Lawsuit filed against USAFA Superintendent

Update - hearing today.

Judge to hear arguments on AF Academy prayer event

DENVER (AP) — A federal judge will hear arguments on whether to block a prayer luncheon planned at the Air Force Academy.

A hearing is scheduled for Tuesday in a lawsuit filed by five academy faculty members and the Military Religious Freedom Foundation.

The prayer luncheon is scheduled for Thursday.

The suit alleges the event is unconstitutional because it appears to be an endorsement of conservative Christianity by academy commanders, and because some faculty feel pressured to attend.

Academy officials say the event is sponsored by the chapel, not commanders, and that they've repeatedly told cadets and faculty that attendance is voluntary.
 
I really, truly, do not understand how the plaintiffs think they have a case. Talk about the need for "Tort Reform". This is one of those frivolous law suits. The type that shouldn't even be allowed into a court room. In the plaintiff's own argument, they quote the academy as saying:
“There will be readings by an IslamicAirman, a Jewish Airman, an African-American Christian Airman, a Jewish chaplain(rabbi), a Buddhist sensei and a Catholic chaplain (priest).
Click to expand...
Yet, the plaintiffs are ******** enough to claim in their argument: That it's the Command's endorsement of Christianity, because the guest speaker happens to be a hard line christian.The whine that the endorsement is apparent, because the Base Exchange (Which by the way is a PRIVATE RETAILER who happens to have a contract with the army and air force, but is a private company; happens to be selling the guest speaker's book. Therefor, they must be endorsing him. Well guess what; the BX sells a lot of books. I believe they still sell Penthouse and Playboy. Does this mean the BX and academy endorse them? No. It means they respect an individual's right to exercise the first amendment, just as much as the plaintiffs are whining that they aren't allowed to do.

It has been made quite clear that no one is being forced to attend. But for some reason, the plaintiffs believe the academy, the base, the Base Exchange, etc... shouldn't be supporting in any way, such an activity. Well; when the government stops supporting for an entire month "Black History Month", then the plaintiffs can legitimately biotch. The academy has made it clear, that this is NOT a "Christian" endorsement, but a recognition of "Religion in general", and the importance and impact that it's had on our nation and military. Numerous beliefs are represented. And it's quite clear that attendance is 100% voluntary. The plaintiffs should be made to pay all court costs and the case hopefully will be thrown out of court. And anyone who believes that anyone of these instructors and such are being indirectly coerced or forced to attend this function, is living in a land of make believe.

Again; plaintiffs scream and whine about first amendment rights; but obviously that only applies if THEY AGREE with the particular speech, beliefs, expression, etc... Apparently, it's not OK for others to exercise their 1st amendment rights. Damn hypocrites.
 
plaintiffs are ********
Click to expand...
This is truly offensive. Some of those plaintiffs are Officers in the US Air Force.

You are entilted to your opinion but consider this:
http://www.airforcetimes.com/news/2011/02/ap_air_acad_prayerluncheon_020711/

The academy said last week that Lt. Gen. Michael Gould, academy superintendent, told the cadets and faculty at a meeting that attendance at the prayer luncheon is voluntary.
“Let me just set something straight: this is totally voluntary,” Gould said in an account posted on the academy website. “If anybody — and I mean this — if anybody is feeling pressure from his or her supervisor or from anybody else to go to this, I want to know about it.”
Click to expand...
The key is if the Supe made this statement prior to or after the lawsuit was filed. I am inclined to think it was after. Too bad. He should have been proactive - an example of poor leadership in this case. IMO.
 
wow. this whole thing is totally bulls***. There is absolutley no case here. I have attended this exact event at the academy. It's an event based on the national event. (see http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/National_Prayer_Breakfast) There is absolutley nothing wrong with hosting this event, or endorsing it by Gen Gould or anyone else. In fact, most cadets and faculty cannot attend. So this whole "I feel pressured" is totally BS.

While calling plaintiffs ******** is immature, I can see where they're coming from. Especially those who are military officers should understand that they defend the right for people in our country to hold functions like this. If they don't like that right, then they're in the wrong business...
 
On a side-note, this guy was the back-up speaker. Considering Colin Powell was the primary speaker, I'm a bit baffled. Those two men have quite different ways of expressing themselves! If Colin Powell was still the primary speaker, I wonder if the lawsuit still would have occurred.
 
eagle36 said:
So this whole "I feel pressured" is totally BS.
Click to expand...

