SH3RL0CK Posted May 20, 2009 Posted May 20, 2009 Frankly I still don't see the problem. Neither do I. For one thing, these drawings are taken out of context. I still do not know if these were developed along with others which are all-inclusive of all faiths (and lack of faith). Certainly, there can be no endorsement of a particular faith if all faiths are included. For another thing, we do not know if these were ever released. I can easily see some supervisor telling the creative team to come up with every idea they can think up...then vetting the drawings later such that these drawings were not used. And lastly, I'm still not convinced these drawings are endorsing religion. After all, even President Obama (and AFAIK, all previous Presidents) have prayers said during their inagurations, and otherwise take actions which seems to me to be very much closer to an endorsement than these pictures. Perhaps someone here should consider filling a lawsuit against Obama ?
iNow Posted May 20, 2009 Posted May 20, 2009 Perhaps someone here should consider filling a lawsuit against Obama ? They already did, and for good reason. http://www.madison.com/tct/news/stories/429922 "We are First Amendment purists. It's not just that we think [Warren] is politically incorrect. It doesn't really matter which clergy you have. They have all been Christian since this became a custom in 1933. And that is exclusionary to those of us who aren't Christian, to those of us who aren't religious," she said. "We aren't against free speech, but what we are against is religion in government, and we are against the constitution being meddled with," she said. It was significant that the Founding Fathers chose to put the entire oath of office for the president into the Constitution, Gaylor said, noting that a lot of people don't realize it's in there. "And yet the first action we see Inauguration Day is to have that Constitution basically violated by a religious oath," she said. Gaylor said it is fine for the president-elect to have clergy pray over him in a ceremony when he becomes president, but it shouldn't be done publicly. It should be done at a private inaugural event and be privately paid for, she said. "We think it is very important to keep our nation secular," she said. I find that the only people not offended by all of this tend to be those who happen to share that particular brand of religious belief. ("What's the problem? I believe that, too.") It's wrong, and has zero place in our governing institutions, as evidenced by the careful steps our founding fathers took to keep our nation secular and religion out of government wherever possible. On top of that, it's disturbing that religious imagery was being used to garner favor and sway the decisions of the most powerful man in the world when it came how to deploy our troops, which sacrifices he felt they should be asked to make, and which targets on which they should focus. Merged post follows: Consecutive posts mergedI 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. http://www.nytimes.com/2009/03/01/washington/01church.html Maybe it'll become more clear it Bascule accuses me of covering my ears again. I truly hope so, my friend.
SH3RL0CK Posted May 20, 2009 Posted May 20, 2009 iNow, I am still unpersuaded. I find that the only people not offended by all of this tend to be those who happen to share that particular brand of religious belief. I find the only people offended tend to be people who do not have any belief in a god. (How dare someone believe in God?) While I agree in the concept of separation of church and state to a point; this isn't a policy statement, or even the actual beliefs of its creators. Its propaganda intended to boost morale. Of course propaganda is focused on things which the intended audience can relate to (otherwise the propaganda isn't effective). This includes particular religious beliefs - and face it, a large number of our military have strong Christian religious beliefs. Additionally, I would have no problem with similar artwork stating "Allah Akbar" or any religious statement or purely athiestic statements. These other posters probably also exist; but for some reason don't make the media (probably less controversial = less sales for the newspaper). One could speculate that purely secular viewpoints are more mainstream. Or perhaps these are less controversial because Christians are more tolerant of other beliefs (or lack thereof) than Athiests?
bascule Posted May 20, 2009 Author Posted May 20, 2009 So having made the assumption that we have institutionalized Christianity in the military If I had any doubts about Christianity being institutionalized by the US military, these documents put them to rest. Meanwhile, you're off claiming the verses don't even represent an endorsement of Christianity. I'm not sure what more we have to discuss. You think my argument is fallacious... I think yours is completely disconnected from reality.
stereologist Posted May 20, 2009 Posted May 20, 2009 I didn't waste much time reading the literature. I looked over a few slides. Are we talking thousands, dozens, or less than 10 pages here?
