Buzzflash
del.icio.us
Digg
Facebook
Mixx it!
RedditIt seemed like the Air Force knew it had a problem with religious intolerance.
A "Team Jesus Christ" banner was hung by the head football coach in the team locker room. Cadets of various faiths reported conversion attempts and harassment by superiors as well as evangelical prayer at official academy events. And a Lutheran minister confirmed a systemic evangelical bias by administrators, faculty, and upperclassmen.
So a draft of new guidelines on religious expression discouraged sectarian prayer at public gatherings, and warned superiors against proselytizing to subordinates. But Focus on the Family and other evangelical groups would have none of it.
According to the Washington Post, "They launched a nationwide petition drive, sounded alarms on Christian radio stations, and deluged the White House and Air Force Secretary Michael W. Wynne's office with e-mails calling the guidelines an infringement of the Constitution's guarantees of free speech and free exercise of religion."
The result? The Pentagon released a new draft of guidelines emphasizing the freedom of superiors to exercise their faith when it is "reasonably clear discussions are personal, not official."
Americans United for Separation of Church and State put it well: The revisions "focus on protecting the rights of chaplains, while ignoring the rights of nonbelievers and minority faiths."
The bottom line: the military caved to evangelical pressure and reaffirmed, rather than reformed, the continual eroding of the separation of church and state. One more victory for the right wing, one more slap at the Constitution.
Share this article
Katrina vanden Heuvel
Thoughts on politics, current affairs, riffs and reflections on what’s in the news and what’s not--but should be.
RSS
Ah - oliver cromwell would be proud....
next on the docket - shut down theaters, ban dancing, kill the heritics!!!!!
Posted by ibbleblibble at 02/13/2006 @ 10:12am
and the muslims have the nerve to intmate we are engaged in a crusade! how, cosidering such "revelations" as this, and the fundyvangelist involvement in th pubs, could they think such a thing?
Posted by ibbleblibble at 02/13/2006 @ 10:42am
jeez - where's LL?
Posted by ibbleblibble at 02/13/2006 @ 10:47am
Jack D. Ripper, your plane is ready.
Posted by proudlib at 02/13/2006 @ 11:07am
I have personal experience with two types of religious bigots. Some bigots callously express the classical anti-semitic myths and and are certain that I will go to "hell". Other bigots (who profess to love me) invite me to thinly veiled "Jews for Christ" meetings, and are equally certain that I am going to "hell". I find both repulsive. Both types are equally inappropiate and lack total respect for me as a human being. No members of the armed forces should be subjected to either type of religious harrasement. It is a blatant violation of separation of church and state. No equivalency exists between the false argument of freedom to express one's religion when it impinges on a citizen's freedom from religion.
Posted by allen at 02/13/2006 @ 11:08am
Posted by ALLEN 02/13/2006 @ 11:08am | ignore this person
i was talking with a jewish student of mine and was suprised at how much he knew about the christian right. when i remarked upon this, he said to me "bunker, you got to know your enemies" harr har - smart kid!
as a convert to buddhism in the south, i face this sort of thing on a constant basis. my best friend is a laid back christian, though, who detests this kind of crap, so despite the very nature of christianity as literally interpreted (and islam, i would argue), there are many christians with whom i have no problems whatsoever.
but this "we have the only answer and all other ways result in eternal hell" attitude, combined with a call to proselytize is, contrary to fundyvangelist rewritings of history, EXACTLY why our founding fathers sepaerated church and state. you know, though, allen, it did all start with judaism....lol
Posted by ibbleblibble at 02/13/2006 @ 11:17am
So what happens if and or when Islam becomes the dominant faith? Will we see the same tollerence for Imams' demands?
Posted by Bushfools at 02/13/2006 @ 11:31am
Ibble
Where's Kevin Bacon when we really need him?
Posted by leftofcenter at 02/13/2006 @ 11:32am
How many have been forced to convert from their chosen faiths?
Separation of Church and State? Does that include removing every Church from a military base? And what about the Christian,Muslim, Jewish and other chaplins on the militarys' payroll?
Posted by CPT at 02/13/2006 @ 11:38am
Posted by CPT 02/13/2006 @ 11:38am | ignore this person
of course not, but christianity and islam are by their nature, inclined to cross certain boundries, and must be watched. most chaplains in the service i knew were quite fair. of course, on their own, they might offer advice that could be interpreted as proselytizing, but its hard not to express one's religious views without proselytizing, if only in a passive manner. i dont think the above incident is of that nature. sounds like a cabal of renegade fundyvangelists, sounds like the way to make it at the air force acadamy (and the air force, and the other branches?) these days is to belong to the one true faith...as defined by the fundyvangelists...this is not the same as the unavoidable proselytizing all of faith engage in when discussing their faiths...
