ACLU vs. USNA

[eddie]

Are you required to participate in these prayers? If not, then I don't really understand where these nine are coming from. When people around me want to pray, or time is made for them to pray, they pray, and I sit there and think about

a) sex b) I am sooo glad I don't feel the need to believe any of this... What time is the Dodger game on? c) what I need to do for the rest of the days to achieve my long and short-term goals d) if i smash my palms into my shut eyes long enough it looks an acid trip

Is it wrong / out of Constitutional bounds for the government to acknowledge religion and make time for it each day?

 

[IKE]

This is not a fight for freedom of oppression, or freedom to practice religion however you choose, or freedom to not practice religion. This is a fight for "I can't have my way, so nobody gets theirs".

I haven't met the mid(s) who asked the ACLU for help, so I can't comment on their motives. I can say that regardless of any disappointment I have with the way things are, you will never see me running to the ACLU (I agree with phrogpilot's comments above).

For me, it's the principle that the military, as a government entity, should not endorse or promote any religious beliefs or practices, regardless of what percentage of its servicemembers hold such beliefs.

Don't delude yourselves into thinking there's something noble about this, and that "dealing with it" is somehow equivalent to "good men failing to act".

Again, I can't comment on the motives of the original complainant(s). I do think one should choose one's battles, which is why I'm discussing this on a web forum instead of complaining up the chain. Command prayer is wrong, but it doesn't do me enough injustice (currently) to warrant the (unjust) negative career impact I'd probably experience by officially complaining.

I know this is not the exact same issue, but it serves as a good example:
The Constitution prohibits a religious test as a requirement for public office. The "so help me god" phrase is exactly that, even if it is optional. Requiring a servicemember to make special effort to have the phrase removed from the oath is itself a religious test, in that it identifies the servicemember as a non-believer to the YN writing the document, and anyone present at the promotion ceremony. I am quite proud of my beliefs (or lack thereof), but who can assure me that making my beliefs well known will not adversely affect my career?

 

[LazersGoPEWPEW]

1st Amendment

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.

It's not a law to have the prayers and it's not against the law to not pray.

No one is making anyone pray. If you feel pressured to pray for fear it will have an effect on your career then you'll need to provide evidence proving that when/if it does affect your career. I'm not saying it's right or wrong but it's life. The government isn't making a law respecting the establishment of religion. That does not necessarily mean it can't respect the establishment. It means it can't make a law declaring that "Christianity/Islam/Judaism/Scientology" is the established religion of the nation.

Mind you this is a more literal interpretation of the Constitution and it is certainly guaranteed that many will disagree. But I think it's necessary to put the actual amendment out there to read before passing judgement on the issue being discussed.

In closing everything you do has a consequence, good or bad. It's life and it's not fair.

 

[CommodoreMid]

I agree with you, the "melting pot" of diversity is growing every day. For the time being, though, majority rules and as long as there are as many Christians as there are in this country, public prayers will continue to part of our lives. To give my opponents credit, if there were a Muslim prayer every morning, people would absolutely flip. FWIW, when Jonathan Edwards (not the politician) and the like came to this land, it was not for religious independence. If you weren't Christian, you were SOL. Remember a book called the Scarlett Letter? We've come a long way from witch hunts, but this nonsense of our contry being founded on religious diversity is false. A basic college history class will teach that. Nice buzz words though

That's only one of the American colonies. Go look again at the histories of Maryland, Pennsylvania, and Rhode Island. Not every colony was "tolerant," but these are several examples of ones that did have pretty radical degrees of religious freedoms for their times.

 

[phrogdriver]

My family had to tolerate hearing "In Jesus' name" at my commissioning. I need to make a phone call tomorrow. Anyone have the number for the ACLU?

Well, Bogey, if your people hadn't killed him, you wouldn't have to listen to his name all the time. :icon_mi_4

 

[DangerousDan]

The idea of tradition is tradition, business is business, and the "deal with it" attitude is what holds back progress. Never accept the status quo...there's ALWAYS a better way to do something.

I think that tradition is a good thing because it allows you to relate to those in the past and see yourself as something larger than yourself. I believe that if there are no traditions it makes it easy to drift without bearings from one fad to the next.

I don't think there is "ALWAYS" a better way of doing something and you shouldn't jump into something just for the sake of change.

 

[RockySLP]

their desire for "mixed government", with him at its head, and their belief that "the title of king" would be objectionable to but few...

I'm familiar with the letter, but the concept is absurd and routinely misrepresented. There was no serious campaign to suggest that Washington should be a "king," as we understand the term. One letter from one guy doesn't really qualify as "they" -- certainly not the "they" that wrote the Constitution and added the Bill of Rights. This covers it better than I can:
http://www.chss.montclair.edu/english/furr/gbi/docs/kingmyth.html

Not trying to sound confrontational, though. I don't blame anyone for repeating the story. Our BS detectors were not fully developed in fourth grade when we were being fed this stuff by blue-haired wingbats. The value of the story isn't based in fact -- it's in the support of a popular perception of George Washington, hence my cherry tree reference.

