A Christian chaplain in the military is being officially censored for engaging in free speech, and anti-Christian activists are demanding he be punished.
Lt. Col. Kenneth Reyes is a Christian chaplain currently serving in the U.S. Air Force. He is stationed at Joint Base Elmendorf-Richardson in Alaska. As an ordained clergyman whose duties are to provide religious instruction and spiritual counseling, he has a page on the base’s website called “Chaplain’s Corner.”
Reyes recently wrote an essay entitled, “No Atheists in Foxholes: Chaplains Gave All in World War II.” This common saying is attributed to a Catholic priest in World War II, made famous when President Dwight D. Eisenhower said during a 1954 speech: "I am delighted that our veterans are sponsoring a movement to increase our awareness of God in our daily lives. In battle, they learned a great truth that there are no atheists in the foxholes."
See original post here.
Liar. This has nothing to do with free speech. You cannot use an official governmental site to promote your own views in a secular country (last time I checked that is what the US is) and not infrige upon the constitution.
ReplyDelete>You cannot use an official governmental site to promote your own views in a secular country (last time I checked that is what the US is) and not infrige upon the constitution.
Delete- If that is the case, President Eisenhower, the commander in chief, should have been either fined or placed in jail when he made the following comment:
"President Dwight D. Eisenhower said during a 1954 speech: "I am delighted that our veterans are sponsoring a movement to increase our awareness of God in our daily lives. In battle, they learned a great truth that there are no atheists in the foxholes."
Can you do an Internet search and show where the outrage was over Eisenhower's comment? Good luck. What we have today is politically correct censorship and perfect
nonsense run AMOK.
R:Can you do an Internet search and show where the outrage was over Eisenhower's comment?
DeleteIt is not about outrage, it is about following the law. Was Eisenhower right when he promoted christian religion? No, his actions were unconstitutional. Was he right to change the pledge of allegiance and add to it "under god"? His actions were unconstitutional - fact. You need to change the constitution before pushing forward such things.
>It is not about outrage, it is about following the law.
Delete- It is quite obvious by your comments that "it is about" following YOUR interpretation of law as you understand it. Those who would censor free speech that does not threaten to harm anyone based on old quotes taken out of context.
What many secular atheists fail to understand is that US law is ultimately baseed on the US Constitution and the present outright trampling of Constitutional rights by both Dems and Reps is endemic of a long process wherein the Constitution has been increasingly undermined.
1. US law is ultimately based on interpretations of the US Constitution.
2. The most accurate method of interpreting the original intent of the US constitution is to view the Founder's comments regarding specific issues.
3. Specific quotes by multiple presidents and Founding Fatehrs makes it quite clear that the Founding Fathers did not share the same opinions regarding the present interpretation of "separation of church and state" as often used as a basis for censorship.
4. If 1, 2 and 3 are true, then situations like the censorship of Lt. Col. Kenneth Reyes are unconstitutional and illegal.
If your interpretation of law were accurate and valid, then George Washington should have been fined and / or imprisoned for breeching the (wrongly interpreted) wall between church and state:
George Washington - First President of the United States of America
“It is the duty of all nations to acknowledge the providence of Almighty God, to obey His will, to be grateful for His benefits, and humbly to implore His protection and favor.”
- George Washington
“Of all the dispositions and habits which lead to political prosperity, religion and morality are indispensable.”
- George Washington
We beseech [God] to pardon our national and other transgressions…
- George Washington, Thanksgiving Proclamation 1789
Oh, eternal and everlasting God, direct my thoughts, words and work. Wash away my sins in the immaculate blood of the Lamb and purge my heart by Thy Holy Spirit. Daily, frame me more and more in the likeness of Thy son, Jesus Christ, that living in Thy fear, and dying in Thy favor, I may in thy appointed time obtain the resurrection of the justified unto eternal life. Bless, O Lord, the whole race of mankind and let the world be filled with the knowledge of Thee and Thy son, Jesus Christ.
- George Washington, Prayer
True religion affords to government its surest support.
- George Washington
http://www.usachristianministries.com/us-history-quotes-about-god-and-the-bible/
There are similar quotes by Samuel Adams and other (supposedly criminal) Founding Fathers at the link.
2. The most accurate method of interpreting the original intent of the US constitution is to view the Founder's comments regarding specific issues.
DeleteBut not everyone agrees that "original intent" is the appropriate way to judge the constitutionality of current law. Some people do. Some don't.
