bascule Posted May 18, 2009 Posted May 18, 2009 Documents available here: http://men.style.com/gq/features/topsecret So much for separation of church and state, eh? They're being released as part of a more comprehensive story on how mistakes and incompetence at the DoD cost American lives. This New York Times op ed was pretty interesting: http://www.nytimes.com/2009/05/17/opinion/17rich-5.html?_r=1&partner=rss&emc=rss&pagewanted=all And the message is pretty poignant: Obama will not be able to put Bush behind him until there's full transparency and accountability for what happened. Until then, little juicy nuggets like this will keep dripping out of the woodwork, stealing the spotlight from Obama and forcing us to continue to reflect on the Bush years.
Pangloss Posted May 18, 2009 Posted May 18, 2009 Well that's the "interesting" Frank Rich for you, suggesting a causal link between the mistakes of Iraq and the religious views of the decision-makers. The story even comes complete with a sarcastic smirk. My goodness, it's a wonder more middle-state Americans don't vote for progressive candidates, isn't it? At any rate, I see no violation of church & state separation here. He's right about not being able to put the Bush administration behind him, but of course that's a useful political weapon as well as an obstacle, and Obama has used it as such many times. If he really wants to put it behind him he can start with the White House Press Secretary.
bascule Posted May 18, 2009 Author Posted May 18, 2009 Well that's the "interesting" Frank Rich for you, suggesting a causal link between the mistakes of Iraq and the religious views of the decision-makers. The story even comes complete with a sarcastic smirk. My goodness, it's a wonder more middle-state Americans don't vote for progressive candidates, isn't it? Actually... The piece is not the work of a partisan but the Texan journalist Robert Draper, author of “Dead Certain,” the 2007 Bush biography that had the blessing (and cooperation) of the former president and his top brass. It draws on interviews with more than a dozen high-level Bush loyalists. ...but thanks for playing! At any rate, I see no violation of church & state separation here. Hmm, Bible verses in official top secret DoD documents? Durr, no, of course not, no separation of church and state issues there.
JohnB Posted May 18, 2009 Posted May 18, 2009 Assuming they are in fact real. (Are we really going to use a "Style" magazine as a reputable source?) Bascule, what exactly is wrong with trying to find relevent and inspirational phrases for the covers of reports? I just don't see the problem. Who should he have quoted, Mickey Mouse?
swansont Posted May 18, 2009 Posted May 18, 2009 At any rate, I see no violation of church & state separation here. It probably runs afoul of the EEOC's guidelines on a hostile work environment. You can't put religious slogans and Bible quotes on paychecks and company newsletters. http://www.law.ucla.edu/volokh/harass/BREADTH.HTM Part I, section B. A state court has in fact found that it was religious harassment for an employer to put religious articles in its employee newsletter and Christian-themed verses on its paychecks. 26 The EEOC likewise found that a claim that an employer "permitted the daily broadcast of prayers over the public address system" over the span of a year was "sufficient to allege the existence of a hostile working environment predicated on religious discrimination." 27 A recent article by two employment lawyers gives "repeated, unwanted `preaching´ episodes [by a fundamentalist Christian employee] that offend coworkers and adversely affect their working conditions" as a "bright-line example[]" of actionable harassment; an employer in such a situation would be "well advised to take swift remedial action." It's probably unlikely that anyone would have complained, though.
Sisyphus Posted May 18, 2009 Posted May 18, 2009 I don't know whether it's a legal issue with church and state, but that's not even really the point, as I see it. The problem is that Bush is constantly undermining our claim that we're not trying to wage a holy war, since that's apparently how he saw it. And in undermining the claim, we undermine the "war" itself. It's bad enough when soldiers on the ground try to prosletyze, worse when generals do it, and worst of all when it's the freaking President, who can't even be separated from "the United States" because he's the one giving the highest level orders. But I guess all this is old news. This is about current public relations strategy. The Obama Administration has shown signs that it just wants to sweep everything under the rug, to limit the damage as much as possible. Frank Rich thinks this is a bad strategy, because everything comes out eventually anyway, and if Obama tries to protect the image of the United States by protecting the previous administration, he associates with them and becomes tainted by them. Instead, he seems to want Obama to just completely disown Bush on behalf of America, kind of like Germany has disowned its Nazi period. Just stop trying to defend them, and say "Yes, this happened, but that's not who's running the show anymore, and we know it's wrong, too." Obviously, that approach has a lot of problems, as well. We can't just abandon the continuity of the United States for those 8 years. Are we not going to honor the commitments we made then, either? Of course we are. We're the same nation.
