A true Liberal Arts College

[MombaBomba]

On a cynical note...

The cadet felt intimidated by words on a white board that he voluntarily read.
The cadet is being trained to be an officer in the United States Air Force Academy, a branch of the military, responsible for combat, etc. etc. etc.

So in combat, if the enemy writes a couple of select religious quotes on their planes, tanks, helmets, etc., will the cadet be able to handle his commission with that type of intimidation going on?

Let's just hope the enemy doesn't get wind of this.
...................

I do understand that there were issues in the past. I also understand that political correctness can run a muck. Would it not have been better to simply post a new rule stating that white boards are only for official school business, and no longer to be used for personal expression? No need to personally address the quoting cadet. Just a new rule from on high announced to all the cadets without explanation. Then the cadets would be left to wonder why, and they all would have had to check and then perhaps correct their white board. Because odds are, there were other cadets with things written on their white boards that someone might have decided to find offensive at some point in time. This might have helped avoid the escalating knee jerk reactions going on now.

The other point is where will the line be drawn? For instance, cadet Mary decides to leave "lets meet for study/lunch" on only a few select boards. Cadet Susan is not included in the lets meet even though they share a class, and when she walks down the hall, cadet Susan can read the invites on the whiteboards. Cadet Susan's feelings are hurt and she feels offended. Does this mean that cadet Mary must stop leaving messages for study/lunch unless she includes everyone?

Also, why in the world did someone feel the need to call in the press? From the description, it was a simple matter. No one was tied down and forced to listen to passages from the bible. No one was forced to repeat the words or face punishment. No one went through some sort of Christian Bible hazing.

 

[aglages]

The cadet felt intimidated by words on a white board that he voluntarily read.

If instead of words there was a drawing of a naked woman on a whiteboard displayed in a public place would we say that anyone that was offended voluntarily looked at it and question what would happen in combat if the enemy displayed naked female images?

 

[hornetguy]

For everyone who feels the need to take the slippery slope arguments about feelings hurt, religion is a touchy subject. It's not someone being uninvited to lunch or a humorous quote from Shakespeare - it involves a complete moral belief system that comes with its implications, expectations, and opinion set. Equating religion to a book is disingenuous to the entire premise that the "offending" subject matter wasn't just the quote itself, but the entire context of a religious quote. Religious evangelism was and might still be a very real issue there. I can think of several instances where friends with evangelical AOCs/AMTs felt that they had to shut up and be proselytized or face a poor eval. Or hide their own beliefs for fear of being ostracized in the squadron (the Wiccans were pretty shy about admitting their religion).

No, it's not the idea that an enemy could throw a leaflet at the hypersensitive schmuck who can't handle a few words. It's the thought that someone next to me might not have my back because of our differing beliefs. Or that my religious belief (or lack there of) could mean my career goes down at the hand of someone who disapproves. Hence the reason, I, personally, do not talk about religion or politics at work and respectfully request the person change subjects.

If you think I'm crazy for thinking that could be true, let me give you some reality. My husband and I both lived under DADT as closeted gay men. That caused me a lot of heartache and pain as a cadet. Not just hiding it, but people actively discussing the immorality of it to my face and having to shut up or risk losing it all. Or my husband who refused to let anyone know while he was deployed because he genuinely feared for his life and people having his back (in hindsight, he would have been ok, but the words people said before he left were enough to create a very hostile environment for him).

No, a quote about Christ isn't going to make someone melt like the Wicked Witch. But someone who is professional, competent, and a great team member but happens to have a very different belief system might feel like an outcast. And no one else may even know that's the case. When I get to go into a work environment or on-base facilities and know politics/religion isn't appropriate in a professional environment, I feel like a professional and don't have to worry about my beliefs making me a target.

Is the NECESSITY to be able to put biblical passages on a public wall so important (when a person has the complete freedom to worship and attend services as they choose) that people have to resort to such rhetoric and fire. This is why people fear confronting the small issues. This is why we end up with Fox articles for the world. If religion and those quotes weren't such a big deal and there weren't persistent evangelism issues at a place like USAFA, would this problem even exist?

 

[Buff-IP]

Good Lord.

