Naval Academy under fire for lunchtime prayer - Page 2

General » Religion

[ARCHIVED THREAD] - Naval Academy under fire for lunchtime prayer (Page 2 of 4)

Posted: 7/1/2008 12:11:24 PM EDT

[#1]

Quoted:
That would be a sectarian prayer, now wouldn't it.

You tell me. Making people kneel for prayer doesn't seem any more inappropriate than making people stand for prayer.

Quoted:
When you are in the military, you accept limitations on many of your rights. The right to act like an asshole when your fellow soldiers are praying is one of them.

Sitting down while others stand to pray isn't being an asshole. It's being non-religious.

Posted: 7/1/2008 12:19:19 PM EDT

[#2]

Quoted:

Quoted:
If they are being forced to pray, that is over the line. If they are simply asked to be respectful while others pray, then I have no problem with it.

So you would be okay with requiring soldiers to kneel in the direction of Mecca five times per day as long as they didn't actually have to pray to Allah?

That would be a sectarian prayer, now wouldn't it.

Other things that would cross the line:

forcing people to bow their heads
forcing people to make the sign of the cross

Standing at parade rest for the duration of the prayer is hardly an infringement of rights for a military person.

When you are in the military, you accept limitations on many of your rights. The right to act like an asshole when your fellow soldiers are praying is one of them.

That's not what this case is about so your argument is disingenuous.

It is exactly what the case is about.

Noone is forced to pray. They are simply required to be respectful for those who wish to do so.

How is that infringing on my rights?

For an example of what the military avoids by enforcing those rules, check the link troubleshooter posted. A Hindu priest is shouted down in the Senate for leading a prayer.

Posted: 7/1/2008 12:20:48 PM EDT

[#3]

Quoted:
It is exactly what the case is about.

Noone is forced to pray. They are simply required to be respectful for those who wish to do so.

How is that infringing on my rights?

For an example of what the military avoids by enforcing those rules, check the link troubleshooter posted. A Hindu priest is shouted down in the Senate for leading a prayer.

You can be respectul of peoples' religious beliefs without being forced to participate in them.

Posted: 7/1/2008 12:23:32 PM EDT

[#4]

Quoted:

Quoted:
That would be a sectarian prayer, now wouldn't it.

You tell me. Making people kneel for prayer doesn't seem any more inappropriate than making people stand for prayer.

Quoted:
When you are in the military, you accept limitations on many of your rights. The right to act like an asshole when your fellow soldiers are praying is one of them.

Sitting down while others stand to pray isn't being an asshole. It's being non-religious.

You stand until you are allowed to take seats. Everyone remains standing until everyone is ready to eat. This is a military requirement, not a religious one.

Noone is forced to

1) bow their heads
2) say the prayer
3) cross themselves
4) bow
5) face a certain direction

etc..

The only possible infringement is actually being forced to *gasp* hear a prayer.

IIRC, the last time this was brought up was a few years ago and the courts shot it down.

Posted: 7/1/2008 12:26:09 PM EDT

[#5]

Quoted:

Quoted:
It is exactly what the case is about.

Noone is forced to pray. They are simply required to be respectful for those who wish to do so.

How is that infringing on my rights?

For an example of what the military avoids by enforcing those rules, check the link troubleshooter posted. A Hindu priest is shouted down in the Senate for leading a prayer.

You can be respectul of peoples' religious beliefs without being forced to participate in them.

I was never forced to participate in any religious belief while I was in the military. I attended over 900 of those noontime formations.

If a Church is using an external speaker to broadcast its message to the neighborhood, is that infringing on your first amendment rights?

Religious freedom goes both ways.

Posted: 7/1/2008 12:27:27 PM EDT

[#6]

Quoted:
You stand until you are allowed to take seats. Everyone remains standing until everyone is ready to eat. This is a military requirement, not a religious one.

Noone is forced to

1) bow their heads
2) say the prayer
3) cross themselves
4) bow
5) face a certain direction

etc..

The only possible infringement is actually being forced to *gasp* hear a prayer.

IIRC, the last time this was brought up was a few years ago and the courts shot it down.

Again; the fact that they are required to stand for the prayer instead of sitting down demonstrates that some level of participation of mandatory. Why not make them kneel in the direction of Mecca instead. It's all good as long as they don't have to pray, right?

Posted: 7/1/2008 12:31:59 PM EDT

[#7]

Quoted:
I was never forced to participate in any religious belief while I was in the military. I attended over 900 of those noontime formations.

So you weren't required to stand during prayer? Why not?

Quoted:
If a Church is using an external speaker to broadcast its message to the neighborhood, is that infringing on your first amendment rights?

Religious freedom goes both ways.

Please explain how this is an issue of religious freedom going "both ways"? Nobody is telling the soldiers they can't pray. Some people just don't feel it's appropriate to have to stand while they do it.

Posted: 7/1/2008 12:36:15 PM EDT

[#8]

Quoted:

Quoted:
It is exactly what the case is about.

Noone is forced to pray. They are simply required to be respectful for those who wish to do so.

How is that infringing on my rights?

