They Will Know We Are Christians By Our Love

[pippadaisy[$]]

jgibson2 said

I live really close to Elyzabeth. The last time someone told me to my face that I was going to hell for being Catholic was when Mother Theresa came to Baltimore. I was standing in line outside the cathedral when a well-dressed elderly woman approached the line and informed us that we were "all going to burn"

We invited her to pray for us and we laughed after she left.

Judy, that reminds me of a funny story.. I went to an all-girl Catholic high school. There weren't any good Christian high schools OTHER than the Catholic schools then, so we'd get a decent number of evangelicals at our school. Better than learning with the pagans, I'd guess. One girl was particularly militant in her evangelization and basically told us all that we were going to hell at lunch one day. (Mind you, she's AT our school, so I was confused.)

At that point, I was so tired of being told every single day that I was going to hell because of my beliefs that I told her if everyone in Heaven was going to be like her, I was packing my bags and buying a first class ticket in the other direction with a glad heart, because I wasn't so sure that her version of Heaven wasn't actually Hell.

[realtraveller]

Redlass said

Implicit in first amendment rights--while someone else has the freedom to say things I find offensive, I have the freedom to say that I find it offensive and tell them I want them to stop.

As an evangelical Christian, I passionately want my peers to not harass people in the name of evangelization. I do not want them to take Christ's name in vain by using it to demean His other children or to circumvent the work of the Holy Spirit by coercing someone into accepting their very human will.

So if we're going to make this a freedom of speech issue, I plan to exercise my freedom of speech in condemning their actions (albeit in a forum such as this where I have very little influence upon a military academy) and my freedom of speech to call upon others to do the same--especially those others who are in a position of power over those who are being abusive.

That states exactly the principle behind the First Amendment. That the 'marketplace of ideas' and debate without fear of government reprisals is healthy in a free democracy.

[realtraveller]

Redlass said

Hysteria? What hysteria are you referring to?

Is it the debates we are having with Kathy who seems to be saying that the military academy should NOT be taking actions to stop peole from engaging in harassment and hate speech? Do we need to walk through and diagram each post to show when they are responding to arguments within this thread versus when it is responding to the actions being taken at the academy?

No. I specifically excluded the military academy from the general discussion on the First Amendment.

The First Amendment is under attack in many quarters. If I could find it quickly, there was a recent survey among high school students. The students thought the government should have control over what is printed in newspapers and other similarly troubling opinions.

There are restrictions on college campuses on speech. And there seems to be a certain sense among some that free speech is secondary to protecting people from hearing opinions that offend them.

Apparently, I am having this debate with myself.

[pippadaisy[$]]

If that's what high school students believe, then their Constitutional education has been sorely lacking. We don't need the government to control what's in the papers, since they have their information controlled by editorial staffs and boards of directors. Free speech only applies to government control. It doesn't apply to private institutions of any kind.

My favorite is when it's blatted about on message boards and in blog comments... like it's some inherent right.

[AuntieEmma[$]]

What's odd in this debate is how much Kathy is taking the ACLU's positions when she has so strongly dencounced them in the past. Strange bedfellows.

As far as evangalizing aimed at Catholics, I don't think it's quite analogous.

The history is different -- the history of evangalizing aimed at Jews has been very violent in a way I don't think it has been when aimed at Catholics. For centuries, the call, to Jews, to convert to Christianity was often followed by "or die." Because of that historical baggage, conversion attempts always convey at least a tinge of a threat. This is especially true when the attempts are systematic and/or when they receive some government-institution support.

Even aside from that, the tone is different. At the AFA, there are people being called "filthy Jews." There's nothing to indicate that Catholics there are being called "filthy Catholics."