SH3RL0CK Posted May 18, 2009 Posted May 18, 2009 (edited) I agree with John B; I don't see a problem. Even if these are real, are there inspirational verses from other sources? From the Koran? If this were a part of a larger effort to improve moral, what is the objection to being inclusive? To having diversity in this effort by including people of all faiths, including Christianity? My goodness, are reasonable people really unable to handle any expression christian religion and faith? At what point does the "separation of church and state" concept overide the Consititutional rights of Freedom of Speech and Freedom of Religion? Edited May 18, 2009 by SH3RL0CK
swansont Posted May 18, 2009 Posted May 18, 2009 My goodness, are reasonable people really unable to handle any expression christian religion and faith? At what point does the "separation of church and state" concept overide the Consititutional rights of Freedom of Speech and Freedom of Religion? There isn't a conflict, AFAIK. You don't a have the same right to freedom of expression, religious or otherwise, when acting as a boss or an agent of the government. IOW, a boss can't claim those rights as a defense if (s)he attempts to proselytize. You have those rights as a private citizen, outside of work. Replace any of those expressions with "Allahu akbar." If that's going to be upsetting to any of the subordinates, then it's probably not going to be protected speech.
iNow Posted May 18, 2009 Posted May 18, 2009 Are we really going to use a "Style" magazine as a reputable source? See post #3, this thread. Also: http://www.nytimes.com/2009/05/17/opinion/17rich-5.html?_r=2&ref=opinion Draper reports that Rumsfeld’s monomaniacal determination to protect his Pentagon turf led him to hobble and antagonize America’s most willing allies in Iraq, Britain and Australia, and even to undermine his own soldiers. But Draper’s biggest find is a collection of daily cover sheets that Rumsfeld approved for the Secretary of Defense Worldwide Intelligence Update, a highly classified digest prepared for a tiny audience, including the president, and often delivered by hand to the White House by the defense secretary himself. These cover sheets greeted Bush each day with triumphal color photos of the war headlined by biblical quotations. GQ is posting 11 of them, and they are seriously creepy. Take the one dated April 3, 2003, two weeks into the invasion, just as Shock and Awe hit its first potholes. Two days earlier, on April 1, a panicky Pentagon had begun spreading its hyped, fictional account of the rescue of Pvt. Jessica Lynch to distract from troubling news of setbacks. On April 2, Gen. Joseph Hoar, the commander in chief of the United States Central Command from 1991-94, had declared on the Times Op-Ed page that Rumsfeld had sent too few troops to Iraq. And so the Worldwide Intelligence Update for April 3 bullied Bush with Joshua 1:9: “Have I not commanded you? Be strong and courageous. Do not be terrified; do not be discouraged, for the LORD your God will be with you wherever you go.” (Including, as it happened, into a quagmire.) What’s up with that? As Draper writes, Rumsfeld is not known for ostentatious displays of piety. He was cynically playing the religious angle to seduce and manipulate a president who frequently quoted the Bible. But the secretary’s actions were not just oily; he was also taking a risk with national security. If these official daily collages of Crusade-like messaging and war imagery had been leaked, they would have reinforced the Muslim world’s apocalyptic fear that America was waging a religious war. As one alarmed Pentagon hand told Draper, the fallout “would be as bad as Abu Ghraib.” Also, "Style" magazine as a source is irrelevant since they show pictures of the briefing covers themselves. The story here is with the content of those covers, and unless you're suggesting that they are somehow fake or made-up, then the source making them visible to the public is not at all an issue. To see the briefing covers, here are the 11 referenced in the above quote: http://men.style.com/gq/features/topsecret
bascule Posted May 18, 2009 Author Posted May 18, 2009 (edited) I agree with John B; I don't see a problem. Even if these are real, are there inspirational verses from other sources? From the Koran? If this were a part of a larger effort to improve moral, what is the objection to being inclusive? To having diversity in this effort by including people of all faiths, including Christianity? If that were the case, it'd be a different story. If they wanted to have a smattering of inspirational verses from religions around the world (and perhaps some "Imagine no religion" --John Lennon in there for good measure) I wouldn't have a problem. However, that's not the case, these are verses from the Holy Bible, and only the Holy Bible. My goodness, are reasonable