Show Comments Here (53) |

Hide Comments

I can't believe (wait a minute...yes I can) the Air Force would cave in to a bunch of political pressure and get itself involved in a such a witch hunt.

This is what happens when people are more concerned about their public image than doing what is right.

The second and third order effects will echo for years to come. Can leadership suffer any more? We'll have to wait and see.

Posted by Air Force Voices at May 6, 2005 01:24 AM

Air Force Voices,

I just read the actual report from Americans United for Separation of Church and State (AUSCS), and I am rather surprised.

Based on Hugh Hewitt's description of the report, I had assumed that the report would be a sloppy compilation of rumors and overheated complaints. But what I read was actually quite disturbing in a different way.

It seems that AUSCS has documented longstanding and pervasive religious intolerance at the Air Force Academy, as well as violations of the Establishment Clause of the First Amendment.

I am reluctant to conclude that Mr. Hewitt has been disingenuous or dishonest about this, if only because I want to give him the benefit of the doubt. But I certainly feel misled by Mr. Hewitt's characterizations of the report and his analysis of the allegations.

I urge anyone who is concerned about this report to read it, and see for himself what I am talking about. A lot of the substance of the report is not hearsay, but a well-documented overview of some serious problems at the academy.

Posted by Matthew Goggins at May 6, 2005 02:52 AM

GOOSE: “Hey Maverick, I’m going over to the chapel. Wanna come with?”
MAVERICK: “That’s coercian! I’ll sue your bible-toting a** for that! Oh God - I can’t handle this pressure!”

http://www.thequonsethut.com/?p=277

Posted by SgtMgr at May 6, 2005 05:38 AM

I'll admit it was a quick skimming, Matthew, but the gist of it seemed to be that once within the structure of the Air Force, not even a Chaplain has a constitutional freedom to practice religious faith. Nor do instructors any longer have the freedom of their own conscience, once they wear a uniform. Nor do students have the right to practice a faith that requires public confession and witness.

That some people can not avoid the religious opinions of other people is not *establishing* a state religion. It is what freedom of religion means. It means that I get to evangelize and the state can not force me not to. It means that if my room mate or instructor is of a different faith, I'm going to have to allow them the same freedom to be publically observant.

I've no doubt that cadets were encouraged to attend Chapel since Chapel serves more than one function. At basic training everyone went (and a few of us considered converting to Mormon because Mormon services lasted for HOURS away from the squadron) but no one was in any real danger of conversion or being trapped into a lifelong service to religion. The chaplains understood that we were there to decompress. It would have been truly a sorry thing for someone to miss out on those few moments to relax because they feared getting cooties by entering the building.

Posted by Julie at May 6, 2005 06:21 AM

Matthew,

You are violating an unwritten rule in the blogosphere. You cannot "cut-n-paste" the same comment over and over on different blogs. That is blog-o-spam. Your comments here are the same as on my and AFV's blog. It makes boring reading. Kind of like hearing the same sea story over, and over, and over......

PS Be nice to Julie and she might let you have your jock back.

Posted by CDR Salamander at May 6, 2005 01:24 PM

Julie is right. In 1958 I did basic training at Lackland AFB and became a "Chapel Guide" for the very reason she mentioned: anything to get a few hours respite from our demanding DI. And I'm sure the DI knew exactly what was going on and saw this practice as one of many ways to accomplish his goal of getting recuits through basic.

Posted by Chuck Rostkowski at May 6, 2005 03:48 PM

Julie,

The AUSCS report documents religious intolerance and harassment at the Air Force Academy. Faculty and upperclassmen have been agressively prosyletizing cadets, outside of chapel, with different religious beliefs.

The report also makes a strong prima facie case that the Academy's administration approves of and actively fosters this religious intolerance.

This is unacceptable if it is in fact true.

I strongly agree with you that cadets and faculty at the Air Force Academy should be encouraged to express and discuss their religion and their beliefs. Freedom of religion is particularly important for the military.

That's why the alleged religious ostracism and bullying should be condemned and stopped.

Posted by Matthew Goggins at May 6, 2005 04:26 PM

CDR Salamander,

I don't see the harm in moderate cut-and-pasting when appropriate.

Nonetheless, I will make sure not to do it anymore on your weblog. And if Julie, or someone else, doesn't want me to recycle a comment on their blog, I will respect their wishes.

Thank you for your advice, sir.

Posted by Matthew Goggins at May 6, 2005 04:33 PM

Matthew

"That's why the alleged religious ostracism and bullying should be condemned and stopped."

That's a very revealing quote. Should everything that is alledged anywhere by the AUSCS be condemned? And how exactly do we stop something that is alledged? Please clarify.

Seems to me that the AUSCS report documents claims of religious intolerance and harassment at the Air Force Academy, not events. But perhaps you're aware of some power of the AUSCS that I'm not. Do they have some higher authority to which they answer that requires truth? By their very nature the group is not unbiased - they are a publicity seeking organization with a political agenda, and no official capacity to investigate or 'document' anything. You've endorsed their position quite strongly, which is fine, but you might want to offer a bit more supporting evidence.

If you check the original post I linked, you'll find that the Academy had already taken steps last Fall to eliminate any appearance of religious coersion or any hint of 'sanctioned' denominational worship.

It's too bad that this headline-seeking group will likely divert military resources to yet another actual investigation - especially since there's a war on. But that will probably happen, and the results will be something that boils down to 'no problem'. Still, every man woman and child in service will spend a day in 'sensitivity training' anyway, and the AUSCS will start screaming coverup.

Anyone interested enough to have gotten to this point in the comments will certainly want to read the posts at cdrsalamander and Air Force Voices tracked back above.

Posted by Greyhawk at May 6, 2005 04:59 PM

That's why the alleged religious ostracism and bullying should be condemned and stopped.

Greyhawk, you are over-analyzing this statement. What I mean is simply, "If the alleged religious ostracism and bullying is actually taking place, then it should be condemned and stopped."

I don't know how much of the AUSCS report is true, how much is false, and how much is overblown. I've never been to the Air Force Academy, so my ability to intelligently weigh the conclusions of the report is limited.

But the claims in the report and the documented history of problems at the Academy cannot be fairly dismissed without further investigation.

I read your original post before commenting. The AUSCS report takes note of the steps taken by the Academy to remediate the religious harassment. The report cites evidence that indicates that those remedial steps were actually undermined by the actions of General Weida himself and other officers.

It's too bad that this headline-seeking group will likely divert military resources to yet another actual investigation.

It's too bad, only if the report is largely false. If the report is largely correct, than an investigation is sorely needed.

Posted by Matthew Goggins at May 6, 2005 05:25 PM

Once again, the knuckleheads on the left are revealing what they're made of. I'm more concerned about the 'religious intollerance' that these young cadets are going to fight around the world. The kind of intollerance that causes men to capture civilians, cut their heads off and dump their bodies on the side of the road like so much trash. It seems the American left is more afraid of hearing "Jesus loves you and has a wonderful plan for your life' than they are of hearing "Alu Akbar" as some young man blows himself up to rid the world of the great satan. The purpose of the Air Force Academy used to be training young men and women to be leaders, warriors and honorable officers of the finest fighting force the world has ever seen. Used to be. Now it appears the Academy's default task is to create feminists in Blue suits. Somehow we're supposed to produce great leaders when cadets are saddled with this PC group think and their instructors and superiors are abandoned by the acting secretary of the Air Force. Bad press strikes more fear in the hearts of Generals and politicans than terror cells with dirty nukes.

