A Weblog of Centrist Voices in American Politics
|
|
|
A Weblog of Centrist Voices in American Politics | |
|
June 23, 2005USAF got that old time religion?There's a hefty debate going on over at RedState about the recent report about allegations of religious intolerance and prosletyzing by superior officers at the U.S. Air Force Academy. In short, the report substantiated some allegations, refuted others, and generally credited the current Superintendent with working hard to teach everybody the rules about religious tolerance. As the New York Times reports, the Superintendent seems to take it seriously. He likened the Academy's struggles 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." I like his analogy. Taken in isolation, the individual events cited are not all that serious (although as you'll see in the RedState entries I've got major quibbles with some), but taken all together, they point to a serious problem of officers confusing their private religious obligations with their public duties of preparing our troops for battle. I don't support fighting over petty and symbolic matters like "under God" in the Pledge or singing "God Bless America", but the leaders of the Academy went far beyond symbolism or merely practicing their own religion on their own time. They actively communicated to the cadets in their charge that they were going to Hell if they didn't believe in Jesus. I don't believe the military is the place for that. What are your thoughts on balancing the "no establishment of religion" clause with the "free exercise thereof" clause in the context of the military and its command structure? Posted by PatHMV at June 23, 2005 11:25 AMComments
Pat, I thought you were going to start singing for us. Did you ever see "The Apostle" starring Robert Duval? (Probably the greatest male actor today.) Anyway, it's one of his favorite tunes in the movie. I think this looks bad, simply because of the concern by so many that the religious right is continuing to gain more power. That aside, it sounds like the new commander is getting it under control. I have several high ranking family members in the AF, and I could totally picture at least one of them right in the thick of this. He'd make Jerry Falwell look like Madonna. :) Posted by: AR at June 23, 2005 11:49 AMLOL, Abel. Good point. My brother-in-law flew Navy planes, and he's RR clear through. Of course, his parents are both ministers, which probably has something to do with it. I once heard that "fanatics are people who regard any tolerance of other faiths as persecution of their own." Sounds like a good definition to me. :-) Posted by: Blue Jean at June 23, 2005 12:16 PMTrust me, Abel, you don't want to hear me sing! (Love to do it, but my friends cringe at the thought.) I just don't understand why so many religious leaders want to focus so heavily on the "Hell" and "damnation" parts of the Bible. Why not take out an ad promoting 1 Corinthians 13:13 "And now these three remain: faith, hope and love. But the greatest of these is love" (that's the NIV version; the King James Version uses "charity" instead of "love", but it's the same concept). Why focus so relentlessly on faith when the Bible itself tells us that love or charity is greater than faith? Jesus said that the second commandment is like the first, that "You shall love your neighbor as yourself", that is in the saem way that you follow the first commandment, which it so love God with all your heart, soul, and mind. (Matthew 22:39) How can you recognize a disciple of Jesus? "By this everyone will know that you are my disciples, if you have love for one another". (John 13:35). For those who say that the greatest love is to show somebody how to go to Heaven and avoid the eternal hellfire, I would point out that Jesus also said that it would be easier for a camel to pass through the eye of a needle than for a rich man to get into heaven, but I rarely see ads taken out demanding that all believers "go, give all you have to the poor", either. I would also point out the old adage, "you catch more flies with honey than with vinegar". Many people don't respond well, just by human nature, to being threatened, particularly to being threatened with eternal damnation. You might do a better job at attracting more people by focusing, as Jesus himself did, on the messages of love and hope. Pat, I think you caught it pretty well. One of the problems is that fundamentalist Christians believe it is their duty to spread "the word" to those that don't know it. From their point of view,you shouldn't let someone burn in hell or suffer if you can prevent it by exposing them to the truth. I have heard fundamentalists say that. So what is unwelcomed proselytizing to you and me is an act of humanity and charity to them. If you assume there is only ONE truth and that you have it, it's not an unreasonable posture. I think those of us that aren't Christians should recognize the good intentions of these people, but, certainly in public institutions, we shouldn't be subject to proselytization. The fundamentalists simply have to recognizize that this IS an wanted intrusion on our being; rejecting it and expecting that they respect our beliefs IS NOT demonizing Christianity. Posted by: MWS at