  |
 |
| |
|
|
|
 The Cancer From WithinPosted on Nov 7, 2007
By David Antoon “I will support and defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies, foreign and domestic. ...”
“Our mission is to educate, train, and inspire men and women to become officers of character motivated to lead the United States Air Force in service to our nation.”
“We will not lie, steal, or cheat. ...”
“Military professionals must remember that religious choice is a matter of individual conscience. Professionals, and especially commanders, must not take it upon themselves to change or coercively influence the religious views of subordinates.”
Forty-two years ago, at the age of 18, I took the oath of office on my first day as an Air Force Academy cadet. The mission of the academy was not only to train future leaders for the Air Force but for America as well, because, in the end, most academy graduates do not serve full military careers. The honor code became an integral part of everyday life. These are the values that I, and most graduates of the 1960s and early ’70s, took with us from our four years at the academy. I, as did many graduates, underwent pilot training followed by tours of duty in Vietnam. Like military men and women of today, we did our best to become technically competent and professional leaders. Never, during my four years at the academy and subsequent pilot and combat training, was the word warrior used; nor, whether as a cadet or officer, did I ever encounter “Christian supremacist” rhetoric. In April of 2004, my son, after receiving a coveted appointment to the United States Air Force Academy, asked me to accompany him to the orientation for new appointees. This 24-hour visceral event changed my life forever, and crushed my son’s lifelong dream of following in my footsteps.
The orientation began with a one-hour “warrior” rant to appointees and parents by the commandant of cadets, Brig. Gen. Johnny Weida. The fact that the word warrior had replaced leadership was a signal of what was to follow. I later learned that cadets, to determine when a new record was established, had created a game in which warrior was counted in each speech Weida gave.
Instead, my son’s orientation became an opportunity for the academy to aggressively proselytize this next crop of cadets. Maj. Warren Watties led a group of 10 young, exclusively evangelical chaplains who stood shoulder to shoulder. He proudly stated that half of the cadets attended Bible studies on Monday nights in the dormitories and he hoped to increase this number from those in his audience who were about to join their ranks. This “invitation” was followed with hallelujahs and amens by the evangelical clergy. I later learned from Air Force Academy chaplain MeLinda Morton, a Lutheran who was forced to observe from the choir loft, that no priest, rabbi or mainline Protestant had been permitted to participate. I no longer recognize the Air Force Academy as the institution I attended almost four decades earlier. At that point, I had no idea how invasive this extreme evangelical “cancer” had become throughout the entire military, that what I had witnessed was far from an isolated case of a few religious zealots. In order to better understand this shift to a religious ideology at this once secular institution, I called the Academy Association of Graduates (AOG). Its response: “We don’t get involved in policy.” What I didn’t know was that the AOG, like the academy, had affiliations with James Dobson’s and Ted Haggard’s powerful mega-churches. When Dobson’s Focus on the Family “campus” was completed, the academy skydiving team, with great ceremony, delivered the “keys from heaven” to Dobson. During some alumni reunions, the AOG arranged bus tours of Focus on the Family facilities in nearby Colorado Springs, Colo. I also learned that the same Monday night Bible studies discussed at orientation were taught by bused-in members of these evangelical mega-churches and that some spouses of senior academy staff members were employed by these same religious institutions. It seemed that my beloved United States Air Force Academy had morphed into the Rocky Mountain Bible College. The academy chaplain staff had grown 300 percent while the cadet population had decreased by 25 percent: from six mainline chaplains to 18 chaplains, the additional 12 all evangelical. The academy even gained 25 reserve chaplains, also nonexistent in earlier times, for a total of 43 chaplains for about 4,000 cadets, or one chaplain for every 100 cadets.
1
2
3
NEXT PAGE >>>
Previous item: A Vote for Mukasey Is a Vote for Torture Next item: The Gender Trap Elsewhere: . CommentsAre you a Truthdig member yet? Login now, or register with Truthdig.