Posted by Sturmovik at May 6, 2005 05:40 PM

Matthew your comment as originally worded was right in line with your previous comments. Now I must question your "overanalyzing" claim. I took what you said at face value - especially since it supoported your previously stated position - It seems that AUSCS has documented longstanding and pervasive religious intolerance at the Air Force Academy, as well as violations of the Establishment Clause of the First Amendment. That's a pretty concrete endorsement.

I do endorse your current position, however. But is it really what you say it is or am I over analyzing?

And if as I said further investigation by an actual investigative body turns up nothing and the AUSCS cries cover up, what then?

C'mon Matthew, what do you really want?

Posted by Greyhawk at May 6, 2005 05:41 PM

Sturmovik
Don't worry, I think unmanned aerial vehicles are the future of air supremacy, eliminating the need for an AF Academy altogether. Robots will prove inferior to human pilots in complex decision making tasks, but superior to Academy grads because they certainly won't proselytize to non-believers. But on the other hand, the AUSCS thinks the cadets are robots anyway, so this might not slow them down.

Oh wait - I'm sorry - I meant 'uninhabited' aerial vehicles.

Posted by Greyhawk at May 6, 2005 06:06 PM

If further investigation turns up nothing, and the AUSCS cries cover up, then the AUSCS will be discredited.

"It seems that AUSCS has documented longstanding and pervasive religious intolerance at the Air Force Academy, as well as violations of the Establishment Clause of the First Amendment."

That's a pretty concrete endorsement.

If the AUSCS has done a good job and produced a good report, then I will be happy to endorse the report and give credit to the AUSCS.

I don't know right now if the report is fair and accurate. But after reading the report, and reading many criticisms of the report, I have concluded that it is likely that many of the claims in the report will end up being substantiated by the Air Force.

But I know I could be wrong, and I hope that I am wrong. I just don't think it's likely I'm wrong about this.

C'mon Matthew, what do you really want?

What do I really want?

I want the Islamist terrorist-murderers to be utterly routed and destroyed.

I want my neighbor, who was recently admitted to the U.S. Air Force Academy, to have a good experience next year and not have to worry about more B.S. than is really necessary.

I want Hugh Hewitt to stop knee-jerk frothing at the mouth every time a Democrat criticizes a god-fearing Republican, even when the Democrat's criticism is on the mark. An inability to think clearly about your own side's failings just allows the other side to pick up free ammunition for future battles.

And I want Mudville Gazette and like-minded blogs not to fall into an intellectual trap of us-versus-them when it may not actually be a case of us-versus-them.

Thank you for asking, sir!

Posted by Matthew Goggins at May 6, 2005 06:12 PM

Matthew et al

Let me calm you. The report is BS. I left the academy upon my retirement in 2001. As a commander for thousands of cadets I can tell you, unequivocally, there was ZERO pressure to attend religious services and ZERO pressure to "witness" to anyone. In fact, we went to great lengths to ensure that our "Wicka" brothers and sisters had equal access to all facilities for worship as did other religious groups.

USAFA just happens to be ripe for liberal picking. The recent overblown sex scandal is primary evidence. People will do literally anything to repeal an expulsion or justify an honor violation. Unfortuntaly, my former service and the academy goes to great lengths (too great in my humble opinion) to listen to every bitching and whining voice no matter how outlandish.

The fact that the USAFA cadet body and permanent party are 90% Christian (as pointed out by the AUSCS study) is reality. The fact that a doolie during Beast had his or her feelings hurt...great, that's the frikkin idea!!

Sadly, the Air Force I grew up in and served apparently no longer exists. We spend way too much time placating anti-Americans such as Barry Lynn and way too little preparing to fly and fight.

Posted by Buzz Patterson at May 6, 2005 06:25 PM

Greyhawk,
"Uninhabited?" I thought it was "unpersoned." I stand corrected. I reckon you don't need to be an Academy grad to be a cruise missle pilot:)
Matt; "I want my neighbor to have a good experience a the Academy." I laughed out loud at that. What is it, summer camp or a military academy? The best experience is to go in a boy and come out a man. Doubtful that will happen. Now its come in with a spine and leave without one. If a young man or woman can't handle "have you accepted Jesus into your heart?" How are they going to handle "die Yankee scum?" In as much as the second circumstance usually invovles being shot at, being bombed, RPG's, mortar attacks and other 'unpleasantness,' that can be very upsetting.
Buzz Pattern, I hear you man, the old days it was 'the best defense is a good offense' (I was schooled in LeMay's Air Force). Now it's the best defense is to be inoffensive.

Posted by Sturmovik at May 6, 2005 06:50 PM

Matt
I'm sorry, control of the Mudville Gazette is non-negotiable.

Posted by Greyhawk at May 6, 2005 06:52 PM

PS; Buzz, sorry about the misspelled name
Sturm

Posted by Sturmovik at May 6, 2005 06:58 PM

Sturmovik

I've been called MUCH worse. :)

Too bad our Air Force has become so PC. If it were the Marine Corps, they'd tell them to shove it!

Posted by Buzz Patterson at May 6, 2005 07:15 PM

I feel a little intimidated following up after Buzz. :-)

Matt, you said...
"I strongly agree with you that cadets and faculty at the Air Force Academy should be encouraged to express and discuss their religion and their beliefs."

But what if someone thinks that this is...
"Faculty and upperclassmen have been agressively prosyletizing cadets, outside of chapel, with different religious beliefs."

I mean... what is "agressively?" Is it calling the non-chapel attenders the "Heathen flight" (I think it was "flight") to march back to dorms? Seriously, if someone can't take a joke that mild, I'm pretty sure I wouldn't want to be the poor Airman stuck with that officer as my OIC. Is it "agressive" to encourage or even strongly encourage cadets to spend an hour or so in that Chapel pew instead of going back to their room and cramming Calculus II because you know it's a good way to help avoid burn out?

Almost half the people who start at the Air Force Academy don't finish. The whole point (well, maybe not whole but close) is to apply pressure from every side. Do cadets feel pressure. Yes. I'm sure they do. And a certain number of them feel pressure about the wrong things and fail to get a feeling for what's going on around them. Not everyone can do it. A good friend who was at the Academy got kicked out for doing what he believed he was supposed to be doing. In reality, I suppose, he got kicked out for being unable to figure out the rules. I can't say that's unfair because it does reflect his ability to function in that environment. Am I going to get excited about someone who can't figure out the difference between voluntary and voluntary but with consequences? No. I'm not.

Do I think some outside group with an agenda cares about the difference? No. I don't.

Buzz said what I would expect to be true from my experiences in the Air Force and that is that religious diversity is "agressively" tolerated. The Wiccans and whoever else will have access and accomodation within the Chaplain system. Will they be able to avoid evangelical Christians. No.

Posted by Julie at May 6, 2005 07:19 PM

Colonel Patterson,

I am honored to share a comment thread with you, sir. I am heartened to see that you think there should be zero pressure at the Academy on cadets to attend religious services or to witness other cadets.

Sturmovik,

Cadets need to be integrated into a team, a life-support network. There's no place for full-throated religious bullying in building such a team.

