To add to what Michael wrote about the Air Force’s suspension of the class called “Christian Just War Theory” taught by chaplains at Vandenberg Air Force Base: Never mind that for literally centuries just-war theory has played a critical role in military history and military ethics. Never mind that just-war principles underly not just the Geneva and Hague conventions but also the U.N. Charter itself. Never mind that just-war theory is critically important to thousands of current American service members and that questions about just-war theory are common and recurring (I heard them while deployed to Iraq). All of that is less important, apparently, than the fact that a few delicate souls were offended by a PowerPoint.
The Fox News article contains this astounding quote from Air Force spokesman David Smith:
“In an effort to serve all faiths, we try to introduce none in our briefings and our lectures,” Smith told Fox News Radio. “Once we heard there were concerns, we looked at the course and said we could do better.”
Our military is comprised of hundreds of thousands of Christians and thousands of members of other faiths (and thousands of atheists as well). They come from different intellectual and spiritual traditions, and the government is emphatically not “serving” them when it essentially acts as if they — or their ideas — don’t exist.
The chief complainant, Mikey Weinstein of the Military Religious Freedom Foundation, declared that had the course not been pulled, he would have filed “an immediate class action lawsuit.” He further declared that the Constitution “absolutely separates church and state.” It does no such thing, and it’s a shame that the Air Force has capitulated (for now, at least). Mr. Weinstein’s lawsuit would have faced very, very long odds in federal court.
Remember when so-called conservatives deferred to the military on how best to serve its members? Now we have arm-chair pundits dictating to the Air Force how best to teach the students? And you're in a better position to make this determination how exactly, Mr. French?
Reply to this commentLinkReport Abusebetter than arm-chair atheists dictating ...
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseNo, I don't remember, please explain what you mean and how whatever you are talking about is analogous to this situation.
The analogy you are trying to make here does not work: Mr. French isn't telling the military what to do; he is saying that the military should not capitulate to an nonsensical complaint from a member of the service.
Those points aside, I do like the irony of someone who is areligious --not of another religion mind you, but someone who does not believe in God at all-- complaining about the presence of religious doctrine wherein there is no effort or pretense to convert or make him concede that he is lesser than nonbelievers. I have never been bothered by something that I truly do not care about.
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseSure, I'll remind you of a few examples:
-Many liberals talking heads have been banging about lifting Don't Ask Don't Tell for a decade. The mantra from conservatives until about six months ago was that we should defer to the military. (It's another irony that people like McCain stopped deferring to the military as soon as the military said DADT should be lifted.)
-Many liberal pundits questioned the military's interrogation techniques after Abu Ghraib and Gitmo. They were told that it's the military who's in the best decision to determine whether these techniques work or not.
-Many liberal pundits questioned the surge and whether it was working. Again, the refrain was that the military professionals understood better than anyone whether the surge was working and they shouldn't be second-guessed.
-Similarly, when Obama authorized the Afghanistan surge, many lefties questioned it. Again, they were told that the military should be trusted.
The point is that you have NO idea what the facts are here. Perhaps this one soldier made a stink, but others privately griped. Sure the course title sounds anodyne, but perhaps the chaplains were inserting more overt religious topics into the course and were subtly encouraging a particular religious viewpoint, making many soldiers uncomfortable? The point is that the military made a decision here, and I don't think it's our place to sit here and second-guess without knowing all that much. My other point is that I find it galling when conservatives, who normally appropriately take this approach with respect to military decision-making, abandon it as soon as they make a decision they don't like.
Reply to this commentLinkReport Abuse"He further declared that the Constitution `absolutely separates church and state.' It does no such thing"
Indeed, although an ignorant Brit, I believe it simply states "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, [or prohibiting the free exercise thereof]" where the latter is often forgotten. They had in mind an established church along the lines of the Church of England, established by law. Perhaps more interesting, and relevant to the debt discussions, I noticed that many that press the separation of church and state as being contrary to the Constitution seem perfectly happy having the Federal Government exercise powers in areas that are nowhere given it by the same Constitution! But perhaps that is merely my own ignorance.
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseI find it even more amusing when religious leaders call for having the government tax others to do the work they say they are called to do. Like minister to the poor and infirm.
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseMickey Weinstein's understanding of the "separation of church and state" would, ironically, render the Declaration of Independence "unconstitutional", referencing as it does the "Creator" and "Nature's God".