people really unable to handle any expression christian religion and faith? If these people want to express the Christian religion and faith perhaps they can find a better vehicle for doing so than official DoD documents. I agree with Sisyphus. These documents make America look like a bunch of Christians declaring war on Islam. At what point does the "separation of church and state" concept overide the Consititutional rights of Freedom of Speech and Freedom of Religion? The phrase "separation of church and state" entered the public discourse following SCOTUS's ruling in the Everson v. Ewing case, in which they gave an interpretation of the Establishment Clause of the First Amendment, which is what I assume you're referencing when you say "Freedom of Religion". Here's the verdict: The "establishment of religion" clause of the First Amendment means at least this: Neither a state nor the Federal Government can set up a church. Neither can pass laws which aid one religion, aid all religions or prefer one religion over another. Neither can force nor influence a person to go to or to remain away from church against his will or force him to profess a belief or disbelief in any religion. No person can be punished for entertaining or professing religious beliefs or disbeliefs, for church attendance or non-attendance. No tax in any amount, large or small, can be levied to support any religious activities or institutions, whatever they may be called, or whatever form they may adopt to teach or practice religion. Neither a state nor the Federal Government can, openly or secretly, participate in the affairs of any religious organizations or groups and vice versa. In the words of Jefferson, the clause against establishment of religion by law was intended to erect "a wall of separation between Church and State." When a government actively endorses one religion over another as they are doing here, it undermines freedom of religion. Merged post follows: Consecutive posts mergedHere's another op-ed (WSJ) worried about the appearance of these documents to the Muslim world. It had an interesting quote from Robert Draper's original article: At least one Muslim analyst in the building had been greatly offended; others privately worried that if these covers were leaked during a war conducted in an Islamic nation' date=' the fallout--as one Pentagon staffer would later say--'would be as bad as Abu Ghraib.' But the Pentagon's top officials were apparently unconcerned about the effect such a disclosure might have on the conduct of the war or on Bush's public standing. When colleagues complained to Shaffer that including a religious message with an intelligence briefing seemed inappropriate, Shaffer politely informed them that the practice would continue, because "my seniors"--JCS chairman Richard Myers, Rumsfeld, and the commander in chief himself--appreciated the cover pages."[/quote'] I am curious what the Muslim world's reaction to these documents will be. Edited May 18, 2009 by bascule Consecutive posts merged.
Pangloss Posted May 19, 2009 Posted May 19, 2009 Actually... ...but thanks for playing! I was referring to Frank Rich's spin in what you yourself called an op/ed piece. But thanks for playing! Hmm, Bible verses in official top secret DoD documents? Durr, no, of course not, no separation of church and state issues there. The presence of a religious statement in a workplace does not automatically constitute a violation of separation. I think swansont makes a pretty good argument for harassment, but just because someone enters public service does not mean they have to give up their religion. We're not going to haul the president off to jail every time he mutters "jesus christ, not the economy again" under his breath. Sorry to disappoint. When a government actively endorses one religion over another as they are doing here, it undermines freedom of religion. These cover pages do not endorse one religion over another. Would you even be making these statements if they included a phrase from the Talmud? I think they're overly dramatic, but I don't see how they can even be viewed as prosyletization in any way. --------- As a side note, it strikes me as both foolish and ideological that part of this thread seems to be a search for religious motivations for the war in Iraq. Weren't there enough non-religious arguments for the war in Iraq that turned out to be bad, erroneous and ignorant? Why do we need to see monsters in the woodwork when there are already monsters in plain sight and full view, ready to be stamped out by better policy? Just because someone makes a religious statement AFTER the rational has been laid out does not mean that religion was an unspoken rational behind the real reasons. And there is no support for that argument in these documents, which reflect a stated policy, not future planning or justification.