Comment Pages:
1
»
By Jeremiad, February 28 at 2:03 pm # 21 Jan cadet commentOn 6 February, Gen Dana Born, a self proclaimed born again evangelical and signatory of the now infamous Academy Newspaper Ads proclaiming Jesus as the only true answer (contact one of us!!) hosted three “faux” terrorists whose purpose was proselytize—which they did! Gen Regni and Gen Born were warned in advance that other universities had refused to allow these evangelical “faux” terrorists on their campus, and yet the Academy allowed this event to again soil the reputation of the Academy. Additionally, the Naval Academy Superintendent, a 3 star admiral, was overruled by his evangelical chaplains when he ordered them not to dip the American Flag before the altar during services. This practice continues… and the admirals response.. he has conceded defeat to the evangelical powers and refuses to attend services. In other words, the evangelical chaplains at the Naval Academy have overruled the commander!!!! The “cancer” continues to metastisize.
By J, January 21 at 12:18 am # (This is a personal commentary(This is a personal commentary only, not an Air Force Academy, Air Force, or DoD stance.) As a current USAFA cadet, I have not seen many of the outrages Mr. Antoon writes about...well maybe the overuse of the word “warrior,” but that hardly smacks of religious intolerance. Religions (and by that, I mean a multitude of them)are not pushed upon cadets. I have, however, seen the academy staff correct themselves and apologize for using semi-religious phrases like “Merry Christmas and Happy New Year.” The chaplains I have met usually stated what beliefs they held. They offered to help anyone of any faith, or help cadets find a chaplain of their faith, if we didn’t feel comfortable talking to them. I can’t speak for the past, but the kind of Academy Mr. Antoon describes is not the academy I am at.
By Luis Cayetano, November 29, 2007 at 8:53 pm # “- That is what being a “Christian” is.” Strange that some of the most devout Christians I know accept evolution with no problem. But please, tell us how these people aren’t “really” Christains (if being a Christian means being utterly gullible and clueless, then I guess they’re not really Christians). A bit of a bigot, aren’t you? What’s that you were saying about me being hateful again? “Do you base your opinion on any study? Research?” What do you base your opinion that evolution is a religion on? Any study? Research? Do you know the first thing about evolution (answer: no)? Or do you just mindlessly accept everything your pastor tells you (that would at least be consistent with your mindless acceptance of everything in the Bible, so there’s no shame in admitting it now)? It isn’t for someone like you to talk about “study” and “research”. You detest these things. You are in fact a shameless hypocrite, but because you’re a PIOUS hypocrite, you presume that others are somehow obligated to furnish you with a semblance of respect for being such. Ain’t gonna happen, my deluded, ignorant friend. You’ll need to get used to that from now on; the cozy days where religion was off limits to criticism are long gone, and they’re not coming back (unless the fascists succeed, that is). From now on, you’ll need to provide actual REASONS for your beliefs. Otherwise, expect not to be taken seriously. This advise if far more useful than any your pastor will ever give you, because unlike him, I’m at least trying to wean you off from sucking at the teat of collective mypopia so that you can learn to live in the real world like an adult. But apparently, you prefer to be treated like a child, because your delicate ears can’t handle too much reality. It’s almost amusing how you tie yourself in logical knots everytime you try to defend yourself, because you have NO IDEA how to think independently.
By Luis Cayetano, November 28, 2007 at 8:42 pm # Rowman says: “Luis Cayetano: Strange, isn’t it, everyone, how Rowman didn’t actually refute any of the arguments I put forward, but simply fell back on accusing me of “hatred”. This appeal to hurt feelings and offence is typical of those whose worldview is built on a house of cards so unstable and flimsy that it is liable to collapse at any moment unless those who oppose it are branded as “God haters” or some other such rubbish, so that the actual arguments on offer don’t have to be looked at and the underlying belief system left unmolested. Rowman, you wish me “peace” and that I can one day engage in dialog with those of who have different views to my own. To that I say: I wish that you will one day be capable of engaging in reasoned argument, rather than hiding behind a blanket of self-imposed ignorance and then having the nerve to tell other people what’s what. You only make yourself look like a reactionary bore; I hope this will change in the future, and that YOUR hatred - your hatred for rationality - will one day give way to something more life affirming and positive. Until then, you will be looked down upon, and rightfully so. But then, what else did you expect? You inult other people’s intelligence by making yourself out to be better informed than they are, yet what is your source of “knowledge”? An archaic, Bronze Age text written by pre-scientific nomads. And to top it off, you don’t even bother to educate yourself. So who’s really being “hateful”? What “dialog” are you even talking about?
