Naval Academy Will Continue to Say Grace

Re: Re: Re: Naval Academy Will Continue to Say Grace

Oops! You singled-out the wrong Christian this time, Bill. Don't lump me in with far-Right, conservative Christians who have an "our way, or no way" mentality (or, worse, who require that it be "our particular way, or no way"), and who use the bible like a weapon. I'm quite equanimous, thankyouverymuch, at the prospect of mealtime prayers by a Muslim Imam or a Hindu Swami. Bring it on!

Three books I often recommend which, by my so doing, may help to provide a little insight into where I am on such things, just generally:

1. God's Politics: Why the Right Gets It Wrong and the Left Doesn't Get It by Jim Wallis
   
2. Reimagining Christianity: Reconnect Your Spirit without Disconnecting Your Mind by Alan Jones
   
3. Open Christianity: Home by Another Road by Jim Burklo

And here is an organization to which I've contributed not-insignificantly for a while, now.

There are plenty of far-Right, intolerant Christians around here who could probably give you the disagreement you anticipated... or seek... but I ain't one of 'em. Sorry.

 

Re: Re: Naval Academy Will Continue to Say Grace

 

But they can't. Being non-Christian is worse than being non-heterosexual. In both situations, there's a whole lotta pretending going on. (Except that there's quite a bit more tolerance for non-Christian believers, like Jews and Muslims. But a Wicca or even an atheist? Fuhgeddaboutit.)

 

rite or wrong

Placid equanimity? Moi?

Like Gregg, I am indifferent to a sectarian preacher versus a swami, imam, dastur, rabbi, lama, or what have you. Who conducts the ceremonies of civil religion is a matter of the profoundest indifference to me. This will require certain posters with a sustained animus against Christians to make distinctions. For this I do not apologise. It's salutary.

It would not matter to a Wisconsin Synod or "Little Norwegian" ELS student what brand of cleric conducted these prayers. The confessional Lutheran student would as a matter of conscience follow precisely Dr Douglas' conduct on such occasions, although for different reasons. The confessional Lutheran student would, I am sure, let patriotism and desire to serve his/her country override his/her conviction about such "prayers" (just as Rich did), but that conviction would certainly remain (as it did for Rich).

Now Rich will have to cope with agreeing with me on a matter of religion.
It's a bit of a startle. You might wish to pray for him.

Cordially to all,
Janko

 

I accept Rich's correction to my "just sit there" statement. This is what we would do, respectfully, in civilian situations involving heterodox or non-Christian or generic prayer. No snit--ever--but no participation. Never having been an inmate of a military institution I have no idea what goes on there, and accept his assessment of the sociologically possible based on his own experience.

 

Re: rite or wrong

This should be a subject that fosters great amounts of agreement. By not doing these things at utterly secular events conducted by public officials, everyone is protected, and no one is injured.

As a commanding officer, I relied upon the chaplaincy on many occasions. Their ability to provide counsel to my troops in complete confidence gave those troops an avenue to seek counsel without fearing reprucussions--something not available from traditionally confidential sources like attorneys, physicians, and mental health counselors. (An exception of that would be defense attorneys defending an accused--or potentially accused--member.)

I also had no beef with having chaplains in uniform to render religious services, nor having them available on the base. It is the coercive activities--active or passive--I object to.

When I was a basic trainee, most activities were conducted as a complete flight (about 50 trainees). With religion, those who needed to attend services other than on Sunday mornings were excused to do so--they made up that time by doing things around our barracks while the rest of us were at service on Sundays. When the flight would arrive at the chapel, those wishing to attend services went in, the remaining ones waited outside in a break area. (I attended Catholic mass.) After services, we'd reassemble and march back to the barracks. No one cared who did what--attend, not attend, attend at an alternative time. This was all good.

The service academies tend to get insulated from reality, building their own. This can be destructive, as the Air Force Academy has shown regarding safety, sexual discrimination, and now from over-the-top Christians. It'll get fixed, but that kind of tense, insulated environment can easly drift astray of good behavior and ethics.

So, I've seen it work and I've seen it not work. People who prosleytize at work forget that this can be just as coercive and harassing as any other unwanted behavior. Religion shouldn't be singled out in this, of course; there are many kinds of behavior that create a hostile work environment, some of which are far more dangerous.