You say you laugh at my concerns, because cadets need to develop a strong spine. But character-building should not be an excuse for condoning abuse.

Why should the religious sensibilities of cadets in the religious majority or plurality be allowed to trump those of cadets in a religious minority -- don't the Christian students need to build character too?

Julie,

If the "Heathen" march was one upperclassman making one joke in one isolated incident, then I have no problem with that at all.

If the "Heathen" march was one upperclassman making one joke in an environment where born-again Christians have special privileges and rewards that other cadets don't have, and an environment where Academy officers at the highest levels encourage cadets to aggressively prosyletize other cadets, then I have a big problem with it.

Aggressive means that cadets are made to feel like some kind of second-class cadet if they don't acknowledge Jesus as their Lord and Saviour. It means the proselytizers are more concerned about making a conversion than about respecting the beliefs/faiths of cadets who aren't Christian or who aren't born-again.

I have no problem with a chaplain, or anyone else for that matter, encouraging a student to attend chapel. But cadets have the right to say "No thank you, sir" without worrying about suffering opprobrium from the staff of the Academy.

You raise very good points about pressure, and about cadets having to figure out what the rules are. The AUSCS report raises good points about some of the responsibilities the Academy has towards the cadets.

Greyhawk,

Apology accepted -- maybe I'll have more luck with James Taranto's Best of the Web.

Posted by Matthew Goggins at May 6, 2005 08:04 PM

Matt;
A "life support network." ?????? A team yes, but a life support network, I have no idea what that means, mabye you can elaborate. "Character building is no excuse for condoning abuse." More post modern double talk. I'm not condoning abuse, I'm asking how Cadets are expected build charater by being sheilded from every conflict, by turning the Academy into a secular monastery, free from all absolutes, bereft of even a hint of the reality that awaits outside the gate after graduation? Are the bad old Christians going to go away when the newly minted nugget gets his first assignment? If teamwork is the goal, how will they achieve that, if whenever a cadet says "I have my rights" or "I'm offended" the secretary of the Air Force conducts an investigation, out of the fear of bad publicity? How will a team be built with kids who act just like their civilian peers, who sue the high school because they didn't get to go to the prom? Col. Patterson refered to the Corps. I served with the Marines and they often spoke of bootcamp as the place where the civilian had to be torn away so the Marine could be built up. The academy combines higher education and basic officer training. And basic training isn't supposed to be a utopia, its where you find out whether the trainee can handle the real world.

Posted by Sturmovik at May 6, 2005 08:39 PM

Life support network: you've got my back covered, and I've got yours.

In a cockpit, in a humvee, on a foot patrol in Ramadi, soldiers are Americans first, and Christians, Muslims, Buddhists, Jews, and atheists second.

Posted by Matthew Goggins at May 6, 2005 08:50 PM

The bottom line is this (and I've written two books largely on this premise): do we as American citizens want our military to become something else, that is, an inoffensive, equal opportunity employer without regard to qualifications or abilities? Or do we want, as history has shown most effective, a highly-integrated unit that brings massive and brutal force upon our enemies without subjugation to social mores and cultural fads?

I opt for the latter. Altough I would never condone bias or prejudice in any form, I would also never condone a "socialization" or "liberalization" of our armed forces. The Clintons tried it--bad idea. We in uniform are not society, we are a profession of arms, a culture that defies common understanding. Not everybody (thank GOD!) can or should do it. I flew with many fellow Air Force pilots over 20 years. Most were great, some were crappy. The system is not perfect. However, I never went into a combat or tactical situation concerned about the guy on my wing. Never! I always prayed for great maintenance guys and gals (I am a Christian as well), a decent weather forecast but, more importantly, that my co-pilot had his game-face on and his professionalism in his flight suit. I never cared if he was Christian, Jewish, Islamic, agnostic or atheist.

I cared that he knew his shit. That's what USAFA is all about as well. They want the end-product. A proud, humble, proficient Air Force officer. Because when the stuff gets ugly, there are no atheists in cockpits. Bullets flying in anger humbles all of us.

Lay off the academies and let them do their job. Again, I'm not a USAFA product but I was raised and trained accordingly. I don't think they're perfect. I do know that at USAFA they are well-meaning, driven professionals that understand where the line is.

Instead of liberal groups like AUSCS chipping away at the Air Force's ability to educate officers, how about they actually help in a meaningful way? If this were WWII, I can imagine they'd be onboard. But, alas, its not and the Left cares more about emasculating the military then doing anything to support them.

Posted by Buzz Patterson at May 6, 2005 09:01 PM

Colonel Patterson,

It's shameful how so many prominent Americans have found it so hard to get their priorities in order while we've been fighting a mortal enemy, to the point that they ended up lending aid and comfort to those on the other side.

The Democratic Party in particular passed by many an opportunity to disavow the moonbats on the left while they were pursuing their electoral ambitions. To the contrary, some Democratic senators and presidential candidates actually seemed to embrace the less-than-patriotic left in a faustian attempt to gain votes and donations.

However, the Democratic party is the political opposition in this country, and every democracy needs a vital opposition to stay on the right track.

If Democrats, or anyone else, want to criticize our institutions, we need to listen and figure out which criticisms are valid and which are not.

The vast majority of Americans do not want an emasculated military, so thank you very much for helping us understand where criticisms and reforms may be going too far. As long as we the people can stay well-informed as to what the military needs, then the powers in Washington will have to make sure those needs are met.

Keep rolling, sir.

Posted by Matthew Goggins at May 6, 2005 09:29 PM

"But cadets have the right to say "No thank you, sir" without worrying about suffering opprobrium from the staff of the Academy."

No. They. Don't.

They have the right to say "No thank you, Sir" without being punished for making a choice they are free to make.

What they *worry* about is their own problem.

Posted by Julie at May 6, 2005 09:38 PM

In fact, I'd say that learning to stand on principle in the face of possible displeasure is a positive and necessary trait in an officer.

Or maybe it's just Air Force enlisted that are trained to tell their officers where to go?

Posted by Julie at May 6, 2005 09:40 PM

They have the right to say "No thank you, Sir" without being punished for making a choice they are free to make.

What they *worry* about is their own problem.

If General Weida's administration is creating or allowing a hostile religious environment, then it's not just a cadet's problem, it's the Air Force's problem.

And given that the alleged perpetrators of the religious harassment are allegedly born-again Christians, it's possible that the Air Force's problem could blossom at some point into a problem for President Bush and the Republican party.

And given that the Repubs seem to be stronger on defense issues right now than the Dems, it's possible, in theory at least, that any political problems this causes for the Repubs could actually affect our national security!

But when push comes to shove, what I care about is that when some young fellow at the Academy is being molded into an officer, any challenges thrown his way have to do with military necessities and not some intolerant, un-American you're not-one-of-us so-go-deal-with-it garbage.

An officer-in-training needs to know how to take a principled stand even when it's lonely and unpopular, I agree, but the institution should not be working against him for no good reason.

Posted by Matthew Goggins at May 6, 2005 10:20 PM

Hey Guys,

Man! Where do I begin? I've been reading your conversation with GREAT interest and from an outside observer who happens to be an AF chaplain I have a few observations:

1) While favoritism in the service academies is not tolerated, the Cadet Corps is not for wimps. A bigoted comment is mild compared to the rigors of a combat environment (let along a POW situation!), and those who cannot endure it should stay civillians. Sexual harrassment and the like is not tolerated, neither is religious harrassment, but there are those who make such claims with a deeper political agenda in mind, and those who are legitimate. Legitimate claims go through the chain of command, while politically motiviated claims go to special interest groups and to the press.

