A true Liberal Arts College

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.

What point are you trying to make. It's obvious intent was to be a military academy, but it was founded partially on Christianity. Jefferson(as an anti-federalist) founded West Point in an attempt to mitigate Federal power. After the federalist gained power and support(they believed in less state power and more federal power) Jefferson sought support for West Point (as a means to kinda even the playing field) and train an officer corps to have the same view in states rights. Now how does this relate to Christianity. Jefferson expressed Christian beliefs and it can be seen in the most prominent feature at West Point, the church(You know that huge building that overlooks everything). Yeah, so try to prove to me how Christianity was not an influence(an indirect influence) on the making of West Point...
 
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.

Wow, you are really drinking some koolaid there. I'll trust the SCOTUS, ESTABLISHED BY THE CONSTITUTION, to protect the constitution rather than the ramblings of a WP cadet.

Oh, and Jefferson was known as a Christian deist and was an ADAMANT advocate of disestablishing religion from government. Your grasp of US history and the role of religion is sorely lacking as well as your apparent propensity to pick and choose what you agree with in the Constitution itself.
 
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?
Let me attempt to answer this question with one of my own: why should anyone need to be contacted about this issue? Would someone need to contact a "superior" officer about an offensive photo displayed in a public place? A gay bashing statement on a publicly displayed whiteboard? Hopefully not....it would be handled by the first person in the chain-of-command that saw it. Yet this wasn't.....why? Perhaps these religous expressions are currently a moving target for the military and no one wants to get involved in the decision making process (and open themselves up to second guessing) unless they have no other choice. Whether you agree with what/how the MRFF deals with these things....they do force the military to make PUBLIC decisions about what will be allowed....and what will not.
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?
Contacting the MRFF probably shouldn't need to be a step at all. Clearly some cadets and faculty/staff felt that it was the best way for them to deal with an issue like this. The question ought to be: What does that say about some cadets AND faculty/staff's confidence in the chain of command to deal with these issues? Is it possible that USAFA's checkered past in this area may have some influence on that confidence?
 
Wow, you are really drinking some koolaid there. I'll trust the SCOTUS, ESTABLISHED BY THE CONSTITUTION, to protect the constitution rather than the ramblings of a WP cadet.

Oh, and Jefferson was known as a Christian deist and was an ADAMANT advocate of disestablishing religion from government. Your grasp of US history and the role of religion is sorely lacking as well as your apparent propensity to pick and choose what you agree with in the Constitution itself.
Excellent!!!
X2 :thumb:
 
I agree with many of HornetGuy's posts but I wanted to add a few comments. The academies' purpose is to make military officers. What they learn there is the foundation of their military career. I have worked at many military commands. No one is allowed to discuss religion, sexual orientation, and so on. I have been in an environment where someone (retired O4) uses religion as justification to demean women and homosexuals. He just won't learn what's appropriate and what's not in a military setting. The branch chief has to frequently remind him to knock it off. As a professional woman I shouldn't have to deal with this behavior. Those of us working with/in the military have much better things to do with our time! You definitely don't want to worry about someone not having your back (literally or figuratively) because you differ on opinion of religion, equality, or sexual assault. SA has laws that protect, but we need more enforcement of rules to keep religion and negative consequences of people's beliefs/interpretations out of the military workplace. There are chapels on bases which are fine for private time/places, but there needs to be none of it at work. The academies are a great place to start! It's about the military culture.
 
So I thought about this some more and wanted to share my thoughts.

We volunteered to join the service and part of that is "service before self." What if the reason that someone was offended by the quote was because they experienced child abuse at the hand of a priest and references to the church brings back the emotional pain of that experience. Extend this to things that seem mundane - like the swimsuit edition of SI: maybe the person has a family member or was themselves a victim of sex trafficking (we now have many ex-foreign nationals serving in our military, many from places where this is common) and perceived objectification of women puts them on edge. If they came to you and asked you to remove something that caused that kind of distress, what would you do? Would you make them tell you every detail of their emotional experience in order to remove it? Would you just become angry and tell them to grow thicker skin? Would you get all your buddies to plaster the offending material all around as retribution?

Or you could decide that, hey, having the SI swimsuit edition on my work desk or having a biblical quote on my door isn't essential to my professional work. Sticking it in a drawer or studying the bible at home is just fine and I can go on working, no sweat. Hey, no skin off my nose. Cool. It isn't going to do anything to me and it might, just might, make someone feel more comfortable at work and let's them be at ease in their profession. It's the selfless thing to do. Does it matter that someone is offended, or do they have to be the right kind of offended for you to take it seriously? Or maybe you could be a good wingman, not make them have to explain why it hurts them, and just erase the whiteboard. You could be on the other end one day and your buddy will be selfless and respectful and do the same.