What bothers me the most about this whole thing is how it is being justified. On the one hand, we have cadets calling their classmates "filthy Jews." On the other hand, we have the people who object to that happening. Which group would you say are the bigots? According to Focus on the Family, it is the people objecting to the harrassment that are the bigots. This is not only a way of turning everything upside down, but it is a way of saying that (1) anti-Semitism is ok, and (2) objecting to it is NOT ok. (And again that's not analogous to anti-Catholicism, because there is nobody that I am aware of making analogous points. No one says, if people object to anti-Catholic slurs, that that proves they are anti-Christian, or anti-Protestant, bigots.)

Add that to the drive to make this a "Christian country," to organized media campaigns of code-word anti-Semitism, and to attempts to remove the notion of "the separation of church and state" from constitutional law, and there is a dangerous situation.

It's easy enough to say, "Oh, it can't happen here." But if you think about it a bit, there's actually no reason why it couldn't.

[AuntieEmma[$]]

eris esoteric said

My counter to this argument would be quite simple... at some point in time, during combat, it is possible that a person who is Christian and who has engaged in, shall we say, overly enthusiastic proselytization while in the academy, will have to rely on the good will of one of a non-christian to save his life. It seems to me, from a logical point of view, a VERY BAD idea to harrass people who might some day hold my life in their hands. Unless, of course, it is worth my life to not associate myself with such people.

What had occurred to me was the flip-side of this situation -- what would happen to the Jewish AF members during combat when they needed to rely on the Christians in their unit? Would their Christian colleagues come through for them when it was a matter of life and death, or would they continue to shun the Jews and leave them to fend for themselves?

It seems to me that the harrassment against Jews and the harrassment and rape of the women at the AFA are ways of making territorial statements, of saying that Jews and women don't belong there, and are meant to be warnings to other women or other Jews considering entering the Academy that they will have a price to pay. The question is, does this behavior stop at graduation, or does it carry forward onto the battlefield?

[wivabef]

Redlass said

Hysteria? What hysteria are you referring to?

Is it the debates we are having with Kathy who seems to be saying that the military academy should NOT be taking actions to stop peole from engaging in harassment and hate speech? Do we need to walk through and diagram each post to show when they are responding to arguments within this thread versus when it is responding to the actions being taken at the academy?

Or do you just object to people arguing passionately?

Yes, Bridgette, why don't you draw pretty pictures for me. And thanks, by the way, for the rhetorical question that paints me as someone opposed to debate.

Of course, I don't have my handy dandy white board here with me to paint a picture so I will use the tired medium of cutting and pasting my ignorant commentary to explain the thought process in my little cavewoman mind.

May I put the hysteria into perspective?

Oops! Poor vocabulary usage. Mi Bad. I will admit that, in hind sight, I shouldn't have used the word hysteria. It was a knee jerk reaction to Emma's talk of the possible need to pack her bags because of "the drive to make this a 'Christian country'" It stuck more solidly in my mind, and I know that much of it is in response to my Canadian family members acting as if I now live in a police state run by religious fanatics. My response was to that.

The report lists incidents from 2003 and in many instances says the Academy is taking steps to fix it.

They are requiring instructors and cadets to take a religious tolerance course (certainly not something my father would have taken back in his officer training school days).

This scary ad that ran in the school newspaper was last seen in December 2003.

They have a poll that says the school is 90% christian and then immediately follow it with poll respondants saying non-christians believe christians get special treatment. The law of averages can explain that.

PLEASE. Don't take this as a ringing endorsement of an institution that I find has a disturbing culture. And I certainly don't believe anybody should be calling anybody hateful names (especially when they REALLY mean it, that's the scariest part). In every incident cited in the story, the academy didn't respond with a "no comment" but rather with conciliatory actions. We won't hold ceremonies at churches. We're investigating the atheists claims. Weida is on a short leash.

That was the part where I said hate talk is bad, but the story is old news. What I should have added was that I would love to hear an update, to find out if they are getting anywhere. Were people punished? How is the tolerance training going? Please note that free speech or any discussion thereof has not yet showed up in my reply. Originally, the thread wasn't about free speech.