 

Imagine if you were at work when, right before your supervisor led the team into a client meeting to win a big job, he asked everyone to gather in a circle, hold hands, then had you all chant a demonic pledge to Satan before heading on in. Do you go along and cross your strongly held beliefs? Do you stand in silence, hoping you don't piss off the boss (and injure your work situation)? Do you protest? This is an absurd example, of course, but the creation of hostile work environments isn't limited to the military.

What some fervent believers sometimes struggle with is the idea that pressuring someone else to align their beliefs with theirs is wrong and coercive. This is especially true of those people who believe it is their role in life to witness, to proselytize, to pass on the good news, to gather converts, to save souls, etc. Like the sexual harasser, the evangelizer doesn't understand why it's wrong.

If the Mormons or Witnesses come to my door, I can always close it. (I do it politely, although I do resent that they feel free to call upon me unannounced--a behavior unacceptable from friends and family!) If someone offers me a leaflet or hits me up for a donation on the street, I can decline. In these situations, I'm on at least even ground. But work? By a supervisor/commander/CEO/etc? Even if it's simply a permitted prayer or other religious rite, much more is at risk, and the individual is no longer allowed his/her own choice.

Religion for the home and the church. Science for the classroom and laboratory. And filthy, dirty lucre for the workplace. (And, it seems, government. )

 

Don't really remember any prayers in the Army....

Unless it was a purely religious event there weren't too many overt displays of religion. However, that being said there were many who wore their religion on their sleeve and you risked crossing them if you didn't act within their expectations. One of my last organizations had a huge group of LDS.

The problem of the separation of religion and the state was brought home to me very early. A friend of mine in grade school was a Jehovah's Witness. He never participated in any of our school parties and did not participate in the morning pledge. I thought it odd, but since he was my friend I didn't put awhole lot of thought into it. However, there were kids in the school who used it against him and he faced taunts and osterization from some and that was in less religious times than now.

Face it, kids and adults can be cruel and that is why such matters as this are best left to private lives.....

 

Same

I agree with Uncle and Gregg when they say nothing's wrong with tradition. I'm agnostic, and would always respect the moment of prayer with my own form of gratitude to all I had met and learned. This does not require a diety, just acknowledgement that I was fortunate. PC is destroying thought.

As far as having someone leading me into what may be my last moments, I demand the best, just as anyone should. The military has been used as a social experiment for years. That's why I chose SF. We had our slackers, but they were still better than most and would be replaced ASAP! The academies should be run like BUDS or SF (if they haven't been PC'ed). Bruce mentioned how the FTO program has turned into a farce. Whether a soldier or cop, cohesion, mutual respect, and knowledge of your own and your partner's abilities determine victory or disaster. The PC'ers should walk the walk, before their "feel good" talk.

If you are offended by a prayer, and put-out, I guess you'd be apoplectic if someone popped a cap at your sensitive ###? I'm sorry, but you would useless, therefore left behind, if I had an operation to complete. Only teem players able to suck it up and STFU survived. There can be only one boss, no discussion, no voting.

If a prayer is so offensive, everyone should have to stand on their head for three minutes, mouths shut. They could contemplate how bizarre things looked. But I'm sure some physically incapable (PC appointee) would whine.

People constantly forget the military is there KILL people and WIN wars. Things regular citizens would rather not do or even acknowledge. Before going to bed tonight, think of how many of your friends would risk their lives for you. And if they would even be capable of doing so. Then think of how you would save your loved ones, or yourself, if necessary. Then consider how trivial a moment of reflection is, in comparison.

People's priorities are are out of whack. Common sense would dictate the simplest way to adhere to ceremony would be to perform them same ceremony. Those choosing not to prey just mouth the words. They have not been violated. At most they have been inconvenienced. If that's their only worry, they should make it a point to hug their friends and family every chance they get. Because reality will really hurt and their sensibilities really violated if they suffer a loss.

The rest is insignificant. Be the best you can be. Don't hurt others without cause. And don't sweat the small stuff. I have never met an atheist before a gunfight. Everyone is praying or wishing they survive. And when hit, and if still able to talk, they try to make peace with all. I've seen too many people die, some by my hand, to consider anything more important than the lives of buddies and family. Folks need to toughen-up and flush PC down the can.

