next »

[Forums Moderator]

Last August, in response to complaints about proselytizing at the U.S. Air Force Academy, the Air Force drafted guidelines that, among other things, limited private discussions of religious faith. After evangelical groups and many members of Congress complained that the proposed rules amounted to censorship, the Air Force revised the guidelines to allow officers to talk about their faith with cadets if the discussions were clearly not official or coercive. Do the new guidelines condone proselytizing? How can the academy simultaneously protect free speech and promote religious tolerance?
Read more...

[name withheld]

I was a faculty member at USAFA.  I believe the critics have it right -- these "guidelines" are eyewash.   Do cadets still receive the Focus on the Family newsletter in their mailboxes (whether they want it or not)?  Are there still squadrons where the only way to get a good cadet job is to share the religious beliefs of the AOC?  Are there still mandatory formations where students must listen to people such as Chuck Colson, who told them they couldn't be good officers if they weren't Christian?  Do officers still conduct bible study groups in the classroom building during the school day?  

I believe that most of the people at USAFA are good, caring individuals who want the best for the cadets and the institution.  I also respect the beliefs of those who assert that there is only one path to Truth, and that they know it.  I would, however, ask those folks to tell me what happens when the demands of your religion interfere with the oath you took to preserve and defend the Constitution of the United States, which allows us to belive what we wish.  I knew an officer who violated a direct order and tried to convert the Saudis during the first Gulf War.  He was not promoted, and my evangelical friends saw this as evidence of religious persecution.  I understand that he felt God was calling him to help the Saudis see Truth, but I also understand why the Air Force did not (and should not) allow it.  

I would like to see a program that allowed personnel at USAFA to discuss questions such as these.  There are plenty of examples:  what do you do if an airman under your command comes to you and tells you she's having an abortion (when I was there, I was more than once shown pictures of aborted fetuses at work by people who felt I was too liberal)?  should a female officer have to wear Arab dress when in Saudi Arabia?  Is there a fundamental contradiction between one's duty to God and one's duty to government?  A REAL and OPEN discussion of such issues would benefit everyone.  

I'm not holding my breath, though.  In a class I taught at USAFA, I asked my students what would happen if a cadet said he was a Druid and needed to keep a tree in his room.  My students immediately said, "They might let you have it, but they'd tell you what size it had to be".   It is difficult, if not impossible, to legislate religious tolerance.  A presentation isn't going to do it, either.  Only open and honest debate will.

One final note:  I was asked, at USAFA, to review a paper written by a four-star general.  When I asked him, "why me?"  he said, "because these officers won't tell me if it's bad".  So, if my commnader obviously feels that Jesus is the only path to righteousness, how likely am I to tell him I disagree?

[Mike]

The religious oppression that apparently has been part of the Air Force Academy's culture is disturbing. Although faculty and administrators are in positions of authority relative to students at civilian colleges, the power differential at the service academies is much more pronounced. Cadets and midshipmen are in an extremely vulnerable position when superior officers engage in blatant harassment due to their own religious prejudice. It is ironic that U.S. military officers would engage in the same sort of fundamentalist extremism that we are fighting around the world.

[%sig%]

[I know]

You're not fooling anybody. This entire posting is meant to "stick it" to the military and christians.

Your kind makes me sick...

[JD]

Trainees in Air Force who attend religious services are spared the harassment of their Training Instructors while in these services. Those who do not to attend are not. One might make the case that the Air Force rewards those who attend religious services and punishes those who do not.

[Mike]

I'm glad "I know" is so omniscient. Speaking for myself, I certainly have no desire to "stick it" to the military, especially since my son happens to be an active duty U.S. Navy officer. I also don't want to "stick it" to Christians since I work at a Catholic university and I like my job. On the other hand, I would like to stick it to fundamentalists of all religious persuasions who insist on trying to impose their preposterous views of reality on the rest of us.

[%sig%]

[RelStudies]

There are obviously many difficulties here, but it seems to me that the most fundamental is that a number of forms of Christianity (as well as some forms of Islam, Buddhism, etc.) consider proselytizing a significant religious act.

Now on the one hand, legally to prevent the performance of a religious act is a constitutional problem. For example, if the USAFA were to set up a regulation that says no cadet may bow to Mecca, this would be fairly easy to challenge on constitutional principles.