john5746 Posted May 20, 2009 Posted May 20, 2009 Muslim offended I find the only people offended tend to be people who do not have any belief in a god. (How dare someone believe in God?) Nope, read the link. A muslim was offended. Wow, I wonder why? Must be a terrorist? While I agree in the concept of separation of church and state to a point; this isn't a policy statement, or even the actual beliefs of its creators. Its propaganda intended to boost morale. Of course propaganda is focused on things which the intended audience can relate to (otherwise the propaganda isn't effective). This includes particular religious beliefs - and face it, a large number of our military have strong Christian religious beliefs. Additionally, I would have no problem with similar artwork stating "Allah Akbar" or any religious statement or purely athiestic statements. These briefings were intended for W really, but assuming all the other top brass would approve of it is unprofessional. Since the distribution was so limited, I don't care about W getting his little fix. But it was still taking a big risk for such little value. Remember, we were fighting extremists and trying to win the hearts and minds of the general muslim. I would have much more respect for W if some of those slides had Islamic passages. But multicultural he ain't. These other posters probably also exist; but for some reason don't make the media (probably less controversial = less sales for the newspaper). One could speculate that purely secular viewpoints are more mainstream. Or perhaps these are less controversial because Christians are more tolerant of other beliefs (or lack thereof) than Athiests? LOL imagine if we find similar briefs for the Afghan war for Obama with Muslim sayings or Atheist statements, like "Prayer didn't work, so here we go." I'm sure everyone would be just fine with that.
iNow Posted May 20, 2009 Posted May 20, 2009 perhaps these are less controversial because Christians are more tolerant of other beliefs (or lack thereof) than Athiests? How many thousands of examples of Christian intolerance would you like me to provide before you acknowledge how silly that suggestion truly is?
SH3RL0CK Posted May 20, 2009 Posted May 20, 2009 Muslim offended Nope, read the link. A muslim was offended. Wow, I wonder why? Must be a terrorist? I guess you didn't catch my sarcastic response to iNows comment. In either event, I do not believe most reasonable Americans are greatly offended by these posters. I certainly am not offended. One muslem claiming to be offended does not change my belief in this. These briefings were intended for W really, but assuming all the other top brass would approve of it is unprofessional. Since the distribution was so limited, I don't care about W getting his little fix. But it was still taking a big risk for such little value. Remember, we were fighting extremists and trying to win the hearts and minds of the general muslim. I would have much more respect for W if some of those slides had Islamic passages. But multicultural he ain't. Again, these were propaganda. http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/propaganda information, ideas, or rumors deliberately spread widely to help or harm a person, group, movement, institution, nation, etc. Note that these were carefully selected with the audience in mind...such as G. W. Bush. And where is the risk you are referring to? Other than a few comments here, I haven't seen any concern by the American public. Its certainly not the top news story... LOL imagine if we find similar briefs for the Afghan war for Obama with Muslim sayings or Atheist statements, like "Prayer didn't work, so here we go." I'm sure everyone would be just fine with that. I would be ok with it. Seriously. Its not like you can really divorce a persons faith or belief system from their actions. There must be an underlying foundation of what is right and wrong; acceptable and unacceptable; etc. for anyone to make rational decisions. Merged post follows: Consecutive posts mergedHow many thousands of examples of Christian intolerance would you like me to provide before you acknowledge how silly that suggestion truly is? For every example of intolerance you provide, I will ask: Would Jesus approve? Can you show me where Jesus is intolerant? Christians don't always get things right, which is exactly why they beleive they need a savior. But they often do get things right...where would the civil rights movement be without the reverend Martin Luthor King Jr.?