4. If 1, 2 and 3 are true, then situations like the censorship of Lt. Col. Kenneth Reyes are unconstitutional and illegal.
Military personnel have long-established limits on their freedom of speech; they can't criticize the commander-in-chief (or, indeed, superior officers) in public, for example. And similarly, they need to be careful in what they tell their subordinates. A Catholic commander telling Protestant subordinates that they were worshipping wrong would be just as much in error.
It's part of what you give up by joining the military. Why should "chaplains" be any different?
I also note that you carefully pick quotes from *some* Founding Fathers, but not others. Not kosher.
>But not everyone agrees that "original intent" is the appropriate way to judge the constitutionality of current law. Some people do. Some don't.
Delete- What about you? If you wrote a document that was to become the law of the land, would you rather that any subjective interpretation of your ideas, no matter how distant, be substituted for the intended meaning and main ideas? I certainly would not.
>It's part of what you give up by joining the military. Why should "chaplains" be any different?
- That's kind of ironic. Talking about God IS the job description of military chaplains.
>I also note that you carefully pick quotes from *some* Founding Fathers, but not others. Not kosher.
- I agree that there are different opinions. But I would offer that the present politically correct censorship regarding the very mention of the word God is very far from center in comparison with history.
- What about you? If you wrote a document that was to become the law of the land, would you rather that any subjective interpretation of your ideas, no matter how distant, be substituted for the intended meaning and main ideas? I certainly would not.
DeleteI don't think I'm smart enough to legislate 200 years into the future. I think that the world changes, and trying to stick to the viewpoints of people 200 years ago is foolish at best.
After all, if we'd done that, slavery would still be legal, just as an example.
Or do you also believe women should not have the right to vote?
These are things that are clearly not part of the "original intent" of the Founding Fathers. Yet we now have them, because societies change.
We, as a society, have decided that soldiers do not have full First Amendment rights, and when they join up, they know that. Chaplains are soldiers, and when they join, they know they don't have full First Amendment rights. If they don't like it, they can resign, and preach whatever they want from their pulpits, but they do not get government pay, privileges, and authority to do so.
- That's kind of ironic. Talking about God IS the job description of military chaplains.
But not "whatever I feel like saying about God" -- that's different. Chaplains have rules they need to follow, and if they can't follow them, well, they don't need to be chaplains to be preachers.
But I would offer that the present politically correct censorship regarding the very mention of the word God is very far from center in comparison with history.
When you're trying to make an argument, cherry-picking the evidence is wrong, whether or not you feel it's a counterbalance to some "censorship" you feel exists.
Moh,
Delete>Or do you also believe women should not have the right to vote?
- The examples you brought up actually support my point, not yours. The issue at hand was not "the viewpoints of people 200 years ago" with regard to random subjects, but specifically with regard to the wording of the Constitution, which actually unde4scored the need for change with regard to the 2 issues you brought up!
The Constitution and Bill of Rights do not require either slavery or chauvinism. Quite the opposite, a core point is that ALL MEN ARE CREATED EQUAL.
You are correct in pointing out that societal values change. Today at Princeton University infanticide is being promoted because the perceived value of human life has changed quite dramatically.
If human life is evaluated purely based on materialistic benefits to society, then handicapped people have little to offer and are nothing more than a burden in many peoples eyes, not worthy to live.
P.S. And it is not even about atheists being offended, when how of the complains are from theists 8)
ReplyDelete"On behalf of 42 clients at JBER (17 of whom are practicing Roman Catholics or Protestants), Blake Page (Special Assistant to MRFF President) contacted the commanding officer of JBER demanding appropriate action be taken to remove this article from JBER's official website and that punitive measures and official counseling be mandated for all those involved in the production, approval and dissemination of Lt. Col. Reyes' message of religious supremacy and disrespect towards the non-religious."
"In the civilian world, such anti-secular diatribe is protected free speech. In the military it is not. In his article, Lt. Col. Reyes violates AFI 1-1, section 2.11 which requires that "Leaders at all levels must...avoid the actual or apparent use of their position to promote their personal religious beliefs to their subordinates..."
www.militaryreligiousfreedom.org/press-releases/2013/HuffPost_Victory_Hatemail_7-24-13.html
No communist heathens in the army!
ReplyDeleteI am an atheist and in no uncertain terms most definitely not a communist. I served in the navy for 8 years so neener! neener!
Delete