Religion and Missile Ops

[fly boy]

I can, however, logically deduct that morality and ethics CAN and DO exist outside of any religion, including Christianity.

Okay, do so.

Even those with a Chrsitian background can certainly make a distinction between justified and unjustified killings without need for biblical instruction.

I would agree that one doesn't need direct Biblical instruction to have an idea of morality. However, morality cannot exist when you take God out of the picture.

If there is no God, there can be no good and there can be no evil. For one, there would then be no standard. If there is no standard, who is to say that murder is wrong? Why should I seek to do good? Why am I obliged to do anything at all? If we are all simply evolved lumps of clay, there is no morality. Have you ever seen a lump of clay do wrong to another lump of clay?

 

[bjkuds]

Okay, do so.



I would agree that one doesn't need direct Biblical instruction to have an idea of morality. However, morality cannot exist when you take God out of the picture.

If there is no God, there can be no good and there can be no evil. For one, there would then be no standard. If there is no standard, who is to say that murder is wrong? Why should I seek to do good? Why am I obliged to do anything at all? If we are all simply evolved lumps of clay, there is no morality. Have you ever seen a lump of clay do wrong to another lump of clay?

Fly Boys zealous response just validates the value of such a class. Whether you agree or not is immaterial. The fact is Christian Pilots, Nuke Officers etc exist, and cutting a course out of PC that may bring reconciliation in the hearts and minds of those men and women is ridiculous, especially when you consider the magnitude of that type of mission. And in reality what does it hurt anyone to hear a scripture read. It may give you greater understanding of your fellow human beings that hold those beliefs. I have many different religious books as study resources...I am not afraid of turning Muslim because I've read a Koran. At least I can understand where they are coming from as people. If the bible is just a book as many claim then what's the big deal?? It is full of wisdom that is time tested as previously stated. If it is the inspired word of God then it may be worth hearing and banning it like its the plague appears stupid no matter what side of the fence you are on. ..My soapbox is being put away and I am going to bed.. Blessings to ALL.. unless that offends you. In that case I take it back

 

[SteveHolt243]

However, morality cannot exist when you take God out of the picture.

It's true, I have a hard time being moral without God. Sometimes I wonder why I'm not killing people, then I remember it's because of my good Judeo-Christian socialization that reminded me people are human beings.

/Snark off.



As for the actual topic of conversation, teaching Christian Just War Theory is perfectly acceptable, as long as you treat it as merely a concept on equal footing as other. My experience with ethics training in the past, however, dealt with Christian morality and ethics as the standard. Moreover, my experience with bible verses in any training was as indoctrination rather than as discussion point, and this was entirely inappropriate.

 

[hornetguy]

Some of the comments and words of several members on this thread about their view on the supremacy (almost feels like this word) of the Judeo-Christian culture in this country is precisely the attitude that led to the USAFA having a scandal a few years ago. Outside the chapel and study groups, I see no purpose in introducing religious material. If it is so important for someone, let it be an optional side course with trained chaplains rather than for the entire set of students. I would personally feel very uncomfortable in a class where bible verses were used (and it has happened to me at USAFA and I did not like it at all).


P.S. many of the founding fathers were Deist. If you really want to go down that road, stating this country was founded under Judeo-Christian custom is not quite accurate.

 

[Luigi59]

However, morality cannot exist when you take God out of the picture.

You are confusing God with religion. I don't think anyone would deny that a belief in God, a higher power, a spiritual drive, The Force, Midi-chlorians, The Flying Spaghetti Monster, or whatever you want to call your moral compass, doesn't have a positive effect on one's behavior.

But we are talking about organized religion - specifically, the endorsement of one religion and that religion's textbook as the basis for official US Govt endorsed policy. You approve of the training because it happens to use your book. I don't think you (or anyone else) would be so quick to approve if another book was used. For instance, if L Ron Hubbard's Scientology manual "Dianetics" was used as the moral basis for the course, I'm certain you would not be so approving.

