HomeLatest ThreadsGreatest ThreadsForums & GroupsMy SubscriptionsMy Posts
DU Home » Latest Threads » Forums & Groups » Main » General Discussion (Forum) » GOP lawmaker: Air Force c...

Mon Mar 23, 2015, 10:57 AM

GOP lawmaker: Air Force cadets must pledge to God because there is - NO ‘freedom from religion’

GOP lawmaker: Air Force cadets must pledge to God because there is no ‘freedom from religion’


................

“Let me be clear: Americans have the freedom of religion – but not freedom from religion. That’s why I am introducing legislation that requires Congressional approval before any change would be made to military oaths,” he continued.

“The moral foundation of our country is in serious danger if we allow radical groups to dictate whether or not we can freely express our religious beliefs! It’s time to take a stand.”


http://www.rawstory.com/rs/2015/03/gop-lawmaker-air-force-cadets-must-pledge-to-god-because-there-is-no-freedom-from-religion/

12 replies, 1711 views

Reply to this thread

Back to top Alert abuse

Always highlight: 10 newest replies | Replies posted after I mark a forum
Replies to this discussion thread
Arrow 12 replies Author Time Post
Reply GOP lawmaker: Air Force cadets must pledge to God because there is - NO ‘freedom from religion’ (Original post)
kpete Mar 2015 OP
tridim Mar 2015 #1
pinboy3niner Mar 2015 #2
sarge43 Mar 2015 #8
pinboy3niner Mar 2015 #11
sarge43 Mar 2015 #12
DetlefK Mar 2015 #3
Trillo Mar 2015 #4
sinkingfeeling Mar 2015 #5
Takket Mar 2015 #6
sarge43 Mar 2015 #7
on point Mar 2015 #9
Laxman Mar 2015 #10

Response to kpete (Original post)

Mon Mar 23, 2015, 10:59 AM

1. Should be a fireable offense IMO.

The Constitution agrees.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to kpete (Original post)

Mon Mar 23, 2015, 11:01 AM

2. Off we go, into the wild boo yonder...

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to pinboy3niner (Reply #2)

Mon Mar 23, 2015, 11:13 AM

8. Be nice, grunt. zoom, zoom. n/t

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to sarge43 (Reply #8)

Mon Mar 23, 2015, 12:29 PM

11. Grunts LOVE zoomies

In a hot spot they are part of the Infantry's life support system. It's the religious zealot meddlers that are the problem.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to pinboy3niner (Reply #11)

Mon Mar 23, 2015, 12:44 PM

12. On behalf of my hubby, knuckle dragging ammo man (pass the Mk 82), many thanks.

You guys had the short end of the shit stick; whatever it took to help you all out.

Concur. The troops have enough bs to put up with. They don't need more hassle.

Backatcha

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to kpete (Original post)

Mon Mar 23, 2015, 11:03 AM

3. Okay, what would he prefer for the oath? Hail Satan or Allahu Akbar?

Wait... If Christianity is in peril every time christian belief is switched from mandatory to optional, what does that say about Christianity's ability to stand on its own merits?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to kpete (Original post)

Mon Mar 23, 2015, 11:06 AM

4. Why favor monotheism over polytheism?

Lots of folks believe in many gods (as well as the atheists who believe in none).

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to kpete (Original post)

Mon Mar 23, 2015, 11:10 AM

5. Guess my moving to Europe is a good idea then.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to kpete (Original post)

Mon Mar 23, 2015, 11:10 AM

6. translation

Just so it is clear, when a GOPer uses the term "moral foundation" what he really means is "The ability of white men to pervert religion to allow white men to hold dominion over anyone who is not a white man."

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to kpete (Original post)

Mon Mar 23, 2015, 11:12 AM

7. Section 3, Article 6, USC

"....but no religious test shall ever be required as qualification to any office or public trust under the United States."

By the way, the CinC is not required to "pledge to God" when taking the oath of office. Section 1(7), Article 2, USC. Why should a butter bar zoomie?