You may want to read this:

A letter from an Air Force Academy officer to the MRFF describes the situation and the atmosphere surrounding the luncheon in chilling detail:

We cannot breathe one word of protest against the "serious committed Christian" bias that exists here at the Air Force Academy everywhere. I have run this e-mail message by another dozen or so officers here at USAFA to make sure that I can speak for them as well. And I can. One word or even one tiny action against "them" and you and your career are labeled as an "outsider." Lt. Gen. Mike Gould says he wants us all to have "fanatical institutional pride" in the Air Force Academy. He tells all of us that. The way it is here, no one understands unless they're here and tuned in enough to be aware of it all.

Well, that "fanatical pride" is not considered proper unless it includes the right kind of "fanatical Christianity." What kind is that? Just the kind that is handed out by USMC Lt. McClary. I've heard him speak before and I know what he says and what he does to his audience. It made me sick then and will again when he speaks on Feb. 10 at the Falcon Club here at USAFA. Unless MRFF and your allies stop it from happening. If anyone of us beg to differ we're going to be hurt by the system here which is the people who are the "Christian" Christians. If that happens it's all over.

I am also an Air Force Academy graduate and pilot. I am married with kids and my wife and I are Protestants but try to keep it very on the down low because we know we'd be judged poorly for not being "energetic Christians" as my boss likes to say. Like the time my boss asked me if Jesus was in control of my life or if I felt that I was the one in control and then gave me some literature from Focus on the Family as a "gift."

It is also been made very clear that we are expected to support USAFA by personally attending this "National Prayer Luncheon." I saw in the news that the Academy is trying to downplay this whole mess which the MRFF brought to the public by saying that it's "voluntary" to go to it and that this USMC Lt. is a just "motivational speaker" and that "nobody will be taking names." LIES! My USAFA boss and even his boss left it very clear that if we didn't go to this "patriotic Christian" event we'd be "letting him down." Seriously, "patriotic Christian" event? That says it all.

Believe me please MRFF when I say that the names of the absent will very certainly be remembered. Am I going? In a word, hell yes. I have kids and need my job. I have been afraid too say anything to them for a very long time now. I've gotten good at hiding my hatred of it all. I'm used to it now. The feeling I have of being down for not standing up to the "energetic Christians" here is not as bad now as the feeling I would have of having my Air Force career derailed by a bad performance eval. You do not need to tell me what that makes me. I know what that makes me and I'm not proud of it.​
 
In defense of Gould, the higher you go up in ranks the more silent it becomes. That's just the system. He was Bullet's boss for a couple of yrs. Him and Phyllis are great people, and NEVER did I ever see them play the religious card. I have been to their home, it is not littered with crucifixes and bible versuses. He will toss back a beer and joke around just like anyone else.

Phyllis will too.

They are IMPO the sweetest, nicest people that exist in this world, and all they want is the AF to be a success. (She also had a career in the military...he went to work at the Pentagon as AD, she went as a active reservist...I believe she is an O6). They have not only dedicated their lives to the AF, but their 2 sons are AF officers. In other words, they believe in the AF and have for decades past and decades to come from a personal POV.

The fault is how the system works, when it goes up the ranks, crap is filtered out.

Now as far as that letter Luigi linked. I hate to say it, but it is true.

I have personally seen guys like that who say, bite your tongue. Smile politely and move on. Many know if they ruffle feathers, it could mean the difference between P and DP.

Stinks, s*cks, BS, etc. We all get that, BUT welcome to the real world! Anyone who spent 40 hrs in corporate America also knows you may disagree with your boss and their views, but if you want to collect that check and get promoted you bite your tongue, even if it means stitches because you bit it so hard.

The only difference between the military world and corporate...you salute sharply!

I agree with Raimius... your job is to protect that right.

OBTW CC didn't IMPO explain the BX far enough to illustrate how the BX is a non-issue.

BX's are NAFs. In other words Non-Appropriated Funding. They live and die by their profits, not by a base commander.

Finally JAM,

The key is if the Supe made this statement prior to or after the lawsuit was filed. I am inclined to think it was after. Too bad. He should have been proactive - an example of poor leadership in this case. IMO.
Click to expand...

You do not know this guy at all. I do. That inclination is way off the mark regarding him.

He not only was Bullet's boss, but he truly cared about every military member that reported to him.

