ACLU Wants to Remove Prayer at Naval Academy

[Father Heathen]

Why should a non-Christian serving in the military be forced to attend and partake in Christian prayer? I don't like the idea of my tax dollars bolstering pointless and divisive religious stuff.
Remember the times Hindu and Islamic prayers were conducted in State activities, and the Christians squealed their little heads off?

 

[Sunstone]

Is today's opinion more enlightened than that of our great-grandparents?

Arguably yes.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

I see your point. Praying silently works, and silent moments shouldn't offend anyone. I do far more silent praying than public praying, myself. I guess what I'm saying, and I'm not pushing for public prayer here, is just that if the majority wants to do it, why can't the few who don't pray, just sit there for the 30 seconds or so, and read, snooze, think about other things, or whatever. Why is it so offensive to just wait it out? If I were in a predominately Muslim society, I wouldn't mind waiting through their prayer.

But this isn't just a matter of the majority doing what they want to do. If that were the case, you'd have most of the students saying grace of their own volition individually... no chaplain-led prayer would be necessary.

It's the state-sanctioned aspect of this that's the problem; it's not a majority/minorty issue.

And when I'm in public gatherings where prayer is not done in the way I'm used to, I don't mind. (Apparently at the Academy they rotate different types of clergy.) Why get so bothered? How are one's rights being violated?

Well, the Constitution's certainly being violated. I'm not sure if the cadets at the college are considered enlisted members of the US Armed Forces yet, but they've either sworn or are preparing to swear an oath to protect and defend the Constitution of the United States... with their lives, if need be. I think it would be strange to expect that they should stand for any sort of breach of it like this.

Why wasn't this a big deal 50, 100 years ago? Is today's opinion more enlightened than that of our great-grandparents?

I really don't know. It seems obvious to me, so I can't really understand the point of view that wouldn't recognize it as such. Maybe people just took it as a given that people were Christian.

It just seems like the majority always has to bend to the minority, when it should be the other way around. If the majority was against my wishes, I'd hope I'd realize that there are more opinions in the room than mine. If the majority wanted to dance the macarena before lunch areyoucra), I'd just sit it out, then eat.

The essence of a Constitutional democracy is that every person and minority has certain rights, regardless of what the majority thinks about it. This is a fundamental principle of your country and mine, and both are products of a tradition that stretches back to the Magna Carta.

 

[Charity]

I think that a 30-60 second silence to be used for prayer, meditation , etc would be the answer. Then everyone is a winner.....What good is it for someone who doesn't believe in God to sit through a prayer, they won't be listening anyway :ignore:

 

[Starfish]

Tradition does not sanction wrong, Starfish. There have been a lot of social institutions that existed for centuries which are now considered wrong.
I think the point is that the prayer imposes social and perhaps physical discomfort on those with different or no religious affiliations. In this particular case, conspicuously eschewing the prayer may have negative carreer consequences, as well.

With all due respect, this seems a little far-fetched. Social or physical discomfort? These people are training in the military to defend our country. They may have to spend time in foreign lands where customs are far different than ours. Yet they can't handle quietly waiting through a brief prayer at lunch? My goodness, that comes across as a wee bit ridiculous. Sorry.

I think we give our forefathers no credit for intelligence or common sense. Yes, slavery and prejudice existed in our past. Yet no religion sanctioned it. Many wrongs were part of our history, yet they were wrongs of individuals, not religions. Our forefathers did some amazing things, things few of us today have ever had to face, yet their traditions were wrong? People have always been aware of our atheist community. Yet public prayers happened. Were they all insensitive brutes? (Well, General Washington did send his troups to church.)

Sensitivity is important. I just don't understand the harm in going with the majority's wishes in this. And if the majority opts for silent prayers, so be it.
Thanks.

 

[Father Heathen]

Yes, slavery and prejudice existed in our past. Yet no religion sanctioned it.

What the Bible says about slavery & Slavery in the Bible

 

[Valjean]

With all due respect, this seems a little far-fetched. Social or physical discomfort? These people are training in the military to defend our country. They may have to spend time in foreign lands where customs are far different than ours. Yet they can't handle quietly waiting through a brief prayer at lunch? My goodness, that comes across as a wee bit ridiculous. Sorry.

Conspicuously avoiding prayers stigmatizes them and is not likely to foster the camaraderie and unit cohesion nessessary to function effectively in these 'foreign lands'. This is not lost on the refusnik's officers, either. It's a carreer-buster. And skipping lunch or standing outside during prayers would qualify as discomfort, in my book, as well as further stigmatizing them.

I think we give our forefathers no credit for intelligence or common sense. Yes, slavery and prejudice existed in our past. Yet no religion sanctioned it. Many wrongs were part of our history, yet they were wrongs of individuals, not religions. Our forefathers did some amazing things, things few of us today have ever had to face, yet their traditions were wrong? People have always been aware of our atheist community. Yet public prayers happened. Were they all insensitive brutes? (Well, General Washington did send his troups to church.)

