National Interfaith Alliance Lawsuit is TOSSED OUT

[BobG]

Yeah just Googled it and saw the wiki on. Interesting stuff.

I still hold that the government shouldn't pay for it.

Am I right in thinking the constitution simply says the government can't prevent you practising, not that they have to supply you the means to?

On this basis, any military personnel should be allowed to practice their religion but I don't see why valuable space on an aircraft carrier (or any government asset) should be dedicated to a religion (I was just watching a documentary from a year or so back on life on board a British Naval Aircraft Carrier and they had quite a substantial prayer room).

Plus the fact the Navy employed a priest on board - now a room I could just about let go seeing as it doesn't really have an associated cost, but a priest? There's an expense we could do without!

Should valuable space on an aircraft carrier be dedicated to a pool table? Or a gym? Or a library?

Likewise, should a prison provide religious and recreation facilities for its members? At least partially relevant since failure to provide facilities for off-duty activities is going to result in the military having to transition from an all volunteer force to an all forced labor force.

Especially on an aircraft carrier, the crew's entire world is reduced to the military facilities. I think providing religious facilities is just part of the overhead of having to provide for people's needs.

 

[zomgwtf]

Should valuable space on an aircraft carrier be dedicated to a pool table? Or a gym? Or a library?

Likewise, should a prison provide religious and recreation facilities for its members? At least partially relevant since failure to provide facilities for off-duty activities is going to result in the military having to transition from an all volunteer force to an all forced labor force.

Especially on an aircraft carrier, the crew's entire world is reduced to the military facilities. I think providing religious facilities is just part of the overhead of having to provide for people's needs.

I agree with this fully. The only problem is however, are all religions/non-religions treated equally? That's what is important in my mind with regard to separation of church and state.

 

[Jack21222]

Your "above meaning" is rubbish, and is contrary to the writings of both Jefferson and the other founding fathers. It's revisionist history at it's worst.

Then take it up with the supreme count. The SCOTUS interpretation is the only one that matters in this case. The lawsuit should not have been thrown out based on current case law.

If this were a philosophical argument about what the 1st amendment should be, I'd be willing to listen, but this is about a real-life case that was wrongly dismissed.

 

[JaredJames]

Should valuable space on an aircraft carrier be dedicated to a pool table? Or a gym? Or a library?

Likewise, should a prison provide religious and recreation facilities for its members? At least partially relevant since failure to provide facilities for off-duty activities is going to result in the military having to transition from an all volunteer force to an all forced labor force.

Especially on an aircraft carrier, the crew's entire world is reduced to the military facilities. I think providing religious facilities is just part of the overhead of having to provide for people's needs.

I agree with this fully. The only problem is however, are all religions/non-religions treated equally? That's what is important in my mind with regard to separation of church and state.

As I questioned early, to which I didn't receive a response, someone quoted somewhere regarding the government not being allowed to fund religion (or something along those lines) and I asked whether this applies to the government paying for a 'church' and more importantly, a priest to be on board the aircraft carriers and other military areas.

Like I said back there, I can understand a room. I may not accept it, but given it doesn't really cost to have it I can let it go. But, I can't understand the justification for a priest - where do we draw the line? Are we intolerant of all other religions and say only priests, no other religious officials? Or do we pay to have one of every religious denomination on board? It's ridiculous.

The government can't stop you practising, but they don't have to and shouldn't fund you to do so - in this case by paying a priest to stick around.

At what point do we bring up atheists? Where do they come into the equation? Do they get to 'elect' a person to be on board and act for them, in the same manner as a priest for the religious contingent?

In regard to prisons, my personal view is that they should be put in a cell for the duration of their sentence with an hour of exercise each day (or something along those lines). You break the law, you're not on holiday. The tax payer should not be paying for anything more than they need - I don't accept all this "violation of human rights" tripe.

 

[WhoWee]

I agree with this fully. The only problem is however, are all religions/non-religions treated equally? That's what is important in my mind with regard to separation of church and state.

Why would you ned to provide a place to worship to a non-religious person? I look at this differently - the space is to separate the religion (place a wall) between the worshipper and everyone else.

 

[Gokul43201]

Your sources look pretty slim. The NY Times article is from August - has nothing else been reported in the past 6 months?