Our DS still has his hand written note to him 24 hrs after he broke his arm, when Gould was a 2 star, on his 2 star stationary. (2003)

My In Laws still recall how he called them when they couldn't make it to Bullet's pin on for O5 where he swore him in, just to chat and include them on that day.

He also sat with Bullet, me, and our kids for a good 30-45 minutes prior to the ceremony...again just to chat.

He and Phyllis opened their house every yr for annual parties.

They attend every promotion party.

They were the epitome of the best leaders in the AF I could ever think of over the 20 yrs Bullet served.

I can tell you when we went to the USNA V AFA game 5 yrs later at Annapolis, he saw Bullet and gave him a hug. Phyllis looked at me, and said PIMA, OMG!

I can also say last spring when he saw him again, he sought Bullet out in front of a very large group for a very important function.

That is true leadership. He does care not only for the military member, but their family.

I am inclined that he wasn't handing out a BS line when he stated "If anybody — and I mean this — if anybody is feeling pressure from his or her supervisor or from anybody else to go to this, I want to know about it.” I know them, and I believe him. I have seen what is called Bible Bangers in the AF, he is not one of them.

The key is if the Supe made this statement prior to or after the lawsuit was filed. I am inclined to think it was after. Too bad. He should have been proactive - an example of poor leadership in this case. IMO.
Click to expand...
You have that right to say he was, I will respect it, but before you pass judgment or insinuations regarding this man, take time out and listen to cadets, parents and military members who actually know him personally. None of them on this site will follow your inclination he was doing a CYA.
 
Last edited:
Sorry Luigi; but just because some officer wrote something to the MRFF doesn't mean it legitimate, accurate, or even true. And I personally don't buy it. I've spent too much time in the military; and my son, in his 3rd year at the academy, is about as agnostic/atheist as they come; and neither he nor I in my 21 years, EVER felt pressured into attending such a function. Even my son has said that there's NEVER been any type of pressure from upper classmen concerning anything religious. And I doubt very much that the professors/staff are being pressured into this. Sorry; but I'm not buying it.

JAM; as for your comment. MOUNTAIN.....Molehill...... nuff said.
 
before you pass judgment or insinuations regarding this man, take time out and listen to cadets, parents and military members who actually know him personally.
Click to expand...
Kinda similiar to Capt Honors, isn't it? It doesn't matter.
 
Pima, I believe you, honestly. I am sure the Gould's are terrific people. I am sure he has been a fantastic leader. I honestly believe this from the bottom of my heart. I believe that he cares and is a great person.

However. he had to have known about the atmosphere at the AFA for a while now. If he did (how could he not) then he should be sensitive to it and acted accordingly. Sometimes it's just a little slip up that causes a bit of trouble.

This is more than just a 'prayer' luncheon. It is overly fundamenal "Christian".
The issue is not over the prayer luncheon. It is over the message being spread - which in its Fundamenalist way is very judgemental and overt and he is well known to proselytize. It is offensive to even mainstream Christians such as Catholics and mainstream Protestants. In fact, I think it's more offensive to Catholics than those who are Jewish.


In answer to Hornetguy - I believe that the guest speaker is part of the issue and reason for the lawsuit. It is mentioned in the court papers.

One difference between the Corporate world and the Military world is that the Government runs the military. The Government cannot demand that you listen to people tell you what religion to belong. Since the Government does not care what religion (if any) you belong to The Government cannot proselytize to it's workers.

Christcorp - Calling people "********" or referring to their actions as "********" is offensive to people who are and know and love people who are truly mentally ********. It's bad form and sets a bad example for the youngsters.
 
JAM, while I can also question Gen Gould's judgment as to not knowing the primary speaker would cause waves in a pond that was already turbulent, I can also honestly say that from my personal experience with him, his words below emphasizing that anyone with concerns on this issue is welcome to approach him about it are most likely heart felt and sincere.


I won't start the whole "Capt Honors did nothing wrong" debate again here (which would be both pointless and fruitless). Suffice it to say the situations are VERY different, and if you were either man, which one would you prefer to be when you have to explain your actions to your Mom?
 
Just_A_Mom said:
......This is more than just a 'prayer' luncheon. It is overly fundamenal "Christian".
The issue is not over the prayer luncheon. It is over the message being spread - which in its Fundamenalist way is very judgemental and overt and he is well known to proselytize. It is offensive to even mainstream Christians such as Catholics and mainstream Protestants. In fact, I think it's more offensive to Catholics than those who are Jewish......
Click to expand...