For an example of what the military avoids by enforcing those rules, check the link troubleshooter posted. A Hindu priest is shouted down in the Senate for leading a prayer.

You can be respectul of peoples' religious beliefs without being forced to participate in them.

I was never forced to participate in any religious belief while I was in the military. I attended over 900 of those noontime formations.

If a Church is using an external speaker to broadcast its message to the neighborhood, is that infringing on your first amendment rights?

Religious freedom goes both ways.

No. That would be a nuisance subject to a civil suit. Where it becomes a 1st Amendment issue, and one where the Naval Academy will lose, is when a government actor is involved.

But let's be clear. You are speaking in normative terms. As in, what you would like the 1st Amendment to mean. But that is not the reality of 1st Amendment law.

ETA: Here is the link to the VMI case.
pacer.ca4.uscourts.gov/opinion.pdf/021215.P.pdf
Reading it will tell you why the Naval Academy will lose. Annapolis sits in the 4th Cir. The case, if appealed past the United States District Court, will go there where the precedent is set.

Posted: 7/1/2008 12:37:33 PM EDT

[#9]

Quoted:

Quoted:
I was never forced to participate in any religious belief while I was in the military. I attended over 900 of those noontime formations.

So you weren't required to stand during prayer? Why not?

The requirement to be standing isn't related to prayer. You stand until the order to take seats is given. Its not hard to understand.

You keep trying to tie it to prayer, but it has nothing to do with it.

The current order is:
orders and announcements
prayers
take seats
eat

If the order changed to
take seats
prayers
orders and announcements
eat

would it suddenly make it ok in your eyes?

If not, then why harp on a meaningless element?

Posted: 7/1/2008 12:38:30 PM EDT

[#10]

Quoted:

Quoted:
That would be a sectarian prayer, now wouldn't it.

You tell me. Making people kneel for prayer doesn't seem any more inappropriate than making people stand for prayer.

Quoted:
When you are in the military, you accept limitations on many of your rights. The right to act like an asshole when your fellow soldiers are praying is one of them.

Sitting down while others stand to pray isn't being an asshole. It's being non-religious.

No, it's being an asshole. If I can stand during Jewish or Muslim prayer, then... I think the Athiests (a religion in itself) can do the same. Have a little respect for different cultures.

The first amendment is not about freedom FROM religion - it's about freedom OF religion. Those are two very different things. Congress can open with a prayer... The Naval Academy can pray before meals... The ten commandments can be etched in stone at the SCOTUS... In God we Trust can be on the money...

The bigotry of the Athiest church is readily apparent in this thread. Y'all need to learn a little respect for others. When we force you to convert at the point of a sword, then you have a right to complain... until then, you're twisting the meaning of the 1st amendment to suit your own agenda. It is, quite frankly, disgusting to see Americans such as yourselves attempting to destroy the traditions that have made the institutions of this nation great.

Matt

Posted: 7/1/2008 12:39:25 PM EDT

[#11]

Quoted:

Quoted:
It is exactly what the case is about.

Noone is forced to pray. They are simply required to be respectful for those who wish to do so.

How is that infringing on my rights?

For an example of what the military avoids by enforcing those rules, check the link troubleshooter posted. A Hindu priest is shouted down in the Senate for leading a prayer.

You can be respectul of peoples' religious beliefs without being forced to participate in them.

And part of being respectful in this culture is standing the fuck up and shutting your trap while others pray in a group...
Matt

Posted: 7/1/2008 12:51:16 PM EDT

[#12]

Quoted:
The requirement to be standing isn't related to prayer. You stand until the order to take seats is given. Its not hard to understand.

You keep trying to tie it to prayer, but it has nothing to do with it.

The current order is:
orders and announcements
prayers
take seats
eat

If the order changed to
take seats
prayers
orders and announcements
eat

would it suddenly make it ok in your eyes?

If not, then why harp on a meaningless element?

The prayer part should be last in the order specifically so non-believers can sit down rather than participate.

Posted: 7/1/2008 12:52:58 PM EDT

[#13]

Quoted:

ETA: Here is the link to the VMI case.
pacer.ca4.uscourts.gov/opinion.pdf/021215.P.pdf
Reading it will tell you why the Naval Academy will lose. Annapolis sits in the 4th Cir. The case, if appealed past the United States District Court, will go there where the precedent is set.

Already read it and the USNA case is a bit different

USNA is a military command and the midshipmen are all members of the military. Military necessity is a viable strategy. VMI tried to use it (read their briefs to the court), but VMI is not a military command and the students are all civilians, so it didn't apply.

I believe the same court would give a different answer in this case. We won't know till it happens though.

I believe you are correct if you were talking about a public college that uses federal funds. I do not believe the same thing applies to the military. We'll both have to wait for the court case (if anyone ever actually files)

Posted: 7/1/2008 12:55:54 PM EDT

[#14]

Quoted:

Quoted:
That would be a sectarian prayer, now wouldn't it.

You tell me. Making people kneel for prayer doesn't seem any more inappropriate than making people stand for prayer.