Posted by ibbleblibble at 02/13/2006 @ 11:47am
Posted by LEFTOFCENTER 02/13/2006 @ 11:32am | ignore this person
where is kevin bacon these days at all, for that matter? last thing i remember he was singing and in that movie with jason patrick and de niro and whatsherface the darkhaired english actress...i'm pretty out of it, though...
Posted by ibbleblibble at 02/13/2006 @ 11:51am
CPT, nobody suggested that churches be removed from military bases. They ought to be there, and servicemen and women are lucky to have places to worship and find peace, as theirs are difficult job.
There's quite a difference, though, between a church where one can choose to go and worship or just walk on by and aggressive proselytizing by members of one particular faith. Especially when those evangelizing are paid with taxpayer dollars, and of a higher rank than those to whom they are preaching.
You quite often talk about the importance of rank in relationships in the military (there are two unfortunate drill sergeants you often use in discussing Mr. Clinton's escapades, I recall) -- would you not agree, then, that a cadet is being put under undue influence and pressure when told, by a (presumably) ranking officer, that hell awaits if he does not "find God"?
Posted by breasonable at 02/13/2006 @ 11:55am
Especially when those evangelizing are paid with taxpayer dollars, and of a higher rank than those to whom they are preaching. Posted by BREASONABLE 02/13/2006 @ 11:55am | ignore this person
amen brother
Posted by ibbleblibble at 02/13/2006 @ 11:59am
Evangelic conservative Airforce officers. Luciphers mechanism for the "Rapture".
We need to remind ourselves to clean house in thie missle silo's after we sweep these boys out of power and put our pro-War evangelic countrymen on a post directing trafffic somewhere...
say downtown Baghdad.
Posted by Will C. at 02/13/2006 @ 12:32pm
BREASONABLE
Yes, that is true, if that is in fact going on. But I wonder though if some overly sensitive cadets are making more of this than what it really is.
I had been asked by a high ranking officer if I was going to Chruch services on sunday in Afghan, and when i said i wasnt he said "you ought get your ass to chruch you non-beleiving bastard!"
I laughed it off, was that proselytzing? So I am a little suspicious as to the details.
Now, I am a little old school, when it comes to cadets, cadets are not worthy of recourse to challenge their superiors, unless a clearly illegal event is occurring.
It sounds to me like whining, a cadet has to learn to follow before he/she can lead. A cadet is learning to be an officer, I am harder on them than the regular recruit.
No doubt there are going to be people who area going to preach theri faith, but as a cadet you ought to be made of harder stuff and if someone is "offending" you; then you had better learn how to deal with uncomfortable positions now, so that in the future when you wont get "offended" when some jihadi takes a shot at you.
this might be a difficult concept to understand, but this is after all a the Air force academy. But then again it is the Air force
Posted by CPT at 02/13/2006 @ 12:44pm
Posted by WILL C. 02/13/2006 @ 12:32am | ignore this person
Hope that's half-serious, WILL....can you imagine the political fallout of a Democratic Administration "bouncing" evangelical officers from the AF Academy?
It's make "gays in the military-1993" look like a picnic!
Posted by Mask at 02/13/2006 @ 12:44pm
Hope that's half-serious, WILL....can you imagine the political fallout of a Democratic Administration "bouncing" evangelical officers from the AF Academy?
Posted by MASK 02/13/2006 @ 12:44am
Can't you read son? I said missle silo's.
Me personally, I could care less if the evangelic church has outlets in the airforce. It's the freedom of religion all the way baby. But the US Constitution isn't a suicide pact.
Gots to gets those evangelic boys away from the nukular weapons.
:)
Posted by Will C. at 02/13/2006 @ 12:53pm
CPT, valid points all. I don't think it's a difficult concept to understand, either.
Certainly cadets should be "toughened up," especially if they're going to be officers. But how dealing with evangelicals will help harden someone for battle, I'm not sure. And I'm also not sure whether you wanted to draw a parallel between evangelicals and jihadis, either.
I think the issue at hand is one for the public. The citizens, after all, own the military academies, and how do we want them to be run? There are bedrock violations of the seperation of church and state here, which are plain to see: these are uniformed representatives of our government, on company time and trying to convert students to a particular faith. The implication, especially when coming from a superior officer, is that "join the team, this is OUR faith, the miltary's faith" -- and our military doesn't have an official faith.
Regardless of how you feel about religion, I'd also like to think that our cadets' time is better spent learning how to defend America than wrestling with complex issues of faith and religion foisted upon them by superior officers, however well-meaning they might be.
Posted by breasonable at 02/13/2006 @ 1:04pm
military discipline and toughening up are fine. coercive proselytizing is another. yeah, CPT, u got a point about the superior officer thing. but this is not the first time certain military officers who belong to fundyvangelist churches have been involved in incidents that show their true colors, cromwellian red... which cannot be good for our efforts in the middle east to convince folks there we are not involved in some kind of crusade.
i know for a fact that if fundyvangelists gain control, they will enforce their faith on me and everybody else who is not one of them. all evidence of history, in terms of christianity (and islam) supports my suspicion. and if history is not enough their very words are...