There are a small group of people offended by anything, a small group out to offend everyone...and the rest of us get clobbered by the constant knee jerk reactions to things.

I have seen stinks raised for displaying the SI swimsuit edition. And you all remember that thing called the Bring Me Men ramp?

How about the alternate religion rock circle thing, there at the zoo.


For the future commissioned officers...you work for the gov, so it is a lawful order, you obey it.

...when you are king, you can make the policy.

 

[Treeman]

I hope that in an institution of our nation’s best and brightest, we can attain a level of public dialogue that allows cadets and officers to respectfully discuss their differences when need be, and tolerate others. This goes for both sides of conversation. No proselytizing or censorship. If this is a fantasy, well that is depressing…
DADT taught us that people shouldn’t be forced to hide from the public what they consider to be core parts of themselves, for a variety of reasons. While of course the situation in the military, particularly at the Academy, is far better for religion than homosexuals (sadly), religion shouldn’t be singled out as something that can banned from public view. When there are people that can be offended by everything and anything, it’s simply useless to try and make sure every single thing you put out is going to be perfectly satisfactory to everyone. It won’t. I think it’s best to just express yourself and avoid doing things like condemning people to hell or offering a meaningful insult.
The quotes from the Quran posted earlier are perfectly non-offensive, and the Quran does not have a sterling reputation as of late for obvious reasons. I fail to see how the quote in question was offensive. I honestly think it is a knee jerk reaction for many people who are secularist to overreact whenever they see anything religious linked with public life. While the academy does apparently have some overbearing religion, the answer isn’t to paint over all of it with a broad, generalizing brush. The best paintings are made with detailed, specific and deliberate blending. Unless you like modern art.
I personally like the ability to express myself in my workplace, so if I had a white board and some spare space I would have it plastered everyday with a new Tolkien quote, or something from military history. If I can use my whiteboard to do that, then I think a peer deserves the freedom of religious expression. I won’t think much of it if they do, that is until they try to convince me I need to change my behavior in accordance with said faith based quote. Then we have a problem.
Until then though? I think this is a political overreaction that atheists who truly want tolerance should avoid.

 

[hornetguy]

I think this is a political overreaction that atheists who truly want tolerance should avoid.

As has already been mentioned, the ones yelling loudest aren't atheist, they are of another religion. If you are going to make the argument that others are seeing and implying things that aren't there, best not to make the exact mistake in your post.

 

[hornetguy]

Good Lord.

There are a small group of people offended by anything, a small group out to offend everyone...and the rest of us get clobbered by the constant knee jerk reactions to things.

I have seen stinks raised for displaying the SI swimsuit edition. And you all remember that thing called the Bring Me Men ramp?

How about the alternate religion rock circle thing, there at the zoo.


For the future commissioned officers...you work for the gov, so it is a lawful order, you obey it.

...when you are king, you can make the policy.

eloquently said.

 

[Non Ducor Duco]

For everyone who feels the need to take the slippery slope arguments about feelings hurt, religion is a touchy subject. It's not someone being uninvited to lunch or a humorous quote from Shakespeare - it involves a complete moral belief system that comes with its implications, expectations, and opinion set. Equating religion to a book is disingenuous to the entire premise that the "offending" subject matter wasn't just the quote itself, but the entire context of a religious quote. Religious evangelism was and might still be a very real issue there. I can think of several instances where friends with evangelical AOCs/AMTs felt that they had to shut up and be proselytized or face a poor eval. Or hide their own beliefs for fear of being ostracized in the squadron (the Wiccans were pretty shy about admitting their religion).

No, it's not the idea that an enemy could throw a leaflet at the hypersensitive schmuck who can't handle a few words. It's the thought that someone next to me might not have my back because of our differing beliefs. Or that my religious belief (or lack there of) could mean my career goes down at the hand of someone who disapproves. Hence the reason, I, personally, do not talk about religion or politics at work and respectfully request the person change subjects.

If you think I'm crazy for thinking that could be true, let me give you some reality. My husband and I both lived under DADT as closeted gay men. That caused me a lot of heartache and pain as a cadet. Not just hiding it, but people actively discussing the immorality of it to my face and having to shut up or risk losing it all. Or my husband who refused to let anyone know while he was deployed because he genuinely feared for his life and people having his back (in hindsight, he would have been ok, but the words people said before he left were enough to create a very hostile environment for him).