More humans beings have died in the name of "religion" than any other cause in the history of mankind. Putting together military power with a belief that "my religion" is better than your religion" is one of the most dangerous scenarios imaginable.

Consider this: http://www.wjh.harvard.edu/~mnkylab/publications/recent/HauserSingerMoralRelig05.pdf

(The 1st problem with your statement) is that there are no moral principles shared by all religious people but no agnostics and atheists.

This observation leads to a second: atheists and agnostics do not behave less morally than religious believers, even if their virtuous acts are mediated by different principles. They often have as strong and sound a sense of right and wrong as anyone, including involvement in movements to abolish slavery and contribute to relief efforts associated with human suffering.

The converse is also true: religion has led people to commit a long litany of horrendous crimes.

Consider the following three scenarios. For each, fill in the blank with morally “obligatory”, “permissible” or “forbidden.”

1. A runaway trolley is about to run over five people walking on the tracks. A railroad worker is standing next to a switch that can turn the trolley onto a side track, killing one person, but allowing the five to survive. Flipping the switch is ______.

2. You pass by a small child drowning in a shallow pond and you are the only one around. If you pick up the child, she will survive and your pants will be ruined. Picking up the child is _______.

3. Five people have just been rushed into a hospital in critical care, each requiring an organ to survive. There is not enough time to request organs from outside the hospital. There is, however, a healthy person in the hospital’s waiting room. If the surgeon takes this person’s organs, he will die but the five in critical care will survive. Taking the healthy person’s organs is _______.
​

If you judged case 1 as permissible, case 2 as obligatory, and case 3 as forbidden, then you are like the 1500 subjects around the world who responded to these dilemmas on our web-based moral sense test [http://moral.wjh.edu]. On the view that morality is God’s word, atheists should judge these cases differently from people with religious background and beliefs, and when asked to justify their responses, should bring forward different explanations.

For example, since atheists lack a moral compass, they should go with pure self-interest, and walk by the drowning baby. Results show something completely different. There were no statistically significant differences between subjects with or without religious backgrounds, with approximately 90% of subjects saying that it is permissible to flip the switch on the boxcar, 97% saying that it is obligatory to rescue the baby, and 97% saying that is forbidden to remove the healthy man’s organs. .

When asked to justify why some cases are permissible and others forbidden, subjects are either clueless or offer explanations that can not account for the differences in play. Importantly, those with a religious background are as clueless or incoherent as atheists.

 

[fly boy]

Some of the comments and words of several members on this thread about their view on the supremacy (almost feels like this word) of the Judeo-Christian culture in this country is precisely the attitude that led to the USAFA having a scandal a few years ago.

Supremacy of one certain religion, or culture has nothing to do with the fact that you can not have morals outside of the existence of God.

 

[bruno]

fly boy- while I happen to be a committed believer, you are missing the point here. My issue with this action is not to debate either the validity or lack of validity of a certain religion, nor the ability of someone to have an ethical foundation outside of religious conviction. It absolutely is not the responsibility of the government to advance either faith or lack thereof and it's not the point of the course to insinuate that a nonbeliever does not and can not have a fundamentally ethical base (BTW- I am certain that a nonbeliever can hold just as deeply held ethical beliefs as a Christian ). Don't go down that line anymore because this thread and this forum won't support it. The US Service Academy Forums are not the place to debate the validity or lack of validity of any religion or lack of religion. Shut it off now.