Posted by ibbleblibble at 02/13/2006 @ 1:29pm
Hope that's half-serious, WILL....can you imagine the political fallout of a Democratic Administration "bouncing" evangelical officers from the AF Academy?
Posted by MASK 02/13/2006 @ 12:44am
u of all folks, u soulless libertarian aei mouthpiece!!! lol
u know this "force my religion down your throat then scream martyr when you object" thing is coming...
Posted by ibbleblibble at 02/13/2006 @ 1:32pm
The Bible says "render unto Ceasar that which is Ceasar's and render unto God that which is God's"....don't these right wing fanatics even read their own Bible? This passage from the Bible is clearly ordering the followers of Jesus Christ to keep the Church and the State separate. The only time that Jesus Christ ever showed anger was in the temple when gambling (money of the government) was taking place. They just don't get it do they?
Posted by dgill64 at 02/13/2006 @ 1:51pm
DGILL,
Oh, they get it. This is just another evangelical "crusade" that accomplishes two goals - it satisfies their requirement to proseltyze; and it sets up those on the other side as "anti-religious." You have to hand it to 'em, they're great at spinning things to make themselves look good.
CPT
It doesn't matter that you don't mind - it matters that it is a Constitutional issue that is pretty black and white. Kind of like the "I don't mind if they wiretap me, I'm not doing anything wrong" argument. Whether you care or not, whether the majority of people care or not, it is a Constitutional issue. If a Constitutional amendment can be ratified to allow such invasion of privacy, then it won't be an issue.
As a pretty smart dude once said - "They that can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor safety." - Benjamin Franklin
But what do you expect from a liberal, elitist blue-stater?
Posted by Turk33 at 02/13/2006 @ 2:42pm
Apparently, Christian evangelicals believe that religious freedom gives them the right to proselytize 24/7/365/eternity. There is a difference between having the right to practice your faith free from governmental restrictions, control or intrusion versus being allowed to approach everyone you meet and forcing them to listen to a discussion of why they need to accept Jesus Christ in their life as their personal savior.
Now, when out and about in my life, if I am approached by someone like that, I can tell them to please take their superstition somewhere else. If they persist, I will have a nice discussion with them. I'll ask them if they consider their religion to be monotheism. When they say yes, I explain that, when you combine their "God" with their view of Jesus as an additional God and the "Holy Spirit" as yet another, different and distinct entity from YHVH, these various aspects of their "God" in their "Holy Trinity" comprise the reality that they practice polytheism and I liken their polytheism to that of pagans. Then, I go into a discussion of how they could as easily be worshipping Baal as their god if the Hebrews had not been successful in maintaining their religion as distinct from those of the indigenous "Palestinians" among whom they resided in the area at the time (and I am not saying the Hebrews of that era were not also indigenous to the region). If they are willing to stick around and talk to me at this point (because it seems 9 times out of ten I so thoroughly repulse the person who accosted me through my irreverence), we can then begin to discuss the war. If they support the war, I revert to Jesus' teachings on violence and confront them on that issue. The point of this is, if they want to convert me with their faith, I will first try to get rid of them, but given that they won't leave easily most of the time, I will do to them what they try to do to me, try to convert them.
Back to the topic.
When one is in any job, and finds that there are individuals at the workplace who proselytize, that person is in an awkward situation. You don't want to argue back against their beliefs if you know the workplace not only condones the proselytizing, but one is especially fearful and reticent to fight this kind of coerced indoctrination when considered, in addition, that all or nearly all of those in superior positions that you meet take part in the religion being proselytized. So, you are stuck listening. You get forced to submit to the brainwashing. The next thing that goes through that individual's mind is, if I don't join this religion, am I ever going to get a promotion? One becomes coerced into converting or quitting.
Take this situation into the military, (where you can't quit and you have an extremely potentent hierarchy and chain of command, and one has a whole new set of problems with which to deal. The military are highly ordered and structured societies. The military puts individuals through their own brainwashing/programming school called boot camp. Every new recruit is broken and rebuilt (admittedly to varying degrees depending on the strength of character and how secure and confident the new recruit is) with th military's mindset, loyalties, priorities and opinions. Now, introduce proselytizing a specific (and only that specific) religion in this atmosphere, and I just don't know how anyone can avoid not being affected/converted.
I am sorry, but this is not what I consider religious freedom.
(I am also sorry about something else, this is a huge posts, and I am required to break it up into several posts or shorten it, and unfortunately, I don't know how to shorten it. So, there will be a succession of posts to complete my discussion).
Posted by Lennonist at 02/13/2006 @ 3:34pm
From all accounts I have read, this is not what Franklin, Jefferson, Henry, Washington, either Adams, Hamilton, Hancock, Madison and the rest of the framers considered to be religious freedom. Let's go back a little further on this issue.