2) Don't forget the bias and agenda of the "investigative" groups involved. The anti-Evangelical and anti-Catholic bias of Yale Divinity School is well known among clergy and their report reveals a clear misunderstanding of the role and mission of the military chaplain. AUSCS is well known for its political agenda and their practice of using half-truths. Unless they are willing to prove their charges in court with specific instances of UCMJ violations they should be disregarded by us and the SecAF. Both these groups are willing to do whatever it takes to remove classic Judeo-Christian influence from American culture.

3) Don't forget the comprehensive role of the chaplain. We are not "mini-shrinks" who merely give private pastoral care. We help the entire Wing with spiritual and emotional well-being, but we are CLERGY first. We are each bound by our endorser (denomination) to counsel, lead worship and teach in accord with our denomination's doctrine. You cannot expect to hear a Baptist chaplain refrain from promoting evangelism any more than you could expect a Mormon chaplain refrain from speaking of Joseph Smith. If a Christian chaplain cannot preach the Gospel then he can no longer be a chaplain. You may as well hire "Counselor Troi" from Star Trek. OUR MISSION IS TO FACILITATE THE FREE EXERCISE OF RELIGION FOR SERVICE MEMBERS and that includes their right to share their faith and their right for their faith to be respected. If cadets share their faith disrespectfully then the chaplain can correct the matter as the AFA chaplains already have. The "investigators" seem to want no sharing of Christian faith among service members or among any governmental officials. If they prevail, this infringement of free speech may extend to all college students and eventually all citizens within our lifetime.

4) Don't forget that the flap is not over whether the alleged problems were addressed or not, but whether they were addressed to the satisfaction of those with an anti-Evangelical political agenda. That certain alleged problems were "documented" merely means that they were recorded on paper. That doesn't mean that they actually exist or that they are in fact problems. I preach that Jesus is the only way to salvation (John 14:6). Just because a liberal doesn't like what Jesus said of Himself, that doesn't make it a problem. It is only bothersome to that liberal, and he should have the fortitude to tolerate my convictions, just as I tolerate his conviction that my preaching may seem bigoted to him. Bigots don't last long in the academies or on active duty, though there may be exceptions. Don't make rules out of exceptions! The matter of climat HAS ALREADY BEEN ADDRESSED. It is now just being used as a political football.

I could go on and on about this all day, but lets not hand a victory over to anti-Christian zealots who want to remove the chaplaincy from all the services and replace us with shrinks.

Blessings,
Fr. Wes

Posted by Fr. Wes at May 6, 2005 11:59 PM

Hello;

I have never been in the military. However, I have read a lot of both history and politics. I also live in Colorado and followed the stories in the papers here where there was a ton of coverage about the sexual harassment toward female cadets up to and including rape.

And at the end of all of the investigations of the Academy it was very clear that it was open season on the female cadets there. This was admitted by the Air Force itself.

Should the school be tough? Yes. But it should be tough in a way that does not treat some cadets as less worthy because of their sex or skin color or religion. Because treatment like that does not "toughen them up." What it does instead is tell them that because of who they are, they can never be a true member of the group. And that is divisive.

- dave

Posted by David Thielen at May 7, 2005 12:35 AM

Dave

It has not been nor was it ever "open season on female cadets." As a commander at USAFA from 1998-2001, I was (we were) very sensitive to sexual harrasment and/or rape. In my time, there were three documented incidents of sexual crime in my group of 1000 cadets. All three defendants are now serving time at Ft Leavenworth. There were also several accusations that, after thorough review, were found to be falacious. The Air Force and the Academy do not, will not, condone that behavior. What you and many are victim of is media spin. When you put 4000 cadets, age 18-22, in coed dorms (thank you Hillary Clinton) you get youthful indiscretion and, sometimes, crime. I challenge you to compare the incident rate at USAFA with any major university. Actually, UC at Boulder comes to mind. The Air Force does their level best to be sensitive to victims and to not ever promote an environment where assaults take place. Those that have occurred at the USAF Academy have been blown completely out of proportion. Sure, USAFA is a federally-funded institution. So too are UC at Boulder and Colorado State. I'm not saying actual victims at USAFA are not deserving. What I am saying is that reality is not represented in the Denver Post or any other wanna be media in Colorado. In fact, I can guarantee you that the faculty at USAFA is painfully aware and going to great lengths to prevent such behavior.

The military is a prime target. Military institutions are moreso.

Posted by Buzz Patterson at May 7, 2005 01:21 AM

Fr. Wes,

Thanks for weighing in. All you have to do is look at the peer-reviewed writing of the leader of the YDS "team." It's on my blog if you are interested. ES: military is not her specialty.
http://cdrsalamander.blogspot.com/2005/05/usaf-academy-vs-yale-divinity-school.html

Dave,
Always consider the source and biases of what you read. Open season? Harumph. I went to a large land-grant college in the SE. Some time over a beer, I'll describe "open season" to you.

Matt,
You're trying hard, and it is obvious that you're struggling to match what you have read/been told with what first hand opinions here are; but in some ways you describe a parallel universe. I'm an Evangelical (now), and I've been playing this Navy thing for over 16 yrs. As much as I like to tease them, the USAF ain't that different. Regardless what some of the AUSCS inspired and YDS promoted panic is putting out, the US Military is not the armed wing of the Southern Baptist Convention or the Vatican. A couple of days with my wardroom on liberty in Trieste would prove that to you.

Read Fr. Wes post again. He is right on, as is Buzz.

Posted by CDR Salamander at May 7, 2005 02:09 AM

Having read Fr. Wes again...I say Amen. Our country, my Air Force, and our war against terrorists is founded in belief. We don't have to espouse personal convictions to know that we are right, they are wrong. And organizations such as the AUSCS and ACLU do not serve the greater good. We are Americans. We were attacked. We are attacked still. I am sickened by Americans who choose to fight America. The line of politics that once was never crossed has now been crossed. I'm only 48 but I cannot imagine a time in our nation where political discourse would target a sitting commander-in-chief or a military academy. It's a sad time.

Posted by Buzz Patterson at May 7, 2005 02:39 AM

Why continue to give matthew goggins cybertime? Ignore him, and maybe he'll go away!!

Posted by Bud at May 7, 2005 02:41 AM

Colonel Patterson,

I'm only 48 but I cannot imagine a time in our nation where political discourse would target a sitting commander-in-chief or a military academy. It's a sad time.

Excuse me, when Bill "Slick Willie" Clinton was commander-in-chief, he made an excellent target of political discourse!

And the AUSCS report is not so much "targeting" the Air Force Academy, but highlighting academy problems in an effort to improve the place. If the AUSCS report bears any relation to reality, they are not attacking the academy at all, they are doing it a service.

CDR Salamander,

I know the U.S. military is not a church establishment (and never will be), but apparently that has not stopped some officers at the Air Force Academy from trying to push an inappropriate religious agenda.

The problem here is not some evangelical or Christian conspiracy to "take over" the Air Force or the military. The problem is General Weida not enforcing the rules on religious harassment on his turf.