bascule Posted May 19, 2009 Author Posted May 19, 2009 The presence of a religious statement in a workplace does not automatically constitute a violation of separation. There's something wrong with that statement. Let me fix it for you: The presence of a religious statement in top secret military intelligence briefings does not automatically constitute a violation of separation. There we go, fixed! Still stand by that? I think swansont makes a pretty good argument for harassment, but just because someone enters public service does not mean they have to give up their religion. Nobody's asking them to give up their religion Pangloss, that's a total, complete, and utter strawman. These cover pages do not endorse one religion over another. They endorse Christianity, Pangloss. But I see you're in "lala I have my fingers in my ears" mode again so maybe I shouldn't even bother.
Pangloss Posted May 19, 2009 Posted May 19, 2009 The presence of a religious statement in top secret military intelligence briefings does not automatically constitute a violation of separation. There we go, fixed! Still stand by that? Yes. They endorse Christianity, Pangloss. No they don't, they reflect a belief in iit. That's a completely different thing from endorsing it.
bascule Posted May 19, 2009 Author Posted May 19, 2009 No they don't, they reflect a belief in iit. That's a completely different thing from endorsing it. They plastered their report with Bible verses. How is that not an endorsement? Really, I'm having an awfully hard time understanding your reasoning here.
Mokele Posted May 19, 2009 Posted May 19, 2009 I think bascule is correct, but not solely based on this. There have been complaints streaming in for over a decade of far-right Christianity using the military for recruiting and proselytizing, including overt and explicit pressure from team-mates and superior officers for non-christians and even those who don't subscribe to this particular brand of christianity to convert. One expose' on the subject And the Pentagon being sued over overt pressure to conform I'd figure I hear about some sort of news of this sort of thing every few months via several sources, and there seems to be a broad and deliberate movement to make the military an 'Army for God' or somesuch. As such, this release fits into a much broader, more insidious, and more blatantly unconstitutional pattern of behavior. That this exists proves the this pattern has permeated to the highest levels, and is sufficiently widespread that such documents would not raise eyebrows.
Pangloss Posted May 20, 2009 Posted May 20, 2009 They plastered their report with Bible verses. How is that not an endorsement? Really, I'm having an awfully hard time understanding your reasoning here. Endorsement implies a call to undertake a specific action (e.g. "join my church"). Where is such a call? All I see here are a bunch of quotes with no context whatsoever. No "meet me at 1st Baptist on Sunday", no "pray hard or we all die", not even "pray immediately or be fired". At worst it's just "I pray that the wrath of god is going to fall onto those a-holes". Was there anyone in this country right after 9/11 who DIDN'T want the wrath of god to fall on those a-holes? How is that an endorsement of religion, rather than a simple expression of desire and motivation? I don't disagree with the point about hostile work environments. But slapping a religious expression on a cover sheet does not constitute harassment. But yes, if there is religious harassment taking place at the DoD then it needs to stop. Period.
Moontanman Posted May 20, 2009 Posted May 20, 2009 At worst it's just "I pray that the wrath of god is going to fall onto those a-holes". Was there anyone in this country right after 9/11 who DIDN'T want the wrath of god to fall on those a-holes? How is that an endorsement of religion, rather than a simple expression of desire and motivation? . I didn't wish the wrath of god on those assholes, i don't believe there is a wrath of god, only the wrath of those who believe in iron age fairy tails. I resent very much my government trying to use those fairy tails to rally the population or in any way connect our government or it's actions to iron age fairy tails.
JohnB Posted May 20, 2009 Posted May 20, 2009 Frankly I still don't see the problem. Warships have Chapels and Chaplains, in fact virtually all military units have Chaplains of one type or another. This being the case, why is there such a cry if Biblical quotes turn up at higher levels? There is an old saying "There are no atheists in a foxhole." Once this statement is understood, it becomes easy to see that military service will always have some form of religion tied to it. Like it or not, them's the facts.