Your support - needs support - IMO.

Are you kidding with this? Turbo produced a mainstream news article to support his claim (and a second article, from what looks like a pretty reliable source). Demanding that he produce one article for every month of the year is ludicrous!

 

[WhoWee]

Are you kidding with this? Turbo produced a mainstream news article from the AP to support his claim. Demanding that he produce one article for every month of the year is ludicrous!

When did I demand he produce one article for every month of the year? Please support your statement.

 

[WhoWee]

Originally Posted by Gokul43201 "When did I say you did? Please support your statement."


In Post 41

"Demanding that he produce one article for every month of the year is ludicrous!"

 

[Gokul43201]

That sentence makes no mention of you.

Two can play this game, but I have no appetite to continue it, or to keep feeding trolls.

 

[WhoWee]

That sentence makes no mention of you.

Two can play this game, but I have no appetite to continue it, or to keep feeding trolls.

Post 41 in it's entirety:
"Originally Posted by WhoWee
Your sources look pretty slim. The NY Times article is from August - has nothing else been reported in the past 6 months?

Your support - needs support - IMO.

Are you kidding with this? Turbo produced a mainstream news article to support his claim (and a second article, from what looks like a pretty reliable source). Demanding that he produce one article for every month of the year is ludicrous!
__________________

"

 

[Pattonias]

As a member of the military, I can say from experience that to say that a chapel is dedicated to a particular religion is somewhat of a misnomer. The chaplains in the US Army are required to administer spiritual and counseling services to all US Military personnel regardless of religion. At my basic training course there were services every Sunday for every religion that requested one. In the morning there was a Catholic mass followed by a Protestant service. Both were held in the sports complex due to the large number attending. They were both handled by the same chaplain. On the same morning in the traditional chapel on base there was a Islamic service held. After lunch their was a Wiccan service held in the same chapel that was administered by a priestess from off post. All of this was coordinated by the same post chaplain.

If you chose not to attend you could remain in the barracks and sleep, read, clean, whatever. We could not use phones or computers because we were not allowed to use them at any other point in our training either. And to say that was punishment would be misleading because those at the services were not allowed to use them either.

It was made clear to us that we could talk to the chaplain at any time we requested it. You could tell him anything you wanted and it would be held confidential between you and him. The chaplain was also the means by which you could complain about your treatment outside of your chain of command if you felt that something was wrong. The chaplain was expected to handle your problem confidentially and carry your issues to the proper authorities.

I can't speak for those on those in this other situation because I don't know if they were normally allowed to use these things and they were not allowed to use them while everyone else was out.

 

[BobG]

But, I can't understand the justification for a priest - where do we draw the line? Are we intolerant of all other religions and say only priests, no other religious officials? Or do we pay to have one of every religious denomination on board? It's ridiculous.

No. Obviously, being a military chaplain is going to be a little different than being a civilian preist/minister since resources limit how many chaplains are going to be available on military missions. The best the military could do would be to make sure the distribution of faiths among its chaplains reflects the distribution of faiths among the troops, thereby at least creating the best odds of meeting needs.

To be honest, the US military doesn't do that good a job of that. From http://www.wfial.org/index.cfm?fuseaction=artGeneral.article_6 (down towards the bottom of the page), the Army has about 99,000 Catholics and about 94,000 Baptists, yet the Army has 368 Baptist ministers and only 101 Catholic preists. That might be something unique to the Army environment. The Air Force has similar disparities, but not nearly so dramatic. The reality is that while the military may desire a chaplain force that mirrors its troops, chaplains of some religions are easier to obtain than others.

Part of that can be influenced by how aggressive a particular religion is in obtaining new members - troops serving in combat can develop religious faith fairly quickly and makes a fertile environment to obtain new converts. I think Proton Soup mentioned religion being something that promotes mental health in stressful situations and he has a valid point. Whether involved in combat or just lost in the wilderness, people with strong religious faith tend to have better survival rates than others. Not that something else couldn't substitute - people very committed to getting back to their families have better survival rates, as well - but anything that gives a person extra fortitude in stressful situations tends to help them survive.