Quoted:
When you are in the military, you accept limitations on many of your rights. The right to act like an asshole when your fellow soldiers are praying is one of them.

Sitting down while others stand to pray isn't being an asshole. It's being non-religious.

No, it's being an asshole. If I can stand during Jewish or Muslim prayer, then... I think the Athiests (a religion in itself) can do the same. Have a little respect for different cultures.

The first amendment is not about freedom FROM religion - it's about freedom OF religion. Those are two very different things. Congress can open with a prayer... The Naval Academy can pray before meals... The ten commandments can be etched in stone at the SCOTUS... In God we Trust can be on the money...

The bigotry of the Athiest church is readily apparent in this thread. Y'all need to learn a little respect for others. When we force you to convert at the point of a sword, then you have a right to complain... until then, you're twisting the meaning of the 1st amendment to suit your own agenda. It is, quite frankly, disgusting to see Americans such as yourselves attempting to destroy the traditions that have made the institutions of this nation great.

Matt

There is a certain irony between the two statements highlighted.

Those that disagree with your viewpoint have been very respectful thus far. We may disagree with your view but isn't one of the purposes of the Religion forum to have respectul debate over religious issues?

Posted: 7/1/2008 12:56:52 PM EDT

[#15]

Quoted:
No, it's being an asshole. If I can stand during Jewish or Muslim prayer, then... I think the Athiests (a religion in itself) can do the same. Have a little respect for different cultures.

So you're supporting this as vengeance on atheists/non-Christians for your having to stand for Jewish and Muslim prayers? And respecting cultures and being forced to participate in them are two very different things.

Quoted:
The first amendment is not about freedom FROM religion - it's about freedom OF religion. Those are two very different things.

And the people in Annapolis are being forced to stand during prayer, which is an issue of freedom OF religion.

Quoted:
Congress can open with a prayer... The Naval Academy can pray before meals... The ten commandments can be etched in stone at the SCOTUS... In God we Trust can be on the money...

Despite what the 1st Amendment says...

Quoted:
The bigotry of the Athiest church is readily apparent in this thread. Y'all need to learn a little respect for others. When we force you to convert at the point of a sword, then you have a right to complain... until then, you're twisting the meaning of the 1st amendment to suit your own agenda. It is, quite frankly, disgusting to see Americans such as yourselves attempting to destroy the traditions that have made the institutions of this nation great.

I'm not an atheist. I'm just someone who doesn't like the idea of religion being forced on others. The bigotry here seems to be with the Christians who want to force others to participate in their ceremonies.

Posted: 7/1/2008 12:57:41 PM EDT

[#16]

Quoted:
The prayer part should be last in the order specifically so non-believers can sit down rather than participate.

won't work due the structure of afternoon meals.

After being seated, the trays of food are delivered and the food is passed around and you server yourself from the trays.

BTW, that is exactly how the informal evening meals go. You serve yourself in a chow line and take your food to the table. Those who wish to can pray individually, those who don't wish to don't have to.

Posted: 7/1/2008 1:07:53 PM EDT

[#17]

Quoted:

Quoted:
Congress can open with a prayer... The Naval Academy can pray before meals... The ten commandments can be etched in stone at the SCOTUS... In God we Trust can be on the money...

Despite what the 1st Amendment says...

whoah there hoss, the first amendment says "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances."

Having noontime prayers at the Naval Academy neither establishes a national religion nor prohibits the free exercise of religion.

The examples above could all be viewed under the umbrella of ceremonial deism and would not be violations either.

The courts also recognize military necessity as a valid legal argument (google Brown vs Glines if you don't believe me), which could cover the academy prayers.

Posted: 7/1/2008 1:09:46 PM EDT

[#18]

Quoted:

Quoted:

ETA: Here is the link to the VMI case.
pacer.ca4.uscourts.gov/opinion.pdf/021215.P.pdf
Reading it will tell you why the Naval Academy will lose. Annapolis sits in the 4th Cir. The case, if appealed past the United States District Court, will go there where the precedent is set.

Already read it and the USNA case is a bit different

USNA is a military command and the midshipmen are all members of the military. Military necessity is a viable strategy. VMI tried to use it (read their briefs to the court), but VMI is not a military command and the students are all civilians, so it didn't apply.

I believe the same court would give a different answer in this case. We won't know till it happens though.

I believe you are correct if you were talking about a public college that uses federal funds. I do not believe the same thing applies to the military. We'll both have to wait for the court case (if anyone ever actually files)

From a cursory review of the opinion, I find nothing addressing that issue other than to note they make no finding as to their ruling on the application to military ceremonies. They weren't required to reach that issue and doing so would have been dicta.

I respectfully disagree with your view on the same court would rule. It is a distinction without a difference.

Posted: 7/1/2008 1:13:46 PM EDT

[#19]

Quoted:

Quoted:
Congress can open with a prayer... The Naval Academy can pray before meals... The ten commandments can be etched in stone at the SCOTUS... In God we Trust can be on the money...

Despite what the 1st Amendment says...

whoah there hoss, the first amendment says "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances."

Having noontime prayers at the Naval Academy neither establishes a national religion nor prohibits the free exercise of religion.

