Republicans Freak Out That Airforce Isn't Extremist Christian Enough

[LeftishBritInPA]

Republicans Freak Out That Airforce Isn't Extremist Christian Enough | AlterNet

More than 60 Republican lawmakers have signed a letter to U.S. Defense Secretary Leon Panetta accusing the U.S. Air Force of being “hostile to religion,” according to Fox News.
The letter, drafted by Reps. Todd Akin (R-MO), Diane Black (R-TN) and Randy Forbes (R-VA), calls on Panetta to investigate a series of cases where the Air Force “succumbed” to pressure from outside groups, such as the removal of a paragraph from a Squadron Officer School training document saying, “if you attend chapel regularly, both officers and Airmen are likely to follow this example. If you are morally lax in your personal life, a general moral indifference within the command can be expected.”

The document was taken out following a complaint by the Military Religious Freedom Foundation that the line “creates the inescapable impression that regular church attendance is a requirement for commissioned Air Force officers in order to demonstrate positive morals to subordinates.” The foundation said it violates the constitutional ban on religious tests for U.S. office holders.

 

[Shuddhasattva]

If you are morally lax in your personal life, a general moral indifference within the command can be expected.

Should have stayed.

 

[MysticSang'ha]

Should have stayed.

That particular line should have stayed too. I agree.

 

[Rainbow Mage]

Yeah but its clearly being tied with attendance of chapel, so the republicans want it suggested that one cannot be moral outside Christianity. I see the OP's point.

 

[Draka]

I agree about the one particular line staying, but I am hard pressed to find how the removal of the lines is in any way "hostile" towards religion.

 

[Rainbow Mage]

Its perceived as hostile because the evangelicals want the attendance of chapel bit to stay in.

 

[The Sum of Awe]

Not all Republicans are like this...

Just wanted to reassure you.

 

[Rainbow Mage]

Not all Republicans are like this...

Just wanted to reassure you.

That may be, but it is the majority in the party. The GOP has been shifting toward more religious agendas for the past so many years. I know the moderates in the party can't be that oblivious. Can you honestly not see this going on?

 

[Revoltingest]

That may be, but it is the majority in the party. The GOP has been shifting toward more religious agendas for the past so many years. I know the moderates in the party can't be that oblivious. Can you honestly not see this going on?

I don't see the shift. I recall things were pretty religious half a century ago.
Furthermore, I see aspects of the Pubs which are less religious, eg, more heathen tolerance.
(Did I just say "half a century ago"? Dang! I'm old!)

 

[Rainbow Mage]

Well prior to neo Conservatism in the 80s the Republicans were much closer to the Democrats. The rift began with Reagan and you can't tell me the shift didn't have to do with religion.

Now that the Tea Party is under the GOP banner they are more extreme then ever.

Where are the Moderate Republicans? They have no voice in the party. We never hear from them. They are kinda back burner enablers, since they know this is happening and remain in the party.

 

[Reptillian]

We really need more refined and specific political parties. The Republican party is a mix of a lot of different ideologies...a Theocratic Party would eliminate a lot of the crazies in their midst.

 

[Alceste]

We really need more refined and specific political parties. The Republican party is a mix of a lot of different ideologies...a Theocratic Party would eliminate a lot of the crazies in their midst.

You already have a Theocratic Party. It's called the Republicans.

 

[Quagmire]

I don't see the shift. I recall things were pretty religious half a century ago.
Furthermore, I see aspects of the Pubs which are less religious, eg, more heathen tolerance.
(Did I just say "half a century ago"? Dang! I'm old!)

50 years ago religion, specifically Christianity, was taken as a given in the US. Most people identified as Christian, most Christians were actively religious, and the pervasive Christian themes running through our culture were accepted and (mostly) ignored by most people, Christians included, in the same way that most people ignore the "In God We Trust" on our currency. It was there, it was a (mostly superficial) part of our culture. People accepted it and didn't really think about it very much.

It was a peripheral aspect of Americanism.

Now, partially due to the fact that religion has lost most of this sort of status in the United States, the attention it does get--whether negative or positive---is going to be more focused and it's impact and importance---again: whether negative or positive---is going to be more consciously considered and asserted.

In our politics particularly religion is a much bigger issue than it's ever been. Just about all previous presidents used terms like "God" or "Providence" or "Divine Will" in their speeches and public addresses but that too was peripheral: it was an after-thought, or a way of summing up a point with what was then a fairly universal appeal to emotion and unity.

In other words, it was rhetoric.

Religion itself was never used as central part of a candidates political platform, or as a major selling point in their campaigns. Issues concerning religion or the religious implications attached to other political issues were usually either minor points or completely beside the point.

I'm guessing that if Rick Santorum had been running against Wilson or Roosevelt and had gotten behind the podium with a "Here's what God wants" platform he'd have been written off as a religious fanatic and laughed off the stage.

 

[Revoltingest]

In our politics particularly religion is a much bigger issue than it's ever been. Just about all previous presidents used terms like "God" or "Providence" or "Divine Will" in their speeches and public addresses but that too was peripheral: it was an after-thought, or a way of summing up a point with what was then a fairly universal appeal to emotion and unity.

I'll agree that since it isn't so taken for granted, that it's discussed more than before.

I'm guessing that if Rick Santorum had been running against Wilson or Roosevelt and had gotten behind the podium with a "Here's what God wants" platform he'd have been written off as a religious fanatic and laughed off the stage.

I don't remember it that way.

 

[The Sum of Awe]

You already have a Theocratic Party. It's called the Republicans.

But what this person was saying is that all Republicans aren't Theocratic, so they should separate the Theocratic Republicans and the good Republicans.

 

[Quagmire]

I'll agree that since it isn't so taken for granted, that it's discussed more than before.


I don't remember it that way.

Well yeah but you were, what, a teenager when Wilson was running?

How much attention could you have been paying.

 

[Rainbow Mage]

The non-Theocratic Republicans are enablers far as I can see.

 

[Revoltingest]

Well yeah but you were, what, a teenager when Wilson was running?
How much attention could you have been paying.

As a future engineer, I certainly didn't spend it on a social life.

 

[Shuddhasattva]

Come now guys, let's not go slinging **** at the republicans. Can we honestly say democrats are any better? Really?

Yeah, yeah, we can say the stated ideology of one is better or worse, maybe with some justification, maybe just with sophistry, but the actual behavior and execution?

There are many sincere, honest Republicans who are just as interested as you are in the benefit of the nation and humanity/life. They just believe it should be accomplished by different means, and support people they naively trust to at least accomplish some part of what they feel ought be done, as naively as democrats do for their own leaders.

All the tools to go beyond representative democracy and its failure in a transaction based society to direct democracy - but perish the thought, that's undemocratic and unamerican. And besides, has no credibility because no major party espouses it. Be gone, be gone to the lunatic fringe!

Hi ho, hi ho, off to the unemployment line we go.

 

[Revoltingest]

That's how this place rolls....somewhat anti-Republican & anti-conservative.
(They're rather different entities, of course.)