No, a quote about Christ isn't going to make someone melt like the Wicked Witch. But someone who is professional, competent, and a great team member but happens to have a very different belief system might feel like an outcast. And no one else may even know that's the case. When I get to go into a work environment or on-base facilities and know politics/religion isn't appropriate in a professional environment, I feel like a professional and don't have to worry about my beliefs making me a target.

Is the NECESSITY to be able to put biblical passages on a public wall so important (when a person has the complete freedom to worship and attend services as they choose) that people have to resort to such rhetoric and fire. This is why people fear confronting the small issues. This is why we end up with Fox articles for the world. If religion and those quotes weren't such a big deal and there weren't persistent evangelism issues at a place like USAFA, would this problem even exist?

As a christian (non denominational, not that it really matters, I just want to indicate that I'm not well versed in the differences between the different sects), I wholeheartedly agree with them asking the cadet to erase the quote. I don't like religion forced down my throat and don't appreciate it when it's forced down others'. There are so many other, non-isolating quotes from the Bible that could have been put up that could be inspirational to anyone, I don't understand the need to put up something that could be easily perceived as a way to call out christians at the AFA and elevate their beliefs over everyone else's.

The only question is if this attitude towards creating a safe and neutral environment is equal across all fronts. Something like this happens with a christian student and it is widely celebrated (except by fox news). If it's a quote questioning the belief in a higher power or something that questions the intelligence of someone who believes in that sort of thing that offends some people who report it, will the same actions be taken? Especially in lieu of the inevitable outcry from media sources citing this as another example of the oppression of freedom of speech by the government? Not that this sort of scenario is likely to happen at the Academy, but it sort of goes with what you were saying earlier (at least I think it was you), that it really becomes an issue when someone of higher rank displays their personal beliefs in such a manner that they run the risk of making subordinates feel pressure to hide their own beliefs for fear of being discriminated against.

I guess I'm asking where the line is on this sort of issue. I am all for separation of church and state, but when does it go so far as to interfere with individual rights? This is obviously not a case where the cadet's individual rights were infringed upon as the message was displayed in a public hallway, but would it be considered an infringement of rights if the message displayed a different religious leaning and was just as incendiary in its wording? (I include Atheism in listing other religions because it is still a belief in something, its just a belief that there is no higher power.)

I definitely think that an officer shouldn't be allowed to preach about God and damn everything else to their subordinates, but I also believe an officer shouldn't be able to openly damn any other religions either or display an overall bias towards one school of thought. I would be uncomfortable with both an officer who openly displays bias towards religion and with one who displays bias against it. I would really like to know if there are policies put in place to protect against this on all sides of this issue. I know one scenario is more likely than the other, but that doesn't mean that there shouldn't still be a system to protect against it. Majority bias against minorities is more common, but that doesn't mean it doesn't happen the other way around or that they should be given a pass for it just because they are in the minority.

Note: I don't really have a bone to pick in this fight, just thought it was an interesting discussion. I saw the pictures of boards hosting quotes from the Quran which doesn't bother me one bit, but I would be interested to see if having messages like that removed in the spirit of a neutral environment would generate the same level of public approval. It is interesting how news like this is a big deal on conservative outlets and non-news on liberal sites, and when the shoe is on the other foot it becomes big news for the liberal media but is now non-news for conservative media.

 

[MombaBomba]

If instead of words there was a drawing of a naked woman on a whiteboard displayed in a public place would we say that anyone that was offended voluntarily looked at it and question what would happen in combat if the enemy displayed naked female images?

If the enemy did that, then we need to allocate all the heavy artillery to the female soldiers because women don't have the same issue with taking out other women as men do, and because they would be sure to decimate the pictures of the competition. Wouldn't want our side thinking the enemy had better looking women. ;-)

Frankly, if another could post a picture of a naked man, then have at it. As long as it is legal and permitted, then my opinion of it shouldn't matter. It isn't finding something offensive that is the issue. Its the reaction to the offense. I have found a number of things offensive in my life, but that doesn't give me the right to demand everyone change, speak and behave in a way I find proper.