It doesn't matter the reason someone wanted the quote removed and it's not our business. The professional and respectful response is to remove it while the selfish response is to plaster it everywhere.

We are more serious, as a service, about equal opportunity and ensuring a professional work environment. The line isn't clear and is at different places for different people. As a result, often the line will be a bit too far to the "PC" and seemingly mundane things will be removed. But I think that's preferable to the other end where a group may be alienated completely. A professional service member who embodies those selfless ideals will be mature and move on without the magazine, or the public quote, or whatever else. It may be taken too far at times, but at least we care that everyone can come to work and feel at ease.
 
The following account was posted on a Facebook page and seems to differ from the way Mr Weinstein described events.

"Ladies and Gents -- As you know, this is an emotionally charged issue. Here is a statement from our Superintendent, Lieutenant General Michelle Johnson: "I’m pleased with the way our cadets raised and discussed a recent concern in an atmosphere of respect and communication, and wanted to share it with you.

A religious scripture was displayed outside a dormitory room belonging to a cadet who held a leadership position in the squadron. Another cadet prompted a discussion of appropriateness, according to policies that leaders will avoid actual or apparent use of their position to promote their personal religious beliefs to subordinates. The scripture was below the cadet’s name on a white board and could cause subordinates to doubt the leader’s religious impartiality. With the mentorship of the active duty commanding officer as part of the discussion, the cadet squadron commander raised this potential perception and the cadet voluntarily elected to erase the scripture.

The Air Force’s Academy is a training institution, teaching cadets how to appropriately raise concerns, understand perceptions and balance personal freedom with effective leadership. Cadets will continue navigate through questions like this, where judgment is an important aspect of leadership on active duty. This is the ideal environment to explore those leadership issues with open and transparent conversations. I'm proud to see the cadets having subsequent conversations about how to enjoy religious freedoms regarded to all cadets while practicing caring leadership that inspires all subordinates."

David K. Cannon, Director of Communication, US Air Force Academy
 
Another cadet prompted a discussion of appropriateness, according to policies that leaders will avoid actual or apparent use of their position to promote their personal religious beliefs to subordinates. The scripture was below the cadet’s name on a white board and could cause subordinates to doubt the leader’s religious impartiality. With the mentorship of the active duty commanding officer as part of the discussion, the cadet squadron commander raised this potential perception and the cadet voluntarily elected to erase the scripture.

The Air Force’s Academy is a training institution, teaching cadets how to appropriately raise concerns, understand perceptions and balance personal freedom with effective leadership. Cadets will continue navigate through questions like this, where judgment is an important aspect of leadership on active duty. This is the ideal environment to explore those leadership issues with open and transparent conversations. I'm proud to see the cadets having subsequent conversations about how to enjoy religious freedoms regarded to all cadets while practicing caring leadership that inspires all subordinates."

Well that's much better than the way it was portrayed. Initial media coverage implied that staff had erased the whiteboard. While I still doubt that any true 'promotion' of religion happened, I'm glad that the Academy is going to support a conversation about this, rather than further polarization. Or so it seems.
 
As best as I can follow the timeline on this according to David K. Cannon, Director of Communication, US Air Force Academy and Superintendent, Lieutenant General Michelle Johnson :


This started with "A religious scripture was displayed outside a dormitory room belonging to a cadet who held a leadership position in the squadron. Another cadet prompted a discussion of appropriateness, according to policies that leaders will avoid actual or apparent use of their position to promote their personal religious beliefs to subordinates. The scripture was below the cadet’s name on a white board and could cause subordinates to doubt the leader’s religious impartiality. With the mentorship of the active duty commanding officer as part of the discussion, the cadet squadron commander raised this potential perception and the cadet voluntarily elected to erase the scripture. ."

Somehow though this decision wasn't made immediately by the cadet who "voluntarily elected to erase the scripture", but instead moved up the chain of command to at least Lt. Col Denise Cooper and Maj. Brus Vidal. Then as they were discussing this at the Group command level or higher, Mikey Weinstein got involved and within 2 hours and 9 minutes the cadet who had posted the bible verse"voluntarily elected to erase the scripture".


Not sure how the following fits into this timeline:

http://www.csindy.com/.../bible-verse-gets-mikey-going-again
But the academy didn't actually request the original message be removed, as it turns out. Academy spokesman Maj. Brus Vidal says the issue was pushed down the chain of command to Air Officers Commanding and the cadets themselves. The cadet who posted the Galatians message took it down, realizing it could have been misinterpreted by other cadets. The cadet in question is in a leadership role, and Air Force Regulation 1.1 bars those in leadership positions from forcing their religious beliefs on those down the chain.