Fr. Wes,

You have written a powerful defense of the Air Force and its academy. Thank you for sharing your experiences with me and the rest of us.

I have some comments though.

A bigoted comment is mild compared to the rigors of a combat environment (let along a POW situation!), and those who cannot endure it should stay civillians.

No one is complaining about a bigoted comment. The complaints are about a longstanding record of pervasive harassment. To dismiss complaints with a brusque like-it-or-leave-it attitude is a cop-out.

Legitimate claims go through the chain of command, while politically motiviated claims go to special interest groups and to the press.

If complaints that go up the chain of command go unheeded or mocked, then why should anyone be surprised that special interest groups or the press will get called in? To dismiss complaints that are channeled through any special interest group as illegitimate is another cop-out.

Unless [the AUSCS] are willing to prove their charges in court with specific instances of UCMJ violations they should be disregarded by us and the SecAF.

You seem to be saying hear that the AUSCS should have sued the Air Force Academy instead of asking for an investigation. I don't think that would have been appropriate for the AUSCS to do -- they are giving the Air Force a chance to fix things. And to say we and the SecAF should ignore the charges because they refrained from going to court is not only a cop-out, but it would be a dereliction of duty for the SecAF to actually do as you advise.

Both these groups [Yale Divinity School and AUSCS] are willing to do whatever it takes to remove classic Judeo-Christian influence from American culture.

This kind of wild accusation, while it certainly has a basis in the truth, is much more over-the-top (dare I say hysterical) than any complaint found in the YDS or AUSCS reports. For an Air Force chaplain to throw out these kind or remarks doesn't really add credibility to your defense of the academy.

The "investigators" seem to want no sharing of Christian faith among service members or among any governmental officials. If they prevail, this infringement of free speech may extend to all college students and eventually all citizens within our lifetime.

Fr. Wes, I've been talking about making sure there is no religious harassment and ostracism, not about stopping the "sharing [of] Christian faith among service members".

What is religious harassment? It is a pattern of repeated aggressive proselytizing, particularly on the part of those in charge, be they the Commandant of Cadets or an upperclassman dealing with younger cadets.

No one is going to prohibit the sharing of anything -- it's just that the sharing must be consensual and follow the rules. The military does believe in having a few rules to maintain good order and morale, you know!

The matter of climate HAS ALREADY BEEN ADDRESSED. It is now just being used as a political football.

The AUSCS report goes on in some detail as to how General Weida and the faculty have addressed previous complaints of religious harassment. The report makes a case that General Weida's efforts in this regard are less than satisfactory. If the report is incorrect in this regard, then presumably an Air Force investigation would demonstrate that and clear the air. Your labelling of the complainants as liberal doesn't actually address the issues that are raised in the report. Ensuring that cadets are treated with an appropriate amount of respect for their religious beliefs doesn't strike me as being such an obviously "liberal", as opposed to "conservative", position.

I preach that Jesus is the only way to salvation (John 14:6). Just because a liberal doesn't like what Jesus said of Himself, that doesn't make it a problem.

Look, thinking that Jesus is the only way to salvation is not conservative, and thinking that Jesus is not the only way to salvation is not liberal. You're talking about religious beliefs, not political philosophies, so how about laying off the labelling, okay?

And a chaplain's preaching on Jesus and salvation is not the problem -- it's the officially promoted proselytizing outside of chapel that is the problem.

Posted by Matthew Goggins at May 7, 2005 05:48 AM

Matt,

Thank you for you rigorous rebuttal. You are indeed the bulldog in this fight, and I will not likely respond to your future posts because I have too much work to do. I sense an emotional investment in your writing. Perhaps you or someone close to you have been singled out or beat down by some bigoted or misguided church people at some point and if that is the case I quite understand. The same has happed to me, but God's love is bigger than any of this. Mindful of that my response follows:

Pervasive harassment is easy to assert but needs to be proven through a substantial pattern of specific incidents and a clear definition of harassment. We cleansed the DOD of pervasive racism and the AFA of sexual scandals by addressing the incidents and the climate. "Repeated aggressive proselytizing" indeed crosses the line, but an atheist with an agenda can call respectful sharing of faith "proselytizing" and I think this is the heart of the issue. If the chain of command disregarded complaints, perhaps no real proselytizing was going on, just respectful evangelism that atheists with an agenda want stopped. Nonetheless the offended cadets could still go to an advisor and file an IG complaint but instead the press and special interests were brought in. Now the IG is involved and hopefully they will not bow to policically correct pressure groups. I am confident they will go by the book but I am wary that unnecessary new rules may be established infringing the rights of all.

As for the "wimp factor" I stand by what I say. I am repeatedly harassed by coleagues from my own denomination (some are graduates of Yale divinity School) because of my Evangelical/Catholic convictions. I have been called a "Bible thumper", "bigot", "unenlightened", "stupid", "closed-minded", and I have even been slandered by an intolerant bishop -- all in the name of "tolerance". I have been subjected to religious harassment by peers and supervisors as a B-52 navigator and as a conservative priest, but I don't go to the courts or the press. I take it like a man and wear with honor the fact that I suffer for Christ and (as a Chaplain/officer) for the rights of these intolerant people. If there are specific UCMJ violations at the AFA then charges should be filed. Otherwise people should knock it off and let the chaplains address the problem as they have been trained to do, and have done.

Regarding AUSCS and Yale Divinity School, I stand by what I said regarding AUSCS but I need to clarify about Yale. AUSCS is quite open about their agenda and their track record speaks for itself. My problems with Yale Divinity are with regard to certain faculty, including those who visited the AFA, and yes they do have a political liberal agenda. Read the writings of these faculty or the textbooks they require and you can see for yourself. McQuarrie, McFague, Spong, Mollencott, Crossan, Funk, and Borg are just a handful of "scholars" whose works are favored and they share a common secularist, post-modern agenda. This is hardly a "wild accusation". I have seen it bear fruit in my own denomination, right down to the political posturing. Thus the report WILL NEVER endorse the level of accomodation that allows for ANY evangelism because it IS a political tool. Please find me a statement from AUSCS that endorses paid religious chaplains within ANY part of the US government, let alone DOD. AUSCS will milk this tempest for all its worth, exagerating even the most minor problems, until the hands of all chaplains are tied (or they are eliminated) and DOD becomes a religious-free zone. They used the same tactics in the courts against the Pledge of Allegiance.

Preaching Jesus as the only way of salvation IS conservative, and denying the same IS liberal, by definition. The HISTORIC faith affirms the exclusive claims of Christ. To change this is a REVISION of the faith and hence is liberal. Theologians on both sides of the debate about Christ openly acknowledge these labels, though many liberals prefer the label "progressive".

I believe that in the current climate at the Academy, people merely share their faith respectfully outside of chapel, and that is their civil right, but AUSCS would call this harassment and would want even this eliminated. Hopefully the AF investigation will find the truth and commend the chaplains for a job well done. If I am wrong, PLEASE SHOW ME THE INCIDENTS THAT ARE STILL GOING ON.

Matt, I'm sorry for the length of my post and I hope I haven't touched a nerve. You sound like a great guy, and I hope your encounters with pastors and chaplains have been good ones. If not, I apologize on their behalf. Your concern is a good one. No one should get beat up over their religious convictions. Our debate is simply over who is really beating up whom. If I ever run into you I'd love to buy you a cup of coffee. In the meantime, my prayers are with you.