 

[wink]

real people are behind this suit not just the ACLU (whatever you may think of that organization).

http://www.nytimes.com/2008/06/25/u...p=1&adxnnlx=1214541565-oF/SaZ2TYFws+ZKmz4jpoA

Of course real people are behind the law suit. People have to be damaged to file a tort. But you don't have to use the ACLU as your vehicle and the ACLU doesn't have to take the case. I'd like to get this thread to step back from religion and back to slamming the ACLU. I have seen them at work up close. They are really just a money making machine like any other commercial law firm, except slimier and less ethical. They take cases where the court/law permits triple damages and their costs. So they bring in a team of lawyers and put them up in the most expensive hotels. They may be in town for just a few days at a time for motions and depositions or to appear before the press (of course), but they keep their room in the expensive hotel for the duration, rent big expensive cars and live high on the hog. Their interests extend more to their agenda then their "client". In the end they ask for their outrageous costs that include a billing rate far above what any local attorney could get away with charging. Check the records and their expenses are almost always over what the defense has. If they win they ask for a Special Master to monitor inforcement of the court's ruling. If they get a Special Master that guy's expenses are then paid for by the defendant for as long as years. All the while the Special Master has the ACLU on speed dial and you can bet more suits will follow. If your comment that real people are behind this suit was meant to give their complaints legitimacy or engender sympathy, it was lost when they took on the ACLU as their advocate. What, their aren't any good plaintiff's lawyers in Annapolis that would take on this case? Bringing the ACLU in on this was a tactic that had nothing to due with merely changing the noon prayer policy.

 

[Raptor2216]

I think that tradition is a good thing because it allows you to relate to those in the past and see yourself as something larger than yourself. I believe that if there are no traditions it makes it easy to drift without bearings from one fad to the next.

I don't think there is "ALWAYS" a better way of doing something and you shouldn't jump into something just for the sake of change.

There is a time and place for certain traditions. I don't care for religion nor do I make a fuss about having to bow my head so that the platoon can have a prayer at the end of the day. With that said, I would prefer a separation of religion from the military and I believe there will come a day when this will happen. What you should understand is that if we stuck with every single "tradition" then we would probably still be having witch trials or living in a segregated America...the list goes on. The world is a better place without certain traditions because plenty of people have been murdered in the name of "tradition". You are absolutely wrong if you don't think there is always a better way because the modern world is the result of leaving certain traditions behind and to be honest, I'm perfectly happy with it but we CAN still do better.

 

[Scoob]

I haven't met the mid(s) who asked the ACLU for help, so I can't comment on their motives. I can say that regardless of any disappointment I have with the way things are, you will never see me running to the ACLU (I agree with phrogpilot's comments above).

For me, it's the principle that the military, as a government entity, should not endorse or promote any religious beliefs or practices, regardless of what percentage of its servicemembers hold such beliefs.


Again, I can't comment on the motives of the original complainant(s). I do think one should choose one's battles, which is why I'm discussing this on a web forum instead of complaining up the chain. Command prayer is wrong, but it doesn't do me enough injustice (currently) to warrant the (unjust) negative career impact I'd probably experience by officially complaining.

I know this is not the exact same issue, but it serves as a good example:
The Constitution prohibits a religious test as a requirement for public office. The "so help me god" phrase is exactly that, even if it is optional. Requiring a servicemember to make special effort to have the phrase removed from the oath is itself a religious test, in that it identifies the servicemember as a non-believer to the YN writing the document, and anyone present at the promotion ceremony. I am quite proud of my beliefs (or lack thereof), but who can assure me that making my beliefs well known will not adversely affect my career?

Well, I can comment on at least one person's motive:

"Everybody else is participating with their heads bowed and their arms crossed," the midshipman said in an interview. "It became very obvious that you aren't participating."
The midshipman, who spoke on condition of anonymity because she feared her military career might be affected, said she went along with the practice at first because she didn't want to stand out. But she stopped in her third year and stood at parade rest instead of bowing her head and crossing her arms.
Those who want to pray during lunch "have the option to pray on their own," she said. "There's no reason they should subject everybody, including people like myself, to this prayer."

This is what's known in the industry as "percieved pressure". Ask anyone else at the Academy, particularly someone within this MIDN's chain of command, and they will tell you that this girl's fears were unfounded. In fact, I would bet they would've then gone on to take steps to reinforce that fact to not only this MIDN (and the other 8), but the rest of the entire brigade - had it ever been brought to their attention.