Says Vidal:

We didn’t take them (religious messages) down. When this was identified through the chain of command, they had a discussion, and the discussion went to cadets about what the best way forward would be. The decision to take it down was this cadet who lived in this room who was in a leadership position. Because of that, they determined it was the perception of some that if I’m going to speak to that cadet, the entry fee, if you will, to get into the office is to abide by that statement. It would have been better not to have been in a publicly placed area. If you’re in a leadership position you can’t have something that would potentially imply if you have a certain belief, you can’t come see me. Their office is also their home. They have to do cadet leadership business in the same place they live.

Vidal went on to "put it in context" by noting there are 4,000 cadets who share 2,000 whiteboards throughout the dorms, so nine messages do not a revolution make.

"They’re going to push those things down to the AOC and cadets in leadership positions to make those calls," he says, but adds, "This is still an evolving thing."
cleardot.gif
 
Hi Everyone,

I just wanted to say "Thank You" to all who have been involved in this discussion. 7 pages so far and everyone has expressed their differing opinions without resorting to attacks. I am seeing this issue discussed in a lot of places on the web and this board seems to be handling it better than most.

I know you all don't usually hear from the mods unless there is a problem, so I want to make sure you all know that we notice when you keep things the way they should be, too.

Thanks again! :thumb:

Stealth_81
 
My take is freedom of religion includes freedom from religion. If an atheist cadet wrote on the same white board "there is no god" it would offend me and a lot of people. Should that be allowed? It's free speech right? Look at it both ways and decide what is right. If I understand the story correctly, the academy did the right thing by taking down the quote and not punishing the cadet that posted it.
 
I believe the soldiers and cadets are being sent mixed messages. The powers that be are discussing the right to wear turbans by Sikhs. A turban is an overt sign of someone's religion. Can't someone feel intimidated by an officer who wears such an overt sign of their religion, and wonder if this officer will be putting his religion first?

So what will happen if turbans are allowed? Doesn't that reopen the entire freedom of/from religion issue that is going on in this thread? How long will it take for soldiers to say if he can wear a turban, then I should be able to display my cross or star of David. If he can wear a turban, then why is there a problem with a message on a white board? And let the pandemonium begin......

I don't envy any officer who may have to deal with such an issue in the future.
 
I believe the soldiers and cadets are being sent mixed messages. The powers that be are discussing the right to wear turbans by Sikhs. A turban is an overt sign of someone's religion. Can't someone feel intimidated by an officer who wears such an overt sign of their religion, and wonder if this officer will be putting his religion first?

No, because Sikh's aren't the oppressive majority forcing their beliefs down everyone else's throats at every opportunity :rolleyes:
 
No, because Sikh's aren't the oppressive majority forcing their beliefs down everyone else's throats at every opportunity :rolleyes:
Which party has more people is irrelevant to this discussion. Religious freedom isn't a popularity contest.
 
My take is freedom of religion includes freedom from religion. If an atheist cadet wrote on the same white board "there is no god" it would offend me and a lot of people.

How would you be negatively affected by that person's statement of opinion?
 
I believe the soldiers and cadets are being sent mixed messages. The powers that be are discussing the right to wear turbans by Sikhs. A turban is an overt sign of someone's religion. Can't someone feel intimidated by an officer who wears such an overt sign of their religion, and wonder if this officer will be putting his religion first?

So what will happen if turbans are allowed? Doesn't that reopen the entire freedom of/from religion issue that is going on in this thread? How long will it take for soldiers to say if he can wear a turban, then I should be able to display my cross or star of David. If he can wear a turban, then why is there a problem with a message on a white board? And let the pandemonium begin......

I don't envy any officer who may have to deal with such an issue in the future.

From 1948 to 1984, men of the Sikh religion were permitted to serve while maintaining their articles of faith. In 1984, Gen. John A. Wickham Jr., then Chief of Staff of the Army, eliminated the exception for Sikhs and others who wore "conspicuous" items of faith.

Sikhs who were previously serving on active duty were grandfathered in by the Army. Two Sikhs in the medical field, Col. Arjinderpal Singh Sekhon, a doctor, and Col. G.B. Singh, a dentist, continued to serve until their retirements in 2009 and 2007, respectively, according to the Sikh News Network Web site (http://www.sikhnn.com).

Capt. (Dr.) Tejdeep Singh Rattan, a dentist, and Capt. (Dr.) Kamaljeet Singh Kalsi, a doctor, were assured by their recruiters at the time of enlistment several years ago that their articles of faith wouldn't pose a problem. But after completing four years of studies, both men were told to remove their turbans and cut their hair and beards for active duty.