I would give odds that this was not the first time religious quotes have been posted upon a white board at the academy. The question is why was this time so offensive?

If there wasn't a past history of issues with evangelicals, would this have even been an issue?

And then of course the curious question, why was religion such an issue/problem at the USAFA but not at the other military academies? How did that come to be?

 

[Treeman]

As has already been mentioned, the ones yelling loudest aren't atheist, they are of another religion. If you are going to make the argument that others are seeing and implying things that aren't there, best not to make the exact mistake in your post.

Well of course FOX and evangelists are going to raise a stink about it. I don't think FOX is capable of not doing so in a situation like this, they just can't help it.
It does seem though, that the whole affair started at the request of non-religious persons, and of course once the ball starts rolling, everyone hops on. Religious people tend to be well practiced at being the loudest in the room however, that is an inevitability.
Correct me if I am wrong.

 

[hornetguy]

Well of course FOX and evangelists are going to raise a stink about it. I don't think FOX is capable of not doing so in a situation like this, they just can't help it.
It does seem though, that the whole affair started at the request of non-religious persons, and of course once the ball starts rolling, everyone hops on. Religious people tend to be well practiced at being the loudest in the room however, that is an inevitability.
Correct me if I am wrong.

I did correct you. I don't know who the accusers are, but Weinstein is Jewish, not Atheist. Beyond that, you've made the assumption it was non-religious people who made the complaint and I don't see anything that substantiates that assumption. In the past, particularly the 2005 scandal, the charges weren't just evangelism, but anti-Semitism. The 2010(?) scandal was the Wiccan prayer circle 'desecrated' by the placement of a cross in it. Frankly, I've heard more from people of religion being proselytized to inappropriately than non-theists.

Momba hit the issue again. This is a persistent issue for USAFA compared to the other academies. One hypothesis is having Focus and New Life right on the doorstep in the 'capital' city of the evangelical movement. I don't know what the issue is and why USAFA can't get over it.

 

[#armystrong]

I think the academy got this whole situation wrong, but I have two questions concerning it. How is this different than when someone else has a bible quote in the tag line of their email and since they obviously send out emails to people, a lot of people would see it, but no one cares or complains about it. Secondly, if America was founded as a judeo-christian society(which it was) and (this is related) West point was founded with a christian bases (which it was) then wouldn't repressing christianity or any religion go against the principle which our country was founded on? It 100% was not hurting anyone and I could care less if someone had a religious quote from Hinduism or something, why should it be taken down? If I went to the AFA, I would put up a quote on the whiteboard and tell everyone who I was friends with to do the same. This is wholly unconstitutional(in the way our founders made the constitution, not the misconstruing of today's politicians) and that it is just plain wrong.

 

[hornetguy]

I think the academy got this whole situation wrong, but I have two questions concerning it. How is this different than when someone else has a bible quote in the tag line of their email and since they obviously send out emails to people, a lot of people would see it, but no one cares or complains about it.

Quotes and personalized signatures are strictly prohibited (at least by AFI) outside the official details like phone number, position, etc. So, if you equate these things, then whiteboard quotes would not be justified.

Secondly, if America was founded as a judeo-christian society(which it was)

No, it was not. The founding fathers were rather clear on this topic.

"As the government of the United States of America is not in any sense founded on the Christian religion,—as it has in itself no character of enmity against the law, religion or tranquility of Musselmen [Muslims],—and as the said States [of America] never have entered into any war or act of hostility against any Mehomitan nation, it is declared by the parties that no pretext arising from religious opinions shall ever produce an interruption of the harmony existing between the two countries.”
-Treaty of Tripoli, 1797

and (this is related) West point was founded with a christian bases (which it was) then wouldn't repressing christianity or any religion go against the principle which our country was founded on?

No it was not, and I'd be curious as to what source you can find to support this notion. No one is being oppressed (or repressed?) so I'm not sure what principle is being broken.

It 100% was not hurting anyone and I could care less if someone had a religious quote from Hinduism or something, why should it be taken down? If I went to the AFA, I would put up a quote on the whiteboard and tell everyone who I was friends with to do the same.

