature of the military, the religious beliefs once holds (or, rather, DOESN'T hold) can (and very often does) find its way into the personnel evaluation systems of the military.
And, as Elmo has also now suggested, the sad result is that good people who don't happen to hold the same fervent religious beliefs as their superiors very often get passed over in favor of those who do.
Any way you cut it, that's called "prejudice".
And just like every other form of racial or other prejudice that has since been outlawed in the military (or is about to be outlawed as in "don't ask, don't tell") such prejudice has absolutely NO place in the military forces that defend our land in the 21st Century.
Come on Gents, have you
Submitted by Sandra Price on July 23, 2008 - 9:03am.Come on Gents, have you never heard of the Crusades who rounded up whole armies to kill Islam but ended up killing each other with their weapons designed for the purpose of killing more humans with one shot. The History Channel has many series on the ancient art of killing. We had Christians from as far away as Britain who armed themselves and moved to the holy lands for the purpose of killing for Jesus Christ. Our America was designed to do the same thing. We practiced on the Brits and then tried out killing women who they claimed were witches. American indians were labeled "sons of Cain" and eliminated by the American Army. Killing got easier every decade.
In order to keep our armies under full control they had to be trained as the Army of Jesus Christ to act without question whatever the Administration wanted. If anyone has read John Ross's "Unintended Consequences" you would see that even if half of the information is correct, America is not a nation of Freedom and Liberty but a Nation in search of an Empire.
The key to killing comes from a background in worshipping Jesus Christ. Would he approve? I think not!
What would it take to restore respect for the human lives in America? I see nothing in the future for this to ever be accomplished. The last free nation on this planet will self destruct under the force of pitting one God against others. I submitted a paper to the last Atheist convention that hopefully the next occupants of earth will realize the downfall of this culture came from the lack of individual responsibilities and the turning over of our brains to superstition and myth.
There has been a surge of writers using this same concept of extended intelligence in our species. We are individuals with developed brains and we treat others according to which God they choose.
Hopefully the next humans will learn from our sad history.
The key to killing comes
Submitted by almandine on July 23, 2008 - 4:15pm.The key to killing comes from a background in worshipping Jesus Christ.
Can you explain that?
Hey Kent ... more hyperbole or just plain hubris ???
"There has been a surge of writers using this same concept of extended intelligence in our species. We are individuals with developed brains and we treat others according to which God they choose."
I agree with almandine! The
Submitted by Phestif on July 24, 2008 - 12:09am.I agree with almandine! The "Death" of the Republican party is imminent. Faith in a living spiritual God can be removed from political rhetoric like chromosomes from DNA.
Check out this two minute YouTube video!
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MFV8_Y5cSPw
"It is impossible to rightly govern a nation without God and the Bible."
"If we desire to avoid insult, we must be able to repel it; if we desire to secure peace, one of the most powerful instruments of our rising prosperity, it must be known, that we are at all times ready for War."
Two quotes by George Washington.