On the other hand, American law makes quite clear, over the course of its various precedents and going right back to the Founding Fathers, that religion is conceived of as a private concern, and one whose external obligations (rituals) are performed either privately or in a registered place of worship. If religion is defined in this way, then it seems clear that properly religious behavior does not directly involve anyone not of that religious persuasion.

But in fact, this basic definition of religion is nonsense. It establishes a kind of weak mainstream Protestantism as the norm or prototype of all religion. And what you're looking at in this USAFA debate is the sharp edge of this definition breaking down.

If a cadet or an officer is of an evangelical, proselytizing Christian denomination, that cadet or officer is performing a ritual act by proselytizing. But proselytizing by definition affects people who are not of the same persuasion: there is no point in proselytizing those who already agree. So to prevent this arguably violates constitutional rights, but at the moment a lot of people think that to protect it also violates such rights.

In the short run, the obvious solution is to discard the notion of "protection of spiritual comfort," to coin a phrase. If the Jehova's Witnesses come to give me the Watchtower, I am not obligated to let them in my house or to take their magazine. Nobody protects me from feeling uncomfortable that they want to talk about their mission. That's ridiculous. If we were going to protect at that level, we'd have to stop selling pork and beef in this country, because it might make Muslims, Jews, and Hindus feel uncomfortable. So you can put leaflets in cadets' mailboxes, and the cadets should be perfectly comfortable throwing them in the recycling bin.

The difficulty is that you cannot, conversely, protect the proselytizers. If cadets get together and decide to start leafletting everyone about how evangelical Christianity hates women because they are anti-choice, you have to permit that. Those who are "uncomfortable" being told that some principle espoused by their religion is contrary to what Jesus said or whatever just have to lump it. Those who are "uncomfortable" with having other cadets denounce their eating habits as likely to send them to Hell will just have to lump it. In fact, everyone will just have to accept that other people have every right to criticize and denounce them on religious grounds.

All of which will soon lead to a breakdown. If everyone starts leafletting everyone else about religion, and denouncing each other right and left, this is not leading to good morale.

Well, you see, the dirty little secret is this: religion is not basically "nice," and it's not basically "tolerant," and it's not basically something that makes people all get along. That's the way it is, I'm afraid, and no amount of well-meaning tripe about being tolerant is going to change that.

[John]

Perhaps members of other religions should be taught to be more sensitive to Christians.  (Christians are.  Christians share.  Deal with it.)

And of course any attempt to limit private discussions about ANYTHING (religion, sexual orientation, stamp collecting, sports, etc.) is censorship, and quite clearly an infringement upon one's Constitutional rights of freedom of expression as well as religion.

[%sig%]

[Mike]

RelStudies gives a thoughtful analysis. The crucial issue here, though, doesn't have to do with flyers being stuffed in mailboxes or cadets feeling uncomfortable. Faculty and administrators at the service academies have significant power over cadets, far more than at civilian colleges. So proselytizing by faculty and administrators, many of whom are superior officers to cadets, looks a lot more like coercion and not just free expression of one's beliefs.

[%sig%]

[RelStudies]

Mike is quite right. I have somewhat misrepresented the problem, and my take on it.

As Aristotle noted long ago, the authoritarian relationship engenders its own difficulties, and clearly within a military school (but not only there) this is a significant issue that has to be taken seriously.

My only point, really, was that one cannot formulate freedom of religion on the basis of private faith and personal comfort and expect it to work for everyone. This is, however, very much how American legal precedent defines matters. One result is what we see here: the proselytized say they are being attacked in a manner inconsistent with that freedom, and the proselytizers say the same in reverse. And the difficulty is that both are right by any well-educated interpretation of a definition of religion.

When such a relationship becomes slanted by authority, clearly additional measures need to be taken, but those measures must follow from a legitimate basis -- and this is what is currently lacking. There is a lot of very deep assumption that if we could come up with a good way to deal with abuses, everyone would get along, because we all believe in God anyway, in some way, don't we?

No, we don't. And the God those who believe in Him believe in is not the same. And if God tells you that you really have to proselytize, as a form of ritual behavior, what sort of freedom of religion clause tells you that this is unacceptable behavior? One that says ritual really isn't that important, because it's all about faith anyway, isn't it? You know, like Luther said: sola fide.

