A true Liberal Arts College

ParkMom said:
Hornet Guy, I understand the reasons behind why the whiteboard was wiped. I have some memory of the issues in the past with the Christian evangelicals. That was then. One whiteboard with a bible verse does not herald a return to that. And that is why I found the response of the cadets so appropriate. If this cadet made a habit of these whiteboard sermons, then yes, action was needed. I question why 'an email' was sent to Mr. Weinstein instead of being handled internally.

I'm sorry if some cadets find reading bible verses threatening (and understanding, again, the historical context for that). I imagine their discomfort is similar to mine when I hear the Ft. Hood massacre called 'workplace violence'' or having "so help me God' removed from the oath. As long as personal discomfort is as far as it goes, with no proselytizing from the cadet in question. So, now, no "Have a Nice Day" or "Good Luck on Finals" or even "BEAT ARMY" on the whiteboards. PC rules!
Click to expand...

Raimius and I are discussing this more, we don't even know the timeline. Was the "revolt" after the policy decision made by the chain of command. Was the call to MRFF after the "revolt" rather than in response to the initial quote? What is the actual order of events. That would be really telling.

Here's the thing, your perceptions make clear your position and bias. "so help me God" was not removed from the oath, it was made optional. Went from potential religious coercion to religious neutral. All parties 'should' be happy (but apparently we must make atheists say "so help me God" in your opinion?). Someone at USAFA found the use of biblical quotes on whiteboards inappropriate. Maybe USAFA leadership made the decision to keep common areas religion neutral and then cadets revolted - leading us to this interesting escalation. It's unclear what order things happened in.

So rather than celebrating a military group "revolting" at their leadership (because I really don't like the idea of military members and future officers "revolting" against military policy), I'd rather get the full facts. Short of that, USAFA made a GOOD policy decision that shouldn't be considered part of some non-sense PC crusade.
 
raimius said:
Sometimes it takes a little bit of guts to tell someone you think they are wrong. If you can't do that over some words on a white board, what are you going to do when lives are at stake?
Click to expand...
Seriously? It's not "guts" that is required here.....it's having the wisdom to know which subjects can be discussed without opening yourself up to legal issues. Again....supposedly 29 cadets and four faculty and staff members chose to call/write Mikey Weinstein. Wonder how many had the "guts" to have a respectful conversation with the cadet that posted on the whiteboard? If any....it didn't seem to "resolve" the problem.

BTW - does the fact that these cadets, faculty and staff members chose to contact Mr Weinsein indicate to you that they will not have enough "guts" when lives are at stake?
 
HornetGuy, let me clarify. I never expected everyone to be forced to say 'so help me, God'. I'm sorry I wasn't clear on that. If I remember correctly, the push was to REMOVE the phrase. It was always optional, wasn't it? Removing the phrase is my objection. I believe the cadet 'revolt' (please understand I am using Mr Weinstein's word) was a response after the whiteboard was cleared. I think the cadets response was in done in the same spirit as 'Mustache March'.
 
aglages said:
Seriously? It's not "guts" that is required here.....it's having the wisdom to know which subjects can be discussed without opening yourself up to legal issues. Again....supposedly 29 cadets and four faculty and staff members chose to call/write Mikey Weinstein. Wonder how many had the "guts" to have a respectful conversation with the cadet that posted on the whiteboard? If any....it didn't seem to "resolve" the problem.

BTW - does the fact that these cadets, faculty and staff members chose to contact Mr Weinsein indicate to you that they will not have enough "guts" when lives are at stake?
Click to expand...

I don't go to USAFA and I don't know the 29 people who sent Mr. Weinstein an email. But based on my experiences here at USMA, it's not hard to imagine that there might be a group of cadets there that support his views. When one member of that group sees the whiteboard and takes a picture, then sends it to the group, you could very easily get 29 emails from cadets who never even walked down that hallway.
 
ParkMom said:
HornetGuy, let me clarify. I never expected everyone to be forced to say 'so help me, God'. I'm sorry I wasn't clear on that. If I remember correctly, the push was to REMOVE the phrase. It was always optional, wasn't it? Removing the phrase is my objection. I believe the cadet 'revolt' (please understand I am using Mr Weinstein's word) was a response after the whiteboard was cleared. I think the cadets response was in done in the same spirit as 'Mustache March'.
Click to expand...