June 23, 2005 12:52 PMI don't have a problem with prosletyzing per se. I am opposed to government-sanctioned prosletyzing to an audience who is forbidden, by law, from contradicting or arguing with their superior officers. And, as a Christian myself, I have a problem with short-sighted, ineffective prosletyzing which focuses on the negative rather than the positive. At the same time, I think the other side gets carried away, too. Not every mention of the word "God" in public by a public official constitutes an establishment of religion. Posted by: PatHMV at June 23, 2005 01:22 PMOne of the problems is that fundamentalist Christians believe it is their duty to spread "the word" to those that don't know it. From their point of view,you shouldn't let someone burn in hell or suffer if you can prevent it by exposing them to the truth. I have heard fundamentalists say that. So what is unwelcomed proselytizing to you and me is an act of humanity and charity to themA couple thoughts: 1) not to be nit-picky but this is about Evangelism (i.e. "Spreading the Gospel") not Fundamentalism (i.e. inerrancy of the Bible, etc.) 2) While an evangelical does have a responsibility to "spread the good news" I don't think you're going to find many who feel confortable with cohersion (such as this) 3) The AF seems to be dealing with this appropriately. Much has been discussed about Colo Springs as the Center of conservative christianity. Lay the blame with the AFA officials not any nearby churches. 4) Finally, this seems to be another in a series of bad press stories about the Air Force Academy (although to be honest I'd rather have a problem with over-zealous Evangelicals than female cadet sexual harrassment and rape). What is the problem with the Air Force Academy? Posted by: c3 at June 23, 2005 01:30 PM That's right, it IS about evangelism. If the duty to proseltyze is part of your religious beliefs, does your right to free practice of religion include the right to proseltyze even if this act can also be seen as an infringement upon others? I'd say that you have the right to proseltyze, but with limits. I am free to walk away. You can't get gov't funding for your evangelism. And you can't evangelize whenever you are acting in any role whatsoever in which others are required to be your subordinate for any reason, whether this relationship is commander-soldier or boss-employee. In other words, if I ,as the "evangelee," am for any reason not completely and entirely free to walk away or to otherwise openly reject your views, then you should be constrained from evangelizing. Just my $.02, or $.57. Posted by: bk at June 23, 2005 02:15 PMI would agree, Brian. You absolutely are free to proseltyze, but the company that you work for may have a policy that demands respect of all religious beliefs. Therefore, repeated attempts to force your particular beliefs on someone else (not just a one-time sharing of your faith) could place you in violation of the tolerance policy espoused by your employer. (I'm using "you" and "yours" as an example here...not referring to anyone specifically.) Of course, then you get into a supervisory relationship where an employee may feel pressured to accept something because they may feel that their job performance depends on it. All of these are tricky issues...one of the reasons that when I used to work in HR we clearly identified the 4 off-limit topics in the workplace: Sex, Religion, Politics, and Florida-Florida State Football. Posted by: AR at June 23, 2005 02:37 PMCouple of points. First, my bad for using the imprecise term "fundamentalist" when I should have said "evangelical." Second, I agree with Pat that not every expression of religious sentiment in public should be proscribed as an establishment of religion. Third, it is true that one has a "right" to proselytize so long as one is in the public domain (e.g., on a public street)in the sense that the government can obviously not prohibit you from talking to someone (although there might be legitimate time, place,and manner restrictions--e.g., you might not be able to scream at people's houses in the middle of the night). However, with respect to a private company, the First Amendment doesn't apply the same way. It would be well within a company's perogative, I would think, to prohibit proselytizing during work hours or on work premises. Of course, any company that did that would be subject to criticism that it was "demonizing" Christianity. Posted by: MWS at June 23, 2005 02:56 PM |
Archives
March 2006
February 2006 January 2006 December 2005 November 2005 October 2005 September 2005 August 2005 July 2005 June 2005 May 2005 April 2005 March 2005 February 2005 January 2005 December 2004 November 2004 October 2004 September 2004 August 2004 July 2004 June 2004 May 2004 April 2004 March 2004 February 2004 January 2004 December 2003 November 2003 October 2003 September 2003 August 2003 July 2003 June 2003 May 2003 April 2003
Recent Entries
Dubai Out
Why So Long Between Democracies? Round One, Centrism Rock Lobster? Blackwell Releases "Worst-Treated" List "IRV" used in Burl., VT for mayor election. Great idea! Random Thread Election 2006: Round One A Proper Multiculturalism Bush proposes line item veto act - what's changed?
|
