ACLU vs. USNA

[IKE]

When there's 5 out of 30 or 10 out of 30, then start thinking about making some other accomodations. But let's look at the numbers here...

According to this document: http://www.prb.org/Source/ACF1396.pdf
In 2001, the American military was 68% Christian, 21% Atheist/No Religion, and 11% Other/Unknown/Didn't Answer. That's 32% of the military that does not claim Christianity.... a non-negligible minority by any reasonable standard. The report also states: "In general, the armed forces show lower religious affiliation than the civilian population, even among civilians ages 20 to 39."

Is it really that big of a deal to stand up and say it, or are people really that anal retentive that uttering the word "Under GOD" is like having someone $hit in their mouth and ruin their day.

So I should stand up and say "under god" in the pledge and "so help me god" in the officer oath, even if I don't believe it. Don't you see how those phrases encourage people to make dishonest oaths? Maybe it's okay to swear to "support and defend the Constitution", even if you really don't mean it...

 

[Picaroon]

Jeez, there's no hazing, no God, what's next are they going to allow women in the military or any of the military schools? (joking of course)

Doesn't that joke just help the guys saying that prayers shouldn't be denominational?

Anyway, having been in quite religious organizations without being extremely religious myself, I've always respected the status quo. It's not a hassle to respect tradition and be polite, IMHO. Still, this thread makes it clear that both sides make some very valid points

 

[phrogpilot73]

1) Check your numbers.
2) By "willing", are you including those who would prefer not to have the command prayer, but just don't complain?

Yes, by complaining (through their chain of command) then they are indicating their unwillingness. And you're right, I should check my numbers.

9 out of 4000 = 0.22%, so I should have said 99.78%. I apologize.

My point still remains - would they have been allowed to show up after the prayer? We'll never know because they didn't use their chain of command, they went to the ACLU.

You know what I did during the prayer over the 1MC during deployment? I continued to play video games. And I'm Christian. I don't see the big deal.

 

[ProwlerPilot]

Once again, as long as it is NON DENOMINATIONAL, I don't see the problem! Wiccan, Muslim, Christian, Jewish, whatever! I'm still pretty sure all those religions recognize a God of some sort. So by saying "God" I think it covers it all.

But since we're on it, let's just get rid of God in the Pledge of Allegiance, on the money, wipe it clean from the country completely. All religions can go underground so no one is offended. No public Christmas displays, no prayer anywhere. If you want to have a religion, KEEP IT TO YOURSELF. Take the crosses off the churches. Forbid the saying "God bless you." This way there will be no problems...... And with any luck we can get rid of all the moral guidance that most religions bring.


just a thought!

 

[wink]

According to this document: http://www.prb.org/Source/ACF1396.pdf
In 2001, the American military was 68% Christian, 21% Atheist/No Religion, and 11% Other/Unknown/Didn't Answer. That's 32% of the military that does not claim Christianity.... [/I]

Lot of wiggle room here. First, Atheist/No religion will include a very large chunk of agnostics that generally have no problem with a nod to God, they just won't pony up to the alter. Second, where are your Jews, and Muslims? There is an increasing number of Muslims in the military, especially the Army.
I thought your problem was with religion, not Christianity. So add up the Muslims and Jews that appreciate the Chaplaincy and non denominational prayer and the agnostics, that may not care one way or the other, and you will be into a very substantial majority of the military that have no problem with this issue or even enthusiastically support it.

 

[IKE]

Once again, as long as it is NON DENOMINATIONAL, I don't see the problem! Wiccan, Muslim, Christian, Jewish, whatever! I'm still pretty sure all those religions recognize a God of some sort. So by saying "God" I think it covers it all.

There are religions that do not recognize the existence of a god (Daoism, Buddhism) and others that recognize a multitude of gods (Hinduism)

But since we're on it, let's just get rid of God ...words... And with any luck we can get rid of all the moral guidance that most religions bring.

Come on now, can we keep the discussion serious, and free of "straw man" arguments. No one posting has suggested anything like this. But, since you mention it, there is plenty of moral guidance to be had from a rational philosophy without faith. Why must moral guidance come from faith (as opposed to reason)?

 

[wink]

Why must moral guidance come from faith (as opposed to reason)?

So that would be the reasoning of Cygnus then? Everyone in society choosing their own moral compass based on their own unique reasoning. Sort of like the personal religion of Cygnus. And your buddy sitting across the ready room will reason a different moral code, and the guy living with his 13 year old girlfriend reasons another moral code. And don't think because it is against the law it can't happen. Enough people reason that it is morally ok and the laws get changed. Sounds like a recipe for a wonderfully functioning society.