Perhaps in practice, it may have not been enforced (I never saw anyone not say God), but the official oath included "so help me God" and there was no clause or guidance that it was optional. Weinstein may have wanted it removed, and many on the other side of the "debate" demanded it remain mandatory. USAFA made the RIGHT and PROFESSIONAL judgement to make it optional as to be inclusive for all cadets.

http://www.usafa.af.mil/news/story.asp?id=123368388

I realize revolt is his word. But it's being cooped, and for lack of a better word, I think it's good shorthand for the "broad choice to violate AF policy by cadets." That said, we STILL don't know the order of events. If they are revolting because USAFA instituted a business only clause, I find their reaction immature.

Mustache March was based on Olds' sporting of a wildly out of regs mustache while deployed to Vietnam to stick it to the man. TODAY'S mustache march is a command endorsed competition with 'staches within strict regs. I think the meaning was lost a long time ago.
 
hornetguy said:
Perhaps in practice, it may have not been enforced (I never saw anyone not say God), but the official oath included "so help me God" and there was no clause or guidance that it was optional. Weinstein may have wanted it removed, and many on the other side of the "debate" demanded it remain mandatory. USAFA made the RIGHT and PROFESSIONAL judgement to make it optional as to be inclusive for all cadets.

http://www.usafa.af.mil/news/story.asp?id=123368388

I realize revolt is his word. But it's being cooped, and for lack of a better word, I think it's good shorthand for the "broad choice to violate AF policy by cadets." That said, we STILL don't know the order of events. If they are revolting because USAFA instituted a business only clause, I find their reaction immature.

Mustache March was based on Olds' sporting of a wildly out of regs mustache while deployed to Vietnam to stick it to the man. TODAY'S mustache march is a command endorsed competition with 'staches within strict regs. I think the meaning was lost a long time ago.
Click to expand...


I saw some posts on FB, which have since been removed, that leads me to believe the cadet response is not a reaction to the new policy, but in response to the removal of the bible verse. Which is why I think it was done in the same spirit as BG Olds' to 'stick it to the man' that man being Mr Weinstein.
 
ParkMom said:
I saw some posts on FB, which have since been removed, that leads me to believe the cadet response is not a reaction to the new policy, but in response to the removal of the bible verse. Which is why I think it was done in the same spirit as BG Olds' to 'stick it to the man' that man being Mr Weinstein.
Click to expand...

BUT, I'm not sure he incited the initial removal. "29 cadets and 4 faculty contacting" Weinstein seems way overkill for a single quote. I could be wrong, but I can't find a real answer. My impression is that he became involved AFTER the "revolt." IF that's the case, then the man they were 'sticking it to' was USAFA leadership and not Weinstein.
 
hornetguy said:
BUT, I'm not sure he incited the initial removal. "29 cadets and 4 faculty contacting" Weinstein seems way overkill for a single quote. I could be wrong, but I can't find a real answer. My impression is that he became involved AFTER the "revolt." IF that's the case, then the man they were 'sticking it to' was USAFA leadership and not Weinstein.
Click to expand...

after watching everything unfold on FB last night, it seems like the sequence of events was:

Post->complaint->removal->article->"revolt"->updated policy
 
BigBear said:
after watching everything unfold on FB last night, it seems like the sequence of events was:

Post->complaint->removal->article->"revolt"->updated policy
Click to expand...

"revolt" is the right usage here. I think the problems will really start tomorrow night though, i hear some cadets planned a riot after retreat formation.

But in all honesty, i think it's been blown waaaaaaaay out of proportion by the media.
 
BigBear said:
after watching everything unfold on FB last night, it seems like the sequence of events was:

Post->complaint->removal->article->"revolt"->updated policy
Click to expand...

That was my impression as well. I don't think Mr Weinstein would miss out on a chance to complain about a whole lotta religious quotes, and I don't think Fox News reporter would not have not reported on his complaining. The statements in the article don't fit numerous quotes. Only 1.

Edit - Only 1 quote. Hate typing on this iPad.
 
Last edited:
It looks to me like it was post->complaint->erase->article->"revolt" (Not sure, but maybe "Policy" after that).

That said, I've seen the media screw up even simple details. Did you know the AF is trying to retire a Navy plane that was retired more than a decade ago?! :rolleyes:
 
Also rumor mill has it that the original white board now has a picture of Robert Downy Jr. and "That escalated quickly!"