Apparently someone was hurt. And by your attitude, your solution is to create a hostile work environment to shame and chastise someone who does not wish to have religion in the workplace.

This is wholly unconstitutional(in the way our founders made the constitution, not the misconstruing of today's politicians) and that it is just plain wrong.

The courts, to include the supreme court, has upheld that there needs to be proper separation of religion and governmental functions. That includes the SCOTUS upholding the military prohibiting the wear of religious items not concealed by the uniform. It is not considered unconstitutional.

 

[EDelahanty]

I think the academy got this whole situation wrong, but I have two questions concerning it. How is this different than when someone else has a bible quote in the tag line of their email and since they obviously send out emails to people, a lot of people would see it, but no one cares or complains about it. Secondly, if America was founded as a judeo-christian society(which it was) and (this is related) West point was founded with a christian bases (which it was) then wouldn't repressing christianity or any religion go against the principle which our country was founded on? It 100% was not hurting anyone and I could care less if someone had a religious quote from Hinduism or something, why should it be taken down? If I went to the AFA, I would put up a quote on the whiteboard and tell everyone who I was friends with to do the same. This is wholly unconstitutional(in the way our founders made the constitution, not the misconstruing of today's politicians) and that it is just plain wrong.

Offering a conditional statement and then parenthetically agreeing with it does not raise it to the level of fact. Just so we're on the same page, here's the first amendment to the Constitution:

"Amendment I

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances."

The following is from the 1802 Military Peace Act passed by Congress and signed by President Jefferson which created the USMA.

Statute I, March 16, 1802.

An Act fixing the military peace establishment of the United States.

Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of America in Congress assembled, That the military peace establishment of the United States from and after the first of June next, shall be composed of one Regiment of artillerists and two regiments of infantry, with such officers, military agents, and engineers, as are herein after mentioned....

Sec. 26. And be it further enacted, That the President of the United States is hereby authorized and empowered, when he shall deem it expedient, to organize and establish a corps of engineers, to consist of one engineer, with the pay, rank and emoluments of a major ; two assistant engineers, with the pay, rank and emoluments of captains ; two other assistant engineers, with the pay, rank and emoluments of first lieutenants ; two other assistant engineers, with the pay, rank and emoluments of second lieutenants; and ten cadets, with the pay of sixteen dollars per month, and two rations per day: and the President of the United States is, in like manner, authorized, when he shall deem it proper, to make such promotions in the said corps, with a view to particular merit, and without regard to rank, so as not to exceed one colonel, one lieutenant-colonel, two majors, four captains, four first lieutenants, four second lieutenants, and so as that the number of the whole corps shall, at no time, exceed twenty officers and cadets.

Sec. 27. And be it further enacted. That the said corps, when so organized, shall be stationed at West Point in the state of New York, and shall constitute a military academy ; and the engineers, assistant engineers, and cadets of the said corps, shall be subject, at all times, to do duty in such places, and on such service, as the President of the United States shall direct.

Sec. 28. And be it further enacted. That the principal engineer, and in his absence the next in rank, shall have the superintendence of the said military academy, under the direction of the President of the United States ; and the Secretary of War is hereby authorized, at the public expense, under such regulations as shall be directed by the President of the United States, to procure the necessary, books, implements and apparatus for the use and benefit of the said institution.

...

Approved, March 16, 1802.

 

[DevilDog]

My son is neither religious or conservative. I do know he believes in God and he has no problems with gays in the military or even gay marriages. All that said, as far as I know, he has never had issues with the fundamentalists. I don't think I have ever heard him talk about fundamentalist Christians. He did say there were a lot of Mormons and that one girl tried to get him to start attending some sort of Mormon meetings when he was a Doolie, but the girl was also a Doolie and she never coerced him. He politely told her he was not interested and that was the end of that.
His major complaint is the ultra-right conservative ideology a lot of his peers embrace. Or their lack of tolerance towards others, especially gays and the President.

 

[ca2midwestmom]

The "Go flying spaghetti monster!" note made me chuckle.

My DS, raised and baptized in the Presbyterian church, decided he was atheist a couple of years ago. When filling out the WP forms and needing to choose a religion, he was disappointed there was no Pastafarian option.