How dare those jewish, islam, and buddhist speakers at this function even CONSIDER such an event. Don't they know that there's an inquisition set out for the Christians at the academy to convert them??? Don't they understand that they are letting down their people by attending a function claiming to celebrate and recognize religion and faith in general and the impact it's had on our country and military, as really being a covert attempt to put down non-christian beliefs. And these individuals representing the other religions know darn well that there's a hidden agenda here. I don't know how they can sleep at night, knowing they are allowing themselves to be used as pawns in a religious inquisition. JAM; I think you owe it to all the good men and women at the air force academy; as well as the staff; to fly out there tomorrow, and make sure that these people know the real truth. Those airmen of other faith speaking at this luncheon should be ashamed of themselves.

And it's a good thing they didn't get Colin Powell to be the guest speaker like they planned. A Christian, who is black, speaking at a prayer luncheon, supposedly celebrating all faiths, during the month when "Black Heritage Month" is being celebrated. Damn. I see conflict of interest written all over that one. I'm sure the executive staff is upset, being they can't have Colin Powell there. I'm sure their goal of apostatizing the academy and it's staff won't be as effective as it could have been with Colin Powell. Oh well. Maybe they can try again next year. And hopefully these individuals of other faiths will learn by then that this is truly a christian overt operation, and they'll stay away from it.
 
CC- might be time to step back and take a breather. You're starting to lose some of us that would normally back you.
 
Just_A_Mom said:
The issue is not over the prayer luncheon. It is over the message being spread - which in its Fundamenalist way is very judgemental and overt and he is well known to proselytize. It is offensive to even mainstream Christians such as Catholics and mainstream Protestants. In fact, I think it's more offensive to Catholics than those who are Jewish.
Click to expand...

I disagree with this. Maybe I'm not "catholic-enough" or something, but I have never been offended by other people sharing or pushing their religion on me. I know each person believes what he or she wants, and if they feel they have to tell me I'm going to hell or that I'm wrong to make themselves feel they're doing good, then so be it. I'm sound in my faith, and when it comes down to it, that's all that matters.

As for people saying they "follow blindly for job security", you need to wake-up and decide what's really important in your life. If you're honestly that opposed to hearing someone else's opinion, then don't go. I'm sure some student needs EI at that time and its the only time that works for that cadet. Play whatever card you want. If not going really does hurt your career because it leads to you receiving a bad OPR or something of the sort, then you'd actually have a case. If you can prove your OPR omitted the actual contributions you've made and how you've excelled because your boss didn't like you because of your religion, then you'd have a legit case. Otherwise quit playing this "what-if" game. Or better yet, find another speaker and send in recommendations for next year.
 
Judge dismisses Air Force Academy prayer lawsuit

DENVER (AP) — A federal judge has dismissed a lawsuit seeking to block a prayer luncheon at the Air Force Academy.

U.S. District Judge Christine Arguello ruled Wednesday in Denver. She said associate professor David Mullin and a watchdog group, Military Religious Freedom Foundation, didn't show they had legal standing to bring the suit.
Their suit alleged the event violates the constitutional separation of church and state because it appears to be sponsored by the academy itself and because Mullin and other faculty members believe they'll face retribution if they don't attend, even though it is officially voluntary.

A Justice Department attorney said Mullin's fears of retribution were "entirely speculative" and that he didn't raise his concerns with the chain of command at the academy.
 
Before everyone starts celebrating, I think you would be wise to understand what the judge actually ruled upon.

The judge dismissed the suit because of the plaintiff's "lack of standing."

Standing

In law, standing or locus standi is the term for the ability of a party to demonstrate to the court
sufficient connection to and harm from the law or action challenged to support that party's participation
in the case. In the United States, the current doctrine is that a person cannot bring a suit challenging the
constitutionality of a law unless the plaintiff can demonstrate that the plaintiff is (or will imminently be) harmed by
the law. Otherwise, the court will rule that the plaintiff "lacks standing" to bring the suit, and will dismiss the
case without considering the merits of the claim of unconstitutionality. To have a court declare a law unconstitutional,
there must be a valid reason for the lawsuit. The party suing must have something to lose in order to sue
unless it has automatic standing by action of law.​

Without a valid claim of damage, Arguello said she had no jurisdiction on the case.

"The plaintiff has not met his burden that he will actually or imminently suffer the injury he fears," Arguello said.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top