The examples above could all be viewed under the umbrella of ceremonial deism and would not be violations either.

The courts also recognize military necessity as a valid legal argument (google Brown vs Glines if you don't believe me), which could cover the academy prayers.

Brown v. Glines deals with a completely different clause of the 1st Amendment, Free Expression Clause, and analyzed under a completely different set of case law.

Posted: 7/1/2008 1:14:45 PM EDT

[#20]

Quoted:
whoah there hoss, the first amendment says "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances."

Having noontime prayers at the Naval Academy neither establishes a national religion nor prohibits the free exercise of religion.

The examples above could all be viewed under the umbrella of ceremonial deism and would not be violations either.

The courts also recognize military necessity as a valid legal argument (google Brown vs Glines if you don't believe me), which could cover the academy prayers.

Three of the four things that valheru21 mentioned were federal issues. The US Naval Academy is probably property of the federal government so the 1st Amendment may apply. If not, the state constitution of Maryland includes freedom of religion. Either way, I win on principle.

And forcing religion on people isn't a "military necessity" by any reasonable definition of the term.

Posted: 7/1/2008 1:14:52 PM EDT

[#21]

Quoted:
I respectfully disagree with your view on the same court would rule. It is a distinction without a difference.

really, the courts have ruled that the military can limit 1st amendment rights before. If it was a distinction without a difference, why would that have happened?

Posted: 7/1/2008 1:16:53 PM EDT

[#22]

Quoted:

Quoted:
No, it's being an asshole. If I can stand during Jewish or Muslim prayer, then... I think the Athiests (a religion in itself) can do the same. Have a little respect for different cultures.

So you're supporting this as vengeance on atheists/non-Christians for your having to stand for Jewish and Muslim prayers? And respecting cultures and being forced to participate in them are two very different things.

I simply pointed out that Athiests aren't the only ones who have to be respectful of other cultures... if you'd like to put words in my mouth, this conversation will go downhill fast. I said nothing of vengance.

Quoted:
The first amendment is not about freedom FROM religion - it's about freedom OF religion. Those are two very different things.

And the people in Annapolis are being forced to stand during prayer, which is an issue of freedom OF religion.

How so?

Quoted:
Congress can open with a prayer... The Naval Academy can pray before meals... The ten commandments can be etched in stone at the SCOTUS... In God we Trust can be on the money...

Despite what the 1st Amendment says...

In ACCORDANCE with what the 1st Amendment says.

Quoted:
The bigotry of the Athiest church is readily apparent in this thread. Y'all need to learn a little respect for others. When we force you to convert at the point of a sword, then you have a right to complain... until then, you're twisting the meaning of the 1st amendment to suit your own agenda. It is, quite frankly, disgusting to see Americans such as yourselves attempting to destroy the traditions that have made the institutions of this nation great.

I'm not an atheist.

It should bother you that you portray yourself as such.

I'm just someone who doesn't like the idea of religion being forced on others.

Show me where anyone is forced to do anything but stand. You may have noticed we stand at attention all the time...

The bigotry here seems to be with the Christians who want to force others to participate in their ceremonies.

It's not always a Christian ceremony. Like I said, sometimes it's Jewish... sometimes it's Muslim. We Christians (and most athiests, agnostics, pagans, other) participate out of RESPECT... There are a very few, however, who get their panties in a twist over piddly shit. Since you haven't been to the Academy, you don't know what kinds of people start shit like this... they're the attention whores of the Brigade... they're not doing it on principle - they're doing it to get attention.

Given our role in modern politics, it does well for the future leaders of America to learn to show respect for the culture of other people. It is imperative that we all learn to operate within a framework that includes religion... If a midshipman can't even stand during a noon prayer, how well do you think they'll do demonstrating proper respect when they visit the middle east? There is a reason for everything we do... that these kids haven't figured that out demonstrates why such exposure is necessary.
Matt

Posted: 7/1/2008 1:18:04 PM EDT

[#23]

Quoted:
...

And forcing religion on people isn't a "military necessity" by any reasonable definition of the term.

I completely agree.

Good thing that isn't what's happening here.

Posted: 7/1/2008 1:24:54 PM EDT

[#24]

Quoted:

Quoted:
I respectfully disagree with your view on the same court would rule. It is a distinction without a difference.

really, the courts have ruled that the military can limit 1st amendment rights before. If it was a distinction without a difference, why would that have happened?

Different clause of the 1st Amendment. See my previous post as to why Brown v. Glines is inapplicable.

Posted: 7/1/2008 1:25:54 PM EDT

[#25]

Quoted:
Three of the four things that valheru21 mentioned were federal issues. The US Naval Academy is probably property of the federal government so the 1st Amendment may apply. If not, the state constitution of Maryland includes freedom of religion. Either way, I win on principle.

And forcing religion on people isn't a "military necessity" by any reasonable definition of the term.

It is federal land.

Being asked to stand isn't "forcing religion on people" by any reasonable definition of the term.

In 1972 the academies were forced to stop having required attendance at sunday services. Now THAT was "forcing religion on people". See the difference?