These MIDN all showed a severe lack of intestinal fortitude by not addressing their concerns within the mechanism that the military already has in place to handle such things. Stepping so far outside of that mechanism not only "breaks the faith" that we as military members rely on (and sometimes stake our lives on), but it shows a severe lack of courage that should probably warrant dismissal - but that would be seen as retaliatory.

That all having been said, I'm pretty confident that these MIDN did not complain out of an "if I can't have it my way, nobody can have it" agenda - but by contacting the ACLU, that is exactly the result they are going to achieve.

 

[BACONATOR]

Well, I can comment on at least one person's motive:


This is what's known in the industry as "percieved pressure". Ask anyone else at the Academy, particularly someone within this MIDN's chain of command, and they will tell you that this girl's fears were unfounded. In fact, I would bet they would've then gone on to take steps to reinforce that fact to not only this MIDN (and the other 8), but the rest of the entire brigade - had it ever been brought to their attention.

These MIDN all showed a severe lack of intestinal fortitude by not addressing their concerns within the mechanism that the military already has in place to handle such things. Stepping so far outside of that mechanism not only "breaks the faith" that we as military members rely on (and sometimes stake our lives on), but it shows a severe lack of courage that should probably warrant dismissal - but that would be seen as retaliatory.

That all having been said, I'm pretty confident that these MIDN did not complain out of an "if I can't have it my way, nobody can have it" agenda - but by contacting the ACLU, that is exactly the result they are going to achieve.

Summary of above post in 3 letters: C O C.

 

[wink]

You are absolutely wrong if you don't think there is always a better way because the modern world is the result of leaving certain traditions behind and to be honest, I'm perfectly happy with it but we CAN still do better.

Negative. The essence of real traditions are timeless. Not everything that has been done for a few decades or even 100 years constitutes tradition. Heck, look at the USAF. They have bent over backward to establish USAF specific tradition, but it isn't that easy. And you are wrong if you believe every change is good or progress is absolutely going to move you to a better place. ( Something Obama supporters don't appreciate.) Sometimes there just isn't a better way.

Let me ask you this. The command by negation tradition in the Navy goes back to the Royal Navy age of sail when Captains were given broad direction and even broader discretion in carrying out orders. This was largely due to nearly non existent comms with higher authority. That tradition lives today in how Navy Officers differ from USAF and Army Officers. You see it in the difference in our aviation training, and SOPs. Would you have the Navy go to a more corporate style of management and keep a tighter rein on their commanding officers and mission commanders just because sat comms allow it today? Isn't that progress? Isn't that modern? Why hang on to a way of doing things from the age of sail? I'll tell you why, because it works, ancient or not.

 

[bluesig1]

It's this kind of belief that would have kept Black sailors as stewards and cooks, and kept hazing a part of our military culture.

What's wrong with hazing? I think for the most part it brings a sense of tradition, comraderie, and esprit de corps to a unit. I understand if it gets carried away, but alot of people expect or want it. For example, I went to my brothers winging, and most of the guys in the class still got blood wings (not during the official winging). They all wanted it, because they wanted to go through some of the same traditions older guys went through in the past. On the Navy side, you hear older people think of the fun days of pollywogs and shellbacks ceremonies, and how nonfun it is now.

On a side note, most people have a good idea of what they are getting themselves into when they sign up for school. If they don't like how a school does something then are hundreds of other schools they could go to. They aren't forced to go to USNA.

 

[CommodoreMid]

What's wrong with hazing? I think for the most part it brings a sense of tradition, comraderie, and esprit de corps to a unit. I understand if it gets carried away, but alot of people expect or want it. For example, I went to my brothers winging, and most of the guys in the class still got blood wings (not during the official winging). They all wanted it, because they wanted to go through some of the same traditions older guys went through in the past. On the Navy side, you hear older people think of the fun days of pollywogs and shellbacks ceremonies, and how nonfun it is now.

On a side note, most people have a good idea of what they are getting themselves into when they sign up for school. If they don't like how a school does something then are hundreds of other schools they could go to. They aren't forced to go to USNA.

Though I'm still a wog, I'd imagine it's been pussified because people took things too far. No, I wouldn't mind being smacked with pieces of fire hose on the ass a little as I've heard was done in the past, but when you have the possibility that some jackass will beat the shit out of someone, that's not good. Same with tacking on wings and stuff. On my 2/c cruise they mentioned that on the last promotion cycle on the ship some newly minted petty officer had the crap beaten out of his arm when his crow was tacked on. Yeah I think it's stupid that we have to ruin some traditions, but I can understand how some idiots always take it too far and someone gets legitimately hurt.

 

[phrogpilot73]

What's wrong with hazing?

The problem with hazing is that it's purpose is to humiliate/dehumanize/injure someone who is supposedly your brother. Yes, I agree with you that there is a fine line between some of the traditions we currently engage in and hazing, but I agree that hazing shouldn't be tolerated. I never got "blood winged" at the completion of flight school. Can you tell the difference between me and someone who did? Nope.