Rather- my issue is that they were teaching a course that deals with the ethical underpinnings of a weapon system that targets a civilian population and decided that they could not continue to do so because it quoted the Bible. This is neither unconstitutional nor is it illogical, and in fact what is illogical is attempting to deal with a deeply held core value without acknowledging the source of that value for many in the target audience. A significant portion of the population has deeply held ethical issues with war and killing that stem from their religious beliefs- ethical considerations that I know can only be addressed by acknowledging those religious convictions and talking about justifications that speak to them. Telling someone that logic will show this to be ethical would absolutely not address the issue. This course happened to use Augustine's Just War theory to speak to the concerns that every Christian should have about violating the Commandment "Thou shalt not kill". I am certain that you can not reassure a committed Christian about the ethics of killing without pointing to a biblical justification that allows them to kill as an act of war. Telling them that the government says it's ok, or that we can logically deduce that it is ethically ok doesn't really address the root of their concern at all. The course pointed them to the best known justification for a Christian to engage in acts of warfare. From what I can read (of course nobody posting here actually has the course in hand to say what it says completely)- If I fault this course for anything it is that it needs to acknowledge that many religions have similar proscriptions and I assume similar theorists who address those concerns and it should reference more than just a Christian theorist.

Consider this a warning to all- debating the appropriateness of the course is one thing - either on its effectiveness or on it's constitutionality. Advancing or denigrating religious faith on here is quite different and isn't going to fly from either side. If you can't make the argument without descending into a discussion of the validity of your faith or the validity of your lack of religious belief; or by denigrating those who possess it- then DON'T post.

 

[Christcorp]

Having worked at missile bases, and have chatted with a number of missile officers, my perspective is still tilted a particular way. I never asked if any of them took the class in question, but I still don't consider such a class as "Promoting a particular religion". It's simply stating where your moral beliefs are rooted in. If you understand why you believe the way you do, then you have the knowledge to be able to confront any such moral conflicts. But it's pretty difficult to analytically address such a moral conflict if you don't know where the moral was rooted. And because our society, like it or not, has much of it's social norms, values, morals, and thus behavior rooted in what we consider the old and new testament, it's pretty difficult to not somehow address this source when discussing the conflict.

It would be like a coach discussing with their players certain plays s/he has developed, without considering the rule book for that game. I.e. a soccer coach can't design a play where you pick up the ball and hand it off to another player, if the rule book specifically says you can't use your hands. And in our country, and our society, the social norms, behavior, morals, etc... on how we treat each other, happen to have been impacted significantly by the old and new testament of what many call the bible. The Pentateuch (First 5 books of the old testament) are the foundation for our social existence. And being the majority of citizens use the remaining 61 books in the bible, even UNKNOWINGLY, as a guide on how to live with one another in our society; it's pretty difficult to discuss moral conflict without bringing in this "Rule book".

The thing is; maybe someone who has a moral conflict with their military duties happens to be an atheist, and while in such a class, they realize: "Hmmm, you mean I feel the way I do, because I was brought up with a sets of morals and values from a source I think is a Fiction book?" That alone could be enough to resolve their moral conflict. So in that example, there was no Proselytizing. If anything, it freed the atheist's mind of conflict. Either way; knowing WHY you believe the way you do, is important. Then you, as an individual, can accept, chance, reinforce, modify, etc... your beliefs and behavior. But refusing to address where our social norms, morals, values, and beliefs come from is simply pure ignorance. You did not come up with your values, morals, beliefs, etc... independently of society. You developed them based on your interaction with parents, family, friends, school mates, local town, etc... And like it or not, agree with it or not, a lot of those beliefs in our society are rooted from what we call Judeo-Christian history.

Ever wonder why a particular group of Muslims in our country are pushing so hard for Sharia Law to be allowed in the United States? Their beliefs, morals, values, etc..., based on their religious beliefs and background, allow them to interact socially with their citizens in a way that is not really consistent or permissible with our current societies laws and beliefs. Well; if Sharia Law is based on the Muslim belief, then it's only logical to realize that our laws, beliefs, morals, values, etc... are based on something similar. They are. It's happens to be the Judeo-Christian background.

Again; this is not Proselytizing. It's simply informing individuals WHERE their behavior, morals, values, etc... are rooted from. Once you understand where you come from, you can address any conflicts, changes, acceptances, etc... that you need to address.