iNow Posted May 20, 2009 Posted May 20, 2009 In either event, I do not believe most reasonable Americans are greatly offended by these posters. Neither your beliefs nor the offense or attention of the american public have anything whatsoever to do with our constitution and laws. Your comment is completely irrelevant to the issue at hand. I certainly am not offended. One muslem claiming to be offended does not change my belief in this. See above. Note that these were carefully selected with the audience in mind...such as G. W. Bush. Your argument sounds like this: It was propaganda being used against our own president, so no problem. Really? Other than a few comments here, I haven't seen any concern by the American public. Its certainly not the top news story... In case you missed it the first time: Neither your beliefs nor the offense or attention of the american public have anything whatsoever to do with our constitution and laws. Your comment is completely irrelevant to the issue at hand. I would be ok with it. Seriously. Its not like you can really divorce a persons faith or belief system from their actions. And nobody has asked that they do. You are displacing the goal posts. The issue at hand here is the injection of religious texts and religious propaganda into our government documents and presidential briefings. The president and his staff are free to believe whatever they want, but they ARE NOT free to inject those beliefs into our official documents and governing body. The difference here is profound, and I hope that you can see it. Further, I know you said you'd be fine if these were Muslim quotes, but I truly have a hard time believing you are so objective (especially considering your remarks about atheists). If this were a Muslim president who was getting briefings with snippets out of the Koran on top, this nation would be mad as hell and the president would likely be executed. You'd be outraged that these beliefs to which you didn't subscribe were being used as a method to influence the presidents decisions. The ONLY reason you're okay with it now is because you happen to ascribe to the same set of beliefs. Please... try living in the same reality as the rest of us and stop with the double standards. I know your intentions are good, and you probably believe you are being sincere, but your suggestion is rather ludicrous IMO. There must be an underlying foundation of what is right and wrong; acceptable and unacceptable; etc. for anyone to make rational decisions. I agree, and those foundations do not come from religion. If you'd like me to link you to one of the several discussions where it's been demonstrated that morality is not based on religion, only hijacked by it, please let me know. It's a sad suggestion you have made, as you are basically saying that atheists cannot have a "foundation of what is right and wrong; acceptable and unacceptable." Which, as most of us know, is bullshit. Our morality and our knowledge of right and wrong is a property of our culture, and our evolution as pack animals, not some two thousand year old book written by barely literate tribal peoples who thought that sacrificing goats would make it rain. For every example of intolerance you provide, I will ask: Would Jesus approve? Can you show me where Jesus is intolerant? Christians don't always get things right, which is exactly why they beleive they need a savior. But they often do get things right...where would the civil rights movement be without the reverend Martin Luthor King Jr.? So, you have preemptively decided that you're going to ignore any counter points to your argument before you've even seen them? Well then... I guess we're done here.
SH3RL0CK Posted May 20, 2009 Posted May 20, 2009 iNow, seriously, I do not see a constitutional issue here. Propaganda isn't policy. This isn't breaking the intent of the separation of church and state. I suppose you think that Obama should not set foot inside a church while he is president because he might be exposed to some religious brainwashing? Please... try living in the same reality as the rest of us and stop with the double standards. I know your intentions are good, and you probably believe you are being sincere, but your suggestion is rather ludicrous IMO. Am I to take this, and several of the other comments directed to me as a personal attack? It's a sad suggestion you have made, as you are basically saying that atheists cannot have a "foundation of what is right and wrong; acceptable and unacceptable." I certainly have not. You have simply misunderstood my position. So, you have preemptively decided that you're going to ignore any counter points to your argument before you've even seen them? Well then... I guess we're done here. You didn't make a point. You attacked a religion. See your comment as follows: How many thousands of examples of Christian intolerance would you like me to provide I agree that we are done here, I don't think there is anything to be gained by further discussion.
bascule Posted May 20, 2009 Author Posted May 20, 2009 I do not see a constitutional issue here. Propaganda isn't policy. This isn't breaking the intent of the separation of church and state. This isn't propaganda. This is a government organization showing favor to one religion over others. That violates the guidelines set forth by SCOTUS in Everson v. Ewing, at least imo, but IANAL...
stereologist Posted May 20, 2009 Posted May 20, 2009 Geez guys this is making a mountain out of a mole hill. Bascule et al don't take this too wrong, but you sound like Rush Limbaugh. Now don't flame me, but think about it. Is this really that important? My guess is that the info after the cover page is more interesting and worthy of debate.
Pangloss Posted May 21, 2009 Posted May 21, 2009 I agree with stereologist. Sh3rlock, iNow wasn't attacking all Christians; you've misinterpreted his point. Don't take the thread in that direction, please. In either event' date=' I do not believe most reasonable Americans are greatly offended by these posters. [/quote']Neither your beliefs nor the offense or attention of the american public have anything whatsoever to do with our constitution and laws. Your comment is completely irrelevant to the issue at hand. I disagree, I don't think his comment is irrelevant, and I think it's legitimate for a member to say what they think the public at large thinks. He wasn't making a factual statement, he was just saying his opinion. Everyone is required to take a deep breath before posting to this thread again. Join me now... in... out... in... out... No passing out on the floor!
