Should Offensive Material be censored?

[AllYourBass]

...........fuck it, I'll bite. My flight got canceled today and I need a brief break from Mass Effect 3. The content of my post is completely based on my meaningless and speculative opinion that Christianity has become a bigger force in this country than it deserves to be, and its practicers sometimes lose sight of the fact that the government has no business favoring it over any other religion. Which means, consequentially, that when the Armed Forces is put in a position where it needs to suppress religious conversation among its ranks (which someone earlier said is acceptable by regs), Christianity enjoys an equal share of the chopping block despite it being (currently) the country's most popular religion.

A follow-up article (which I read past the headline): http://www.foxnews.com/opinion/2014...-god-word-vs-pentagon-word/?intcmp=latestnews

...The Christian cleansing of the Bible verse led to a small uprising among cadets. At least a dozen posted Bible verses on their personal white boards and some even went so far as to post passages from the Koran. Those verses were not removed, presumably because the cadets were not in leadership positions...

Look at the highlighted portion. This shit is exactly why Christianity is a bigger deal than you're making it. Whereas Christianity is normal and accepted, one must go "so far" as to post a passage from the Quran. If you look at Christianity any differently than you do Islam, then you are favoring one religion over another, and that is the vital root of the problem in stories like this.

“This academy should be training warriors who can deal with difficult situations and determined enemies,” Boykin said. “A scripture is hardly a threat.”

Christian scriptures are hardly a threat—to Christians. In this country, an atheist is best off keeping his/her mouth shut. I'm not sure what's more risky around here nowadays: being an atheist or being a Muslim. Christianity is absolutely ingrained in our daily life so casually that we overlook the areas of society it pervades. Hell, if you aren't (at least proclaiming in some way to be) Christian, you can't hold office. Nobody trusts you. In some areas of the country—I'm currently enjoying Pensacola, which is as right-wing crazy as it has gotten for me since moving from Southern California—not being a Christian can be a really bad thing.

I'm not personally sensitive enough to give a shit or feel offended by religious symbolism or discussion, but when people I know bring the conversation in a direction toward God, I can't really offer anything. Plenty of people talk about God's opinions on the war, on Muslims, on whatever. That's because it's okay to do that here. Shit will hit the fan when American Muslims start talking about Allah's opinion on anything. But again, just me speculating.

Also, try and consider the relationship between a Christian (or whatever) and somebody who admits to not holding those religious beliefs. Consider your own feelings, please, because I don't share them and cannot comment on them. I can only comment from the perspective of somebody who has been treated differently upon discovery that I am not a Christian. I would be disappointed if I experienced that interaction in flight school or, worse, out in the fleet. It's hard to deny that religion can be a serious point of contention between people. It's even worse than politics! I can think of a blanket policy that could prevent that awkward and often inevitable exchange between our military peers.

...one of the cadets told me. “It’s even too risky to go out into the hallway and talk to a Christian friend about your faith. It’s because there are people here who are so easily offended. If someone overheard us talking about Christianity, they could file a complaint. They could say we were having that discussion in a public space.”

I don't think that's true. Someone post regs if I'm wrong, but that sounds a little too "Free Speech Violaty" even for our de-Constitutionalized Armed Forces.

...Weinstein is vowing to take the Air Force Academy to court unless they punish every cadet who posted a Bible verse on their bulletin boards...

...Weinstein likened the posting of the Bible verses to racism...

Again, this guy is an idiot. He's not even pushing for a "religious neutral" environment. It feels like he's blatantly attacking Christians as covered earlier in this topic. I don't care to spend time with his complaint history, but I'd be interested to know whether he's ever raised a case against any other religion (unlikely, though, because I doubt practicers of other religions would feel comfortable enough to express themselves in the American military, but now I'm just speculating).

 

[jander12]

... the government has no business favoring it over any other religion…

Agreed.

Look at the highlighted portion. This shit is exactly why Christianity is a bigger deal than you're making it. Whereas Christianity is normal and accepted, one must go "so far" as to post a passage from the Quran. If you look at Christianity any differently than you do Islam, then you are favoring one religion over another, and that is the vital root of the problem in stories like this.

I see what you’re saying. Another point of view is that it’s worded that way because it wasn’t Muslim students posting scripture from the Quran to show support for other religious expression. I don’t know that for a fact though. If that’s not the case, then the wording clearly conveys an extreme bias.

I’m not trying to make “Christianity” a big deal. I’d argue that an atheist should have every right to post a statement saying there is no god on his white board if he/she wanted to. And if people complain about it and have it removed, it would be ridiculously easily offended people.

 

[AllYourBass]

Agreed.

I see what you’re saying. Another point of view is that it’s worded that way because it wasn’t Muslim students posting scripture from the Quran to show support for other religious expression. I don’t know that for a fact though. If that’s not the case, then the wording clearly conveys an extreme bias.

I’m not trying to make “Christianity” a big deal. I’d argue that an atheist should have every right to post a statement saying there is no god on his white board if he/she wanted to. And if people complain about it and have it removed, it would be ridiculously easily offended people.

In a military setting, I'd venture to say that posting "There is no God" on my whiteboard would merit removal just the same. I imagine the reasoning would be the same as the reasoning for removing quotes from Scripture: "I am a member of the Armed Forces and I am making my comrades aware of my spirituality-related beliefs in an act that will (at best) accomplish nothing, but could (at anything less than best) create a rift between us and damage our ability to operate together effectively."