 

[hornetguy]

Rather- my issue is that they were teaching a course that deals with the ethical underpinnings of a weapon system that targets a civilian population and decided that they could not continue to do so because it quoted the Bible. This is neither unconstitutional nor is it illogical, and in fact what is illogical is attempting to deal with a deeply held core value without acknowledging the source of that value for many in the target audience. A significant portion of the population has deeply held ethical issues with war and killing that stem from their religious beliefs- ethical considerations that I know can only be addressed by acknowledging those religious convictions and talking about justifications that speak to them. Telling someone that logic will show this to be ethical would absolutely not address the issue. This course happened to use Augustine's Just War theory to speak to the concerns that every Christian should have about violating the Commandment "Thou shalt not kill". I am certain that you can not reassure a committed Christian about the ethics of killing without pointing to a biblical justification that allows them to kill as an act of war. Telling them that the government says it's ok, or that we can logically deduce that it is ethically ok doesn't really address the root of their concern at all. The course pointed them to the best known justification for a Christian to engage in acts of warfare. From what I can read (of course nobody posting here actually has the course in hand to say what it says completely)- If I fault this course for anything it is that it needs to acknowledge that many religions have similar proscriptions and I assume similar theorists who address those concerns and it should reference more than just a Christian theorist.

In this case they should leave any religious underpinnings out of the course and if a person finds that their religious beliefs are causing them doubt, they should be allowed to take a supplement course run by a chaplain or other qualified individual specific to those beliefs.

Some I think are religious neutral in many senses (like the Just War theory), but biblical quotes should be saved for a specific supplement, no need to teach it to an entire course.

Supremacy of one certain religion, or culture has nothing to do with the fact that you can not have morals outside of the existence of God.

Believe what you will. You should realize, if you go to USAFA, that there will be a small minority that believe as you do, but the vast majority operate on a different attitude and different moral compass who will not take kindly to your comments or behavior should you choose to speak to them in this manner. That is the sugar-coated way of saying it.

 

[fly boy]

As I have said before, I don't think that people should take issue with this class. It is setting forth a reason why nuclear warfare is ethical. When you get into the realm of ethics, you will doubtless run into religion of some type. If you have a class that deals with morality, an element of religion will be mixed in, whether or not the class mentions Bible verses.

 

[fly boy]

...Believe what you will. You should realize, if you go to USAFA, that there will be a small minority that believe as you do, but the vast majority operate on a different attitude and different moral compass who will not take kindly to your comments or behavior should you choose to speak to them in this manner. That is the sugar-coated way of saying it.

I realize that there are many differing forms of belief. I don't expect people to "take kindly" to my comments. Regardless, though it has been made clear that we are not to further discuss it, I still hold to my premise about morality apart from God. People don't have to take kindly to it.

 

[hornetguy]

I realize that there are many differing forms of belief. I don't expect people to "take kindly" to my comments. Regardless, though it has been made clear that we are not to further discuss it, I still hold to my premise about morality apart from God. People don't have to take kindly to it.

Since we're not debating religion itself, I will explain why this is sugar coated in the way I said it. It's not just a matter of being liked or not. It can also impact jobs, performance reports, can lead to investigations sometimes or other issues which are not unique to the military alone, but the military is a mix of many different people with much less freedom of choice in job and otherwise. My point is that how you approach your faith and how you treat other people under that premise can have major consequences for you and your career. A three star at USAFA was booted for his behavior and policies regarding his faith. I am not debating your individual faith, I could care less about it. I am informing you, that in this day and age with the people in the military, the manner in which you choose to behave with your faith among your peers, subordinates, and leaders can cause issues.

The philosophy is very much be professional at the work place (leave religion, politics, and sensitive topics of that nature at home) and worship or not as you please on your own time. While you may not have any qualms about being outspoken in your faith, many of the rest of us serving find it inappropriate in many settings. Remember, the military is not about YOU, it is about the team and this country. Behaving in a way which alienates others is counterproductive. All I ask is you reflect on your own beliefs and be able to work with those of us who disagree without negatively impacting our professional responsibilities as military members and officers.