By Clayr, November 18, 2007 at 5:40 pm # I read this article, and as a current cadet at the AFA, found it very interesting. It is likely, almost certain, that I’m in the Academy class (or the one right after)that Mr. Antoon would have been in had he chosen to attend here. (Disclaimer: Please note that my words are my own and do not reflect the views of the Academy, the Air Force, or anybody else.) I read through most of the comments...for a group of people who don’t attend USAFA you have an awful lot of absolute opinions on it. Notes to those who commented or had questions on the following topics (there were a lot and I don’t remember specifics, sorry). - There’s just one core biology class at here. Nothing on creation is taught, be it evolution or intelligent design. We learn about how the human body works, and how to stay healthy. We did some stuff looking at lab procedures too, like growing staph and knowing what it would look like. - The talk I got from the Chaplains was something along the lines of “I’m a Protestant Christian, and if you ever want to talk about something you can come to me, no matter what you believe. Also, I can put you in touch with a Chaplain of your faith if you like. Oh yeah, free food once a month or so care of all of us.” I never asked to talk to a Chaplain and I never had to. (I hardly even remember when any of the church services are on Sunday because I’d have to go looking for the information.) - The only times religion was brought up in any of my classes were when: 1) My chemistry teacher was making comments about what he thought of people who believe in God, though he also said, but what should you care what I think? Believe what you want. (He wasn’t military, he was a civilian.) 2) In Law we have a section about religious freedom and on freedom of speech. To the person who said military members can practice freedom of speech as much as the next man: wrong. We can’t, and we know it. You do give up some freedoms while you’re in the military, or order to protect those of others. - I asked my roommate, who essentially has views opposite of mine, having attended to Catholic school her whole life. She can tell when her teachers are or are not Christians, simply because of the way they behave. They don’t do anything offensive, she can just tell. But that’s kind of how it goes. For example, one of my teachers knows what I believe, even though we’ve never discussed it - it’s never even come up in class. These are some thoughts from someone actually here, and who feels that no matter what I believe, everyone can believe what they want. If they want to discuss it with me, that’s cool, but they don’t have to explain themselves to me just because of their beliefs. I’m not going to judge them based on them, but will decide how I interact with them based on how they act. Lastly, I am puzzled by something. If this is based on an experience from my class’ incoming or before (I’m in my third year here) why is he only posting it now? Thanks for your time and consideration in reading this. C.
By Nabih Ammari, November 18, 2007 at 7:48 am # To:#114251 by Douglas Chalmers on 11/17 at 11:30 pm. Douglas, I am not going to go through quote and unquote.please -As usual, your admired broad knowledge seems to go -I certainly DO NOT care to have in my arms,when in -This one is very serious: I am for total nuclear -The answer to the last question is a “BIG YES”. Douglas,have a good day or pleasant evening,depending
By Nabih Ammari, November 17, 2007 at 10:45 am # To:#114117 by Douglas Chalmers on 11/17 at 12:45 am. “Thus loving kindness is not to be found in any book My Dear Douglas, To me,loving kindness needs not to manifest itself by -The Good Samaritan in the Bible. And while writing this to you I have just remembered “Ama Al-Yateema Fla Tunhar”. Translation: “But The Orphan;You Must Not Condemn/Reject”. What is the implication of the foregoing Qura’anic But,at the end,you are right:all of the forgoing Douglas,you are one of the very few bloggers I look Best Regards,
By John Rhoe, November 16, 2007 at 5:58 am # #113867 by Mike Schaefer: We are a country that believes in religious freedoms and I fully support that right. Any attack on this should be an insult to every American. Those in support of this article are picking the wrong fight. Has the air force academy morphed into a bible institution? I can tell you with certainty it has not. In every organization there are those who do freely express their religious position or lack of one. But to force a religious position of lack of one, is contrary to the constitution we swore to protect. For those who blindly accept this author’s position as truth, I challenge you to visit the academy and verify for yourself. He has made a mountain out of a molehill. In fact, there is less God speak today then there was several years ago. You see this in our other educational facilities and it is no different at the academy.