Posted: 7/1/2008 1:27:50 PM EDT

[#26]

Quoted:

Quoted:
Three of the four things that valheru21 mentioned were federal issues. The US Naval Academy is probably property of the federal government so the 1st Amendment may apply. If not, the state constitution of Maryland includes freedom of religion. Either way, I win on principle.

And forcing religion on people isn't a "military necessity" by any reasonable definition of the term.

It is federal land.

Being asked to stand isn't "forcing religion on people" by any reasonable definition of the term.

In 1972 the academies were forced to stop having required attendance at sunday services. Now THAT was "forcing religion on people". See the difference?

Not really. If you read that 1972 case you will find that any of the Midshipmen could have opted out of attendance at Sunday Services. The Court still found the regulation as violating the Establishment Clause.

Posted: 7/1/2008 1:31:06 PM EDT

[#27]

Quoted:

Quoted:
I respectfully disagree with your view on the same court would rule. It is a distinction without a difference.

really, the courts have ruled that the military can limit 1st amendment rights before. If it was a distinction without a difference, why would that have happened?

Different clause of the 1st Amendment. See my previous post as to why Brown v. Glines is inapplicable.

I didn't say it was directly applicable. It is an example that shows that military necessity can be used to limit rights. What can be done with one right can be done with another. They have already applied the same logic to the military for one of the clauses. Its not a stretch to see it applying to the other clauses.

I respectfully disagree with your conclusions. We'll see if it ever becomes an actual case. The last time this was brought up it didn't go far. I doubt it will this time either.

Posted: 7/1/2008 1:39:58 PM EDT

[#28]

Quoted:

Quoted:
I respectfully disagree with your view on the same court would rule. It is a distinction without a difference.

really, the courts have ruled that the military can limit 1st amendment rights before. If it was a distinction without a difference, why would that have happened?

Different clause of the 1st Amendment. See my previous post as to why Brown v. Glines is inapplicable.

I didn't say it was directly applicable. It is an example that shows that military necessity can be used to limit rights. What can be done with one right can be done with another. They have already applied the same logic to the military for one of the clauses. Its not a stretch to see it applying to the other clauses.

I respectfully disagree with your conclusions. We'll see if it ever becomes an actual case. The last time this was brought up it didn't go far. I doubt it will this time either.

Last post I will make in this thread. Each clause of the 1st Amendment has a unique set of jurisprudence.

Brown v. Glines dealt with whether service members were required to obtain approval of the brass before sending sending around a petition. Court found that the 1st Amendment gave way in the context because of the military had a substantial interest in mainatining respect for duty and discipline which was so vital to military effectiveness.

But substantial government interest is not the test under the Establishment Clause and the federal government has no 1st Amendment right of its own. It is a right that belongs to the people and doesn't get put on hold when one walks on the campus at the Naval Academy.

Posted: 7/1/2008 1:46:20 PM EDT

[#29]

Quoted:

Quoted:
Three of the four things that valheru21 mentioned were federal issues. The US Naval Academy is probably property of the federal government so the 1st Amendment may apply. If not, the state constitution of Maryland includes freedom of religion. Either way, I win on principle.

And forcing religion on people isn't a "military necessity" by any reasonable definition of the term.

It is federal land.

Being asked to stand isn't "forcing religion on people" by any reasonable definition of the term.

In 1972 the academies were forced to stop having required attendance at sunday services. Now THAT was "forcing religion on people". See the difference?

Not really. If you read that 1972 case you will find that any of the Midshipmen could have opted out of attendance at Sunday Services. The Court still found the regulation as violating the Establishment Clause.

Actually that wasn't the case at USNA. In the 40 years before the case, only a handful of midshipmen had been given an exception. It required a formal request and completion of certain requirements (essays, interviews, etc..)

The problems at the academy were also compounded by

1) only recognizing 3 allowable faiths (Catholicism, Protestantims, and Judaism)
2) regulations also prevented Midshipmen from changing their faiths without approval from the Chaplain and their parents.

That isn't "voluntary" by any reasonable definition of the word.

Posted: 7/1/2008 1:49:35 PM EDT

[#30]

Quoted:
I simply pointed out that Athiests aren't the only ones who have to be respectful of other cultures... if you'd like to put words in my mouth, this conversation will go downhill fast. I said nothing of vengance.

I didn't put words into your mouth. I asked a question, hence the question mark at the end of the sentence. And while you didn't use the word "vengeance", you implied that this practice was acceptable because you, too, had to practice religions other than your own.

Quoted:
How so?

Being forced to stand for prayer services is required participation in a religious ceremony. How is that not violating freedom of religion?

Quoted:
In ACCORDANCE with what the 1st Amendment says.

So putting religious texts on government property, religious references on money and starting sessions of Congress with prayers somehow isn't government-sponsored religion?

Quoted:
It should bother you that you portray yourself as such.

Why? What's wrong with atheists? I'd be more bothered by being thought a theocrat.

Quoted:
Show me where anyone is forced to do anything but stand. You may have noticed we stand at attention all the time...