When religious sects left England for the New World, they left in order to get away from the oppressive Church of England so they could practice their own beliefs in their own way and avoid the stigma and consequent discrimination that failing to follow the Church of England would result in.
That is the exact same kind of discrimination as I just discussed above. We may not have an official Church of the United States, but we have had essentially nothing but evangelicals in the White House since the election of Richard Nixon. Almost 40 consecutive years of control of the White House has lifted the evangelical movement into a position of feeling they control goverenment.
Over the last 40 year period, I have watched with disdain as Congress after Congress enacted new legislation, most of which has been to control lifestyle issues as opposed to crimes against other individuals and/or property. It's as if Christians think they can legislate everyone into Heaven. Jefferson and Madison both spoke to this issue, and both were utterly against it. One of the greatest ironies is that the Christian god needed only 10 laws enacted to govern all of humanity. How many laws does the United States have today?
The framers were extremely clear on the issue of not legislating on lifestyle issues and only on crimes against persons and/or property. Jefferson's phrase "and the pursuit of happiness" makes that point evident. "Drawing from Locke, men had usually spoken of 'life, liberty and property.' But Jefferson recognized the way property reduced the power of men who didn't have it. ... By endorsing the pursuit of happiness, he wasn't lapsing into metaphysics or turning from political concerns to personal ones. His collegues in the Congress would understand that Jefferson was speaking of the practice of happiness, not the questing after it." Patriots, A. J. Langguth, pp. 357.
Jefferson didn't stop there. He made sure he invested the absolute authority over government in the individual. "That, to secure these rights governments are instituted among men, derriving their just powers from the consent of the governed ..." excerpt from the "Declaration of Independence", Thomas Jefferson (emphasis added by me). The preamble to the Constitution opens with "We the people", not we the landowners, we the property holders, we the men, nor we the free men. No, that phrase was completely inclusive of all humans in the US at the time - including non-property holders, women and slaves and vested all power in the people, not in the government.
Posted by Lennonist at 02/13/2006 @ 3:35pm
A brief review of the history of modern liberty is necessary in order to place the current Constitutional crisis in proper perspective, and to view upon what historical basis we, as individuals, have the right, yea, the duty, to protect our liberties and our Constitution from the pressure placed upon it by the current Administration and the party in control of both Houses.
John Locke first postulated that the only need for government was as a result of the ownership of property in his Second Tretise On Civil Government. "Government comes into existence, said Locke, because of property. If there is no property, then government is not needed to protect it." A History of Knowledge, Charles Van Doren, pp. 220. So, the discussion of free governments and free societies starts with a premise that goverenments' validity to exist and govern only arises to protect property. It was Jefferson and Madison who gave us the modern premise that governments exist solely to protect the three inalienable rights enumerated in the Declaration of Independence.
Jefferson's and Madison's views led us away from Locke's materialistic view of the natural order under which legitimate government functions. Jefferson explained that the only reason for the existence of government, again, let me emphasize this, was to secure the rights of people to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness.
There was a modification of this view in the preamble to the Constitution, which gave us the principles upon which our current governmental structure was founded and from which it would derrive it's future legitimacy. Thoe modification was expressed as: promoting the general welfare, providing for a common defense, and securing domestic tranquility. [I don't think Nixon or Bush II, ever did anything in their Presidencies to secure domestic tranquility. Both are/were great dividers who apparently set out with the specific purpose of polarizing the public, and using that polarization to exert more control over government and it's policies.] Those three reasons are Constitutionally set as being the only legitimate reasons we gathered together to form a government and the only basis for it's continued legitimacy, and any effort by our government to do more is illegitimate, illegal, unconstitutional, and tyrannical.
Locke gave the first moral argument in support of revolution. "Revolution is legitimate when the governor has become a tyrant, 'when the governor, however entitled, makes not the law, but his will, the rule, and his commands and actions are not directed to the properties of his people, but the satisfaction of his own ambitions, revenge, covetousness, or any other particular passion.' In that case the governed have a right to rise up and change their government, which they rightfully can insist must be for their own good." A History of Knowledge, Charles Van Doren, pp. 220-221. Isn't this an exact description of what the George Bush II and his Republican party are doing to our republic today?
Posted by Lennonist at 02/13/2006 @ 3:36pm
I really feel the need to recount some of Locke's most important points:
"As usurpation is the exercise of power which another hath a right to, so tyranny is the exercise of power beyond right, which nobody can have a right to."
"It is a mistake to think this fault is only proper to monarchies. Other forms of government are liable to it as well." [Human history, since 1688 when Locke laid down this political philosophy, proves that point.]
"Wherever law ends, tyranny begins, if the law be transgressed to another's harm." [Based on that argument, which has been held as an absolute since proffered by Locke, one action by a government in contravention of the liberty of the individual spells tyranny. Hence, those individuals being held without bond, without the benefit of counsel, without being informed of the charges against them, and without the right to a speedy trial, whether or not they are held in Abu Ghraib, Guantanamo, secret prisons, or in the US, are all enduring the reality of the imposition of tyranny.]