By Nabih Ammari, November 16, 2007 at 4:53 am # To:#113684 by cyrena on 11/15 at 2:01 am. cyrena, The more I read your posts,the more I realize that the Your honest and straight forward comments are highly “No legacy as lasting as honesty”. cynera,thank you for being what you are. Sincerely,
By Nabih Ammari, November 16, 2007 at 12:09 am # To:#113672 by Douglas Chalmers on 11/14 at 11:14 pm. Douglas, I am well aware of the arguments involved about the What I was trying to convey to those who believed in -Since the person I addressed the post to seems to me My problem is with the huge contradictions between
By Mike Schaefer, November 15, 2007 at 8:17 pm # Erik Prince is not a Naval Academy graduate.
By Erica, November 15, 2007 at 6:43 pm # “Yet the conservative credentials of Strauss have been vigorously questioned, in light of his perceived rejection of history, his apparently unabashed admiration for liberal democracy, and his skepticism about the political value of revealed truth.” Seems there are a few that hold dear and close with this man. I say this because of their repeated rejection of History, unabashed admiration for liberal democracy no ability to see the value of revealed truth
By JasonR, November 15, 2007 at 3:13 pm # I don’t expect much more from our departments of “defense” when they are committed to everything but that.
By Scott Thomason, November 15, 2007 at 3:12 pm # Yup, gotta laugh at the evangelicals, that perniciously uniformed, hyper-judgmental, zealous group of rapturites. An evangelical is actually half the reason I left the Navy. Our base changed its commanding officer from a fairly benign fellow to a self-righteous jackass. He felt it his Christian duty to enforce the “no visitors in the barracks after midnight rule.” Translation: no chicks allowed after hours. This rule was enforced with late night room searches, at which time half of the surrounding city’s female occupation was accounted for. Suffice it to say, that was enough for me--with the navy and the evangelicals.
By Mare Tranquil, November 15, 2007 at 3:00 pm # It is evident that Napoleon made the statement that “Religion is what keeps the poor from murdering the rich.” in private to a confident(s). He was describing his own contempt for religion and we can extrapolate that this line of thinking by the elite was pervasive all the way back to Constantine’s Rome and likely further. Religion as opiate for the masses. “Do not rise up against my tyranny or you will suffer eternal damnation for your selfish desires.” Or as one might say “you’re damned if you do, damned if you don’t.”
By Grant H., November 15, 2007 at 10:09 am # I urge caution in what you vomit Ernest. Since the end of the Cold War, the meaning of conservatism has been the subject of intense debate. This debate has coincided with a revival of interest in the ideas of Leo Strauss, whose political philosophy has influenced American conservatism in particular. Yet the conservative credentials of Strauss have been vigorously questioned, in light of his perceived rejection of history, his apparently unabashed admiration for liberal democracy, and his skepticism about the political value of revealed truth. What is conservatism? Is it simply an older version of liberalism? Which traditions do conservatives “conserve” in an age of modern change? Is conservatism populist or elitist, democratic or aristocratic? Does it support imperialism or isolationism? Which religion, if any, is most compatible with conservatism? Since the end of the Cold War, these traditionally academic questions have drifted into the political arena and often pitted conservatives (especially in the United States) against each other. To date (2004), the American conservative movement’s divisions have forced a return to the question of the very meaning of the doctrine. In the same time period, the ideas of political philosopher Leo Strauss have increasingly become part of this debate over American conservatism. For Strauss and his many students have been credited with (or blamed for) the direction of the conservative movement since the collapse of communism. Some critics on the left have branded Strauss as the major conservative influence on the American intellectual right. Strauss is the “godfather” of American neoconservatism.