 

[sprog]

Bruno, I have a fundamental disagreement with your assertion that it isn't enough to tell a missileer that a "key turn " is ethical just because the government says it is. If someone has a problem with using weapons against targets selected by our leaders, why have they entered the military in the first place? There is no draft, and the lethal nature of military operations is no secret. If you can't follow orders because of a religious objection, this is something that should stop you from raising your hand in the first place. You could counter that this is the same argument that Nazi officers used at Nurnberg ("I was just following orders"), and you'd have a point, but only to a small extent. History is written by the victors, and as repugnant and atrocious as the Nazi regime was, if they had been victorious, and if the members of the Nazi military had failed to perform their horrible jobs, they would have faced punishment (been executed). Since they did not win, they were judged according to the values/policy objectives of the Allied nations, which makes them war criminals.

For one to enter the United States military, one must tend to agree with our policy objectives, and at least be at peace with the idea of using violence to further those objectives. A Quaker doesn't enter the military. The US doesn't use nuclear weapons to terrorize, and it is a long-standing policy to use them as a deterrent against agression and as a weapon of last resort. We have used them in anger twice in our history, but not since 1945. Could this change? I suppose in the most theoretical of worlds. Nonetheless, if one has enough faith in our government leadership to enter the Armed Forces, one must have enough confidence to know that the use of lethal force should be reserved for when it is justified. If a person can't get around this, then they are not an asset to the military. This doesn't mean that I think the US is justified in all of its military operations, nor does it mean that there is no room for debate on the issue in individual circumstances. What it means, is that for a military to function, the members must be willing to further the policy objectives of their government, and must be willing to use lethal force to do so (even if others in society debate the justification of military action). Thus, for good order and discipline in the ranks, it is enough to say "the government says it's ok, so it is." No need to bring in Jesus. This also means that a military member must be prepared to face accusations of being a "war criminal" or a "terrorist" by an enemy. It has to be understood that enemy forces feel animosity towards us as we do them. The conviction to serve and further our policy objectives must be strong enough so that such an accusation from an armed foe, and any possible downstream consequences, must not be bothersome to an American Soldier, Sailor, Airman, Marine, or Coast Guardsman(or at least, not so bothersome to prevent the completion of one's duty).

How the individual rationalizes his place in the military is up to him personally, and it is good that the US military has Chaplains as a resource to use. However, religious views (of any nature) can't be forced upon people. In the end, when one chooses to enter the Armed Forces of the United States, one has already agreed to further American policy (which might include the use of nuclear weapons), and religious views can't be counter to that. If they are, it is not in the best interest of that person to enter the military.

On the legal issue...

The usage of biblical passages in a training program can, potentially, be seen as a government endorsement of religion. It clearly must have been a little fishy, as 31 officers complained about it, and AETC withdrew the training program. It has been stated, unequivocally, that it isn't a Constitutional problem. I offer that we don't know that it is or isn't, and probably will never know, since the USAF withdrew the training (hence making any litigation on the matter moot). The withdrawl of the training, to me, suggests that the Air Force felt that they might be inappropriately putting one religious view over another in a mandatory training session. Others may see it as knee-jerk PCism, and that is open to debate. Lemon v. Kurtzman, 403 U.S. 602 (1971),is the foundation for determining if a government action violates the Establishment Clause. It has these prongs: 1) The government's action must have a secular legislative purpose;2) the government's action must not have the primary effect of either advancing or inhibiting religion;3) the government's action must not result in an "excessive government entanglement" with religion. Lemon has been inconsistently applied since its issuance, but has been used as recently as 2000, so it's still good law. What is its future? We don't know. Does the USAF's training violate the Lemon standard? I don't know.