"May the commands, then, of a prince be opposed? To this I answer: That force is to be opposed to nothing but to unjust and unlawful force." [Gee, in Locke's view, war is only reasonable, lawful and acceptable as a response to previously applied force upon the aggrieved part(y/ies). Not the threat of force. Not an alleged risk of force. Not even a perceived probability of force. Hence, under Locke's view (and that view, by the way is endorsed and codified into the United Nations Charter), the war in Iraq is illegitimate, illegal, immoral, and tyrannical in nature.]
"The common question will be made: Who shall be judge whether the prince or legislative act contrary to their trust? To this I reply: The people shall be the judge!" [The people, not some court that can be manipulated, not any one branch of the government, not even all the branches of government taken together. Nope, the people amnd only the people are the legitimate judges as to whether or not a government has breeched it's duty and exceeded it's authority!]
Posted by Lennonist at 02/13/2006 @ 3:37pm
In response to these arguments and to the growing cantankerousness of the colonies in America, the House of Commons enacted the Proclamation of 1763, which essentially stated that because of distance and communication difficulties, American colonists were not entitled to representation in the House of Commons. The framers of our Constitution said this was the act of an illegitimate government and the result was tyranny. The British countered with the modern Bush argument. Trust us to know what your best interest is and act accordingly. The colonists found out what that trust led to, the repressive and tyrannical Stamp Act and the discriminatory taxes imposed by the crown during the following 12 years among other serious grievances.
Jefferson restated Locke's premise in response to the ever increasing tyranny. "[W]hen government becomes destructive of these ends [the securing of humanity's inalienable rights to life liberty and the pursuit of happiness], it is the right of the people to alter or abolish it..." A History of Knowledge, Charles Van Doren, pp. 225. However, Jefferson went a step further, and invented one of the most profound concepts with regard to the relationship between humanity and government. "When a long train of abuses and usurpations, pursuing invariably the same object, evinces a design to reduce them under absolute despotism, it is their right, it is their duty, to throw off such government..." Declaration of Independence, Thomas Jefferson (emphasis added by me). In other words, in the Jeffersonian view, revolution becomes a duty of every individual in response to tyranny.
James Madison was even more blunt. "In short, Madison concluded, 'as a man is said to have right to his property, he may equally be said to have property in his rights.' Government is instituted, Madison added, to protect property of every sort, 'as well that which lies in the various rights of individuals, as that which the term expresses. This being the end of government, that alone is a just government which impartially secures to every man whatever is his own.'" A History of Knowledge, Charles Van Doren, pp. 227. (All the words emphasized in that quote were emphasized by Madison himself in an article published in a newspaper in 1792.) Thereby, Madison arrived at a brilliantly original method for making the underlying principles of Locke and Jefferson agree.
Posted by Lennonist at 02/13/2006 @ 3:37pm
Following the thread of the march of freedom historically, the French next took up the mantle. "In August 1789 the Jacobins promulgated a Declaration of the Rights of Man and of the Citizen that went beyond the American Bill of Rights in affirming, 'Nothing that is not forbidden by Law may be hindered, and no one may be compelled to do what the Law does not ordain,' for 'Liberty consists in being able to do anything which does not harm others.'" A History of Knowledge, Charles Van Doren, pp. 231 (emphasis added by me). This is significant, because it personal liberty when not expressed in a manner that harms others nor their property as being beyond the right of the government to legislate.
The French Declaration went on to say, "The source of all sovereignty lies essentially in the Nation. No corporate body, no individual may exercise any authority that does not expressly emanate from it." This deviation from the American model was significant. Under it's premise, a single individual may speak for the nation and rule autocratically if his authority emanates from that nation. The French failed to place authority and legitimacy for government squarely on the people. As a result, Robespierre lost his head in the same fashion that Marie Antoinette did because he assumed the mantle of derriving his authority directly from the nation. Then, to compound matters, Napoleon arose and assumed the same authority that Robespierre had. It is under this same basic principle, today, that Bush and his cronies base Presidential authority and place it beyond reproach. That is the exact method that can seduce people in times of war, conquest, and extreme popularity.
Napoleon became tempted by that clause of the Declaration. "He, too, soon found himself speaking for the Nation, with an authority that emanated from it [just as Bush does today]. He allowed himself to be named First Consul." A History of Knowledge, Charles Van Doren, pp. 232. We now know that the French, as a people, yes as an entire society, abdicated authority for their government, their liberty, and their government's actions, allowed Napoleon to crown himself Emperor, and the results in the history of Europe are well known today.
The experience of Napoleon proves the need to remain ever vigilant in our mutual, sacred duty to preserve our liberties at all costs. Jefferson, Locke and Madison all imposed this duty on the culture and society of free people. I postulate it is the greatest duty each generation faces. Failure to preserve and protect our liberties and our Constitution from the attacks and limitations being imposed by our own government will inevitably lead to a Napoleon or a Hitler or a Caesar as, again, the entire history of humanity will attest to.