 

Same

Para 6 Line 2 pray not prey. I'm more used to prey.

 

As previously noted the new Air Force guidelines address promotion ceremonies, change-of-command ceremonies and formal dinners separately from "extraordinary circumstances."

I'm wondering, what were the circumstances when you were unable to sit or stand silently?

quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
(3) CONSISTENT WITH LONG-STANDING MILITARY TRADITION, A BRIEF NONSECTARIAN PRAYER MAY BE INCLUDED IN NON-ROUTINE MILITARY CEREMONIES OR EVENTS OF SPECIAL IMPORTANCE, SUCH AS A CHANGE-OFCOMMAND, PROMOTION CEREMONIES OR SIGNIFICANT CELEBRATIONS, WHERE THE PURPOSE OF THE PRAYER IS TO ADD A HEIGHTENED SENSE OF SERIOUSNESS OR SOLEMNITY, NOT TO ADVANCE SPECIFIC RELIGIOUS BELIEFS. MILITARY CHAPLAINS ARE TRAINED TO DEAL WITH SUCH EVENTS.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------



http://www.af.mil/library/guidelines.pdf

Do you think the Chaplain Corps has a place in the character development of service members?

One of my AMU professors suggested that the Chaplain Corps "should be central players in any comprehensive character development architecture."

http://www.usafa.af.mil/jscope/JSCOPE00/Rehberg00.html

Further discussed here:

http://www.airpower.au.af.mil/airchronicles/apj/apj98/sum98/ricsum98.html

 

The military is all about tradition....

Clay,

I agree the military's purpose is different than any other organization in the USA. Tradition and religion have an important place in the military. However, everyone is focusing solely on one side of the question. Almost every person on this board has focused on why someone should be offended if others choose to pray around them. Frankly, they shouldn't be and I wouldn't be if a Muslim, Jew or Hindu conducted their prayers in my presence. I would even will to stand or wait respectfully and let them have their time.

However, on the other side of the equation are those person's of religion who become offended by another person's beliefs or lack thereof. This is just as big a problem s the opposite and is being ignored by many on this board. I had a soldier who started calling Catholic's idolator's and Papist and he was later suspected of damaging Catholic pilgrimage statues in the German countryside. I have known officer's who held their soldiers to matters of morality based on the Bible rather than the UCMJ. This kind of conduct is either illegal, unprofessional or both. It is definately damaging to unit morale and cohesiveness.

The soldier who disliked Catholics always made his comments in a seemingly joking manner and most soldiers laughed at the comments. However, one (a devout Catholic) was offended and I had to lay down the law to the soldier. In the counselling session it became readily apparent his comments may have been made in a joking manner but he truly believed them. This guy would have willingly served on an Inquisition againt Catholic's. Afterwards, even though the overt talk went away I know it simmered under the surface and only later discovered the belief by my supeririors that the soldier was responsible for the statue damage but couldn't prove it.

Religion is an explosive issue. So much so it has started a lot of the warfare in humanity's past. Even today, much if not most of the conflict around the world has some element of religious strife in it. What this can do to a unit's cohesiveness is apparent when you have a Muslim NCO fragging 2 officers prior to the start of the Iraq War. Ignoring it is not an option. Saying it isn't important is burying one's head in the sand.

The whole purpose of military training from the time you sign on the dotted line is promote unit cohesion. That is also what all of the custom's and tradition on display at military ceremony's is designed to promote. It has been known for century's that in battle the ultimate thing a soldier will fight for is his buddy next to him. Unit cohesion and esprite de corps is everything to a successful. This question has the potential to harm it if it isn't handled properly...

 

Hi Charles: You're thoughtful as always. My church body rejects the notion of military chaplaincy bceause the proclamation of the Gospel is not the state's business; the state has other God-given callings and should stick to them. What we do instead is track our servicemembers and assign them to the nearest parish and cleric (WELS, ELS, ELFK, etc.) to theior point of service. Such pastors regularly conduct services for our servicemembers but do so off-premises and conduct eucharistic fellowship according to our principles. (Roman Catholic chaplains are permitted to do this by the US military, but Protestants--with whom we are lumped by the military--are not. Other Lutheran synods have no problem with that; we emphatically do.) We also send pastors on trips to care for isolated servicemembers when there is no confessional Lutheran church anywhere near their place of military service.