As it happens, I'd rather protect people from proselytizing. I'd rather these questions were ipso facto excluded from appropriate discourse in a military academy (or a public university). But I cannot see any clear way to formulate this such that it does not violate the establishment clause if that clause be structured to avoid prejudice and a strong Protestant bias.

[Wall Street Covenant ?]

So, now that we've reached the end of the Church age so to speak, what's a good moral compass? "The Wall Street  Covenant of the Cultural Predator?"
Funny eh?  ...
Curious

[%sig%]

[A Christian]

This is for Real Studies...

Yes, there is a way for personal expression of religious belief in the public marketplace, and protect other individual rights as well.

First, I have to say that what seems to be happening in the academy based on these reports is wrong. As a Christian who works in a public institution, I have done a lot of research on what my rights are in the workplace when I express my religious beliefs. There is a body of law, legal precedent, and federal guidelines on what I can and cannot do.

It begins with Title IX of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 which includes religious expression as protected speech. I can legally express my religious beliefs in the workplace as long as I am not violating other written personnel policies. For instance, I can't read my Bible when I should be doing my work. I can't put a cross on the wall of my office if I'm not allowed to decorate my office with personal items. But if I am allowed to listen to music while I work, according to the law, I can listen to Chrisitan music even if the music is overheard by others (but not if the volume of the music is annoying!)

I can - by law - talk to my co-workers about my faith. But... there are restrictions on when and how I do so. I can talk to them and hand out literature, but if a co-worker makes it clear that he or she is not interested and would rather not talk to me on this subject, I can no longer approach that co-worker about my faith. If I speak to a different co-worker and the first co-worker overhears our conversation, that is acceptable. And I have to engage in this activity in such a way and at a time that it doesn't interfere with the business of the institution.

I am also an administrator at my college, so I also have to be extra careful when discussing faith with subordinates. I can never even give the impression that agreeing with my faith, or accepting literature, is somehow required. I have to be very careful of the appearance that I may be favoring those who are Chrisitans.

Finally, as a Christian, I have certain obligations not only to my faith but also to my employer (which is also Biblical, by the way). I have to be a good employee and do my job to the best of my abilities. I also don't want to be obnoxious about my faith. That won't help lead others to Christ. I will go above and beyond the laws that my government has established and the policies of my institution and behave in way that will show people the grace and love of Christ.

[%sig%]

[invinoveritas]

'I know' wrote:

"You're not fooling anybody. This entire posting is meant to "stick it" to the military and christians.

Your kind makes me sick..."

Well sir/ma'am, you've got to be kidding me.  Forgive the ad hominem, but you are either an ignorant fool that perpetuates the growing hostility towards Christianity or you are an undercover atheist that's trying to make evangelicals look stupid.  I imagine you are the former, but that's just a guess. 

As for me, I'm sick of all this religious nonsense.  I'm not in favor of dismissing any kind of thought or idea as ridiculous without critical examination.  But I don't have the energy to do that here.  I'm just so sick of debating religion.  Its not worth it.  The vast majority of the world will always have absurd beliefs and they will continue to try to convince others of these absurdities.  Reasoning with them about it is not a real option.  But can we do nothing other than allow this dangerous charade to continue?  For christ's sake...our president thinks that 'god is on his side'.....and most people agree with him.

Nietzsche was wrong....God isn't dead.....reason is.

[mindfulwhim]

Just make sure you are being as pious as possible when you are dropping napalm on poor families or sticking that bayonette into the ribs of your enemy..and twisting it. I'm sure your god loves state sanctioned mass murder.

The irony is as subtle as a freight train, and that's what makes me sick.

[lingus]

So, now that we've reached the end of the Church age so to speak, what's a good moral compass?

What I find fascinating is the fact that anyone believes that the church--any church--was ever a particularly good moral compass. Or at least that people are capable of following it.

From my own experience, I honestly cannot say that the "godly" people I've known have been any more compassionate or ethical than anyone else. By this I mean that plenty of so-called atheists are very good people, just as are plenty of the faithful. No more of one than the other.

So the question is, do we really need such moral compasses at all, especially when they cause so much strife in the world?