Posted by Lennonist at 02/13/2006 @ 3:38pm
Let's look at how Jefferson and his deist cronies of American Revolution saw the role of religion in government.
"Thomas Jefferson had a hand in the framing of the Bill of Rights, as he did in almost everything innovative in American political life. Like many of his collegues in the early US government, he was a deist; he believed in God, but not in any one religion. These men felt that there were many ways to serve God and to follow his way, whatever a person might think that way to be. And even if some people might be damned for following the wrong path, the state should never impose one particular path upon it's citizens, who had to be free to make their own mistakes, else how could they ever grow up?" A History of Knowledge, Charles Van Doren, pp. 235 (emphasis added by me).
As we can see, the framers were against the rise of a tyrannical religious movement taking control of our government. They were against the concept of trying to legislate people into heaven. Nor did they favor introducing laws that regulate morality, but rather, simply to protect citizens from one another.
Logically interpreted, one can come to the conclusion that the framers would be against the right to life position. This is evidenced by Jefferson's proscription against forcing any path and his acknowledgement that under any reading of The Bible one has to accept that according to it, YHVH gave us a free will that we must exercise individually if we are to earn a way into heaven and that to enact laws in controvention of this would, in fact, be in contravention of the will of God. Under this view, the right to life argument is in opposition to Christianity's own belief in a God given free will, and in addition, it would contravene the guarantees in the Constitution for life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness.
Posted by Lennonist at 02/13/2006 @ 3:38pm
All discussions and analyses in any media of these issues that do not include some kind of historical perspective fail to address a significant problem when discussing moral platitudes with the right. They are effective at reframing arguments and reinterpreting history in their favor. If we on the Left fail to bring history out into the light of day forst and provide an complete historical context, those who would usurp government for their own ends (and clearly that is what Bush and his cronies have done and are doing) will provide only a few words that people are familiar with, and omit the larger context. Then, it is just too late to try and point out historical inaccuracies.
We can't let Bush frame the arguments in his terms using voodoo history as an ally. We have to frame them first, and we have to present them as completely and clearly as possible so that any attempt to present revisionist history by Bush will be seen for the pathetic attempt at brainwashing it is. Until we learn to tell mainstream journalists, "Sorry, won't be put into a 30 second box, either present all I have to say or I'll go to another forum, we won't be able to get out a clear message, we will allow the mass media to paint us any way they want, and we won't get our real message out to the greater population.
Thanks, sorry it is long.
Peace and Love to all!
Posted by Lennonist at 02/13/2006 @ 3:39pm
Rio, no, it is a response to being proselytized to by every evangelical Christian with whom I seem to come into contact. If the evangelical movement stuck to their own worship and stayed away from forcing the rest of us to listen to them, no one woulod have a problem with them. However, the missionary zeal with which seemingly every evangelical Christian approaches their faith is different from freedom of worship, it is imposition of an opinion. I have to listen whether I want to or not.
Furthermore, I have an additional problem with the evangelical movement. That problem is their tax free status. I have always understood the reasoning behind giving Churches a tax free status. That allows a local church with the ability to do good works in their neighborhood, and beyond if they desire. I also know, accept and am happy to defend the right of all preachers to stand in a pulpit and offer their opinions on events in the world.
However, the use of the television to disseminate a radical departure from the centuries of Christian tradition, and then to use that mass medium to acquire huge sums of money does not seem to me to have been the purpose of granting tax immunity to churches. That is, in fact, a travesty in my mind.
Then take this a step further. This evangelical movement gifts large amounts of their coffers to politicians in campaign contributions. Again, I have no problem with the idea of churches suggesting to their flock that they vote for someone in particular, nor that they suggest their members assist the candidate with campaign contributions. I do, however, feel it is wrong for tax free funds to be given to politicians for any purpose as that defeats the purpose of the tax exemption.
Posted by Lennonist at 02/13/2006 @ 4:24pm
By the way, the evangelical movement was founded in the 1800s along with the whole concept of the Rapture. All of the tenets they proffer that disagree with the general Christian tradition are new, and are not founded on any of Jesus' teachings. They posit that Jesus will lead the war against Satan. Jesus was a pacifist. He refused to lead a revolution against Rome. There is no basis in the Bible for positing that Jesus would fight a war against anyone.
Posted by Lennonist at 02/13/2006 @ 4:27pm
"They do not believe that anyone who is Christian has the RIGHT to freely exercise or practice their religious beliefs unless the leftwing is able to dictate when, how, where, and to whom!"
Not when it's on my dime Rio. The Federal govt is supported by tax dollars and I personally don't want one penny spent on ANY religious programme within govt structure.