Blessings,
Fr. Wes

Posted by Fr. Wes at May 7, 2005 08:35 AM

Father Wes, thanks for an excellent post, I'm a Missori Lutheran, but all chaplains were a blessing when I was sent to rough places with tough tasks to accomplish. Thanks for your service and God bless you brother.
Col Patterson, just saw your blog, congratulations, looking forward to your comments, and thanks for your insights here.
Matt, thanks for your comments too, not sure I agree but I appreciate your perseverance; as the saying goes, 'you know the truth a man promotes by the error he is willing to refute." I just disagree what the error is :)
A blessed sunday to all.
Sturm,

Posted by Sturmovik at May 7, 2005 06:41 PM

Fr. Wes,

Anyone who responds to my rigorous rebuttal with such a thoughtful and gracious posting is definitely my kind of chaplain. I can't say I was surprised that someone who has dedicated himself to ministering to our men and women in the Air Force would be such a gentleman, but I am still truly appreciative of your comments.

I am tempted to say, "Thanks. I agree with 95% of what you say. Carry on, sir!", but as you have pointed out, I am something of a bulldog (or mule), so I am going to respond a little more fully.

Matt, I'm sorry for the length of my post and I hope I haven't touched a nerve.

Fr. Wes, to the contrary, I relish a good debate. I'll tell you what touches my nerves:

The story that Greyhawk posted above (May 7th, 11:53am), Hi Mom! As Greyhawk points out, this is a principal being stupid as opposed to being evil, but it still tees me off big time.

Preaching Jesus as the only way of salvation IS conservative, and denying the same IS liberal, by definition. The HISTORIC faith affirms the exclusive claims of Christ. To change this is a REVISION of the faith and hence is liberal. Theologians on both sides of the debate about Christ openly acknowledge these labels, though many liberals prefer the label "progressive".

In your first comment, it seemed to me you were muddling the word "liberal", in a theological sense, with the word "liberal", in a political sense.

Personally, I think it's better, as a general rule, to avoid labelling people as liberal or conservative, but if you want to use those terms as a theological shorthand, you should avoid extending that to political beliefs.

Many religiously "conservative" people are politically "liberal", and many religiously "liberal" people are politically "conservative".

And just how helpful are the terms "liberal" and "conservative" in a theological context, anyway?
Is your brand of Christianity really conservative -- or is it actually revolutionary, and Stoicism, Hedonism, Roman paganism, Celtic druidism, Zoroaster-ism, Judaism, or animism that is conservative?

Is it liberal to challenge Jesus as the only path to salvation? Islam rejected that belief over 1300 years ago, many Christians rejected it starting about 300 years ago -- how long does an idea have to be around before it is no longer "liberal"?

Regarding AUSCS and Yale Divinity School, I stand by what I said regarding AUSCS but I need to clarify about Yale.

You may be right about AUSCS, I don't know anything about them beyond their report and their website. But I accept your qualified remarks about Yale Divinity School.

I believe that in the current climate at the Academy, people merely share their faith respectfully outside of chapel, and that is their civil right, but AUSCS would call this harassment and would want even this eliminated.

I agree with you and everyone else who has made the point that religion is particularly important in the military, and that conduct that would normally constitute harassment in a civilian context may be appropriate in a military academy.

But that is precisely why the rules are so important -- a certain latitude in matters religious is granted the academy, so the boundaries must be made very clear indeed and respected.

As Colonel Patterson has clearly and forcefully pointed out, it is expected that there will be no pressure on cadets to attend chapel, and no pressure on cadets to witness to other cadets. Even more importantly, it should be made crystal clear that there are no official negative consequences for not being born-again or for not being Christian. And aggressive religious proselytizing outside of chapel should be discouraged and punished.

Obviously, applying such rules in particular cases will be tricky sometimes, to say the least. But that is why General Weida and the faculty need to demonstrate good faith towards all, and be pro-actively respectful of religious differences. Instead, General Weida and other faculty seem to have gone out of their way to promote Christian views and spirituality over other beliefs.

Hopefully the AF investigation will find the truth and commend the chaplains for a job well done. If I am wrong, PLEASE SHOW ME THE INCIDENTS THAT ARE STILL GOING ON.

That's why I am grateful to AUSCS for their report: they went out there, did some research, and documented some problems. If they are shading the truth and constructing a false version of reality, then shame on them, and I will denounce them vigorously.

But if the Air Force corroborates what AUSCS says has been going on, then AUSCS will deserve credit and gratitude for helping all cadets, instead of some cadets, get the religious respect they deserve.

Anyone who is willing to put his life on the line to defend the U.S. should not be bullied for being a Jew, an atheist, not born-again Christian, or even a Muslim.

And shame on those who condone such bullying as a character-building exercise -- being a cadet at the Air Force Academy is plenty character-building without such divisive and un-American abuse. It's one thing for a drill instructor to mercilessly tease a cadet in basic training -- it's a whole other thing to tolerate or promote practices that ostracize a cadet on the basis of religion. And that's what the AUSCS report seems to be trying to prevent.

Let me remind everyone who enjoys the Mudville Gazette of the outrageous story that Greyhawk posted today: the teacher and principal who so stupidly cut off the student talking to his mom in Iraq, and who refused to allow him to answer when she called back.

This is the same kind of pure B.S. that I hope doesn't get dumped on our young people who attend the Air Force Academy, and if there's anything I can do to help prevent it, I will.

Fr. Wes, thanks again for your response. I hope you are right and I am wrong about the AUSCS report, and I would love to meet you one day over coffee.

Until then, you have my best wishes and my thanks for being a great chaplain.

Posted by Matthew Goggins at May 7, 2005 06:48 PM

Sturmovik,

Thanks, a blessed Sunday to you too.

Posted by Matthew Goggins at May 7, 2005 06:50 PM

Matt

A day too late perhaps. I think you get the gist but not the meat.

USAFA is well and good. There is no pressure on cadets other than that necessary to mold them into future officers. Please don't read too much into the report by ill-meaning liberal organizations. Their intent is not to reform but to inflame.

I can fully attest...the Air Force Academy produces fine, mature, educated officers. Again, not that I am one. I do, however, totally invest into the program. I only wish that I, as a young pilot-wannabe, was disciplined enough to have hacked the program. I was not. I had to leave the Clinton White House and migrate to USAFA to regain my integrity.

Nobody and no organiztion is immune from criticism. You brought up my former supervisor Bill Clinton. As a living and breathing participant I can tell you that he was NEVER subjected to the inane ridicule for his mis-steps as CINC as has GWB for his positive steps. Sure, Bill was an ass. And inspite of his many errors in military deployments, nobody on the right called him a "loser" a "liar" or "deceitful." Those words flow from the Left. We have crossed a line in Americanb politics that is extremely dangerous. The right didn't cross it, the Left did. Folks like Nancy Pelosi, Teddy Kennedy, and Charlie Rangel are out of bounds. Until Dems figure that out, they will lose!

Posted by Buzz Patterson at May 8, 2005 03:49 AM

"Preaching Jesus as the only way of salvation IS conservative, and denying the same IS liberal, by definition. "

What about conservative non-Christians? What about conservative Jews? Or conservative Hindus? Or conservative Buddhists? Or conservative Muslims.

Each of these faiths has conservative adherents who make conservative evangelical Christians look like decadent libertines.