In the end, I think it's good that they got rid of the training as a mandatory function for all missileers. My memory of it isn't that strong, but it appears as if the usage of biblical authority has grown since I took the course in 1999. Chaplains are available for those seeking guidance, but ultimately, if someone agreed to enter the Air Force, then they agreed to further national policies which might include the use of nuclear weapons. If an officer can't do this, they are not an asset to the Air Force. If they can do it, but need religious justification, that is something that they can seek out on their own.

 

[fly boy]

Believe what you will. You should realize, if you go to USAFA, that there will be a small minority that believe as you do, but the vast majority operate on a different attitude and different moral compass who will not take kindly to your comments or behavior should you choose to speak to them in this manner. That is the sugar-coated way of saying it.

Fine. I understand that, but that has no bearing on what is said here. That is for the future, and as a Cadet and Officer. I also realize that the military is not about any individual. However, it is composed of individuals who must work together despite their personal convictions. That does not mean that my faith or anybody else's is not "compatible" with military life.

 

[Pima]

Flyboy,

I think you feel you are being attacked regarding your religion. You are not. What people are saying is that to be in the military your faith has absolute no bearing on your job. End of subject, period, dot.

That does not mean that my faith or anybody else's is not "compatible" with military life.

To bring it in the conversation equates to you placing it in the equation of military life and how you can perform your job. Hornet was just saying religion has no place, he never said being religious was not compatible.

A three star at USAFA was booted for his behavior and policies regarding his faith.I am not debating your individual faith, I could care less about it. I am informing you, that in this day and age with the people in the military, the manner in which you choose to behave with your faith among your peers, subordinates, and leaders can cause issues.

The philosophy is very much be professional at the work place (leave religion, politics, and sensitive topics of that nature at home) and worship or not as you please on your own time. While you may not have any qualms about being outspoken in your faith, many of the rest of us serving find it inappropriate in many settings. Remember, the military is not about YOU, it is about the team and this country. Behaving in a way which alienates others is counterproductive.

I don't see why a course like this is given at all. I am Catholic, so I am religious. We don't give courses like this to our pilots that carry weapons on their planes, they face this dilemma far more than missile ops people do.

There are many posters here who have already carried out missions that resulted in the end of someone's life. Nobody gave them a course on religion. To say that only these people will have to work it out regarding the burden is inane.

This is a voluntary position, just like pilots. If you need a course to work out your ethical reasons for going against a commandment, than we should give it to every AD member.

The A & F guy pays the enlisted member to prep the plan with bombs. He needs the course because he is giving the money.

The enlisted member loads the plane with bombs. He needs the course because he put the "kill" on the plane.

The Intel officer gives the brief of Intel and enemies. He needs the course because he is giving the info on where to "kill"

The pilot does the mission and pulls the "kill" bomb/missile. He needs the course because he did the "kill"

None of these people get a class like this. Yet, in the past 50 yrs they are the only ones that did kill.

Not every bomb lands killing only the opposition, there will always be collateral damage. To support a class like this for one small segment while not giving it to every AF member does not make sense.

Until anyone can explain to me how the guilt is more for Missile Ops which has yet to turn a key in 50 yrs., while pilots have been dropping bombs for yrs there is no reason for this class to exist.

Religion has no place in prepping a member to turn the key because a class isn't going to convince you turn your back on your beliefs. The AF was right to get rid of it.

OBTW, like many people who believe in a higher faith, I have made peace that Bullet and now our son have, will, may injure, maim, kill an innocent person. They are not intentionally defying G*D's wishes, they are protecting the innocent the best way they can. I didn't attend any class to figure that out. I just BELIEVED.

Nobody is disrespecting your opinion, but what we are trying to say is that as a candidate you have yet to enter the AD world. The AD world is an illusion to you, the AD world to others is reality. Don't block them out because you believe you know what this world is, when in essence they are the ones that do. Listen to them. They are trying to guide you so you have more perspective on what it is really like in that world when you enter it.

