More evidence of America's Fundamentalist-Military Pact?

I first heard about this on NPR-
Air Force Academy Embroiled in Religious Controversy and Non-Christians Claim Bias at Air Force Academy

I agree that part of this is bottom-up, starting with the cadets and not a clear policy from up high. That said, the policies of the those in charge of the academy seem to me a bit permissive on these policies- to the point of reassigning an officer critical of their choices.

He said he admonished the academy's No. 2 commander, Brig. Gen. Johnny Weida, a born-again Christian, for sending an e-mail promoting National Prayer Day.

...one of the top chaplains at the school claims she was fired because she criticized what she saw as proselytizing at the academy.

To be honest, there has been a rise in the level of religiousity on my campus. I would be surprised if this wasn't true elsewhere, including the academies. But as the military has often been conservative, this is disturbing.

@ John- I will take a look at my old Con Law books this week and respond to that. Remember that the originally the Bill of Rights was something that bound the federal government and not the states. The 14th Amendment changes that.

And merely because the Declaration of Independence quotes God, as citing to the source of fundamental rights under natural law, doesn't make it a Christian document.
 
Kharn said:
If you're arguing against a secular state, what exactly are you arguing for?
In the Supreme Court, there's a mural that has Confucious, Muhammed, Moses mit the 10 Commandments, and a few other religious or borderline religious figures. I don't believe we should construct monuments to the 10 Commandments at night in the courts of our land, simply recognize that America is an extremley religious nation and that religion will have an impact upon our law and morality. Frankly, I don't think the European seperation of Church and State would work here, and I think the ACLU is wrongheaded to even try.
 
Bradylama said:
Lazarus Plus said:
As an American, I'd just like to say that I've read 1984. and because of it I'm beginning to get a little terrified of what the Administration thinks is a good idea.

Department of Homeland Security? I thought we had something for that already, called the Department of Defense?

<sigh>

1984! 1984!

THE FUTURE IS HAPPENING OH MY GOD!

You ever bother to read the Patriot Act?

Perhaps you should, then you'd know what I'm talking about.
 
No, you see, I know what you're talking about. What I'm trying to point out is the rediculous practice of referencing 1984 whenever somebody thinks something oppressive is going to happen.

Instead of actually explaining why these things are bad, or why you think they would lead to 1984-esque conditions, you reference the title of a book. Bravo. You are so much less of an ignorant American for reading a piece of literature that is more often than not, required reading.
 
Bradylama said:
No, you see, I know what you're talking about. What I'm trying to point out is the rediculous practice of referencing 1984 whenever somebody thinks something oppressive is going to happen.

Instead of actually explaining why these things are bad, or why you think they would lead to 1984-esque conditions, you reference the title of a book. Bravo. You are so much less of an ignorant American for reading a piece of literature that is more often than not, required reading.

Wasn't required reading at MY high school, champ.

I read it on my free time, like I read Stranger in a Strange Land, Starship Troopers, and tons of other books besides. I dislike the snide implication that I was force-fed (simply by virtue of being American) all the literature I know.
 
That has nothing to do with my point.

Lazarus Plus said:
As an American, I'd just like to say that I've read 1984.

You are implying that being an American, reading 1984 is a unique phenomenon. It isn't.
 
Maybe he was implying that being an American and reading was a phenomenon.

Hur. Hur. Hur.
 
Bradylama said:
That has nothing to do with my point.

Lazarus Plus said:
As an American, I'd just like to say that I've read 1984.

You are implying that being an American, reading 1984 is a unique phenomenon. It isn't.

What I mean is that because I'm an American, I can see what's happening in my own country. And it reminds me of 1984. Obviously it's not that overt, probably it will never become that overt. But still, what they have done is a definite beginning to the erosion of freedom in my country. I dislike it, but I don't see that there is very much I can do. Of course there are things I can *DO*, but they aren't very effective and never have been. Especially since (inconceivably) more than 53% of voters went with Bush.
 
It's good to see that some americans can apply real criticism to the conditions of their country (without being paranoid assholes like some people on the forums).
And Wikipedia is far from being a source of solid informations.

Btw, someone said something about a woman in Italy being arrested for writing a book. I can assure you that this is BULLSHIT. That kind of things maybe happen in 'the land of the free', but not here.

We don't base our society on corporations and lawyers, but Mafia and Religion, and things work much better for us this way.


'Cause we have the pope to set things straight. Go Benedetto go! ...yeah, go to hell.



Oh, if none of this made any sense to you, it's because you probably lifted the veil of sarcasm on my words. Oops!
I thought that posting something serious in a thread with CCR and Bradylama would cause a system crash in their schematic vision of the world, so I avoided seriousness.

Disestablishmentarianism.
See what happens here in Italy and you'll notice it doesn't work.
We put the Pope in an enclave called Vatican to keep our state laic, yet he intrudes every important matter of italian politics, like for example our soon-to-be referendum about the liberalization of medically assisted procreation, by suggesting to every good catholic not to vote, so that the quorum isn't reached and the referendum fails. Funny, right?
And the same thing happens wherever a government feels that the help of a group of interest as influent as a church might be of any use to its purposes. Nothing new. Anti-semitism? Wow, we're still such a stupid bunch of shitty animals that we discuss about races? Racist are even still among us? Hey I though we had evolved a bit...