Then again, Christ's teachings, especially those on wealth, aren't really compatible with the current conservative American doctrine. You certainly won't find the GOP telling members to sell all they own and give it to the poor, as Jesus taught. Instead, the GOP is focused on aiding the accumulation of wealth, and the worsening of the condition of the poor.

Posted by Jon H at May 8, 2005 03:56 AM

Buzz Patterson writes: "And inspite of his many errors in military deployments, nobody on the right called him a "loser" a "liar" or "deceitful.""

Um, the right accused him of a whole spectrum of villanies, from mere larceny to having people killed. They spent tens of millions investigating him. They killed whole forests publishing ridiculous slanders. The Wall Street Journal editorial page was a free-fire zone targeting Clinton.

"Liar" and "deceitful" are the more gentle criticisms that were leveled against Clinton. Dan Burton (R-Indiana) called him a 'scumbag'.

I've no particular love for the man, but let's not rewrite history.

Posted by Jon H at May 8, 2005 04:02 AM

The thing that I keep thinking about is this: If this religious intolerance was pervasive at the AF's premier academy. Then it would beg to argue that religous intolerance was pervasive in the AF. If the fine officers being produced were allowed to do this at the academy, then they would beleive that they could and be allowed to do this in the regular AF. As a member of that AF, this is not what I see. I beleive that we (AF) are one of the most culturally diverse and tolerant communities in America, that is not to say my sister services are not this way also but I don't not have first hand experience. The programs that we have in place (Military Equal Opportunity and the IG) allow for the proper vetting of special investigations (Racist, Sexist claims). Beyond this our chaplains make great efforts to promote religious tolerance. When they talk to my squadron, they talk to us about providing spiritual healing (don't mistake this for religious healing) and occasionally they do mention their faith and ask if we would like to participate in prayer. But I have never seen from my co-workers any ostracization (sp?) or intolerance of those that do not participate. All this leads me to beleive that this investigation is bogus but I welcome any investigation to prove the allegations false or correct any problems found.

Posted by SC at May 8, 2005 08:17 AM

Jon

If you'll reread my post you'll note that I was talking about Clinton as CINC...a sitting president during war time has never been subjected to the vitriol that Bush has. Even with our brief foray into Kosovo, the Right held off with the personal stuff.

Besides, it's only "slander" if its untrue. Bill brought most of his problems on himself.

Posted by Buzz Patterson at May 8, 2005 03:09 PM

Jon,

Please quote for me the specific statements of "current conservative American doctrine" that are "incompatible" with Christ's teachings about wealth, and the specific theologians and denominations that hold such "doctrines" in their articles of faith, so I can denounce them. You might lift a quote from a lousy preacher from time to time but that hardly passes for doctrine. Meanwhile the Barna Research Group identifies Evangelical Christians as the largest per-capita and the largest gross contributors to relief-oriented charities in the entire Western world. Political progressives seek taxpayers as a whole to help the poor while conservatives encourage individuals to help the poor. The charitible contributions of Bush -vs- Kerry from their 2003 IRS returns are a classic example of such convictions.

EVERY American is a decadent libertine in the eyes of many in the developing world, regardless of their religion. To our discredit, too many Evangelicals succomb to the culture of death, greed, lust and divorce, looking all too worldly. This does not discredit their beliefs, only their witness of Christian beliefs.

Theological liberals speak endlessly of Jesus' teaching about the poor, but so many of them seem every bit as decadent as the rest of us selfish Americans, except perhaps a few who join the Peace Corps. Meanwhile THOUSANDS of Evangelical missionaries do indeed give up everything they have, often even their lives, in order to serve the poor and bring them joy through the Gospel of Jesus Christ.

Please research for me who provides the majority of free medical care and builds the most hospitals for the poor in the developing world. I think you will find it to be Catholic and Evangelical churches, with the United States Government running a close second. Who provides free education for women seeking to escape prostitution? Catholic and Evangelical missionaries. Who speaks with the most influence for the victims of female "circumcision" and coerced spousal "suicide" at funerals in cultures that oppress women? Again, it is Catholic and Evangelical Christians. Who founded the Abolition movement that freed the slaves in England and spread that message to the US and the rest of the world? Catholic and Evangelical Christians (specifically Wilberforce, Whitfield, and Wesley among others, all conservative Anglicans). Their opposition were mostly DEISTS!

Fruit of such Christian influence is found in Uganda, Tanzania, Nigeria, Kenya and even Rawanda, all of which were once war torn but are now recovering despite Wahabi jihadists. Christians from these countries are now sending missionaries to the decadent West, and we need them.

Is is really so terrible for Catholics and Evangelicals to have influence in our government and in our chain of command?

Please document your assertions, otherwise lay off the tired MoveON talking points.

Blessings,
Fr. Wes

Posted by Fr. Wes at May 8, 2005 11:01 PM

Fr. Wes speaks with big medicine.

Posted by CDR Salamander at May 9, 2005 04:01 AM

Gentlemen,

I have read with interest all of the comments here this morning. I cannot say I agree wholeheartedly with all or any of these statements, though. I think that all of you are intelligent people who truly believe in your positions but are willing, even eager, to listen and discuss (not argue) with people who do not necessarily share those opinions.

Fr. Wes, I am nominally a catholic. I was born and raised Catholic, attended catholic schools all of my life (even, amazingly, graduate school). For various reasons I have drifted away from the church and its more strict teachings. Even though I don't attend Mass or even agree with many of the church teachings, I cannot stop identifying myself as Catholic. having said all of that, you sound like my kind of priest, even though I think we would not agree on much theologically.

I served for about seven years in the Army, split between two tours, was medically discharged and am still sorry that I was not able to stay in, especially now that our country is engaged in combat.

All of the above is just background for my observations:

Matt: You may be right on many aspects of what religious tolerance in the military should be. In my experience (I attended ROTC from '81-'85, served as an infantry officer from '85-'88, then came back on active duty from '91-'95) the atmosphere was exactly as you describe your ideal to be. I had friends on active duty who were evangelicals, friends who were not, and many fellow officers and soldiers who fell throughout the spectrum. We would joke with each other about religion and many other things. We always understood, however, that we were, first and foremost, officers and soldiers. My evangelical friends would discuss religion but would respect those of us who were not religous.

I have not read the report which has sparked all of this controversy, but based upon my own experiences throughout my military career, most military members respect the diversity of religions in our heterogenous society. Sure, evangelicals see it as their duty to proselytize, but, in my experience, they respect the wishes of a person when he/she tells them that they are not interested in converting or are not comfortable with the conversation. If they did not, that would be over the line, but, again, I have never personally run into such a zealot.

One of my favorite chaplains was a theologically conservative RC priest who would routinely call me a heathen for not attending his masses. However, he respected the fact that I did not share his rigourous interpretation of our shared religion. He would share a beer with me and listen to me share my problems with him. Of course, he would urge me to consider the power of prayer, but did not do more than that. He (and many other chaplains like him) were the most effective counselors I have ever known. Sure, there were chaplains I did not like, but that usually was a matter of feeling that they were hypocritical in their actions. Even the chaplains I did not like did not press their beliefs unwelcomed upon others. Unless things have greatly changed since I've left, I cannot imagine that the military has become a hotbed of intolerance.