 

[sprog]

Flyboy,

I think you feel you are being attacked regarding your religion. You are not. What people are saying is that to be in the military your faith has absolute no bearing on your job. End of subject, period, dot.


To bring it in the conversation equates to you placing it in the equation of military life and how you can perform your job. Hornet was just saying religion has no place, he never said being religious was not compatible.



I don't see why a course like this is given at all. I am Catholic, so I am religious. We don't give courses like this to our pilots that carry weapons on their planes, they face this dilemma far more than missile ops people do.

There are many posters here who have already carried out missions that resulted in the end of someone's life. Nobody gave them a course on religion. To say that only these people will have to work it out regarding the burden is inane.

This is a voluntary position, just like pilots. If you need a course to work out your ethical reasons for going against a commandment, than we should give it to every AD member.

The A & F guy pays the enlisted member to prep the plan with bombs. He needs the course because he is giving the money.

The enlisted member loads the plane with bombs. He needs the course because he put the "kill" on the plane.

The Intel officer gives the brief of Intel and enemies. He needs the course because he is giving the info on where to "kill"

The pilot does the mission and pulls the "kill" bomb/missile. He needs the course because he did the "kill"

None of these people get a class like this. Yet, in the past 50 yrs they are the only ones that did kill.

Not every bomb lands killing only the opposition, there will always be collateral damage. To support a class like this for one small segment while not giving it to every AF member does not make sense.

Until anyone can explain to me how the guilt is more for Missile Ops which has yet to turn a key in 50 yrs., while pilots have been dropping bombs for yrs there is no reason for this class to exist.

Religion has no place in prepping a member to turn the key because a class isn't going to convince you turn your back on your beliefs. The AF was right to get rid of it.

OBTW, like many people who believe in a higher faith, I have made peace that Bullet and now our son have, will, may injure, maim, kill an innocent person. They are not intentionally defying G*D's wishes, they are protecting the innocent the best way they can. I didn't attend any class to figure that out. I just BELIEVED.

Nobody is disrespecting your opinion, but what we are trying to say is that as a candidate you have yet to enter the AD world. The AD world is an illusion to you, the AD world to others is reality. Don't block them out because you believe you know what this world is, when in essence they are the ones that do. Listen to them. They are trying to guide you so you have more perspective on what it is really like in that world when you enter it.

Pilots have to go through a pyschological screening, no? I would imagine that at least the ones on PRP do.

I'm guessing that the reason the class has existed for as long as it has is because no one made a stink about it until now. AETC at Vandenberg exists in its own world. While AETC is also the MAJCOM that trains pilots, there is little to any cross-flow in the instructional methodology.

I'm not all that sure why PRP exists to begin with. If someone is trustworthy enough to be in the service, they should be trustworthy enough to handle any job on any weapon system. Because of the nature of nuclear weapons, the USAF felt this training was necessary, and I think we are now seeing that the ethical choices involved in nuclear operations aren't all that different from conventional ops (it's just a matter of scale). The training had origins in the Cold War when the threat of a "key turn" was arguably more viable than today. Inertia keeps it going. Because nuclear weapons have the capability to kill millions, I imagine someone thought this was a good idea. Clearly it made some missileers uncomfortable, and it has rightfully been stopped.

I agree with most of your sentiment, although I do take issue with how you have characterized missile service. Yes, we have thankfully not had to turn keys on anyone, but a large reason for this is the constant readiness and willingness by missile crews to do exactly that. In order to do the job of a missileer, you have to reconcile your personal beliefs with the possibility that you could be called upon to commit weapons. I agree that this is something the individual should do on his own, without any type of mandatory training. Much as the pilot, intel guy, services guy etc. does it on their own (I assume there is no training like this outside of commissioning programs/BMT). I think the Air Force sees it that way too, as the training has stopped.

I do agree that the religious implications in the class are unnecessary.