Now, back to my beer...

p.s.:Whoever desires to found a state and give it laws, must start with assuming that all men are bad and ever ready to display their vicious nature, whenever they may find occasion for it.



EDIT: if I offended someone with my post, they are free to fuck off.
 
I thought that posting something serious in a thread with CCR and Bradylama would cause a system crash in their schematic vision of the world, so I avoided seriousness.

You know, just because your country smells like shit doesn't mean you get to be an asshole.

Serious. ;(

I can see how you'd be pissed off at the Pope and your idiot countrymen, but we listen to Pat Robertson here.
 
Whoops too much vatting there.

I wrote-
Elric- interesting post about Italy. I am curious how Italy deals with the religious conservatives. Our's tend to get cable television stations, communities in Florida with golf courses and diamond mines in shitty African countries.

Then added this bit which I thought raises the question- how deep does the Christian influence on the US military go?

So back to the issue-

America's Religious Right - Saints or Subversives?
By Steve Weissman
t r u t h o u t | Investigation

Part I: The Lure of Christian Nationalism

Wednesday 06 April 2005

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof...
-- First Amendment to the United States Constitution
The Government of the United States of America is not, in any sense founded on the Christian religion.
-- Treaty of Tripoli, signed on June 10, 1797, by President John Adams.(1)

When Lt. Gen. William G. "Jerry" Boykin boasted that his God was bigger than Islam's, many people demanded his scalp. But, as angry as his critics were, they dismissed what he said as little more than military machismo, political insensitivity, and bone-headed public relations. How could we possibly win Muslim hearts and minds when this highly decorated Crusader so callously belittled Allah?

Few critics asked the tougher question: What did Gen. Boykin's remarks mean for the U.S. Constitution, which he had sworn to support and defend, and which - in the very first words of the First Amendment - forbids any "establishment of religion?"

Dressed in full military uniform with his spit-polished paratroop boots, Boykin spoke to at least 23 evangelical groups around the country, proclaiming that America was "a Christian nation."

"We in the army of God, in the house of God, kingdom of God have been raised for such a time as this," he declared. "[Our] spiritual enemy will only be defeated if we come against them in the name of Jesus."

Defending Boykin, Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld carefully cast the issue as one of free speech and religious freedom, both of which the First Amendment guarantees.

"There are a lot of things that are said by people that are their views," said Rumsfeld, "and that's the way we live. We are free people and that's the wonderful thing about our country, and I think for anyone to run around and think that can be managed or controlled is probably wrong."

But, in expressing his beliefs, Gen. Boykin spoke as a high-ranking official. A former commander and 13-year veteran of the top-secret Delta Force, he had recently become deputy undersecretary of defense for intelligence, the Pentagon's top uniformed spook. In that post, he helped expand American torture at Abu Ghraib and currently oversees the Pentagon's worldwide covert operations, including the widely reported "death squads."

Nor was Gen. Boykin simply passing comment on the religious and cultural heritage of his fellows Americans. Instead, the evangelical general directly challenged the plain language of the Constitution and over 200 years of Supreme Court decisions maintaining what Thomas Jefferson called "the separation of church and state."

A Christian Nation

With all their many sects and denominations, American evangelicals differ on all sorts of questions, from when Jesus Christ will return to the proper way to run a church. But most Southern Baptists and Pentecostals share the belief, more political than religious, that America once was and should again become a Christian nation.

This is Christian nationalism, and no one has done more to popularize it than an energetic young man named David Barton. A self-taught historian, he has dredged up hundreds of fascinating historical quotes and anecdotes in an effort to prove that the founding fathers were primarily "orthodox, evangelical Christians" who intended to create a God-fearing Christian government.

Barton's books, videos, and Wallbuilders website are wildly popular on the religious right, and his views have become gospel for Pat Robertson's Christian Coalition, James Dobson's Focus on the Family, Jerry Falwell's Liberty University, D. James Kennedy's Coral Ridge Ministries, Phyllis Schafly's Eagle Forum, and hundreds of Christian radio and TV stations.

In 2002, Barton appeared on Pat Robertson's 700 Club armed with a stack of books and historical artifacts.

"This is the book that the founders said they used in writing the Declaration ... John Locke's Two Treatises of Civil Government, from 1765," he showed Robertson. "This quotes the Bible 1,700 times to show the proper operation of civil government. No wonder we have had a successful government - 226 years we celebrate this year. There are 1700 Bible verses at the base of what they did in writing the Declaration."

"So," said Barton, "this nonsense that these guys wanted a secular nation, that they didn't want any God in government, it doesn't hold up."

Robertson asked about a Revolutionary War motto.

"The motto ... was 'No king but King Jesus,'" said Barton. "It was built actually on what Jefferson and Franklin had proposed as the national motto, which is, 'Rebellion to tyrants is obedience to God.'"