Posted by doumer at 02/13/2006 @ 4:58pm
Doumer - Rio's also underestimating the effects of peer pressure. Obviously, the people are trained how to approach proselytizing without appearing to discriminate. However, if you are a kid, say 18, who barely got through school (or maybe didn't), and everyone around you belongs to a "club" but you don't, even if there is no actual ostricization, the new recruit is likely to want to be part of the group. Even moreso in the military where the men are all taught the necessities of being a cohesive unit, etc. That is human nature. But, when you superiors, or teachers put their arm around you, tell you they love you, and teell you they are concerned for your soul, and you know you will likely find yourself in Iraq or Afghanistan soon, and you have a natural fear of dying and perhaps finding out the other side is right and you might go to hell, the pressure to conform is easily too strong to resist.
Bottom line though, once again, the right to practice a religion does not give one the right to force that religion on everyone around you, most especially in a situation where you are a captive audience, like in school or at work.
Posted by Lennonist at 02/13/2006 @ 5:07pm
And separation of church and state DOES mean governmental funds cannot be given to or used by churches or other religious entities, and you are absolutely in your right to demand your tax dollars are not funneled to Jesus if that is your wish.
Posted by Lennonist at 02/13/2006 @ 5:09pm
A brief word to remind all that evangelicals and fundamentalists do not reflect the views of all Christians and that care should be taken not to equate the two.
Doing so would be an error as egregious as assuming that all followers of Islam are either stuck in the 14th century or terrorists. Not that such a mistake ever happens here in the good old USA.
Posted by skeletonman at 02/13/2006 @ 5:11pm
Posted by SKELETONMAN 02/13/2006 @ 5:11pm | ignore this person
yeah, my old man was a christian scientist. he kind of disregarded the no medicine thing, though. but they were, in my experience, some of the most decent and tolerant christians i ever met. i was a catholic myself for a while, and despite the ugly history and current scandals, (yeah, and several doctrinal issues) i find the MODERN catholic church remarkably tolerant and in some ways, progresseive (and no catholic i've ever been closely aqquainted with abstained from common sense over the counter birth control...they all just laugh and wink at that...), and a plethora of protestant denominations (the ones we dont hear/talk about often) are the salt of the earth.
it is to these good, decent folk that i will look for protection when the cromwellian fundyvangelists take over. perhaps i will pretend to be one of them (the fundyvangelists) in order to not offend them, and survive...
which is why the democratic party needs to actively court the left to center (to moderately conservative, esp in the south and midwest) and bring them out to do battle with the roundheads (wellgroomedheads?) when the second civil war erupts - oops i mean by the 08 presidential elections....
Posted by ibbleblibble at 02/13/2006 @ 5:48pm
left to center (to moderately conservative, esp in the south and midwest)CHRISTIANS
Posted by ibbleblibble at 02/13/2006 @ 5:50pm
this might be a difficult concept to understand, but this is after all a the Air force academy. But then again it is the Air force Posted by CPT 02/13/2006 @ 12:44am | ignore this person
CPT,
Your point is not difficult to understand, nor do I take exception to it. I have a question or two though: is there such a concept in the military as a lawful order versus an unlawful order? If the answer is yes, then what is a soldier trained to do if he believes he has been given an unlawful order? If an officer issues an unlawful order, how is it discovered and how is he/she punished? Was it from willingness to obey an unlawful order, lack of training, aberrations, or something else that produced My Lai and Abu Garib?
Posted by seattlescribe at 02/13/2006 @ 6:10pm
It is intresting to see everyone on the left whining over KVH's anti-Christian religion liberal babble.
You have to wonder what are they really so afraid of? Apparently only atheist, agnostic, buddist, hindu, muslim, and any other diverse belief system or practice like voodoo when recognized by the government is acceptable! It seems this is just another form of reverse discriminatory practice arising out of closed hypocritical hearts and minds!
Posted by RIO BRAVO 02/13/2006 @ 4:10pm
Hmm. It appears, and to be honest I am not terribly surprised, that the "whining over KVH's anti-Christian religion liberal babble" you decry is also the "whining over KVH's anti-Christian religion liberal babble" you promote. Once you get your who's-doing-the-whining thing straight in your head, please rejoin the discussion.
Why is such a basic concept so difficult for some to understand. If the government wishes to supply chaplains (or as our resident military expert CPT spells, "chaplins"--one pictures a group of mustachioed bums walking in penguin fashion in shoddy clothes) for the various religions represented by their student body or armed forces, fine with me. If these chaplains take it upon themselves to council those who seek their advice or comfort, fine with me. If the chaplains or other instructors proseletyze to the students or recruits, young people who are extraordinarily vulnerable and often have much unresolved in their lives (at least I was at age 18), then a line has been crossed.
It's a simple thing: if religion is used to exclude or cajole, then religion should not be used in that case.
