<p>So much so that one school was forcing their kids to "be Muslim" for a week, including taking Muslim names, reading the Koran, etc.</p>
<p>I wonder if it kept happening after the uproar?</p>
<p>I wonder what the uproar would be if they did that with Christianity?</p>
<p>"If someone decides that they want to bring the ACLU into the academy, they shouldn't be there to begin with"</p>
<p>Why? </p>
<p>Is the services only for a certain type of American? Haven't we learned that we need every color, every belief, every gender and even preference to defend this country? </p>
<p>What your saying is you want to exclude those who don't think like you. Are you sure you are right? </p>
<p>In accepting this need for all (that is if you do) isn't reasonable to consider a way to find a middle ground that allows all to worship? Or am I being unreasonable here?</p>
<p>
[quote]
"If someone decides that they want to bring the ACLU into the academy, they shouldn't be there to begin with"</p>
<p>Why?
[/quote]
You're kidding, right?</p>
<p>
[quote]
Haven't we learned that we need every color, every belief, every gender and even preference to defend this country?
[/quote]
Have you taken a look at the Brigade of Midshipmen? You will find every race, every creed, every state, every faith, every political persuasion, all living and working in peace as a team.</p>
<p>The lesson has long been learned. Some people, however, make big money on stirring the pot and claiming that racism and bigotry are not only rampant, but institutionalized. The fact that they aren't doesn't get i the way of a good screed, unfortunately.</p>
<p>
[quote]
I thought the Anti-Defamation League was challenging noon prayer at USNA, not the ACLU...
[/quote]
Doesn't change a thing, and unless they've changed things, prayers from the Anchor are non-denominational, so I fail to see how a "religious" group could be opposed to them.</p>
<p>I'm saying that the kinds of people who cause these uproars do so simply because they want attention. There are loads of these people living in my town trying to change everything from sports to school to you name it. As for "excluding others" I see nothing that supports that. I support everyone's right to pray on their own and in their own way, just as I support the right of the chaplain to pray his own way. This has NOTHING to do with racism or prejudice.</p>
<p>Zaph....</p>
<p>If a command (ship) holds a party in the December area....would it be appropriate to title the party "The USS XYZ Christmas Party"?</p>
<p>The Academy prays non-dimentionally...and all the chaplains, at noon meal, make meaningful prayer reflecting on good/tough times coming up, those currently serving overseas, and on certain quotes made by people. They use generic names to recognize the supernatural (for those that believe) and commonly mention holidays of all faiths (that are upcoming). </p>
<p>They even have a Chapel Watchstanding program now where MIDN of their faith group help out with their respective services on a given weekend. The Supe is really pushing people to observe their religion while recognizing and respecting the religious melting pot at USNA.</p>
<p>"If a command (ship) holds a party in the December area....would it be appropriate to title the party "The USS XYZ Christmas Party"?"</p>
<p>Yes.</p>
<p>And, dear Opie (Mayberry was, in fact, SOUTH of the Mason Dixon line...so, it's an interesting name you've chosen if you're from Washington. Perhaps you're from the east side of the state, maybe around Dayton?)...
At any rate...Washington State HAS had it's share of issues trying to thwart Christianity and Christian symbols. I do recall the debacle over trees at the airport; perhaps you do, too? If not, there are numerous articles in the Seattle Times archives discussing it... So, Washington is <em>not</em> immune to it's share of pendulum swings</p>
<p>Zaph...</p>
<p>Whats your reasoning?</p>
<p>Gee I don't know...... Maybe because it's Christmas time? Maybe because CHRISTMAS is a NATIONAL HOLIDAY? Maybe because the word "Christmas" never seemed to bother anyone until just a few years ago?</p>
<p>Perhaps the better question should be why so many people suddenly feel they should have their panties in a wad over the word "Christmas". :rolleyes:</p>
<p>Zaph - respectfully, not everyone celebrates Christmas. Really, they don't. So Jerry Seinfield's 'Festivus' may be a better theme for a party in December!! It's not about an issue with the word Christmas, it's an issue with inclusion -Christmas doesn't include everyone.</p>
<p>"And, dear Opie (Mayberry was, in fact, SOUTH of the Mason Dixon line...so, it's an interesting name you've chosen if you're from Washington. Perhaps you're from the east side of the state, maybe around Dayton?)..."</p>
<p>Nope. OOM just reflects a simpler time when people actually talked about issues and considered the other person's pov, rather than the beat downs that occur now. Growing up I used to fight with my brother. We'd scrap, wrestle and spill a little blood, but at the end of the day, we still loved each other. Nowdays, you'd just put a cap in em. </p>
<p>"At any rate...Washington State HAS had it's share of issues trying to thwart Christianity and Christian symbols. I do recall the debacle over trees at the airport; perhaps you do, too? If not, there are numerous articles in the Seattle Times archives discussing it... So, Washington is <em>not</em> immune to it's share of pendulum swings"</p>