In my experience, while most (if not all) military members are conservative in many of their views, they are also many of the most tolerant people who will meet. Just don't push it into their faces, and they will allow you the right to say, be or believe anything you want. I think, personally, as an example, that the military (at least the Army, I can't speak for the other services personally) is more racially tolerant than any other aspect of our society.

Having said that, the military cannot afford to be some willy-nilly debating society. It is, for better or worse, a society apart from the rest of American society.

Life in the military is not perfect. You do not personally have many of the "freedoms" which you protect by your service, many people still view military service as being for thos people who can't get a real job (don't get me started on my in-laws), you have crappy hours, etc. However, I have never found that religious indoctrination was one of the problems.

Posted by JJR at May 9, 2005 06:53 PM

This is off-topic a bit, but JJR's post got me to thinking about some proselytizers' I've run into over the years.

I've had some interesting encounters, as you might imagine.

For example, about a dozen or so years ago, a Jehovah's witness knocked on my door and caught me at home on a Saturday morning.

My curiosity got the better of me, and I engaged the man in conversation for probably a good half hour and accepted some literature about creationism and the end of the world and a lot of stuff I don't remember (oh yeah, reincarnation -- they were really into reincarnation).

Well the guy came back a couple of weeks later, and we talked some more until I was able to politely extricate myself. And this went on for a while, and they actually started to rotate different folks in, as kind of a special tour of duty for their people. They ended up double and even triple-teaming me at one point (they always went about in small teams anyway, probably for security reasons).

For my part, I usually didn't mind too much. I felt that these folks seemed kind of cultish (not as scary as the dianetics recruits, though) and I wanted to try and help them think for themselves.

After they got through their talking points, they would always listen politely and try to digest my evidence and logic in turn. But ultimately, when it got to the point where they had exhausted their last talking points, they would just seem to get frustrated and I couldn't get them to go beyond what they were trained to discuss.

But I always got some satisfaction that when all was said and done, I was the only person I knew that the Jehovah's Witnesses declined to come and talk to anymore. Apparently I was considered beyond redemption, or whatever it is they believe.

I just liked to hope I was able to slip some seeds of skepticism or critical thinking into one or two minds before they gave up on me.

Probably my most memorable proselytizing moment was the time a Hari Krishna went ape-s--t on me (he came back and apologized a few minutes later), but that's kind of a long story...

Posted by Matthew Goggins at May 9, 2005 08:58 PM

We help the entire Wing with spiritual and emotional well-being, but we are CLERGY first. We are each bound by our endorser (denomination) to counsel, lead worship and teach in accord with our denomination's doctrine. You cannot expect to hear a Baptist chaplain refrain from promoting evangelism any more than you could expect a Mormon chaplain refrain from speaking of Joseph Smith....

When I read the above comment, I was reminded of some words of one of our Founding Fathers, James Madison said regarding chaplains for Congress and the military.

"The establishment of the chaplainship to Congs is a palpable violation of equal rights, as well as of Constitutional principles: The tenets of the chaplains elected [by the majority] shut the door of worship agst the members whose creeds & consciences forbid a participation in that of the majority." ...

Here he argues against chaplains for the military:

"Rather than let this step beyond the landmarks of power have the effect of a legitimate precedent, it will be better to apply to it the legal aphorism de minimis non curat lex: or to class it cum "maculis quas aut incuria fudit, aut humana parum cavit natura."

Better also to disarm in the same way, the precedent of Chaplainships for the army and navy, than erect them into a political authority in matters of religion. The object of this establishment is seducing; the motive to it is laudable. But is it not safer to adhere to a right principle, and trust to its consequences, than confide in the reasoning however specious in favor of a wrong one."

Posted by Patrick at May 9, 2005 10:31 PM

Patrick, it sounds to me like Madison was talking about the majority selecting which chaplain it would have. While most of our founding fathers didn't seem the least inclined to stop from talking about God or Providence they were very concerned with any appearance of elevating one Christian denomination over another.

I don't know that congress needs a chaplain. Certainly there were churches in Philadelphia and are in D.C. that our representatives can belong to and worship at. This isn't always the case in the military and we should do our best to ensure that people serving aren't hindered from religious observance and particularly from spiritual care if they are injured. My dog tags say both O pos and Lutheran on them... important information.

I should say, too, that when I've attended "church" within the AF chaplain system it's been without a chaplain. Obviously not all religions or denominations can be represented, even at a huge air base, so members of our group gave the sermons and cooperatively ran the show... which could be done in homes on base or off, but as our fellowship grew we also had access to base facilities for meetings. This was a Nazarene fellowship but certainly it represents the same sort of support available to other religions that don't have a Chaplain available. They could have told us that there were scheduled services of all sorts available and to go to one of them, but they didn't.

(Though a friend did get in a wee bit of trouble for writing and distributing a letter explaining that fearfulness betrayed a lack of faith in God and because of that was a sin, so shape up already. He was right, and he did back it up with scripture, and it was what some people needed to hear even if they didn't want to, but he put too sharp a point on the sin part and was told not to do it again. (Which is another reason that I doubt that the AF chaplain services are a hotbed of intolerant evangelism.))

Posted by Julie at May 10, 2005 12:27 AM

I don't think the truth here lies in the absolutes. I don't think the USAFA has a policy encouraging proselytizing, but I do believe that there is a likelihood that overzealous officers, and cadets may have been too aggressive in their attempts to recruit new members...as happened to me many times over my 20 year career. Harmful to me? no, but keep in mind these are cadets just beginning their careers, and they may be unduly influenced by even subtle pressures from staff officers and upper classmen. USAFA simply needs to provide an environment where religous refuge can be found, no more. Take the Yale comments and act where necessary...I doubt heads need to roll, but there is enough for USAF (no one else) to take a look. No secret greetings, handshakes, or headbutts. I have previously posted on this. MM

Posted by Major Mike at May 10, 2005 12:29 AM

What is missing here are statements from current cadets themselves as opposed to comments from former senior leadership and outside observers. Of ocurse, they'd be smart to post anonymously no matter where they stand, but if any of them are reading this, how about throwing in your two cents?
BTW, as an enlisted atheist (as in "without theism", not "Madalyn O'Hare") I've never in 24 years encountered negativism or ridicule of my very open indifference to superstition. Out here in the flightline maintenance world, we tolerate each other because we are part of a team. So long as officers and enlisted remember our job is to focus on killing people and breaking their stuff we'll be fine.
The real threat to the Air Force IMO isn't religious fanaticism at all. The threat is the PC corporatism and the weakening of discipline by a leadership afraid of the new "one mistake Air Force". We had the discipline mix right in the latter Cold War, but it slackened greatly after Desert Storm. Discipline or indiscipline flows from the top down, and if leadership does not empower and encourage subordinates discipline dies.
As we enter another Hollow Force along with a Procurement Death Spiral, I at least want the best humans available polishing our one rationed Raptor. :)
P.S.
Think I'm joking? ACC is already slashing sorties due to funding. I'll be planning on four day flying weeks for the rest of summer, and finding creative ways to train my airmen who will lack normal OJT tempo.

Posted by Anonymous MSgt at May 13, 2005 03:11 PM

Need to check today's Early Bird. There's more.

Posted by Timmer at May 13, 2005 07:20 PM Hide Comments | Show/Add Comments in Popup Window(53) | (Note: You must refresh main page to view newly posted comments here)