Moontanman Posted May 20, 2009 Posted May 20, 2009 Frankly I still don't see the problem. Warships have Chapels and Chaplains, in fact virtually all military units have Chaplains of one type or another. This being the case, why is there such a cry if Biblical quotes turn up at higher levels? There is an old saying "There are no atheists in a foxhole." Once this statement is understood, it becomes easy to see that military service will always have some form of religion tied to it. Like it or not, them's the facts. Bullshit I do not see the connection of allowing those who have religion to practice it in the military to the top brass using it to further their agenda. Further more the idea of there are no atheists in fox holes is nothing but proselytizing. Only those with a religious agenda say this. I know atheists who occupied "foxholes" danger does not make an atheist cry out for God but it might make him curse those who use the idea of god as an excuse to put him in that foxhole. 1
Mokele Posted May 20, 2009 Posted May 20, 2009 Frankly I still don't see the problem. With this incident, or with the pervasive strong-arming of enlisted men and women to convert to far-right christianity by their own superior officers, as detailed in my links? There is an old saying "There are no atheists in a foxhole." Once this statement is understood, it becomes easy to see that military service will always have some form of religion tied to it. Aside from the fact that such a statement is blatantly wrong (as evidenced by the MANY atheist servicemembers who have fought and died without wavering in their convictions), it's an extremely offensive and bigoted statement which inevitably shows the biases and misperceptions of whoever utters it. I'll repeat what I said in my earlier post, for those who wish to plug their ears and ignore the problem: This is only the most recently visible part of a larger, and much more destructive, pattern of behavior which has been extensively documented. 1
john5746 Posted May 20, 2009 Posted May 20, 2009 It almost looks like a comedy sketch after awhile. I thought it was a joke. I can understand the need for moral boosting, but trying to push some of those verses just seems idiotic. Glad it didn't leak back in 2005 and I hope it doesn't cause any huge problems now.
Pangloss Posted May 20, 2009 Posted May 20, 2009 With this incident, or with the pervasive strong-arming of enlisted men and women to convert to far-right christianity by their own superior officers, as detailed in my links? I'll repeat what I said in my earlier post, for those who wish to plug their ears and ignore the problem: This is only the most recently visible part of a larger, and much more destructive, pattern of behavior which has been extensively documented. Your links do not objectively document pervasive strong-arming of enlisten men and women to convert to far-right christianity. They attest the interpretations of some observers which have become more frequent in recent years. How accurate these claims are remains to be seen. I do think that's an issue that merits investigation. I don't see any evidence that these years-old cover sheets, with no context, are an example of evangelism within the ranks. Maybe it'll become more clear it Bascule accuses me of covering my ears again. Merged post follows: Consecutive posts mergedIt almost looks like a comedy sketch after awhile. I thought it was a joke. I can understand the need for moral boosting, but trying to push some of those verses just seems idiotic. Glad it didn't leak back in 2005 and I hope it doesn't cause any huge problems now. Agreed.
bascule Posted May 20, 2009 Author Posted May 20, 2009 Endorsement implies a call to undertake a specific action (e.g. "join my church"). I'm not typically one to paste definitions but: en·dorse:[/b'] To give approval of or support to, especially by public statement; sanction: endorse a political candidate. Endorse means "I like this", not "I like this so much I want you to do something in response"... but whatever. But slapping a religious expression on a cover sheet does not constitute harassment. To me it screams "we've institutionalized Christianity" which is what I believe was the point Mokele was trying to make.
Pangloss Posted May 20, 2009 Posted May 20, 2009 To me it screams "we've institutionalized Christianity" which is what I believe was the point Mokele was trying to make. So having made the assumption that we have institutionalized Christianity in the military, you now move on to place these religious expressions in that context, presuming that that context must be accurate. This sounds to me like an example of the logical fallacy of affirming the consequent. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Affirming_the_consequent I didn't wish the wrath of god on those assholes, i don't believe there is a wrath of god, only the wrath of those who believe in iron age fairy tails. I resent very much my government trying to use those fairy tails to rally the population or in any way connect our government or it's actions to iron age fairy tails. You certainly have a right to that opinion. Unfortunately you have to coexist with people who do feel that way, and suffer politicians who address those people as equals (which of course they are). Perhaps you might find some comfort in the fact that politicians are, for the most part, inclusive, not exclusive. They may not be cutting out those who believe in "iron age fairy tales", but at least they're not cutting you out either. So it could be worse.
Recommended Posts