I live near the Bible Belt, and even people who believe I'm doomed to Hell because I don't believe Christ was "begotten, not made" still invite me to their parties and never bring up that I'm doomed as doomed can be in their eyes. I just don't see this evangalizing of the US that many are seeing. My town is certainly not overrun with evangelicals.

As an actively Catholic Student in my first years at college, all kinds of people tried to "save me". Many a time I was approached by people who told me I needed to be "born again". I would tell them "no thank you, I did it right the first time". So, it's not like it hasn't been around and for a very long time.

That was the part where I acknowledge that evangelizing not only currently exists, but that it is nothing new. I was just saying that it wasn't the prevailing tone of this country, contrary to what Emma related which I have quoted below (which I should have made more clearly was the match that lit my flame):

By the way, I don't have my bags packed yet, but I think the country is at a dangerous crossroads. One road goes in the direction of America becoming a "Christian country" with the separation of church and state abolished -- a direction the article about the AFA illustrates well -- with anyone who is not Christian being branded first an "anti-Christian bigot" and ultimately an anti-American. If the country does go in that direction, I don't think it's going to be safe to stay here. The other direction would be to pull back from that and continue on the road of separation of church and state, where everyone is welcome. As I said, I don't have my bags packed, but I am staying alert. Maybe that's over the top, but better to be over the top now, then to look back ten years from now when it may be too late and regret not having paid attention.

You see. I just don't see that. But apparently, my disagreeing with that is not allowed. Passionate debate means alternative points of view other than "us" or "them" that are not conveniently placed in the "us" or "them" catagories gets turned into an opposition to passionate debate. Hmmm.

"Also, as you have pointed out to others, your experience does not necessarily equate to everyone's experience. The fact that you haven't had people telling you you are going to hell does not negate the experience that these other people are having at the academy."

Let me point out again that I never once said the AFA did not have these incidents occur. I never said "I don't believe the accusations". What I did say was that the report was based on old information from 2003.

"It also doesn't mean that no one else can argue about evangelization and how it should or should not be carried out."

Right. Unless of course, it's me. Now who's opposed to passionate debate?

The pendulum will swing back and kick us in the butt. And when you take off for other countries, some other pendulum will swing for some other reason and kick you in the butt. We must be ever mindful and protective of our rights. But in the case of this story, it sounds like the Academy is aware of the problem and working to fix it.

I really only put this in because it was the only portion of my reply that wasn't included in my diagramming.

[Redlass]

AuntieEmma said

The history is different -- the history of evangalizing aimed at Jews has been very violent in a way I don't think it has been when aimed at Catholics. For centuries, the call, to Jews, to convert to Christianity was often followed by "or die." Because of that historical baggage, conversion attempts always convey at least a tinge of a threat. This is especially true when the attempts are systematic and/or when they receive some government-institution support.

Even aside from that, the tone is different. At the AFA, there are people being called "filthy Jews." There's nothing to indicate that Catholics there are being called "filthy Catholics."

Not to get too far off topic, but there has been the whole "let's burn the Catholics" thing during certain periods of English history. But then we'd have to get into how much of that was political and how much of that was truly religious.

And I have seen some pretty hate-filled, venomous attacks on Catholics--including in my own home. The KKK also liked to target Catholics as well as blacks.

So while we could get into a long discussion about persecutions, it really would take us far off topic and probably isn't really germane. But I can see why Catholicism would be used as an analogy even if it isn't exact in every manner.

[jgibson2[$]]

AuntieEmma said

What's odd in this debate is how much Kathy is taking the ACLU's positions when she has so strongly dencounced them in the past. Strange bedfellows.

As far as evangalizing aimed at Catholics, I don't think it's quite analogous.

If only because nearly 1/3 of the Cadets are Catholic -- safety in numbers.

AuntieEmma said

The history is different -- the history of evangalizing aimed at Jews has been very violent in a way I don't think it has been when aimed at Catholics.