<p>So this makes WA an anti christain state? Because of the trees? please... I am outraged by your outrage..:) </p>
<p>What happened there was simply a bureaucractic decision that if you can't include all, take the rest down. Was it the best decision? maybe, maybe not. It was certainly simpler than purchasing and displaying a bunch of different stuff. So instead of making one group happy at the expense of another, they choose to eliminate the decision. I can understand the logic, can't you? </p>
<p>Do you have more than one child? Do you treat them equally or do you favor one over the other and simply don't care how the one child feels?</p>
<p>As far as the percentage of anti christain indignaties that occur in America, what percentage would you give?</p>
<p>50%? 100%? less than 1%? hmmmmmmm. </p>
<p>Would you say there's other religions in America that deal with much more? </p>
<p>Christain issues usually come up when the christain belief is forced upon a group without consent. People can't come quietly to Jesus anymore. Everything's a show. </p>
<p>Personally I think for some, their worship of god is like an endzone dance. I guess if you like that sort of thing.. </p>
<p>I have to wonder if this padre was previously spoken to about services by his commanding officers. His military duty is to follow orders. Did he disobey an order? Is it OK for him to disobey than it is for Watada disobeying his movement order? So I would guess if you support one, you need to support the other..no? Or does an enlisted man get to pick and choose orders to follow?</p>
<p>I just read the article and I have to wonder if you all would support this guy if he was out there doing what he was doing in a gay pride parade? :)</p>
<p>Wow Opie... You're on really thin ice here. IN FACT, I am a former politician FROM the state of Washington AND I have marched in several gay pride parades in my former years. Today, I would NOT march in them. And, for the airport, I think they should have put up menorrahs and Kwanzaa symbols as well. And, as you well know, (or should) the Christmas tree has only become a symbol linked to Christianity in recent years (when you're looking on a very longitudinal scale). I'm off this thread, because it seems apparent you are dead-set in your own opinions and stereotypes of what a Christian is/isn't, what they will/won't do and have/haven't done. My issue with the ACLU, (with the fights over Chaplains, Ten Commandment displays, and virtually every other thing they take on as their "war") is that they are exactly what they say they're fighting: narrowminded.<br>
Do I have more than one child? Yes. Four, in fact. Do I treat them equally? No. I'm human. Isn't possible. But, I do treat them equitably. What is right/fair for one of them doesn't necessarily dictate what is right/fair for another one. Do I care what they are feeling? Yes, of course. But, I have learned that their feelings are their own. Not mine to control. And, I have learned that to not bring my child harm, sometimes I have to "hurt" them by not giving in to their every whim/desire. Hurt does not equal Harm.
Finally, I very well may not agree with you on numerous issues, but, I will defend to my death your right to believe whatever it is you choose to believe, insofar as it does not bring harm to me or another.</p>
<p>Basically, from what I understand, chaplains get loaned out from their denomination or diocese. They need permission from their denomination to become a chaplain. Thus, his first inclination, I would think, would be to obey the standards of the faith that he served first; his church, not the military. </p>
<p>Example: I first hand witnessed an Air Force priest refuse to baptise a dying baby, since only its mother was catholic, and not the father. They had to call in another chaplian to perform the rite. When the priest arrived back to hsi quarters, the head chaplain was on the other end stating he would meet him in his office at 0730. 0730 comes and the priest is told that if he doesn't like serving the needs of the USAF, his diocese will be notified that he is available for priestly duties outside of the USAF and can be returned.</p>
<p>JMWRITES .. Go Girl!</p>
<p>"Wow Opie... You're on really thin ice here. IN FACT, I am a former politician FROM the state of Washington AND I have marched in several gay pride parades in my former years. Today, I would NOT march in them."</p>
<p>So you would be fine or not fine with this chaplain in uniform in a gay pride parade? And how is that thin ice? It's a question, not a statement. :) </p>
<p>Woo Woo.. you aren't going to play the who's more tolerant game are you? </p>
<p>This gentleman chose to make a political statement, he was not moved by God, he was infront of the Whitehouse. I don't disagree with his commanding officers, who apparently asked him politely not to do this. Which he took for permission. He's making a political statement, like marching in a gay pride parade in uniform. While in active duty, should either be allowed? </p>
<p>I would say no to both, as during active duty he has a responsibility to service first and either situation (a demonstration in front of the white house or in a gay pride parade) he should not be in uniform, as the uniform represents the armed services. They did not tell him he couldn't attend, he would just need to be in civies. </p>