It's not they're being forced to stand. It's WHY they're being forced to stand.

I kneel in the mornings when I put on and tie my shoes. I kneel in the evenings when I take them off. Why not force me to kneel three more times and in the direction of Mecca? Using your logic, this would be okay because all I'm being forced to do is kneel.

Quoted:
It's not always a Christian ceremony. Like I said, sometimes it's Jewish... sometimes it's Muslim. We Christians (and most athiests, agnostics, pagans, other) participate out of RESPECT... There are a very few, however, who get their panties in a twist over piddly shit. Since you haven't been to the Academy, you don't know what kinds of people start shit like this... they're the attention whores of the Brigade... they're not doing it on principle - they're doing it to get attention.

Dino says the prayer is non-sectarian. Now you're saying that it IS for a specific religion, but the religion changes from time to time. Which is it?

Quoted:
Given our role in modern politics, it does well for the future leaders of America to learn to show respect for the culture of other people. It is imperative that we all learn to operate within a framework that includes religion... If a midshipman can't even stand during a noon prayer, how well do you think they'll do demonstrating proper respect when they visit the middle east? There is a reason for everything we do... that these kids haven't figured that out demonstrates why such exposure is necessary.
Matt

So your argument is that we need forced religion here to prepare our troops for visits to theocracies elsewhere? Maybe the cadets should have to wear turbans, too.

Once again; you can be respectful to one's religion without actually participating.

Posted: 7/1/2008 1:50:24 PM EDT

[#31]

Quoted:
Last post I will make in this thread. Each clause of the 1st Amendment has a unique set of jurisprudence.

Yes, and this particular situation is unique and has never been ruled on. We are both guessing as to what the courts will determine.

I think military necessity will trump the individual right. You disagree. Its all good.

Posted: 7/1/2008 1:52:03 PM EDT

[#32]

Quoted:
Being asked to stand isn't "forcing religion on people" by any reasonable definition of the term.

Being forced to stand for a religious ceremony certainly is.

Posted: 7/1/2008 1:55:26 PM EDT

[#33]

Quoted:
Dino says the prayer is non-sectarian. Now you're saying that it IS for a specific religion, but the religion changes from time to time. Which is it?

I believe he is talking about the person giving the prayer. It rotated between Catholic, Jewish, and Protestant ministers for the most part. I don't believe we ever had a Muslim give the prayer (afaik, we didn't have any Muslim Chaplains back then)

The prayers are nonsectarian, but the people giving them are from all sects present (the academy has 8 Chaplains now according to the article)

Posted: 7/1/2008 1:56:57 PM EDT

[#34]

Quoted:

Quoted:
I simply pointed out that Athiests aren't the only ones who have to be respectful of other cultures... if you'd like to put words in my mouth, this conversation will go downhill fast. I said nothing of vengance.

I didn't put words into your mouth. I asked a question, hence the question mark at the end of the sentence. And while you didn't use the word "vengeance", you implied that this practice was acceptable because you, too, had to practice religions other than your own.

Rhetorical questions with sarcasm are a cowardly way of putting words in the mouth of another... and that is exactly what you tried to do.

Quoted:
How so?

Being forced to stand for prayer services is required participation in a religious ceremony. How is that not violating freedom of religion?

Being forced to recite the prayers or say "amen" or publicly acknowledge God, Allah, Jesus, etc would be an infringement. Standing during a public prayer is not.

Quoted:
In ACCORDANCE with what the 1st Amendment says.

So putting religious texts on government property, religious references on money and starting sessions of Congress with prayers somehow isn't government-sponsored religion?

No one is forcing you to pray. No one is telling you what god to worship. I think you need to see a theocracy before you start suggesting we are one.

Quoted:
It should bother you that you portray yourself as such.

Why? What's wrong with atheists? I'd be more bothered by being thought a theocrat.

Athiests are, by definition, a contradiction.

Quoted:
Show me where anyone is forced to do anything but stand. You may have noticed we stand at attention all the time...

It's not they're being forced to stand. It's WHY they're being forced to stand.

respect? that's a bad thing?

I kneel in the mornings when I put on and tie my shoes. I kneel in the evenings when I take them off. Why not force me to kneel three more times and in the direction of Mecca? Using your logic, this would be okay because all I'm being forced to do is kneel.

No, that is not the same thing, and you know it.

Quoted:
It's not always a Christian ceremony. Like I said, sometimes it's Jewish... sometimes it's Muslim. We Christians (and most athiests, agnostics, pagans, other) participate out of RESPECT... There are a very few, however, who get their panties in a twist over piddly shit. Since you haven't been to the Academy, you don't know what kinds of people start shit like this... they're the attention whores of the Brigade... they're not doing it on principle - they're doing it to get attention.

Dino says the prayer is non-sectarian. Now you're saying that it IS for a specific religion, but the religion changes from time to time. Which is it?

Well, it's done by various chaplains (they take turns)... so sometimes, while the prayer is non-sectarian, you can easily tell who's saying the prayers...

