ACLU Wants to Remove Prayer at Naval Academy

9-10ths_Penguin · Jun 30, 2008

Scuba Pete said:
For those of you crying about how your money is being spent, would you want the Navy, or our military in general, to stop providing chaplains for our Armed Forces? They do not force religious services or chaplain services on these soldiers, but should we deny them these options?

How would not providing chaplains mean denying religious soldiers the option of religious services? A priest, minister, rabbi, imam, etc., doesn't necessarily have to wear an armed forces uniform or have his way paid by taxpayers to minister to soldiers.

Starfish said:
The Religion of George Washington

"As Commander in Chief of the Continental Army during the fearful and uncertain days of the Revolution, Washington's firm belief in freedom of religion did not mean freedom from religion so far as his troops were concerned. In January 1777, the Army established its first permanent encampment since the siege of Boston at Morristown, New Jersey. One of the first matters Washington attended to was providing for regular Sunday worship for his men. On Saturday, 12 April 1777, he ordered that:
. . . . allthe troops in Morristown except the guards, are to attend divine worship tomorrow at the second bell; the officers commanding the Corps, are to take special care to have their men clean and decent, and that they are to march in proper order to the place of worship. 14"

Are you really surprised that Washington didn't take the Constitution, which was written in 1787 and came into effect in 1789, into account in the decisions he made in 1777?

Scuba Pete · Jun 30, 2008

9-10ths_Penguin said:
How would not providing chaplains mean denying religious soldiers the option of religious services? A priest, minister, rabbi, imam, etc., doesn't necessarily have to wear an armed forces uniform or have his way paid by taxpayers to minister to soldiers.

So, you would deny these men and women who are fighting a war that they did not start moral and spiritual support? I expect you believe that THEY should pay for this on their meager stipend? I am against the war in ways that most cannot fathom, but I find this concept to border on abuse and abandonment of our troops.

The Voice of Reason · Jun 30, 2008

9-10ths_Penguin said:
... Are you really surprised that Washington didn't take the Constitution, which was written in 1787 and came into effect in 1789, into account in the decisions he made in 1777?

To quote one of the all time great spies: "Missed it by THAT much".

Starfish · Jun 30, 2008

It seems the Constitution supports prayer as the right to freely exercise religion. It also seems to support the right to express objection to it. But it doesn't allow the suppression of either.

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

John Schlismann · Jun 30, 2008

The ACLU won't stop until it has rid the idea of God from every aspect of public life. I think its nuts how with all the problems we have in this world an organization like the ACLU is worried about eliminating something good: God. This country needs more God, not less.

John Schlismann

Scuba Pete · Jun 30, 2008

John Schlismann said:
The ACLU won't stop until it has rid the idea of God from every aspect of public life.

John, you could not be MORE wrong. The ACLU has even partnered with Liberty Council in a case about students being able to meet on a school campus to study the Bible, AND to advertise the study.

The ACLU is not merely a front for atheists trying to rid the country of God. They actually LOVE the constitution and are committed to protect it.

The Voice of Reason · Jun 30, 2008

John Schlismann said:
The ACLU won't stop until it has rid the idea of God from every aspect of public life. I think its nuts how with all the problems we have in this world an organization like the ACLU is worried about eliminating something good: God. This country needs more God, not less.

John Schlismann

John -

If you understood the actual purpose of the ACLU, you would know that Pete is trying to (kindly) help you.

The right wing smear machine does an excellent job of only highlighting the cases taken by the ACLU that offends their vision of right and wrong. They know full well that the ACLU takes cases that most people would embrace, but that doesn't fit their agenda.

Take some time to read up on the types of cases they take, as opposed to the National Review talking points.
List of court cases involving the American Civil Liberties Union - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

standing_alone · Jul 1, 2008

9-10ths_Penguin said:
How would not providing chaplains mean denying religious soldiers the option of religious services? A priest, minister, rabbi, imam, etc., doesn't necessarily have to wear an armed forces uniform or have his way paid by taxpayers to minister to soldiers.

In the military, the chaplains do more than religious services. Chaplains in the military (though I peronally have conflicted feelings over it) also serve as councilors for personnel in plainly secular manners. Like, if you're going through a rough time and need someone to speak with, you can go see the chaplain. They are not supposed to push religion in those circumstances and are supposed to keep almost anything talked about confidential. While I don't like how someone who holds an overtly religious purpose is used on such secular matters, the thing is, military chaplains serve a very important role for our service members and they are to provide their service without regard to religion and without evangilizing in the circumstances like I alluded to.

Starfish · Jul 1, 2008

Two threads related to this subject.

http://www.religiousforums.com/foru...ration-church-state-implied-constitution.html

http://www.religiousforums.com/foru.../59989-freedom-religion-freedom-religion.html

Poisonshady313 · Jul 1, 2008

Seyorni said:
In this particular case, conspicuously eschewing the prayer may have negative carreer consequences, as well.

Reminds me of a scene from Full Metal Jacket:

HARTMAN
I want that head so sanitary
and squared away that
the Virgin Mary herself would be
proud to go in there and take a dump!

JOKER & COWBOY
(in
unison)Sir, yes, sir!

HARTMAN
Private Joker, do
you believe in the Virgin
Mary?

JOKER
Sir, no,
sir!

HARTMAN throws down the garbage can with a loud
bang.

HARTMAN
Private Joker, I don't believe I heard you
correctly!

JOKER
Sir, the private said "No, sir," sir!

HARTMAN

Why, you little maggot! You make me want to
vomit!