And, just for the heck of it, Army regulations regarding chaplains that address the Army's view of the First Amendment and how the chaplain program fits into that (starting at paragraph 1-5): http://armypubs.army.mil/epubs/pdf/R165_1.PDF

One of the things I found most absurd about the controversy over a Muslim Community Center so close to the site of a terrorist attack conducted by Islamic terrorists (World Trade Center) is that the Pentagon conducts Muslim services right in the Pentagon - a site of the same overall attack. The same chapel in the Pentagon is used by all faiths, including Muslims.

 

[BobG]

The Pentagon spokesperson in his source said "If something like that were to have happened, it would be contrary to Army policy," Collins said."

That's not exactly support and validation of the story - is it?

You don't clearly state the significance of that statement in any of your posts, which might be why you're getting such a negative response.

There is a problem with the articles. They cite an allegation that's being investigated. The results of the investigation have never been reported as far as I can find.

That's significant because it's hard to tell which actions levied upon the personnel skipping the concert were punishment and which were normal Advanced Individual Training school procedures (AIT isn't as restrictive as Basic training, but it is a lot more restrictive than normal military life). The marching part would definitely be standard practice - they march everywhere they go. What they were allowed to do in the barracks while the concert was going on might be iffy, but I certainly couldn't say for sure.

There's a good chance of there being problems with MajGen Chalmer's programs in the first place. You would think he would have told his staff what he wanted and they would find a way to come pretty close to achieving what he wanted legally, but generals can be an arrogant bunch sometimes and the concert series certainly look very iffy. The fact that all of the performers were from one religion isn't necessarily ironclad evidence in itself. It's also possible that was the only group that had performers available and/or willing to participate in the series.

But, still, the bottom line is an allegation, followed up by an investigation whose results aren't known. That's a little frustrating.

 

[WhoWee]

You don't clearly state the significance of that statement in any of your posts, which might be why you're getting such a negative response.

There is a problem with the articles. They cite an allegation that's being investigated. The results of the investigation have never been reported as far as I can find.

That's significant because it's hard to tell which actions levied upon the personnel skipping the concert were punishment and which were normal Advanced Individual Training school procedures (AIT isn't as restrictive as Basic training, but it is a lot more restrictive than normal military life). The marching part would definitely be standard practice - they march everywhere they go. What they were allowed to do in the barracks while the concert was going on might be iffy, but I certainly couldn't say for sure.

There's a good chance of there being problems with MajGen Chalmer's programs in the first place. You would think he would have told his staff what he wanted and they would find a way to come pretty close to achieving what he wanted legally, but generals can be an arrogant bunch sometimes and the concert series certainly look very iffy. The fact that all of the performers were from one religion isn't necessarily ironclad evidence in itself. It's also possible that was the only group that had performers available and/or willing to participate in the series.

But, still, the bottom line is an allegation, followed up by an investigation whose results aren't known. That's a little frustrating.

I think you've grasped the significance. The Pentagon said "IF" - and the story seems to have ended? That's why I questioned if there were any follow up stories beyond repeats of the original statement.

 

[nismaratwork]

Religion has no place in any area of government that is paid for by taxes, IMO.

If people in military wish to hold prayer breakfasts, it should not be at taxpayers expense.

I'm sorry mug, but I agree with this 100%. I know it's unpopular, but nonetheless, it's what I believe. To me, the history of any involvement of religion and state has no positive outcome in the long run.

From a political perspective, Kemalism is an anti-clerical secularism which abolished the religious political establishment of the Ottoman Empire. In the Kemalist political perspective politicians cannot claim to be the protector of any religion or religious sect, and such claims constitute sufficient legal grounds for the permanent banning of political parties. The current Prime Minister of Turkey, Recep Tayyip Erdoğan, while mayor of Istanbul, was once jailed for reciting poetry laced with aggressively religious terms, which was deemed by the judiciary to advocate separatism among the Turkish people, into camps of "believers" and "non-believers".

Bolding is mine. I find that last to be a very important concept at its most basic level, and it's one that a prayer breakfast which our MILITARY and politicians patronize is just that.

There is another side to this supposed "Freedom" that you get when you mix religion and government... that is this strict Kemalist approach to denature the situation. I think the USA is already in enough "armed camps" as it is, don't you?