I don't think it's relevant to this discussion, but I could point out historical evidence that you are mistaken. OTOH, Catholics also did the same thing to Protestant Christians. I'm not aware of any time in, say the last 1500 years, when there has been anything similar perpetrated by Jews.

AuntieEmma said

Even aside from that, the tone is different. At the AFA, there are people being called "filthy Jews." There's nothing to indicate that Catholics there are being called "filthy Catholics."

Again, sheer numbers would make that less frightening if it were to happen. Offenders could easily be convinced not to repeat their harrassment.

AuntieEmma said

It's easy enough to say, "Oh, it can't happen here." But if you think about it a bit, there's actually no reason why it couldn't.

As has been said by someone more wise than me. "All it takes is for good men to do nothing."

I went looking for something else this morning, and found some really scary web sites. What is most frightening about them is that they are slick, well produced, and written by well-educated people. There is clearly money behind them -- and no, I'm not talking about Focus on the Family. They're obnoxious, but they don't scare me the way these other sites do.

[Redlass]

As has been said by someone more wise than me. "All it takes is for good men to do nothing."

I went looking for something else this morning, and found some really scary web sites. What is most frightening about them is that they are slick, well produced, and written by well-educated people. There is clearly money behind them -- and no, I'm not talking about Focus on the Family. They're obnoxious, but they don't scare me the way these other sites do.

Agreed. Focus on the Family bothers me for many reasons, but I'm not scared by them. I think there is a limit to how far they will be able to go without losing their supporters.

[erik_kosberg]

Does anybody know if similar things are happening at Annapolis and West Point?

[wivabef]

Both schools are still dealing with sexual assault scandals, but I have not heard of any religious scandals going on at Annapolis.

[wivabef]

Here is an interesting tidbit found in a story about the Yale report that applies to the discussion of free speech:

The academy began religious sensitivity training for all cadets and staff this spring, reminding them that religious bigotry, proselytizing and using rank or position to influence others is prohibited under Defense Department regulations.

Doesn't sound like they're making excuses. Ironically, I think the sex scandal at the school is causing the introspective nature of this response to religious intolerance.

[pippadaisy[$]]

The CHAPLAINS were doing it? :O

[jgibson2[$]]

erik_kosberg said

Does anybody know if similar things are happening at Annapolis and West Point?

I haven't heard of any religious discrimination at the Naval Academy either. Not saying it never happens, but it certainly can't be a part of the culture as seems to be the case at the Air Force Academy.

Here is a small excerpt from their Moral Education statement:

From Plebe Summer through graduation, the Naval Academy's Officer Development Program is a four-year integrated continuum that focuses on the attributes of integrity, honor, and mutual respect. One of the goals of this program is to develop midshipmen who possess a clearer sense of their own moral beliefs and the ability to articulate them.

If they really stick to this, they probably don't have any serious problems with religious discrimination.

[wivabef]

pippadaisy said

The CHAPLAINS were doing it? :O

LOL

You know, my husband, who is agnostic bordering on atheist (it's more of an indifference rather than a belief), was ironically the "religious officer" in his barracks at Navy boot camp at Great Lakes. Given the careful consideration the Navy put into that appointment, I have my doubts about any religious animosity in the Navy.

Now, regarding racism and homosexuality? Unfortunately, my husband has MANY stories about that. I don't know if that's changed in the nearly 20 years since he served.

[MrsNormanMaine[$]]

What's going on at the Air Force Academy can be explained, to a certain extent, by a look at what's going on in Colorado Springs in general. For a real good run down, see this month's 'Harper's' Magazine with some reportage on the Dominionist movement and the New Life Church in Colorado Springs.

MNM !queen

[realtraveller]

AuntieEmma said

What's odd in this debate is how much Kathy is taking the ACLU's positions when she has so strongly dencounced them in the past. Strange bedfellows.

Since the Nazi march through Skokie era, (about 25 years ago) the ACLU has abandoned the First Amendment in favor of siding with leftist causes, even when First Amendment principles are being stepped on. They've said as much in many of their pronouncements.