It took action by several Sikh organizations and a letter to Defense Secretary Robert Gates, signed by 43 members of the House of Representatives and six U.S. senators, to change the Army's mind. A pair of special exceptions to Army Regulation 600-20 were allowed so Rattan and Kalsi could wear their dastaars (turbans) and keep their unshorn hair and beards as part of their uniform, and also retain their other articles of faith.

"Based on a review of these standards and the specific facts of your case, I am granting your appeal to wear a beard, uncut hair and turban in keeping with the tenets of your faith," wrote Maj. Gen. Gina Farrisee, acting deputy chief of staff for Army personnel, in a Dec. 1 letter to Rattan. "Your beard, uncut hair and turban will be neat and well maintained at all times."

The Army does allow personnel to request waivers for practices that may conflict with current Army regulations and policies and are considered on a case-by-case basis.

Considerations include the impact on the health, safety and welfare of all Soldiers; and impact on order and discipline of the force. The Army decided in these two cases that the Sikh articles of faith would not affect "unit readiness, individual readiness, unit cohesion, morale, discipline, safety and/or health," according to Farrisee's letter.
 
The statement that "there is no god" would create just as much of a potential hostile environment as someone writing "there is a god". Doesn't matter if it is a fact or opinion. Think of all the things people say about other sexes, races, etc. In many cases those are not facts but opinions but they still create a hotile environment. Whether something is an opinion or fact has nothing to do with it.
 
For those of you that think a white board quote in the hallway are "just words", how well do you think these quotes would have been received. They are not hateful but rather thought provoking.

For instance:

"Men never commit evil so fully and joyfully as when they do it for religious convictions."

or

"When I was a kid, I used to pray every night for a new bicycle. Then I realized that the Lord doesn't work that way so I stole one and asked Him to forgive me."

or

"Philosophy is questions that may never be answered. Religion is answers that may never be questioned."

or

"Give a man a fish and he will eat for a day; teach a man to fish and he will eat for a lifetime; give a man religion and he will die praying for a fish."


___________________________________________________
I think we would agree that these thought provoking white board posts would cause outrage. How would a evangelical Cadet feel knowing his superiors in-your-face point of view? After all, this superior had the guts to show his religous convictions outside his door.

Oh... These ^^ wouldn't bother me a bit (nor a religous quote). I'm agnostic. :) But I bet it would get more than a few people upset and logically so!!
 
Last edited:
The bible verse should not have been posted there. It was dealt with appropriately by the USAFA. Let us move on.
 
From 1948 to 1984, men of the Sikh religion were permitted to serve while maintaining their articles of faith. In 1984, Gen. John A. Wickham Jr., then Chief of Staff of the Army, eliminated the exception for Sikhs and others who wore "conspicuous" items of faith.

Sikhs who were previously serving on active duty were grandfathered in by the Army. Two Sikhs in the medical field, Col. Arjinderpal Singh Sekhon, a doctor, and Col. G.B. Singh, a dentist, continued to serve until their retirements in 2009 and 2007, respectively, according to the Sikh News Network Web site (http://www.sikhnn.com).

Capt. (Dr.) Tejdeep Singh Rattan, a dentist, and Capt. (Dr.) Kamaljeet Singh Kalsi, a doctor, were assured by their recruiters at the time of enlistment several years ago that their articles of faith wouldn't pose a problem. But after completing four years of studies, both men were told to remove their turbans and cut their hair and beards for active duty.

It took action by several Sikh organizations and a letter to Defense Secretary Robert Gates, signed by 43 members of the House of Representatives and six U.S. senators, to change the Army's mind. A pair of special exceptions to Army Regulation 600-20 were allowed so Rattan and Kalsi could wear their dastaars (turbans) and keep their unshorn hair and beards as part of their uniform, and also retain their other articles of faith.

"Based on a review of these standards and the specific facts of your case, I am granting your appeal to wear a beard, uncut hair and turban in keeping with the tenets of your faith," wrote Maj. Gen. Gina Farrisee, acting deputy chief of staff for Army personnel, in a Dec. 1 letter to Rattan. "Your beard, uncut hair and turban will be neat and well maintained at all times."

The Army does allow personnel to request waivers for practices that may conflict with current Army regulations and policies and are considered on a case-by-case basis.

Considerations include the impact on the health, safety and welfare of all Soldiers; and impact on order and discipline of the force. The Army decided in these two cases that the Sikh articles of faith would not affect "unit readiness, individual readiness, unit cohesion, morale, discipline, safety and/or health," according to Farrisee's letter.

That was very interesting. I think the 24/7 news, internet, etc. along with the current politically correct hyper awareness has created an environment where controversy, fear of intimidation, and offense thrives. So the army is now considering a 180 degree turn to the "original" convention. I have to wonder why remove it and then put it back now? Does this sort of policy change happen often in the armed forces?
 
Back
Top