Posted by tjbehrens1 at 02/13/2006 @ 6:45pm
They do not believe that anyone who is Christian has the RIGHT to freely exercise or practice their religious beliefs unless the leftwing is able to dictate when, how, where, and to whom! Posted by RIO BRAVO 02/13/2006 @ 4:10pm | ignore this person
thats some hyperbolic ridiculosity! when? where? how? is that it, or is it simply that we are following our constitution (asper lennonist, above) better than we ever have? until now... what i hear fundyvangelist christians hooting and screeching loudest about is the fact that all the ways in which organized religion (read christianity) has ALWAYS been technically subverting the constitution have been drying up one by one for the last 50 years. like blue laws - obvious and direct conflict with the constitution (all legalistic gobbledygook aside)...take 'em away and a fundyvangelist screams "aw they're persecuting us again", then takes his family to the artery cloggin feedin trough and cheezes out the server on the tip...
Posted by ibbleblibble at 02/13/2006 @ 6:50pm
SEATTLE
Unlawful orders? it is clear that when an order is given that the Soldier beleives to be unlawful, then at that time, he/she must ask the order to be repeated and if so ordered is obliged to say something to the effect of "Sir/Maam i cannot comply with what i believe to be illegal"
The Soldier must then report to the next higher level of command.
If an officer gives an order that is illegal and a subsequent investigation upholds this, then he/she can and will be prosectued under the UCMJ, depending on the situation, it could be jail time or more than likely relief for cause and letter of reprimand.
A letter of reprimand ends the career of the officer and pretty much ensures that he/she will never work for the government and their future job prospects slim down considerably.
My Lai and Abu Graib was a result of a lack of training and aberrations, junior Soldiers over stepped their authority and went way beyond what they thought their superiors wanted.
They probably saw intell guys yell at detainees and seeing that they were making them sit in a wooden chair for hours and took that, to the nth level. Just my guess.
Posted by CPT at 02/13/2006 @ 8:05pm
I had been asked by a high ranking officer if I was going to Chruch services on sunday in Afghan
You were asked in Afghan, CPT? Why not in English? ;-)
On-topic: I really don't see the problem here. If you want to fight a crusade - which your president has admitted is what your country is doing - you might as well have real crusaders: the gung-ho, blood 'n' guts types who believe they're fighting evil with God on their side. Shit, most of these soldiers are deluded anyway, so why not throw in a little religious delusion as well...?
Posted by Amsterdam69 at 02/13/2006 @ 8:41pm
Amsterdam69 - I do admit to often thinking, why not just send everyone who wants to fight off to Iraq and let them all kill each other so that all we'd have left in the world are peace loving people left here. But then, I stop and remember, I am against killing in any form, and my tax dollars would pay for it!
Posted by Lennonist at 02/13/2006 @ 9:11pm
"(or as our resident military expert CPT spells, "chaplins"--one pictures a group of mustachioed bums walking in penguin fashion in shoddy clothes)"
Posted by TJBEHRENS1 02/13/2006 @ 6:45pm
Thanks for the visual. :)
Posted by malcontent3 at 02/13/2006 @ 10:53pm
"junior Soldiers over stepped their authority"
Posted by CPT 02/13/2006 @ 8:05pm
Donald rumsfeld's been demoted to 'junior soldier'?
Eric
Posted by malcontent3 at 02/13/2006 @ 10:55pm
Let's picture for a moment, shall we, the banner hanging in the locker room saying "Team Mohammed"? The recruits being browbeaten day by day about attending temple and praying while facing Mecca?
Posted by nothingruler at 02/13/2006 @ 11:17pm
Amsterdam69 - I do admit to often thinking, why not just send everyone who wants to fight off to Iraq and let them all kill each other so that all we'd have left in the world are peace loving people left here. But then, I stop and remember, I am against killing in any form, and my tax dollars would pay for it!
Posted by LENNONIST 02/13/2006 @ 9:11pm
Couldn't agree more. My country - The Netherlands - is sending about 1500 soldiers to Afghanistan, supposedly to rebuild the country. Now, this is a UN mission, but the US government squeezed the Dutch government hard nonetheless. We were warned by an official American envoy whose name escapes me at the moment, that unless The Netherlands agreed to send troops, there'd be grave economic consequences. So we're going to war. That's right, war! There is little to rebuild in Afghanistan, since the country wasn't really built in the first place, and human life isn't worth a damn in those parts. A few days ago, four American soldiers were killed in the province the Dutch are going to help rebuild. It will get ugly, and they're using my tax euros to fund this nasty little campaign.
Posted by Amsterdam69 at 02/14/2006 @ 03:49am
Amsterdam69, Hooi. I was in Amsterdam last year, visited from January 1, 2005 to March 31, 2005. I had hoped to get out of the US permanently and remain in Amsterdam. Unfortunately, as you would well know, it's essentially impossible for an American to get a job in Europe at this point in time. I loved being in your country.
I find it anethma that our country blackmails other nations into participating in the wars we start. What really ought to happen is that the European community should stand up as one and say, nope, we aren't going to help you with your war criminality, and don't threaten us or you'll end up with the same fate as Milosevic!
Posted by Lennonist at 02/14/2006 @ 11:43am