EDIT: But I'm definitely not implying I'd personally be offended by whatever anybody put on their whiteboard. I generally don't get offended by anything. But it's pretty clear that some people take religion/politics pretty seriously, a fact that can be sometimes overlooked when everybody in the room is assumed to subscribe to the same belief (i.e., The odds of offending somebody in Pensacola by talking about Christian beliefs are about as low as the odds of offending somebody here by saying "Obama is a dickbutt" or "Gun control is for commies"...but you never know whose opinions you alienate or steamroll when you bring those topics up).

Third on the list of potentially contentious conversation topics might be your sports team, but that's immune from censorship for now

 

[bert]

The student should be free to exercise his First Amendment right to write Bible quotes on his own whiteboard, provided the speech act in question doesn't infringe on other people's rights or blatantly offend non-believers (e.g., something like "I do not permit a woman to teach or to have authority over a man. She must be quiet." [1 Timothy 2:12] ). ...

I'm late to this, but...

Who are you going to have decide the bolded part? What training will they be required to have? If a female complains that something is offensive, would there be any problem with having it be a male deciding whether on whether or not it really is?

 

[AllYourBass]

I'm late to this, but...

Who are you going to have decide the bolded part? What training will they be required to have? If a female complains that something is offensive, would there be any problem with having it be a male deciding whether on whether or not it really is?

I sort of spaced on the whole "We gave up our constitutional rights" bit at that point in the conversation, so the First Amendment piece and everything afterward doesn't apply. Useless ensign is new to his slimmer set of rights.

 

[Spekkio]

I'm late to this, but...

Who are you going to have decide the bolded part? What training will they be required to have? If a female complains that something is offensive, would there be any problem with having it be a male deciding whether on whether or not it really is?

The unit CO. Exercising good judgment in these situations is part of his job description.

If the about to be DIVOs on here think that they'll just tell people to stfu for feeling discriminated against then they are going to get a lot of people in trouble.

 

[jander12]

... If the about to be DIVOs on here think that they'll just tell people to stfu for feeling discriminated against then they are going to get a lot of people in trouble.

A couple things come to mind:
Everyone should have memorized Leadership Trait #6.

Tact: The ability to deal with others without creating offense.

And then maybe some of you have seen this as well:

"It is by no means enough that an officer of the Navy should be a capable mariner. He must be that, of course, but also a great deal more. He should be as well a gentleman of liberal education, refined manners, punctilious courtesy, and the nicest sense of personal honor.

He should be the soul of tact, patience, justice, firmness, kindness, and charity. No meritorious act of a subordinate should escape his attention or be left to pass without its reward, even if the reward is only a word of approval.

Conversely, he should not be blind to a single fault in any subordinate, though at the same time, he should be quick and unfailing to distinguish error from malice, thoughtlessness from incompetency, and well meant shortcomings from heedless or stupid blunder. In one word, every commander should keep constantly before him the great truth, that to be well obeyed, he must be perfectly esteemed."

--Compiled by Augustus C. Buell from letters written by John Paul Jones

 

[Spekkio]

A couple things come to mind:
Everyone should have memorized Leadership Trait #6.

I was being hyperbolic, but this is generally something you cannot keep to yourself as a DIVO, even if you think you can tactfully resolve it. You need to make sure your CoC knows that someone felt discriminated against and what you did to handle it, and if the resolution was simply to tell the person to suck it up (in tactful words), it's probably not going to fly. You do not want to be responsible for a situation that escalates if your resolution was not adequate.

 

[Steve Wilkins]

I was being hyperbolic, but this is generally something you cannot keep to yourself as a DIVO, even if you think you can tactfully resolve it. You need to make sure your CoC knows that someone felt discriminated against and what you did to handle it, and if the resolution was simply to tell the person to suck it up (in tactful words), it's probably not going to fly. You do not want to be responsible for a situation that escalates if your resolution was not adequate.

Read: never be the senior man with a secret.

 

[jander12]

A couple things come to mind:
Everyone should have memorized Leadership Trait #6.
Tact: The ability to deal with others without creating offense.

And then maybe some of you have seen this as well:

"It is by no means enough that an officer of the Navy should be a capable mariner. He must be that, of course, but also a great deal more. He should be as well a gentleman of liberal education, refined manners, punctilious courtesy, and the nicest sense of personal honor.

He should be the soul of tact, patience, justice, firmness, kindness, and charity. No meritorious act of a subordinate should escape his attention or be left to pass without its reward, even if the reward is only a word of approval.

Conversely, he should not be blind to a single fault in any subordinate, though at the same time, he should be quick and unfailing to distinguish error from malice, thoughtlessness from incompetency, and well meant shortcomings from heedless or stupid blunder. In one word, every commander should keep constantly before him the great truth, that to be well obeyed, he must be perfectly esteemed."

--Compiled by Augustus C. Buell from letters written by John Paul Jones

It was brought to my attention that this posting may have come across as disrespectful to current and past naval officers. I want too be clear, that was not my intention. My apologies if anyone took my above post as disrespectful.

 

[Steve Wilkins]

It was brought to my attention that this posting may have come across as disrespectful to current and past naval officers. I want too be clear, that was not my intention. My apologies if anyone took my above post as disrespectful.

I certainly didn't take offense to it. I thought it was kind of funny. As to the comment you removed about how folks shouldn't tell other people to STFU, you will find in time that it is sometimes appropriate.