By R Harrell, November 15, 2007 at 9:44 am # Gentlemen: Do not mistake an Air Force chaplain, Hagee, Bush or anyone else as the spokesman for the world wide Christian Church--whose leader is Jesus, and whose commandments can easily be found in the Bible. Every officer in the armed forces must be true to the Constitution, disobey illegal orders, and answer to God Almighty. Ignorance is no excuse. Authority is tempered with responsibility. God will not be mocked. Therefore--pledging loyalty to the US Government is something a true Christian cannot do. The US Government thinks it is god and to most serviceman it is.
By Thomas Jefferson, November 15, 2007 at 9:29 am # “[When] the [Virginia] bill for establishing religious freedom… was finally passed,… a singular proposition proved that its protection of opinion was meant to be universal. Where the preamble declares that coercion is a departure from the plan of the holy author of our religion, an amendment was proposed, by inserting the word “Jesus Christ,” so that it should read “a departure from the plan of Jesus Christ, the holy author of our religion.” The insertion was rejected by a great majority, in proof that they meant to comprehend within the mantle of its protection the Jew and the Gentile, the Christian and Mahometan, the Hindoo and infidel of every denomination.” --Thomas Jefferson: Autobiography, 1821. ME 1:67
By Daniel M. Ryan, November 15, 2007 at 4:43 am # There’s an interesting parallel between the movement this article protests against and a similar social trend in the U.K., as decried in this Guardian article: http://tinyurl.com/2xz7ff . The main difference is that the other article protests against the Church of England moving into primary-education institutions. Here’s the parallel: My own home country of Canada, if you count born, raised but lapsed in the figures, has Roman Catholics in a thin majority. (If only practicing ones are counted, then it’s a plurality.) I haven’t seen any similar trend in Canada, as yet.
By cyrena, November 15, 2007 at 2:01 am # Well, I agree with Nabih on this. Matter of fact, I’ve never heard it explained better. • #113527 by Nabih Ammari “...God did not create man.On the contrary,Man created God, or rather the concept of God...... And so, it is. This is FAR more likely to be the real deal. And, it’s perfectly OK. I have no problems with this explanation at all. Makes perfectly good sense to me. Now rowman, I know I’m sort of a ‘glutton for punishment” here, but what the heck. I needed a break anyway, from reading about all the religious violence that marked the creation of these United States. (actually, racism was the real cause of the violence, but they used the standard ‘religious’ ideology to make it acceptable to God, by first Satanizing the Native Americans, and then Christianizing them. Otherwise, they couldn’t be ‘human’) So, since you said this: • Catholicism introduces additional “books” to Christianity. You must be careful of this because it alters Christianity at its core and led to the subjugation many of you refer to here so you cannot hold Catholicism up as a model of Christianity. And, since you believe in God, can you tell me if the Catholics have a different God than everybody else? I’ve always been led to understand that if there is a God, there’s only ONE God. So, how does this all work out? My agnostic thinking has always recognized a number of Prophets, and I count among them; Jesus the Christ, Mohammed, the Buddha, Mahatma Gandhi, and more recently, Martin Luther King, Jr. I’m sure there are others that just don’t come to mind right now. But, I always figured there was only ONE (non-human) God. So, how many do you think there are, and why wouldn’t the same one be in the Catholics as in anybody else? Ernest, you’re right. Youth is wasted on the young. That’s why I occasionally threaten to take theirs away from them. Bill Cosby style.