To his credit, Barton highlights the religious side of the American Revolution that conventional historians often overlook. But to his critics, Barton's hyperactive enthusiasm quickly outruns any historical expertise he might have. He ignores mountains of evidence that contradict what he wants to believe. He relies on second- and third-hand sources, often with a religious agenda of their own. He fails to put much of anything in context. He misquotes and distorts Supreme Court decisions. And, he confuses his present-day evangelical faith with the very different religious sentiments of earlier times.

Even more galling to his critics, Barton systematically fails to see that many, if not most, of the founders were men of the 17th and 18th Century Enlightenment, who consciously rejected any literal interpretation of the Bible. To the degree they had religious faith, and many did, they believed in a God who - like a cosmic watchmaker - created the world and its natural laws, and then played no further part.

Deism, as they called their belief, runs unmistakably through the Declaration of Independence, in which Thomas Jefferson wrote of the "the Laws of Nature and of Nature's God" rather than of the personal, miracle-working God of David Barton's Christianity.

To cite only one example:

I have recently been examining all the known superstitions of the world, and do not find in our particular superstition [Christianity] one redeeming feature. They are all alike, founded upon fables and mythologies. (Letter to Dr. Woods)
Barton short-changes this Enlightenment philosophy. At one point, he even claimed that Jefferson wanted his wall of separation to work in only one direction. "Government will not run the church," Barton paraphrased him, "but we will still use Christian principles with government." Jefferson never said anything of the kind, as Barton was later forced to admit.

Similarly, he quoted "the father of the Constitution," James Madison:

We have staked the future of all of our political institutions upon the capacity of each and all of us to govern ourselves according to the Ten Commandments of God.
No one could find where Madison ever said anything close. In fact, in the debate over religious freedom in Virginia, he said the opposite, advocating "total separation of the church from the state." Again, Barton had to back down.

Rob Boston, of Americans United for Separation of Church and State, is perhaps Barton's most persistent critic, and accuses him of "factual errors, half truths and distortions." Boston has published a list of 12 bogus quotations that Barton has admitted getting wrong.

But Barton suffers a bigger glitch. His "history" undermines his conclusion. The more he can show the founders as Christian in their personal convictions, the less he can answer the obvious: Why, then, did they leave out of the Constitution any mention of God, Jesus Christ, or Christianity? And why did they explicitly reject any religious test for public office, which many of the colonies had enforced?

The explanation is simple. Whatever their religious beliefs, their political philosophy led the founders to move in a different, revolutionary direction. Because they had seen religious conflict and repression first hand, and knew of the bloody religious wars in Europe, the authors of the Constitution set out purposely NOT to create a Christian nation. And they did it by prohibiting both the establishment of a national church and the mixing of God and government.

Succeeding generations have maintained the wall only imperfectly, as when Congress put the words "under God" in the Pledge of Allegiance during the Cold War hysteria of the 1950s. But, until recently, the vast majority of Americans paid at least lip service to the separation of church and state, and no one more fervently than Southern Baptists and Pentecostals, who feared that Episcopalians, Congregationalists, Catholics, and others might use the power of the state against them.

Now growing rapidly while the more established denominations decline, the evangelicals suddenly see a chance to bend government to their will. This likely explains why they have reversed their belief in separation and adopted a radically new understanding of American history.

As for David Barton, he became vice-chairman of the Texas Republican Party, which has committed itself officially to declare the United States "a Christian nation" and "dispel the myth of separation of church and state." He also took a job in 2004 with the Bush-Cheney campaign, which hired him to tour the country spreading his Christian nationalism to evangelical groups, the very people who cheered General Jerry Boykin as their "Onward, Christian Soldier."

also BOykin is mentioned-

http://www.yuricareport.com/Dominionism/InfiltratingTheUSMilitaryGenBoykinsWarriors.html[/quote]

at which point John responded-
John Uskglass said:
welsh, that own article does spinning of it's own. Tripoli would not admit defeat to a Christian nation, as that would be a big hit to prestige, but it could admit defeat to another type of nation. And it did not rebuke the obvious fact on John Locke.

And I'd just like to say that any one who believes the founding fathers where secular humanists deserves to have thier head blown up Scanners style. I cancelled my subscription to Esquire for that exact reason.
 
welsh, that own article does spinning of it's own. Tripoli would not admit defeat to a Christian nation, as that would be a big hit to prestige, but it could admit defeat to another type of nation. And it did not rebuke the obvious fact on John Locke.

And I'd just like to say that any one who believes the founding fathers where secular humanists deserves to have thier head blown up Scanners style. I cancelled my subscription to Esquire for that exact reason.
 
As an American, I'd just like to say that I've read 1984.

Theres a fair bit of brave new world about the situation too, they don't need to oppress people they can just show them pimp my ride 30 times and then distract them with shiny chrome.
 
duc said:
As an American, I'd just like to say that I've read 1984.

Theres a fair bit of brave new world about the situation too, they don't need to oppress people they can just show them pimp my ride 30 times and then distract them with shiny chrome.

Yeah, but the fact of the matter is that it's easier to pull the hood over everyone's eyes, then pull it OFF once they can't do anything about it. Not keep the hood on, the way they did in Brave New World.
 
Back
Top