HARTMAN slaps
JOKER, hard, across the cheek.

HARTMAN
You goddam
communist heathen, you had best
sound off that you love the Virgin
Mary . . . or
I'm gonna stomp your guts out! Now you do
love
the Virgin Mary, don't you?!

JOKER
Sir, negative,
sir!!

HARTMAN
Private Joker, are you trying to offend
me?!

JOKER
Sir, negative, sir!!! Sir, the private
believes
that any answer he gives will be wrong! And
the Senior
Drill Instructor will beat him
harder if he reverses himself, sir!

(Of course, for sticking by his convictions, Joker is promoted to squad leader)

Poisonshady313 · Jul 1, 2008

Starfish said:
It seems the Constitution supports prayer as the right to freely exercise religion. It also seems to support the right to express objection to it. But it doesn't allow the suppression of either.

Unless either becomes a suppression of the other, in which case the constitution supports neither.

If you being able to express your religion means I am unable to express mine, this is unacceptable.

Either I must have equal expression, or you'll have to bite the bullet and do without while I do the same.

Poisonshady313 · Jul 1, 2008

Scuba Pete said:
So, you would deny these men and women who are fighting a war that they did not start moral and spiritual support? I expect you believe that THEY should pay for this on their meager stipend? I am against the war in ways that most cannot fathom, but I find this concept to border on abuse and abandonment of our troops.

I don't know for sure, but I think 9-10ths is talking about chaplains volunteering, rather than being paid by taxpayer dollars.

Starfish · Jul 1, 2008

Poisonshady313 said:
Unless either becomes a suppression of the other, in which case the constitution supports neither.

If you being able to express your religion means I am unable to express mine, this is unacceptable.

Either I must have equal expression, or you'll have to bite the bullet and do without while I do the same.

Not that I disagree. But the Jewish religion is represented at these prayers also.

Scuba Pete · Jul 1, 2008

Poisonshady313 said:
I don't know for sure, but I think 9-10ths is talking about chaplains volunteering, rather than being paid by taxpayer dollars.

You mean that our VOLUNTEER army should not get paid??? Wow. I don't think that would go over very well.

Yeah, I know what he meant, and I find it insensitive and ludicrous.

Poisonshady313 · Jul 1, 2008

Scuba Pete said:
You mean that our VOLUNTEER army should not get paid??? Wow. I don't think that would go over very well.

Yeah, I know what he meant, and I find it insensitive and ludicrous.

You don't pay attention very well.

I meant that the CHAPLAINS should not get paid.

Poisonshady313 · Jul 1, 2008

Starfish said:
Not that I disagree. But the Jewish religion is represented at these prayers also.

That's wonderful... however, I recognize that not all people at a Naval academy are Jewish, and I appreciate the fact that whoever says the prayer says it non-denominationally... however, if non-believers are put in an uncomfortable position by prayers being mandatory to begin with, who am I, who are you, who is anyone to force it on them?

Starfish · Jul 1, 2008

Poisonshady313 said:
That's wonderful... however, I recognize that not all people at a Naval academy are Jewish, and I appreciate the fact that whoever says the prayer says it non-denominationally... however, if non-believers are put in an uncomfortable position by prayers being mandatory to begin with, who am I, who are you, who is anyone to force it on them?

My opinion is that nothing is forced upon them. What is so harmful if they have to sit quietly for 30 seconds and wait out a non-mandatory prayer? (I don't know if they even have to be there for the prayer, as they do for the meal.) Religion is not being forced upon them during this one meal, out of three, a day. The political correctness here has gotten a little ridiculous. Our population is 90% God-believing. Yet 2 of 3 daily meals are not prayed over at the academy. Is that fair? No, but who's complaining about that?
i would guess the prayer isn't the big deal, but what it represents that the ACLU is up in arms about. But these kinds of battles just make them appear silly, which hurts their credibility.

Apex · Jul 1, 2008

How about they just have a period where they have no prayer in their rotation of the different Chaplains? Would that make everyone happy? I do not see a problem so long as they are rotating through the different faiths. But for some reason, I have a feeling that even if they went with a rotation of no prayer, non-theists would still complain.

The Voice of Reason · Jul 1, 2008

Starfish said:
Not that I disagree. But the Jewish religion is represented at these prayers also.

What about Shintoism? Islam? Buddhism? Hinduism? Confucianism? Taoism?

Are each of those represented as well?

In light of the fact that you say that no prayer is held before breakfast or dinner (although I'm not sure that that is correct), I'll concede the question as it pertains to atheism and agnosticism.

The Voice of Reason · Jul 1, 2008

Apex said:
How about they just have a period where they have no prayer in their rotation of the different Chaplains? Would that make everyone happy? I do not see a problem so long as they are rotating through the different faiths. But for some reason, I have a feeling that even if they went with a rotation of no prayer, non-theists would still complain.

You presume too much. I'm an agnostic, and even I cannot speak for other nonbelievers. I can only speak for myself.

Personally, I would have no problem with that - rotating between every religion, including the nonbelievers.

Then again, others might well not agree with me.

ACLU Wants to Remove Prayer at Naval Academy

1/10 Subway Stalinist

Le plongeur avec attitude...

Doctor of Thinkology

Please no sarcasm

John Schlismann

Le plongeur avec attitude...

Doctor of Thinkology

Well-Known Member

Please no sarcasm

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Please no sarcasm

Le plongeur avec attitude...

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Please no sarcasm

Somewhere Around Nothing

Doctor of Thinkology

Doctor of Thinkology