Hi DTechBA:: Eloquently stated. Thank you very much. Your suggested respectful silence is our servicemembers' preferred conduct. Rich says it won't work. I leave the practicality question to those of you with military exoerience, and won't argue where I know nothing. (See? I can restrain myself on occasion!)

Hi everybody: Notice the civility and discipline of this thread? This "eternal civilian" salutes all of you.

 

Same

That's why I never asked anyone about their religion. It's private, and had nothing to do with my work. I may ask if there were requests, if something happened, so they would feel some form of closure was available. I've heard confessions and prayed along with guys to what ever diety they chose. I wasn't being a hypocrite, I was hoping, if their diety existed, IT would take care of my buddy.

 

Re: Same

While you're at it, it's "team," not "teem."

You're entitled to your opinions, but the notion that the military is all about doing what you're told without question is flat wrong.

Have you been a commissioned officer in the Armed Forces for any length of time? I suspect not, but I thought I'd ask.

 

Same

Thanks Rich for the spelling lesson, I'm always making mistakes. I use the hunt and peck method, so it's not professional by any standards.

Being Air Force, I doubt you had much to do with Spec Ops. SF are trained to think for themselves and cross-trained to take up the slack if someone goes down. We were unconventional, to say the least, and with TEAMS of 2-12 men the hierarchy was limited.

My idea about doing what you were told dealt specifically with an operation, not general daily activities. Oh, and thank you for allowing me to have an opinion, since you are from such an open, free-thinking environment.

While planning an operation, everyone was involved. Things were determined as to what would be needed, and carried, to the last bullet. Everyone had a specific job so EVERYONE could come home.

With very small units, very limited resources, time, and sometimes having to deal with indigenous counterparts, the boss was god, and responsible for everyone, everything and anything that went wrong. You had no cover-fire and extractions required humping-it to a safe zone. The TEAM acted as a single unit, there were no arguments. And if someone had complained, the senior NCO would settle the matter on the spot. We were more brothers than anything else.

So, while you were training ROTC, suffering the indignities of prayer, and paper cuts, some schmucks were trying to do a job and get home in one piece.

Have you ever been in a firefight? I suspect not, but thought I'd ask. And I most certainly am wrong about many things, and thankful I'll never have your responsibilities or attitude.

I'm obviously no writer and sometimes (often) my ideas don't transfer properly when I try. But fortunately, most of the good folks here cut me some slack. If I've offended you with any of my comments, I apologize. I'll try to stay away from any of your posts.

 

Former Commander, U.S. Navy Reserve

Sigh.

As we used to say about the Navy, it represents "200 years of tradition unimpeded by progress!"

Course, now it's been a bit longer...

 

Clay, I was just teasing about the spelling since you'd corrected one of your own mistakes. Please don't think I was being critical.

I don't "allow you to have an opinion," nor would I presume such power. But we come at this issue from two very different perspectives. Having been both an NCO and an officer, I've seen both of them.

Please don't try to indignify my experiences teaching future Air Force officers. That was one phase of my career, one I enjoyed mightily.

Did you ever exercise command authority over a 900-person unit operating $3 billion in equipment (89 fight aircraft, in my case)? I have no desire to denigrate your experiences, but please, get serious. I suspect I have a more relevant experience base regarding the question at hand.

Remember the guys in the Smokey-the-Bear hats who gave you hell? I was the captain they worked for.

Firefight? No, thankfully. But I don't think that is the issue regarding religion's impact on military operations and the well-being of its members. I've trained enlisted members and officers. I've also held command positions both stateside and 50 clicks from the DMZ in Korea. I served as a junior enlisted member and an officer, and am now retired from active duty. (I retired 10 years ago at the ripe old age of 36.) I suspect my perspective is just a bit more informed than yours. That doesn't negate your right to express your opinion. But butt out when it comes to my military career and its relevance to this topic. You don't even come close.

 

Same

Rich,
Similar backgrounds. Never had to worry about so much equipment, but you have no concept of my experiences. I agree that prayer should not be forced on anyone. I just think there are more important things to worry about. And I'm glad for you, and your background is impressive, just not to me. Congrats on your many accomplishments, you are obviously an over-achiever.
Best,
Clay