Quoted:
Given our role in modern politics, it does well for the future leaders of America to learn to show respect for the culture of other people. It is imperative that we all learn to operate within a framework that includes religion... If a midshipman can't even stand during a noon prayer, how well do you think they'll do demonstrating proper respect when they visit the middle east? There is a reason for everything we do... that these kids haven't figured that out demonstrates why such exposure is necessary.
Matt

So your argument is that we need forced religion here to prepare our troops for visits to theocracies elsewhere? Maybe the cadets should have to wear turbans, too.

Once again; you can be respectful to one's religion without actually participating.

Standing out of respect is not participating. It's standing out of respect.
Matt

Posted: 7/1/2008 1:57:36 PM EDT

[#35]

Quoted:

Quoted:
Being asked to stand isn't "forcing religion on people" by any reasonable definition of the term.

Being forced to stand for a religious ceremony certainly is.

Well, feel free to try to make that case in court... I think you're going to have a hard time doing it.
Matt

Posted: 7/1/2008 2:03:19 PM EDT

[#36]

Quoted:

Quoted:
Being asked to stand isn't "forcing religion on people" by any reasonable definition of the term.

Being forced to stand for a religious ceremony certainly is.

I said by any reasonable definition. Apparently to you simply hearing someone else lead a prayer while your standing at parade rest and wondering what your going to have for lunch is an imposition.

If you think that is an imposition, you would have a much larger issue with the methods the academy uses to train young men and women.

Somehow in this corrosive environment where religion was forced on me, I was able to transition from questioning Christian through agnosticism to outright atheist. Of course, I did get booted, so maybe you have a point

*
* I keed I keed, I was medicalled out. I was most definitely NOT serious.

Posted: 7/1/2008 2:11:15 PM EDT

[#37]

Quoted:
Rhetorical questions with sarcasm are a cowardly way of putting words in the mouth of another... and that is exactly what you tried to do.

It wasn't rhetorical or sarcastic. That was how I interpreted your comment and I asked for clarification.

Quoted:
Being forced to recite the prayers or say "amen" or publicly acknowledge God, Allah, Jesus, etc would be an infringement. Standing during a public prayer is not.

Being forced to stand during a public prayer certainly is an infringement.

Quoted:
No one is forcing you to pray. No one is telling you what god to worship. I think you need to see a theocracy before you start suggesting we are one.

If "In God We Trust" on our money isn't government-sponsored religion, how about some atheist slogans? How about replacing the Ten Commandments on government buildings with passages from the Koran?

Quoted:
Athiests are, by definition, a contradiction.

I'll play along. How so?

Quoted:
respect? that's a bad thing?

For the billionth time, there can be respect without mandatory participation. Where is the respect for the non-believers?

Quoted:
No, that is not the same thing, and you know it.

Why isn't it the same thing? Would it be okay if it was midshipmen being required to kneel in the direction of Mecca five times per day for allegedly non-religious reasons?

Quoted:
Well, it's done by various chaplains (they take turns)... so sometimes, while the prayer is non-sectarian, you can easily tell who's saying the prayers...

Is there an atheist "chaplain", too?

Quoted:
Standing out of respect is not participating. It's standing out of respect.
Matt

The prayer is done standing up. Everyone is forced to stand during the prayer. Sounds like participation to me. Forced participation at that.

Posted: 7/1/2008 2:17:01 PM EDT

[#38]

Quoted:
Is there an atheist "chaplain", too?

Why would there be? Atheism isn't a religion.

It is a lack of belief in a deity or deities.

The supreme court ruled that, for reasons of personal conscience, that atheism should be afforded the same protections as any religion, but that doesn't make it a religion.

Posted: 7/1/2008 2:19:12 PM EDT

[#39]

Quoted:

The prayer is done standing up. Everyone is forced to stand during the prayer. Sounds like participation to me. Forced participation at that.

I was "forced" to stand for the British National Anthem and the Canadian national anthem while I was in the military and to salute their colors. Does that mean I've sworn allegiance to Canada and Great Britain? Or just shown respect for an ally?

Posted: 7/1/2008 2:19:42 PM EDT

[#40]

Quoted:

Quoted:
Is there an atheist "chaplain", too?

Why would there be? Atheism isn't a religion.

It is a lack of belief in a deity or deities.

The supreme court ruled that, for reasons of personal conscience, that atheism should be afforded the same protections as any religion, but that doesn't make it a religion.

Then have an atheist stand in front of the cadets and repeat "There is no god." over and over again. Fair is fair, after all.

Posted: 7/1/2008 2:23:24 PM EDT

[#41]

I think everyone would feel different, if the cadets had to bow down towards Mecca during lunch.

Posted: 7/1/2008 2:23:25 PM EDT

[#42]

Quoted:
I said by any reasonable definition. Apparently to you simply hearing someone else lead a prayer while your standing at parade rest and wondering what your going to have for lunch is an imposition.

I'm not bothered by them hearing a prayer. It's being forced to stand in participation that bothers me.

Quoted:
If you think that is an imposition, you would have a much larger issue with the methods the academy uses to train young men and women.

Training is fine, but this sounds more like indoctrination.