You bring up slavery? Have you read the Southern Apologists? Their whole case was religiously based. A major American religious denomination split into Southern (pro-slavery) and northern (abolitionist/undecided) denominations because of the debate.

Sensitivity is important. I just don't understand the harm in going with the majority's wishes in this. And if the majority opts for silent prayers, so be it.
Thanks.

The 'majority' is tyrannical. It's bigoted and intolerant. It does not want the freedom and liberty American's take such pride in. The majority wants conformity and homogeneity. The majority embraces anti-American values.
One of the major functions of government is to protect individuals from the tyranny of the majority.

 

[Neo-Logic]

I don't see this as forcing prayer. No one should ever be forced to pray. (Anyone forced to pray, isn't praying.) Those who don't want to participate, can ignore it. What about the majority? What do they want?

It's been the practice for 153 years. Why is it a problem now, and not for all those years? Just asking.

Supreme Court holds that prayers in public schools are unconstitutional in Murray vs. Curlett in which they state "In light of the history of the First Amendment and of our cases interpreting and applying its requirements, we hold that the practices at issue and the laws requiring them are unconstitutional under the Establishment Clause"

What about the majority? The Constitution is the majority. What we're doing now is following it and using our tax dollars to fund public or state mandated religious acitivites is unconstitutional.

 

[McBell]

The majority did not want women to own land.
The majority did not want inter-racial marriage.
The majority did not want abortion to be legalized.
The majority did not want women to to be allowed to vote.

"The Majority Want It" is not a valid legal argument.
It is an argumentum ad populum fallacy.

 

[Magic Man]

Why get so bothered? How are one's rights being violated?

I don't know. Would you be bothered if you weren't allowed to say prayers?

Why wasn't this a big deal 50, 100 years ago?

Probably because there was more pressure to conform. The vast majority of people were Christians, and those who weren't probably felt less like they could speak up than they do now. It seems to me that in today's culture there is more of a stress on personal freedoms and personal respect. It is the cause of political correctness. In many ways, it has been bad, IMO. In some ways, it's been very good too. In this case, people who don't like it and realize that it's unconstitutional know they can speak up and be supported by at least some people. That probably wasn't the case 50 or 100 years ago.

Is today's opinion more enlightened than that of our great-grandparents?

I would hope so.

 

[Apex]

I wonder how long it is going to take for the ACLU to throw a fit about Article 6 of the Code of Conduct which every single Air Force Member knows verbatim.

I will never forget that I am an American, fighting for freedom, responsible for my actions, and dedicated to the principles which made my country free. I will trust in my God and in the United States of America.

 

[Magic Man]

I wonder how long it is going to take for the ACLU to throw a fit about Article 6 of the Code of Conduct which every single Air Force Member knows verbatim.

I'm surprised they haven't already. That seems pretty ridiculous to me.

 

[3.14]

its tradition that line it doesn't mean anything anymore, like the oath the docters take, it used to mean something now its a line like, how are you, and good to see you

 

[McBell]

I wonder how long it is going to take for the ACLU to throw a fit about Article 6 of the Code of Conduct which every single Air Force Member knows verbatim.

You emboldened the wrong word:

I will never forget that I am an American, fighting for freedom, responsible for my actions, and dedicated to the principles which made my country free. I will trust in my God and in the United States of America.
​

 

[The Voice of Reason]

But the prayer isn't mandatory, as the article says, attending lunch is. It seems to me that if the majority wants it, they should have it.

Would you feel that way, if the majority were for facing Mecca, and forcing prayer six times a day?

 

[Apex]

You emboldened the wrong word:

I will never forget that I am an American, fighting for freedom, responsible for my actions, and dedicated to the principles which made my country free. I will trust in my God and in the United States of America.
​

lol, guess I did.

 

[The Voice of Reason]

...It's been the practice for 153 years. Why is it a problem now, and not for all those years? Just asking.

Exactly. Just as slavery had been an accepted practice for a hundred years, when Lincoln decided to abolish it (against the wishes of the majority). Why is slavery a problem now? Just asking.

 

[Apex]

its tradition that line it doesn't mean anything anymore, like the oath the docters take, it used to mean something now its a line like, how are you, and good to see you

Same thing could be said about "In God We Trust" on our money. Yet we still have athiests throwing hissy fits over it as if it is somehow forcing them to believe in God. I couldn't care less about what my money said just as long as it bought what I needed.

 

[The Voice of Reason]

I volunteer at the local senior center where lunch is provided at the government's (taxpayers') expense. (Donations are encouraged.) We used to say a prayer before eating, now we have a silent moment so everyone who wants to can say a prayer in their head.

I'd like to see the ACLU try to take this away from these seniors. They wouldn't put up with that for a minute. In their day, the president of the U.S. publicly encouraged our citizens to pray for the military.

Could you possibly try to misstate the intent of the ACLU any worse?

 

[The Voice of Reason]

Same thing could be said about "In God We Trust" on our money. Yet we still have athiests throwing hissy fits over it as if it is somehow forcing them to believe in God. I couldn't care less about what my money said just as long as it bought what I needed.

So, are you saying that if our coins had the inscription "There is no God", you would have no problem with that?