bascule Posted May 21, 2009 Author Posted May 21, 2009 Bascule et al don't take this too wrong, but you sound like Rush Limbaugh. Now don't flame me, but think about it. Is this really that important? Yes, this really is important. As a strict Constitutionalist I prefer the government honor its duty to eschew institutionalizing religion, as set forth by the Establishment Clause of the First Amendment and subsequently interpreted through SCOTUS cases like Everson v Ewing. Unless the government is religion-neutral the free expression of religion (or non-religion) is inhibited. I also think this is a systemic problem with the US military, and this is a particularly glaring case of that problem. If you don't care about the protections afforded by the Constitution, that's your business. But I do. And I really dislike you equating me to Rush Limbaugh for defending Constitutional protections. Rush Limbaugh is anything but a Constitutionalist. I'm also worried about how non-Christians outside the United States will interpret these documents. They demonstrate a religious motivation to our military actions in the Middle East, which is a hotbed of religious animosity. As far as I'm concerned, these documents wave a middle finger in the face of the Muslim world. 1
iNow Posted May 21, 2009 Posted May 21, 2009 I disagree, I don't think his comment is irrelevant, and I think it's legitimate for a member to say what they think the public at large thinks. He wasn't making a factual statement, he was just saying his opinion. Which is why I made my comment about relevance specific to our constitution and laws. My point stands no matter how many deep breaths you ask me to take.
Pangloss Posted May 21, 2009 Posted May 21, 2009 (edited) My point stands no matter how many deep breaths you ask me to take. As does Sh3rlock's opinion, and my support for it. Edited May 21, 2009 by Pangloss
Moontanman Posted May 21, 2009 Posted May 21, 2009 Having an opinion doesn't make any one correct, opinions often have to be ignored to cut through to reality.
Pangloss Posted May 21, 2009 Posted May 21, 2009 I agree that having an opinion does not make one correct. But opinions will be respected here, and not dismissed and "cut through to reality". You can ignore whatever opinions you like -- you don't need to post a message to do that. Shooting the messenger and appeal to ridicule are not logical arguments. Nobody's opinion "stands" as "correct", and the last word does not control the agenda nor does it govern what opinions are allowed on this forum. I hope that we're clear on this. If we need to have a conversation about posting behavior, we will.
Moontanman Posted May 21, 2009 Posted May 21, 2009 I was under the impression that opinions didn't hold much water on this forum. I have many opinions they are wide and varied but I do not use them to make my point or to try and make the points of others look unimportant or ludicrous. Using the idea that the opinion of the average American is more important than the law to ridicule evidence of breaking that law is not what I thought discussion was about on this forum.
JohnB Posted May 21, 2009 Posted May 21, 2009 Mokele, I was refering to this incident. I agree with stereologist that a mountain is being made out of a molehill. I don't see how this is some sort of "attack" on the separation of church and state when every person involved with these reports (in any fashion), right down to the grunts who do the legwork on the battlefield, are paid in US currency that has "In God we Trust" printed on every bill. Church and State have never been separated in the fashion that bascule and iNow seem to think it should be. This is not to say they are not correct in their views and that more separation is needed. However this current "incident" is nothing more than the continuation of the Status Quo and is therefore quite ordinary. (IMO) Religion has been used in propaganda before and will be used again. That's life.
stereologist Posted May 21, 2009 Posted May 21, 2009 Look bascule I knew up front that using Rush Limbaugh or another polarizing name like Nancy Pelosi would draw attention. I see this as a straw man argument. I don't see this as defending the Constitution. I do buy your arguments about inflaming Islamic viewpoints. You say non-Christian, but are you really talking about Jains, animists, Hindus, or others? Say what you mean.
Pangloss Posted May 21, 2009 Posted May 21, 2009 I was under the impression that opinions didn't hold much water on this forum. I have many opinions they are wide and varied but I do not use them to make my point or to try and make the points of others look unimportant or ludicrous. On most parts of SFN (the "ordinary science" subforums and sections) opinions are not of prime importance and could even be said to be actively discouraged. I suppose it depends on how you look at it. But here in Politics, and in any thread that is focused on ethical or moral decision-making, opinions are the prime currency of the discussion. And opinion is what you were submitting (and using to make your point) when you said this: I didn't wish the wrath of god on those assholes' date=' 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. [/quote'] ------------------ I don't see how this is some sort of "attack" on the separation of church and state when every person involved with these reports (in any fashion)' date=' right down to the grunts who do the legwork on the battlefield, are paid in US currency that has "In God we Trust" printed on every bill. Church and State have never been separated in the fashion that bascule and iNow seem to think it should be. This is not to say they are not correct in their views and that more separation is needed. However this current "incident" is nothing more than the continuation of the Status Quo and is therefore quite ordinary. (IMO)[/quote'] Well put, JohnB, as always.