 

[Afterburner76]

So that would be the reasoning of Cygnus then? Everyone in society choosing their own moral compass based on their own unique reasoning. Sort of like the personal religion of Cygnus. And your buddy sitting across the ready room will reason a different moral code, and the guy living with his 13 year old girlfriend reasons another moral code. And don't think because it is against the law it can't happen. Enough people reason that it is morally ok and the laws get changed. Sounds like a recipe for a wonderfully functioning society.

but if we get our moral codes through religion, then your argument holds no water. Because the Christian will have a different moral code than the Muslim, who will have a different moral code than the Buddhist, who will have a different moral code from the ...

 

[picklesuit]

I see no reason that 9, that's N-I-N-E people out of over 4,000 should dictate the practices of the Academy.

Isn't that N-I-N-E-R ?

 

[wink]

but if we get our moral codes through religion, then your argument holds no water. Because the Christian will have a different moral code than the Muslim, who will have a different moral code than the Buddhist, who will have a different moral code from the ...

No, not really. Not withstanding the deadly perversion of Islam we deal with now, all of the great religions lay down the same basic moral code. I am not talking about religious beliefs or practices here. And even if there were some major differences between religions I was talking about a society, not world wide. Any given society had a predominate religion in its past that its moral code came from. That means that even though there may be many religions in a modern society, it's foundation of laws and morals are fairly homogeneous.

Maybe now would be the time to remind people that the friezes on the US Supreme Court Building depict the great law givers of history. They include Hammurabi, Moses, Solomon, Confucius, Muhammad and Justinian. That is quite an eclectic bunch. Many relegious.

 

[Afterburner76]

No, not really. Not withstanding the deadly perversion of Islam we deal with now, all of the great religions lay down the same basic moral code. I am not talking about religious beliefs or practices here. And even if there were some major differences between religions I was talking about a society, not world wide. Any given society had a predominate religion in its past that its moral code came from. That means that even though there may be many religions in a modern society, it's foundation of laws and morals are fairly homogeneous.

That being said, there would be no reason to believe that if religion ceased to exist tomorrow (let's just say for the sake of argument) that our fundamental morality as a society would become defunct.

 

[wink]

That being said, there would be no reason to believe that if religion ceased to exist tomorrow (let's just say for the sake of argument) that our fundamental morality as a society would become defunct.

It would depend on what replaced it. If there were no moral guidance, no foundation for law, things would eventually change dramatically. "Reason" will prevail says the atheists. But who's reasoning will that be?

 

[Scoob]

Come on now, can we keep the discussion serious, and free of "straw man" arguments. No one posting has suggested anything like this. But, since you mention it, there is plenty of moral guidance to be had from a rational philosophy without faith. Why must moral guidance come from faith (as opposed to reason)?

Just how is this particular issue outside the realm of a serious discussion? The ACLU has clearly demonstrated, based on previous suits, that this is clearly their ultimate goal. If you think that the scenario that ProwlerPilot presents is somehow not "serious", then you need to seriously reevaluate the argument that you are defending.

 

[Afterburner76]

It would depend on what replaced it. If there were no moral guidance, no foundation for law, things would eventually change dramatically. "Reason" will prevail says the atheists. But who's reasoning will that be?

I don't necessarily think it would need a "replacement". Society would continue to function. To claim that society follows a certain moral code solely because of currently held religious beliefs doesn't work. We also have ethics and moralities based on teachings from the days of Plato, Aristotle, and Soh-Crayts :icon_tong. Even though the then held religious beliefs are a thing of the past. So too, would our basis of morality (yes, a Judeo-Christian basis) would continue to function in the absence of Judaism and Christianity. That being said, even Christian religious morality can be skewed to the sect of Christianity teaching it (Westboro Baptist ring a bell?). With so many hundreds of sects and denominations, who's to say which one's codes and values are correct? Anyway, I'm rambling, but you get my point...

 

[Scoob]

I don't necessarily think it would need a "replacement". Society would continue to function. To claim that society follows a certain moral code solely because of currently held religious beliefs doesn't work. We also have ethics and moralities based on teachings from the days of Plato, Aristotle, and Soh-Crayts :icon_tong. Even though the then held religious beliefs are a thing of the past. So too, would our basis of morality (yes, a Judeo-Christian basis) would continue to function in the absence of Judaism and Christianity. That being said, even Christian religious morality can be skewed to the sect of Christianity teaching it (Westboro Baptist ring a bell?). With so many hundreds of sects and denominations, who's to say which one's codes and values are correct? Anyway, I'm rambling, but you get my point...

How many of those teachings are currently on TV or featured in video games. Don't kid yourself - without a some form of moral inject, these values are dead in a generation.