:yllol:
 
Much Ado

I'm not religious, but the words "I have been crucified with Christ therefore I no longer live, but Christ lives in me," aren't very concerning. As an Atheist I share some of the concerns of candidates (and it would appear some cadets as well) who are wary of evangelism at the Academy, but this is not one of them.

Removal of certain parts of oaths are good, as being required to pay religious homage is effectively an establishment of religion. But...

My entire thought process upon seeing this quote would be a resounding 'Meh.' Walk down hallway, see quote, read quote, move on. Some religious quotes I may have concern with if they are inciting hate or violence, and some may provoke some internal cynicism if they are particularly antiquated, but this quote is obviously neither of those.

As an Atheist, I don't see the issue with people expressing their views in public. I do not feel under assault by these words. I don't believe in what they advocate, true, but how does that hurt me?

Overreacting like this only makes atheists less credible, in my opinion, which I of course want to avoid.
Live and let Live, Serve and let Serve.

And now back to waiting for that email...
 
Treeman said:
Overreacting like this only makes atheists less credible, in my opinion, which I of course want to avoid.
Click to expand...
You are aware the Mikey Weinstein is Jewish and not an atheist....correct? While these specific words may not offend you.....they may offend others. How should the military determine which religious passages might be offensive to some people?
 
Treeman said:
As an Atheist, I don't see the issue with people expressing their views in public. I do not feel under assault by these words. I don't believe in what they advocate, true, but how does that hurt me?

Overreacting like this only makes atheists less credible, in my opinion, which I of course want to avoid.
Live and let Live, Serve and let Serve.

And now back to waiting for that email...
Click to expand...

Just some food for thought: If it's not proselytizing, i'm perfectly OK with people exercising their religion. But this is hilarious because even if it was, threatening an atheist with hell is a useless exercise. After all, if i dont believe in it, how can it be a threat to me?

I say just leave people alone. The cadet left a quote on their personal whiteboard, not handed out flyers. I wish certain people would stop blowing it out of proportion or go through Public Affairs to make statements.
 
aglages said:
You are aware the Mikey Weinstein is Jewish and not an atheist....correct? While these specific words may not offend you.....they may offend others. How should the military determine which religious passages might be offensive to some people?
Click to expand...

Is this really any different than any other passage or quote that somenone might put up? There are plenty of polarizing schools of thought out there that have nothing to do with religion...

or what if the original passage had been from any other faith? Call me cynical, but I have a hard time believing there would be this much outcry if the quote in question wasn't Christian
 
BigBear said:
Call me cynical, but I have a hard time believing there would be this much outcry if the quote in question wasn't Christian
Click to expand...
Cynical! I don't think you will see quotes from religions other than Christianity at USAFA. I've never seen or heard of any being reported...by cadets or the news media. I think the "problem" is that evangelical and fundamental Christians seem to have a need to publicly "share" their religious beliefs. JMPO...
 
aglages said:
Cynical! I don't think you will see quotes from religions other than Christianity at USAFA. I've never seen or heard of any being reported...by cadets or the news media. I think the "problem" is that evangelical and fundamental Christians seem to have a need to publicly "share" their religious beliefs. JMPO...
Click to expand...

1/3 to 1/2 the whiteboards I saw posted today had quotes from the Qu'ran, Torah, Buddhist philosophy, etc...

What about quotes from Patton, Vince Lombardi, or other famous figures who's philosophy might not sit well with someone? What about someone with a gay pride flag, pro-2nd amendment poster, or even rival pro sports team poster? All of those things could conceivably make someone else uncomfortable.

The point I'm trying to make is that part of diversity includes that pesky majority. Is it really fair to go after people who put up bible verses without going after anyone who puts up any other polarizing philosophy?
 
aglages said:
Cynical! I don't think you will see quotes from religions other than Christianity at USAFA. I've never seen or heard of any being reported...by cadets or the news media. I think the "problem" is that evangelical and fundamental Christians seem to have a need to publicly "share" their religious beliefs. JMPO...
Click to expand...

http://www.theblaze.com/wp-content/uploads/2014/03/verse6.jpg
Granted, the citation is a little off, and it was a response to this whole issue...
Also:
http://www.theblaze.com/wp-content/uploads/2014/03/verse7.jpg
http://www.theblaze.com/wp-content/uploads/2014/03/verse3-493x620.jpg

The "Go flying spaghetti monster!" note made me chuckle.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top