<p>I want to know if you would say no or yes and why? thin ice or not. </p>
<p>" And, for the airport, I think they should have put up menorrahs and Kwanzaa symbols as well. And, as you well know, (or should) the Christmas tree has only become a symbol linked to Christianity in recent years (when you're looking on a very longitudinal scale). I'm off this thread, because it seems apparent you are dead-set in your own opinions and stereotypes of what a Christian is/isn't, what they will/won't do and have/haven't done."</p>
<p>And since you've served in public office tell me, HOW QUICKLY DOES GOVERNMENT MOVE? :) Did they budget for the extra stuff? How much stuff (religions) should they get? What types of religions should be represented? What about native americans? Hell most of Washington has indian names, shouldn't their religious beliefs be represented? How fast could you get this all done? C'mon don't lie, don't be a politician now. How fast does any government authority work? :)</p>
<p>I think they did what was expediant for the situation. We don't have this stuff, we don't have a plan, we don't have board approval, so what is the quickest answer.. Take the existing down, till it gets sorted out. Is that a truly unreasonable action when pressed? It's pretty typical isn't it? </p>
<p>As far as being dead set about christains, naw your off tangent here. My mind is open to christains (even like myself), what I am closed to are "look at me" tactics. </p>
<p>Remember Steve Largent? 100 touchdowns? I quote "act like you've been there before." A well respected and highly regarded individual. </p>
<p>I don't care for in your face anything from anybody. I think people that use that tack are selfish because it's about look at me.. whether it's a christain, a jew or gay person. Sometimes things have to blow up to get things done, but lately it's a daily occurrance. Like I said I am outraged by your outrage.:) </p>
<p>In other words.. outrage should be saved for truly outrageous wrongs, then the outrage has meaning. Daily outrages just weaken the effect. </p>
<p>" My issue with the ACLU, (with the fights over Chaplains, Ten Commandment displays, and virtually every other thing they take on as their "war") is that they are exactly what they say they're fighting: narrowminded. "</p>
<p>The ACLU takes on the opposite pov, we need that in our society to make sure our decisions are good ones, not just the ones we like. They are a necessary evil or blessing depending on the issue. Some things they involve themselves in I agree with, some I don't. I recognize the need for them to be there. </p>
<p>One thing religion should have taught you is the right thing is the right thing. Questioning the right thing isn't bad because if it's the right thing, it will survive. You never have to remember the truth because it's always there. Lies you have to remember. All the Aclu does is ensure the truth (not your truth or my truth) is considered for all. It doesn't make them automatically right in the arguement, but it gives the arguement equal representation. </p>
<p>"Do I have more than one child? Yes. Four, in fact. Do I treat them equally? No. I'm human. Isn't possible. But, I do treat them equitably. What is right/fair for one of them doesn't necessarily dictate what is right/fair for another one. Do I care what they are feeling? Yes, of course. But, I have learned that their feelings are their own. Not mine to control. And, I have learned that to not bring my child harm, sometimes I have to "hurt" them by not giving in to their every whim/desire. Hurt does not equal Harm."</p>
<p>You feel that way because you care about your kids. You have regret remorse and resolve to always attempt to do the right thing. Should it not be the same for the country when dealing with it's people? </p>
<p>"Finally, I very well may not agree with you on numerous issues, but, I will defend to my death your right to believe whatever it is you choose to believe, insofar as it does not bring harm to me or another."</p>
<p>ditto. </p>
<p>Besides I love the eastside. My favorite vacation spot is the Potholes. Been enjoying that sunshine and warm water for close to 20 years.</p>
<p>Actually Christmas is pretty widely celebrated. Jews, Hindus, and atheists I know all celebrate Christmas every year. Political Correctness does have a place in society but not the extent where Chaplain's lives are ruined just because someone feels uncomfortable when they hear the name Jesus.</p>
<p>"Chaplain's lives are ruined just because someone feels uncomfortable when they hear the name Jesus"</p>
<p>Read the article, I did, He was doing this infront of the Whitehouse, not church, on base, at the academy. He was making a political statement while in uniform. </p>
<p>It wasn't about christmas or prayer, it was about using the uniform to make a political statement.</p>
<p>{Klingenschmitt, who insisted an appearance in front of the White House in which he prayed "in Jesus' name" was a bona fide religious event and he had written permission from his commander to wear his uniform at such events. }</p>
<p>The White House. </p>
<p>If you think he was justified wearing his uniform there as active duty, could he also stand there and demand an end to the war on another weekend protest? or gay marriage? or what flavor of the month we should recognize? :)</p>
<p>It's never really as simple as just plain religous prosecution is it?</p>