By cyrena, November 15, 2007 at 1:56 am # Well, I agree with Nabih on this. Matter of fact, I’ve never heard it explained better. • #113527 by Nabih Ammari “...God did not create man.On the contrary,Man created God, or rather the concept of God...... And so, it is. This is FAR more likely to be the real deal. And, it’s perfectly OK. I have no problems with this explanation at all. Makes perfectly good sense to me. Now rowman, I know I’m sort of a ‘glutton for punishment” here, but what the heck. I needed a break anyway, from reading about all the religious violence that marked the creation of these United States. (actually, racism was the real cause of the violence, but they used the standard ‘religious’ ideology to make it acceptable to God, by first Satanizing the Native Americans, and then Christianizing them. Otherwise, they couldn’t be ‘human’) So, since you said this: • Catholicism introduces additional “books” to Christianity. You must be careful of this because it alters Christianity at its core and led to the subjugation many of you refer to here so you cannot hold Catholicism up as a model of Christianity. And, since you believe in God, can you tell me if the Catholics have a different God than everybody else? I’ve always been led to understand that if there is a God, there’s only ONE God. So, how does this all work out? My agnostic thinking has always recognized a number of Prophets, and I count among them; Jesus the Christ, Mohammed, the Buddha, Mahatma Gandhi, and more recently, Martin Luther King, Jr. I’m sure there are others that just don’t come to mind right now. But, I always figured there was only ONE (non-human) God. So, how many do you think there are, and why wouldn’t the same one be in the Catholics as in anybody else? Ernest, you’re right. Youth is wasted on the young. That’s why I occasionally threaten to take theirs away from them. Bill Cosby style.
By Luis Cayetano, November 14, 2007 at 11:30 pm # “Luis Cayetano: And in order to decide what counts as “real and valid”, you compare it to what the Bible says. If it conflicts, then all the worse for the science. Yet you use the fruits of science to spread your hypocritical message. “No where do I disagree with this. The “origins of man” is not a proven fact. Evolution supporters apply a scientific theory to explain it and that is fine with me – you can believe what you want to.” Funny how you present this as a matter of what people “want to believe”. That’s really rock-bottom, redneck ignorance. You can’t stoop lower than that. It’s so obvious you know absolutely NOTHING about the science. “A Christian applies the word of God to explain the origins of man. These are two different approaches.” Yes, one that is based upon investigation (science) and one that isn’t (religion). What’s your point? ”If you assert that “evolution” is the only answer, you are stating that “creation” is wrong.” That’s because it is wrong; there is absolutely no evidence to substantiate any of its claims, and there is a mass of evidence to substantiate evolution. “In turn, you are forcing a religious position.” I’ll say this again because you seem incapable of retaining information for longer than a few minutes: evolution is a scientific theory, not a religious position. You should learn the difference. That way, you’d sound less ridiculous to everyone and not be such an embarrassment to those who think like you. “Do you not see the hypocrisy in your position?” The only hypocrisy is that coming from you. It’s people like you who force religious positions onto impressionable young children, who spread lies about science and atheism, and who use emotional blackmail to win adherents. Your whole enterprise is founded on lies, hypocrisy and ignorance. You expect to be taken seriously, yet all you provide is belief and emotion, as though that should be enough. Nothing you’ve said is even remotely compelling. It smacks of an infantile urge to misunderstand and distort. Lame, dude.
By Jim, November 14, 2007 at 7:54 pm # I forgot to mention that under the “cause” argument, you must have a singular cause. Something that started it all. Skimming through comments I see reference to evolution but that would not apply here. Different subject all together. The individual who posted this, framed the argument correctly.
By Jim, November 14, 2007 at 7:27 pm # Not getting into the middle of your argument and I don’t read comments here but could not miss this one as it was at the top and of particular interest to me. As a biology teacher, I am very familiar with the “cause” argument but your example does not stand up to it and certainly does not prove your point. Ironically, your example has actually been used to support the argument. One reason is that your experiment relies on a light source. |
Newsroom Carnage Continues at The Washington Post
Email
Print
Share
Del.icio.us
Digg
Facebook
Ma.gnolia
Newsvine
Reddit
StumbleUpon
Yahoo
Jump to Comments
(It’s just a threat though - I’d never follow through with it)
COMMENT TOOLS:
Hide comments
Show comments
Comment on this article