 

[MombaBomba]

I am a bit confused about the chain of command at the USAFA when thinking about this issue.

Why wasn't a USAFA superior officer or at the very least, the USAFA superintendent, contacted first about this issue and given a chance to handle it? Why did 29 cadets and 4 faculty & staff members go to an outside group, Military Religious Freedom Foundation, instead? Shouldn't going to that Foundation have been a final step and not the initial step?

How does the chain of command work in the USAFA if a cadet has a problem?

 

[hornetguy]

I am a bit confused about the chain of command at the USAFA when thinking about this issue.

Why wasn't a USAFA superior officer or at the very least, the USAFA superintendent, contacted first about this issue and given a chance to handle it? Why did 29 cadets and 4 faculty & staff members go to an outside group, Military Religious Freedom Foundation, instead? Shouldn't going to that Foundation have been a final step and not the initial step?

How does the chain of command work in the USAFA if a cadet has a problem?

Here's the thing, I can't find a clear timeline of what happened. I can see 29 cadets and 4 faculty contacting after the viral whiteboard quotes happened, but I find it hard to believe that was for one whiteboard in the dorms. I'm more apt to believe that a USAFA permanent party had the quote taken down and then it escalated. I REALLY would like a definitive answer on the timeline!

 

[zachserna7]

Really tho who cares its just a bible verse. Yall are makin it a bigger deal than it should be.


Sent using the Service Academy Forums® mobile app

 

[#armystrong]

Quotes and personalized signatures are strictly prohibited (at least by AFI) outside the official details like phone number, position, etc. So, if you equate these things, then whiteboard quotes would not be justified.

Well, a lot of people use bible quotes in the army and I do not care, I am just saying its the same principle.

"No, it was not. The founding fathers were rather clear on this topic.

"As the government of the United States of America is not in any sense founded on the Christian religion,—as it has in itself no character of enmity against the law, religion or tranquility of Musselmen [Muslims],—and as the said States [of America] never have entered into any war or act of hostility against any Mehomitan nation, it is declared by the parties that no pretext arising from religious opinions shall ever produce an interruption of the harmony existing between the two countries.”
-Treaty of Tripoli, 1797"

Well, there are two points to make to this. Who were the first major inhabitants of the Americas?? (aside from native americans of course.) Pilgrims and puritans obviously, so if you say America was not founded off of some Christianity belief you are 100% wrong. Next, I'm assuming your arguing for America from the Revolution on.... Obviously it was just a continuance of the principles in which they fought the revolution for. If they said, yeah America is only a Christian country, how is that democratic and it is highly hypocritical. Therefore, it was an influence, just obviously did not specifically state it and since they were tolerant of other religions, so they could care less who would emigrate to America.

"No it was not, and I'd be curious as to what source you can find to support this notion. No one is being oppressed (or repressed?) so I'm not sure what principle is being broken."

The principle is freedom of religion. He was not impressing his beliefs on anyone thus it should cause no problem. How come this only comes up against Christians? Its because of the animosity of some people against Christians and they just cloak it by saying "You're impressing your religion on me" These are highly one-sided scenarios and wholly unjust.

"Apparently someone was hurt. And by your attitude, your solution is to create a hostile work environment to shame and chastise someone who does not wish to have religion in the workplace."

Ok, that's completely a hostile work environment. A few words written on a board outside of a cadet's room. That's a ridiculous argument, he does not have to look at it at all. Then I guess we shouldn't have quotes any famous Americans on anything at any of the academies. Because if (for example) Jefferson has a statue and was a different religion then me, then therefore the academy is trying to endorse that religion. Literally, that's not even close to a hostile work environment.

"The courts, to include the supreme court, has upheld that there needs to be proper separation of religion and governmental functions. That includes the SCOTUS upholding the military prohibiting the wear of religious items not concealed by the uniform. It is not considered unconstitutional.

Yeah because the supreme court is right on every issue. They have abused the constitution for decades and you put your faith in them. They misconstrued the inelastic clause to mean something wholly different than what are founding fathers had intended. They completely mitigated to much power to the federal government which it has since abused way to frequently. The Supreme Court is a joke and its just best to ignore them altogether.

Overall, you are completely wrong on this issue and there's no getting around that fact.