iNow Posted May 21, 2009 Posted May 21, 2009 (edited) I don't see how this is some sort of "attack" on the separation of church and state when every person involved with these reports (in any fashion), right down to the grunts who do the legwork on the battlefield, are paid in US currency that has "In God we Trust" printed on every bill. Church and State have never been separated in the fashion that bascule and iNow seem to think it should be. Just as an FYI... http://www.treas.gov/education/fact-sheets/currency/in-god-we-trust.shtml The motto IN GOD WE TRUST was placed on United States coins largely because of the increased religious sentiment existing during the Civil War. Secretary of the Treasury Salmon P. Chase received many appeals from devout persons throughout the country, urging that the United States recognize the Deity on United States coins. From Treasury Department records, it appears that the first such appeal came in a letter dated November 13, 1861. It was written to Secretary Chase by Rev. M. R. Watkinson, Minister of the Gospel from Ridleyville, Pennsylvania. <...> IN GOD WE TRUST first appeared on the 1864 two-cent coin. <...> The use of IN GOD WE TRUST has not been uninterrupted. The motto disappeared from the five-cent coin in 1883, and did not reappear until production of the Jefferson nickel began in 1938. Since 1938, all United States coins bear the inscription. <...> A law passed by the 84th Congress (P.L. 84-140) and approved by the President on July 30, 1956, the President approved a Joint Resolution of the 84th Congress, declaring IN GOD WE TRUST the national motto of the United States. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/In_God_We_Trust#Legal_status The same Congress had required, in the previous year, that the words appear on all currency, as a Cold War measure: "In these days when imperialistic and materialistic Communism seeks to attack and destroy freedom, it is proper" to "remind all of us of this self-evident truth" that "as long as this country trusts in God, it will prevail." The Establishment Clause of the First Amendment states that congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion. Critics contend that the motto's placement on money constitutes the establishment of a religion or a church by the government. The Supreme Court has upheld the motto because it has "lost through rote repetition any significant religious content"; so-called acts of "ceremonial deism" that have lost their "history, character, and context". In such related decisions as Zorach v. Clauson, the Supreme Court has also held that the nation's "institutions presuppose a Supreme Being" and that government recognition of God does not constitute the establishment of such a state church as the Constitution's authors intended to prohibit. Constitutionalists object to sworn judiciaries employing historical context in what they believe ought to be a raw textual interpretation. I, for one, am as disgusted by the "In God We Trust" motto being printed on our money as many christians would be if our money proclaimed "Allah Ackbar." For that reason alone it constitutes a breach of the Establishment Clause since it preferentially gives prominence to the god of one religious worldview over another, and further, does so while completely ignoring the views of the non-religious and non-believers. Much like the biblical quotes on top level defense briefings, the "In God We Trust" statement on our money simply has no place in a secular society... a society which has explicit constitutional provisions against the mixing of church and state. This motto on our coinage will be changed soon enough... Mark my words. Merged post follows: Consecutive posts merged On most parts of SFN (the "ordinary science" subforums and sections) opinions are not of prime importance and could even be said to be actively discouraged. I suppose it depends on how you look at it. But here in Politics, and in any thread that is focused on ethical or moral decision-making, opinions are the prime currency of the discussion. I say again... My comments were focused specifically on constitutionality and law, so opinions are irrelevant. I fail to see why you are belaboring the point, as nobody here is discouraging opinions, only attempts to use them as the sole support for an argument or position regarding our nations constitution and laws. Edited May 21, 2009 by iNow Consecutive posts merged.
Pangloss Posted May 21, 2009 Posted May 21, 2009 You've said your piece. If you wish to discuss the matter further you're welcome to send me a PM (or reply to the one I sent you earlier attempting to discuss this with you privately). Thanks.
iNow Posted May 21, 2009 Posted May 21, 2009 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? It might be different in the land of Oz, but I can tell you right now… without a shadow of a doubt that, had I put such a quote on the cover of a PowerPoint I was using at work… to share with my management and our teams… I’d have been heavily penalized, and very likely terminated immediately. Since the laws which make such actions in the workplace illegal all stem from our government, I fail to see why the government itself should be exempt from such laws and allowed to engage in such practices, when those who might do so in the workplace would be penalized heavily for the exact same acts. It seems so blindingly obvious to me that I am frankly rather surprised by the arguments people in this thread have been making in support of the behavior… suggesting that all is “a-okay” and that some of us are "over reacting." I'm not sure what more we have to discuss. You think my argument is fallacious... I think yours is completely disconnected from reality. I can't help but to agree.
Recommended Posts