 

[Pima]

I was not meaning to offend the missile ops people.

Yes, we have thankfully not had to turn keys on anyone, but a large reason for that is the constant readiness and willingness by missile crews to do exactly that. In order to do the job of a missileer, you have to reconcile your personal beliefs with the possibility that you could be called upon to commit weapons. I agree that this is something the individual should do on his own, without any type of mandatory training. Much as the pilot, intel guy, services guy etc. does it on their own. I think the Air Force sees it that way too, as the training has stopped.

My intention was why not the pilot, the intel, the ALO? They are all just at the same constant readiness and willingness as the missileer. Would you not agree? Yet, none of them were forced into a religious education course regarding this issue and their impact of their decision.

They actually to date have "kills" on their souls, and the AF didn't make them attend a class to drop a GBU. That's the true difference IMPO. I am not insinuating anything more than plain facts...many have had a hand in death by their own actions over the past 20 yrs. If they are going to give a course like this, than it should be all not to some. I think the AF recognizes that and this is the reason for shutting down this class.

As far as PRP, I will let Bullet, Flieger , CC and others discuss it. However, as a spouse, I never remember Bullet mandated "talking" to docs, after any military action, but than again that would be classified and he would have to kill me if he told me. In my 20+ yrs I thought PRP meant they could not self prescribed meds...i.e. Afrin, Cough Meds, anything that was more than an aspirin was a no-no. You see I am still learning!

Again, it was not my intention to insult missileers, it was my intention to show that there is an imbalance. Why teach this course to just one career field? If the AF thought that it was a big issue from a moral perspective every career field would get it. They would teach it at the AFA, AFROTC OCS, and Basic. They would teach it for Intel, ABM, UVA, UPT, CSO, etc. They don't and that is why IMPO the course loses any validity regarding training.

 

[fly boy]

Flyboy,

I think you feel you are being attacked regarding your religion. You are not. What people are saying is that to be in the military your faith has absolute no bearing on your job. End of subject, period, dot.

Fortunately, I don't feel as though I am being attacked regarding my religion. If I felt that I would be attacket based upon my religion, I would definitely rethink joining the military. However, I don't. I am pointing out that when you enter the realm of ethics, you also get into the realm of religion.

 

[Luigi59]

I am pointing out that when you enter the realm of ethics, you also get into the realm of religion.

Which is, and has been proved to be, incorrect.

 

[Pima]

Have to agree with Luigi.

Realm of ethics in the military has absolutely nothing to do with religion. You do not raise your right hand and take an Oath to your religion, you raise it and take an oath to the U.S. Constitution.

The U.S. Constitution has separation of Church and State.

YOUR personal ethics may be based on religion, but the military's is not.

You are intertwining the two.

There are Atheists in the military. I actually have met quite a few. Are you implying that since they have no belief in religion, they have no ethics? I don't think you are. I am just highlighting the fault in your defense regarding the debate.

You can't leap to the conclusion that religion is the basis of moral character regarding decisions made.

Conversely, you yourself has made a decision without any "AF class" that you are at peace with your decision to turn the key. Now bringing it back to the cancellation of this course, please defend why you, would need a course with religious implications to turn the key!

In this day and age of fewer and fewer dollars to spend on training, would you not see that as FRAUD, WASTE and ABUSE?

Are you saying you need the military to have you spend hours in a classroom, paying another military member yr. round to discuss with you the ethics from a religious POV so you would feel okay by turning the key?

Isn't that what we are really talking about when we clear away the clutter? FRAUD, because the course won't change their decision, but we want people to PERCEIVE it will. WASTE of taxpayer dollars for a course that those who enter this field have already accepted as a potential aspect in their life? ABUSE to our military members since we are wasting their time. Also ABUSE, because it is Fraud and Waste that we abused taxpayers.

If you feel that there is a need to offer courses/instruction such as this for military members, than I suggest you look deeper regarding their motivation for being in the military.