<p>Okay…so what’s your point?
Jeebus, merely agreed that religion had nothing to do with it. He implied that morality is society/culturaly based…i.e. whatever that particular group feels is acceptable or unacceptable. I agree that given different cultures/societies you will have differences of what moral or immoral. Big deal. </p>
<p>I’d venture that even within those societies that might think “slavery” acceptable that there might be those that think it still immoral for their own personal reasons. Just because America condoned slavery back in the 1700s doesn’t mean that EVERY american felt it was “moral”…in fact there may have been a few slaveonwers who still nonetheless felt their ownership “immoral” but hey…society permitted it…so oh well. </p>
<p>As for “murder” I’m afraid I got my “legalese” involved…as “murder” is typically defined as the UNlawful (lawful being whatever is acceptable in the particular society) killing…thus I would venture to guess that in those societies where retribution killing is acceptable…that would not fit the murder definition because in that culture it would be synonymous with justifiable homicide. Even in the US we have “justifiable homicide” so not all acts of killing are “immoral” or they may be but they are “justified” despite their immorality.</p>
<p>I would respectfully suggest that neither side of this debate should say that “most Mids” would want to support a specific opinion unless they have polled them.</p>
<p>My answers will sound very familiar to anyone who has read Ayn Rand.</p>
<p>Man has a right to his own life, to exist for his own sake. This basic tenet of Randian philosophy cannot be ignored, it is a foundation on which society is built.</p>
<p>“The Right of Life means that Man cannot be deprived of his life for the benefit of another man nor of any number of other men.” AR</p>
<p>Sometimes the minority view is for the protection of all.
Should we have kept women out of the USNA because at the time “most mids” probably thought women didn’t belong at the USNA?</p>
<p>I’d not the one suggesting we act on the basis of a poll or vote. You asked the question "if most Mids wanted to do away with prayer:..etc. yes you could just as easily insert the line “keep women out”. </p>
<p>The point being, it does not appear either side is willing to accept the outcome of a “poll” that goes against their perceived interests. What is the point of saying I’m all for a poll so long as the vote goes my way?</p>
<p>Love the answer and have always loved Ayn Rand. “Atlas Shrugged” is one of my favorite books. I didn’t want to give you a hard time just wanted to ask you why. I agree with your conclusions and the reasons for them. Who is John Gault???</p>
<p>I did not suggest that a poll should be taken. I did suggest that neither side of the argument (as has happened in several earlier posts) should claim to represent “the majority of Mids,” because quite frankly, none of us knows what the majority thinks.</p>
<p>There are, indeed, times when the minority view is for the protection of all, but is this really one of those cases? One side of the argument claims that they are being hurt by having an Established religion due to the brief prayer that is voiced daily by one of the USNA chaplains. Let’s say that, indeed, some Mids are down-rating those who don’t join in the prayer. Would eliminating the noon prayer alleviate this discrimination? I sincerely doubt it. People who would discriminate in that way can just as easily look around the religious service of their choice on their day of worship, detect which other Mids don’t profess the same beliefs, and carry out the same discrimination.</p>
<p>On the other hand, how are Mids individually helped or harmed by continuing the prayer? I would assert that those who attend USNA learn very early on in Plebe Summer to tune out distractions and focus their attention onto matters most important to them. It seems, then, an easy thing for these same people to simply “tune out” for a few minutes. What about the rights and potential harms to those Mids for whom the noon prayer is beneficial? Several former Mids (and after PPW, I can add my Mid) have described how those few minutes were often the only kind words spoken during most of the day, and were on occasion the one thing that helped them to keep going. If that is the case for even a few Mids each year, I believe there a value that outweighs the inconvenience the prayer presents to those who don’t wish to participate. </p>
<p>I fully support the need for the Establishment clause, but it must be balanced with the free exercise and freedom of speech clauses of the same amendment. If we were talking about a set of daily announcements, no one would be arguing. It is due to the free expression of a prayer or meditation that this challenge has arisen, and it is clear from earlier points that no single religion is being established or favored. I dare say that, if someone suggested including non-religious, moral readings in the rotation, that the suggestion might well be accepted, which would further demonstrate that no individual religion is being established.</p>
<p>2012mom-
i disagree with the statement that if we didn’t have noon meal prayer people would just look around at their sunday services and discriminate. there’s a big difference between looking around to see who is of your faith on sunday, and a prayer five times a week when all 4000 of us are together. i’m not offended by the prayers, but they are rather annoying (if anyone has heard chaplain logan’s stentorian “and now a reading from Ecclesiastes…and the Lord said, I shall smite you and your people from the face of the earth…and all shall be smitten into dust…and there shall be weeping and gnashing of teeth…,” then you know what i’m talking about) and frankly they don’t quite seem to fit in the routine of the day. but i’m only speaking for myself.</p>
<p>well, not going to weigh in here- you guys are all doing a great job at presenting both sides of the issue-</p>
<p>but while I was eating lunch in Kings Hall a few weeks back, I found it interesting that the catholic chaplin read a jewish prayer, and the jewish chaplin read a muslim one. Seems the message in each were faily generic- do good, love thy fellow man, rise above… that sort of thing. At the time, one request for a prayer for the plebes that “they do better on their PRT.” Even with eyes lowered, it got a good chuckle in the room and even one Hoo Rah!!!</p>
<p>My only complaint about noon meal prayer was that it’s boring, and sometimes you just wish they would shut up so you can eat. I’d often find time right after formation but before the prayer to slip away and go relieve myself or call a loved one. By the time I got back everyone was seated, and my squad leader never really tripped. </p>
<p>The prayers were from many different religions and some secular philosophies. I don’t think anyone was really offended by the prayers. Those of us who experienced Native American-phile primary education were ****ed off by the Columbus/Indigenous Peoples’ Day prayer, in which the chaplain beseeched God that we all be granted the fortitude & integrity of Columbus. Otherwise, I got the sense that noon meal prayer meant a lot to a good number of mids. The rest of us don’t care either way.</p>
<p>I think the ACLU should become the African Civil Liberties Union, or the Arab Civil Liberties Union, and move their entire operation to a region that has real human rights abuses to deal with; Annapolis is not the haunted darkness that begs for their liberty candle.</p>