Apparently this nutbar hasn't read the Owner Manual -- surprise.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to kpete (Original post)

Mon Mar 23, 2015, 11:14 AM

9. Should be kicked out of congress for failure to uphold constitution

He took an oath to uphold constitution, and is not doing so, either because he doesn't understand it or doesn't support it

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to kpete (Original post)

Mon Mar 23, 2015, 12:20 PM

10. This Isn't The First Time Around....

for this garbage. The Air Force Academy has been a bubbling cesspool of this type of thought for a long time. Harassment of non-fundamentalist Christians is a systemic problem there (not to mention covering up sexual assaults) A few years ago I was asked to write a recommendation for my neighbor's son who wanted to go there. I told him I would do it but that he should think hard about going there (he was Jewish) because non-Christians were having a hard time. All the kid wanted to do was to be in the Air Force and fly jets. He got in. Two years later he quit. When he came back home he told me everything I had told him was correct. He was harassed out of the Academy over religion. Here's an interesting article from Lawrence Wilkerson on this issue:

Congressman Doug Lamborn (R, CO) has just penned a letter to the Superintendent of the US Air Force Academy, Lieutenant General Michele Johnson. In the letter, the Congressman lectures the “Supe” in religious freedom and the U.S. Constitution. It is quite clear from the letter that Congressman Lamborn knows extremely little about the Constitution, religious freedom, or the military.

The most egregious demonstration of abject ignorance of the military and the Constitution is this statement in Lamborn’s letter: “We are asking future officers to perhaps give even their very lives to protect and defend the Constitution and yet denying them rights from that same Constitution.”

Military personnel, particularly officers, surrender several Constitutional rights immediately upon becoming members of the armed forces. For example, they cannot speak out politically; they cannot criticize publicly their chain of command—to include the President; they cannot vote in uniform and armed (I found that out in Columbus, Georgia—the hard way); they cannot promote religion to their subordinates; they cannot associate their uniform with a commercial enterprise; and so on. Thus, every hour of the day we deny military members certain of their Constitutional rights. It is an integral part of the civil-military relationship in America.

Compounding Lamborn’s error is this statement from his letter: “I am deeply concerned and outraged by recent news reports indicating that an Air Force Cadet was forced to remove a Bible verse from the whiteboard posted outside his room. I was further troubled to learn that the apparent reason the Cadet in question had to remove this verse was due to the fact that he is in a position of leadership. This suggests that a Cadet in a leadership role may have less religious freedom than Cadets in the rank and file.”

This statement is simply full of ignorance as well as illogic. The “apparent reason”, as Lamborn terms it, is precisely accurate. From a position of leadership, no military member may advocate a particular religion or absence thereof. Moreover, this restriction on a military member is to promote religious freedom, not constrain it. How can there be freedom of religion if people in power over others are allowed to appear—or actually to do so—to favor one religion over another, or no religion over religion? The clear answer is, there can’t be.

Not content to be simply illogical and ignorant, the Congressman goes on to write: “those who pursue leadership positions should not be forced to sacrifice their religious freedom in order to lead.”

Of course such leaders are not sacrificing their religious freedom. They are able to go to the church, synagogue, or mosque of their choice, or believe in no divine providence whatsoever; they are simply not allowed, by their position of power over others, to try to cause others to adhere to their beliefs or even subtly to influence them to do so. This policy promotes religious freedom for everyone, it does not constrain it and it most certainly does not sacrifice it for anyone.

Congressman Lamborn then delivers the blow that is at the heart of his apparent angst: “I would also appreciate an explanation of the apparent influence the Military Religious Freedom Foundation has at the Air Force Academy in legal and media issues relating to decisions on Cadets’ religious practices over the past 5 years (sic). The MRFF is an organization that seems to detest religious expression of any faith, and has become so outlandish in its claims that it should simply be ignored.”

Now we detect the real reason for Lamborn’s outburst. Like the other fundamentalist Christian sects—the so-called “Dominionists” lead the way in this regard—which are so up in arms over the MRFF because it supports religiously (no pun intended) the real and important heart of religious freedom—the separation at all times of church and state—Lamborn worries that MRFF might be too successful.

I hope in that respect he is absolutely correct. It would be the only thing in his letter that is.


read it here: http://www.dailykos.com/story/2014/03/14/1284854/-Lawrence-Wilkerson-The-Devil-and-the-Lord-Is-in-the-Details-guest-column

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink

Reply to this thread