Quoted:
Somehow in this corrosive environment where religion was forced on me, I was able to transition from questioning Christian through agnosticism to outright atheist. Of course, I did get booted, so maybe you have a point

*

* I keed I keed, I was medicalled out. I was most definitely NOT serious.

Don't worry. I'm not going to insult your service/attendence at the Naval Academy.

Posted: 7/1/2008 2:24:47 PM EDT

[#43]

Quoted:
I was "forced" to stand for the British National Anthem and the Canadian national anthem while I was in the military and to salute their colors. Does that mean I've sworn allegiance to Canada and Great Britain? Or just shown respect for an ally?

There's a big difference between showing respect for a friendly nation and participating in a religious ceremony.

Posted: 7/1/2008 2:27:18 PM EDT

[#44]

Quoted:

Quoted:
I was "forced" to stand for the British National Anthem and the Canadian national anthem while I was in the military and to salute their colors. Does that mean I've sworn allegiance to Canada and Great Britain? Or just shown respect for an ally?

There's a big difference between showing respect for a friendly nation and participating in a religious ceremony.

agreed, which is why LUNCH is mandatory and Chapel services are not.

Waiting respectfully while your shipmates pray before you all chow down isn't participating in a religious service. Its just being polite.

Posted: 7/1/2008 2:27:42 PM EDT

[#45]

Quoted:
I think everyone would feel different, if the cadets had to bow down towards Mecca during lunch.

Or if they had to bow at all.

Posted: 7/1/2008 2:28:57 PM EDT

[#46]

Quoted:

Quoted:
I was "forced" to stand for the British National Anthem and the Canadian national anthem while I was in the military and to salute their colors. Does that mean I've sworn allegiance to Canada and Great Britain? Or just shown respect for an ally?

There's a big difference between showing respect for a friendly nation and participating in a religious ceremony.

Well, both are the result of a lawful order to show respect. Until you can prove it was an unlawful (not unconstitutional) order, the middies will stand. This is the military, not UCLA... I recommend you join up.
Matt

Posted: 7/1/2008 2:29:08 PM EDT

[#47]

Quoted:
agreed, which is why LUNCH is mandatory and Chapel services are not.

Waiting respectfully while your shipmates pray before you all chow down isn't participating in a religious service. Its just being polite.

Insisting on praying while your hungry, atheist shipmates stand waiting seems kinda rude. Why not let the hungry people eat while the religious people go elsewhere to pray?

And what do you think of my proposal to include an atheist speaker in the lunch services?

Posted: 7/1/2008 2:30:35 PM EDT

[#48]

Quoted:
Well, both are the result of a lawful order to show respect. Until you can prove it was an unlawful (not unconstitutional) order, the middies will stand. This is the military, not UCLA... I recommend you join up.
Matt

One is an issue of national diplomacy. The other is forced religion. Not the same thing.

Posted: 7/1/2008 2:34:26 PM EDT

[#49]

Quoted:

Quoted:
Well, both are the result of a lawful order to show respect. Until you can prove it was an unlawful (not unconstitutional) order, the middies will stand. This is the military, not UCLA... I recommend you join up.
Matt

One is an issue of national diplomacy. The other is forced religion. Not the same thing.

It's exactly the same thing. Is it, or is it not, a lawful order. You will find that it is a lawful order to make them stand. It is not lawful to make them pray. If you think your ideas are the first time I've encountered them, you are sadly mistaken. We've been over this a hundred time...

This will really blow your mind... we have prayers every night on the ship, too. haha! In fact, if you trap while the prayer is going on, you automatically get an OK (4.0 on the landing grading scale). Face it, the overwhelming majority of the military (especially the Navy) is religious.

Even if we weren't the majority - it is STILL a lawful order.
Matt

Posted: 7/1/2008 2:40:32 PM EDT

[#50]

Quoted:
It's exactly the same thing. Is it, or is it not, a lawful order. You will find that it is a lawful order to make them stand. It is not lawful to make them pray. If you think your ideas are the first time I've encountered them, you are sadly mistaken. We've been over this a hundred time...

Even if we weren't the majority - it is STILL a lawful order.
Matt

It's not the same thing. Requiring the military to show respect to foreign allies isn't the same as making someone participate in a religious ceremony. They may both be lawful orders, but they aren't the same thing.

And you're sadly mistaken if you think this is the first time I've encountered the "It's legal, so therefore it's morally acceptable." justification for policy.

Quoted:
This will really blow your mind... we have prayers every night on the ship, too. haha! In fact, if you trap while the prayer is going on, you automatically get an OK (4.0 on the landing grading scale). Face it, the overwhelming majority of the military (especially the Navy) is religious.

Can you rephrase that in civilianese, please?

And are you going to get around to countering the points I made to your arguments in that other post?

EDIT: I don't mind that many people in the military are religious. I happen to be religious myself (not Christian, Muslim or Jewish, though). It's the forced participation that bothers me.

[ARCHIVED THREAD] - Naval Academy under fire for lunchtime prayer (Page 2 of 4)

General » Religion

Warning

Confirm Action

About AR15.COM

Stay Connected

Newsletter

Contact Us