...Controversially, the constitutional concept of laïcité is also used to justify a ban on Muslim women wearing Islamic coverings such as headscarfs in public universities and other public buildings. Joost Lagendijk, a member of the European Parliament and chair of the Joint Parliamentary Committee with Turkey, has publicly criticized these clothing restrictions for Muslim women;[3] whereas the European Court of Human Rights ruled in numerous cases that such restrictions in public buildings and educational institutions do not constitute a violation of human rights.[4][5]

Is that good? I think that as long as religion is inextricably tied to functional "values" that show up in politics, we're going down the wrong path. Freedom exists when nobody has the advantage, but right now religion has become this nearly meaningless bludgeon for all sides. Remove it from the debate, and put it back in temples, churches, mosques, etc... and homes. Being raised a particular way, attending any service you want, reading what you want, and expressing that legally (pretty broad terms in the USA) isn't enough? I call 'pfft on that.

Source for above quotes: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kemalism

 

[mugaliens]

I'm sorry mug, but I agree with this 100%.

Did you not read where I said prayer breakfasts are paid from voluntary donations to the chapel, not taxpayer funds?

I know it's unpopular, but nonetheless, it's what I believe. To me, the history of any involvement of religion and state has no positive outcome in the long run.

Really. Have you done any psycho-social studies to determine the primary impetus behind our winning World Wars I and II, if not the cold war? Or the motivation behind why the U.S. leads the world in charitable contributions to needy or disaster-ridden people?

If you believe these decisions were made void of any religious basis, you'd be ignoring the fact that most folks serving in the military and civilian areas of government, from your average city mayor to most presidents of the U.S., have had significant religious convictions.

I find it far more disturbing that most large-scale massacres and genocides, to the tune of more than 100 million people total, have been promulgated by the a-religious, untroubled as they were by an apparent lack of moral conviction.

I find that last to be a very important concept at its most basic level, and it's one that a prayer breakfast which our MILITARY and politicians patronize is just that.

It appears you're intentionally side-stepping the concept of the term "voluntary," as in "not compulsory." Yes, a couple of leaders have "highly encouraged" their troops to attend, and wrongly so. These incidents, however, are few and far between, and pale to near nothingness compared to the vast majority of prayer breakfasts which are run properly - I never witnessed a single incident of such "emphasis" associated with the prayer breakfasts throughout two decades in the military. Mikey Weinstein would love for you to believe they are ubiquitous. Please do the world a favor. Don't believe his rhetoric. He has a huge bone to pick, most likely due to having had one commander who overstepped the line.

If I know the military, there's already an anonymous tip line, spot surveys, and someone way smarter than I am in statistics to ensure the results are adjusted to eliminate biases.

There is another side to this supposed "Freedom" that you get when you mix religion and government...

Contrary to your misdirected words, it's not a "mix." Members of the military are afforded the opportunity to participate in religious services. Contrary to Weinstein's babble, it's not mandatory.

I think that as long as religion is inextricably tied to functional "values" that show up in politics, we're going down the wrong path.

Modern history says otherwise.

Freedom exists when nobody has the advantage...

Freedom exists when every has a choice, to either believe, not believe, participate, or not participate. That's what we have today. No one's twisting your arm. I get the distinct impression, however, you'd eliminate the opportunity, the choice, if you could.

That's messed up.

Remove it from the debate, and put it back in temples, churches, mosques, etc... and homes.

Now we're getting somewhere. A chapel is a church, but so are homes, and gathering of people who share similar religious convictions. In fact, the term church never original referred to a building at all, but a body of believers. The building was called the temple.

Being raised a particular way, attending any service you want, reading what you want, and expressing that legally (pretty broad terms in the USA) isn't enough?

Sure it's enough. But again, I get the distinct impression you're wanting to eliminate any and all religious expression by changing it from it's current status as legal, to that of an illegal act.

"Congress shall make no law ... prohibiting the free exercise thereof." I don't get the impression you're espousing freedom of religion. I get the impression you're espousing freedom from religion.

Wrong country.

 

[Evo]

This is now resulting in numerous guideline violations of stating opinion as fact, failing to cite sources, misinformation, and slurs against the non-religious.

Closed.