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseOf course the Declaration of Independence is not law, and cannot be "unconstitutional" any more than "Moby Dick" can be. Even if that were somehow possible, since the Constitution came 13 years later it would have superceded it anyway.
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseExternal Link
This doesn't strike me as unconstitutional....more historical. Just so happens that the course is being taught by a chaplain, who has the most experience in ethics and spiritual counseling on a very tough subject. Been there done that. (link has actual presentation)
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseIf one of our services taught a theory of warfare as expounded by L. Ron Hubbard, then I'd be worried. But Christian just war theory is an essential for a Western military man to know. It may pain atheists, but we are a nation the vast majority of whose fighting men are and have always been Christian.
Being taught an essential part of military history is hardly the same as being required, for example, to attend Christian services. When I went to the War College, we studied St. Augustine, Sun Tzu, and, for that matter, Erwin Rommel. Didn't make us Catholic priests or Confucian or Nazis.
Things may be different at Vandenberg, but I sincerely doubt that there was even a hint of proselytizing. What I do catch is a big old dose of cowardice on the part of the Air Force.
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseYahtzee! And by that I do not intend --in any way-- to attempt to convert you to a "Dice Gamian."
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseSo in an effort to serve all faiths, a "no faith" faith is considered. Great.
Our military will fight and die for one nation, under (fill in the blank here), completely divisible, with lawsuits and non-sectarianism for all (whether you like or not).
And change the name of the class to the Whatever War theory. That way no one will get their feathers ruffled and we can discuss why we don't know why we fight. After all, just-ness in war is now in the eye of the beholder.
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseThat statement "Our military is comprised of hundreds of thousands of Christians and thousands of members of other faiths (and thousands of atheists as well)" is wrong.
It is comprised of MILLIONS of Christians, and thousands of members of other faiths (and thousands of atheists as well).
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseWait a minute--where are you getting your figures--there are less than 3 million members of the Armed Services which includes active and Reserves. Let's not be exaggerating numbers.
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseDavid, as I recall, there have been some pretty significant religion-related scandals at the Air Force Academy in the past, with formal reports finding that some in the Academy leadership and student officers put significant pressure on cadets to join particular churches, inappropriate proselytizing of cadets by senior officers (including the commander), etc. While no single incident was serious, the cumulative effect of them raised concerns that the officers were indeed crossing the line and attempting to use their official positions and formal authority in order to push their faith on those in their charge.
Because of this past, I'd like more information about what was going on in this course. I certainly agree with you that the just war doctrine is fundamentally a Christian doctrine (and, frankly a Catholic one at that), and there should be nothing wrong with quoting Bible verses in that context. Lord knows I have no patience with the organized groups that want to force the removal of all religious references from the public sphere. But I looked fairly closely at the report on the Air Force Academy establishment of religion issues from about 5 years ago, and I came away with the sense that the culture of the Academy did not fully respect the concept that military officers ought not pressure their subordinates to adopt a particular religion, or use their government-issued authority to promote their own particular religion. So I would like more details before reaching a conclusion on this matter.
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseWould this post have offended anyone had it been (more accurately) titled "Angry Jews Strike Again"?
Note that the Fox news articles makes no mention of any atheist involved in the suit, nor is MRFF an atheist organization. And the chief complainant, Mickey Weinstein "was named one of the 50 most influential Jews in America by the Forward," according to MRFF's website.
I'll be the first to admit that certain atheist activists deserve derision for their anti-religious rhetoric, counterproductive nuisance lawsuits etc. But most of us non-believers would simply like to live in a society where people like French didn't scapegoat us and stereotype us with total impunity.
Reply to this commentLinkReport Abusethe MRFF is not an atheist organization? Give me a break. That's like saying the German-American Bundt was not a Nazi organization, or that CAIR is not an islamofascist organization. Or saying that people For the American Way believes in free speech. Grow up, it may preach religious freedom, but it is a godless group, through and through.
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseSo basically, it's an atheist group because you say it is? Or maybe you define atheist as anyone who disagrees with you over the proper role of religion in a democracy. In which case -- thanks for proving my last point re scapegoating/stereotyping of atheists.
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseThe American military is no longer an organization of dedicated, patriotic Christian soldiers. The formerly tacit and now express admission of homosexuals is an invasion of the God-less left, which will infect every aspect of the military services. Kiss it good-bye, we are now the Dutch.
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseI was raised Jewish. I am agnostic now. I served this country in combat in the Marine Corps. Please do not refer to me as a Christian soldier.
Reply to this commentLinkReport Abuse