Our Christian Soldiers

[elamigo]

Originally Posted by ParallelJJCat

Requiring mandatory prayer IS establishing religion.

If you look at the historical record the original intent was not to have a state religion as in England. Look at the different actions in the states and presidents after the Constitution was signed and you will see how much they not only supported prayer in different types of governmental events and procedures.
Don't take me wrong. I am for not forcing anyone to pray but forcing someone to pray and say that is establishing religions does not apply. Actually, I would not support what the Founding Fathers did regarding religions in schools, universities, and other situations. We have as a nation gotten away from that but through judicial activism in the courts. That is the part I do not agree with. I agree with you but I do not agree with people try to say that that is what the Constitution says because they Founding Fathers did not support your views with their actions out there in society.

Originally Posted by ParallelJJCat

Offering prayer or even hosting prayer is not, so long as one can opt out...

I agree.

Originally Posted by ParallelJJCat

And when he speaks of the amendment, he's not saying the entire branch is violating it. He's saying the people he worked with were violating separation by making religious belief a requirement. He's in essence saying the spirit of the amendment was being violated by those meant to protect the Constitution.

If you meant separation between church and state. I suggest you read the letter Jefferson wrote and what did he mean with a wall. Also, who he wrote that letter to in response to a request from a church.

[elamigo]

Originally Posted by LuminousTruth

You are wrong in quoting the Constitution to support your stance.

If at the academy they take OUR money, than having monotheist prayer is respecting the establishment of religion. Religions are all corrupt and deserve equal respect to law-abiding Satanists and polytheists.
If you wish to pray at the academy, no one is going to stop you. But if you wish to not pray, they will shun and oppress you? No that should be unacceptable. Being as none of the Founding Fathers had any clear understanding of science and ethics as we do today, they were indeed many Deists within the government. And back then it was as hard for an Atheist to be considered for Government as it is Today, if not harder. Atheists were even compared to Fundamentalists and bad Christians, by Thomas Jefferson... yet even he was slandered as a "Howling Atheist" by his political opponents so that they could gain some votes.

Today, what is wrong with prayer is that it is not as psychologically useful as it was before. Prayer is not a tool one should use to oppress atheists, to find out which are the self-respecting atheists and make things less easy on them. Indeed, I doubt Jesus himself would condone public prayer.

The pagans and Jews saw nothing wrong with prayer at public events because they are the corrupt ancestors of today's biased Christians. There is plenty of corruption in these practices, and Jesus even mentions it in his quotes.

Plus, the cadet is claiming something the constitution DID say, because all men are EQUAL... and This cadet has a right to Freedom of Speech and bringing forth his grievances.

The constitution Has been torned by those who do not wish to act ethically and civilly in our "New Secular Order"

So, what exactly does the Constitution not say about oppression of atheists in the Military?





O.k. so nothing specific about oppressing atheists on merely religious grounds in the Military. It would certainly outline a grand corruption if another amendment is forced.

I will summarise my response to your message this way. I do agree with some of the principles you are stating. However, because I agree with you it does not mean that I will let that to loose my ability to see things as they are i.e. that the Constitution framers meant what you are saying. I am glad that we have changed but I do not agree we have changed by judicial activism. The procedures that the Constitution has set have not being followed. In my opinion the Constitution is useless because we now have judges that set policy. Government leaders do use the courts to go along with their agendas at the expense of the original intent. Take care.

[ParallelJJCat]

Originally Posted by elamigo

[/font][/color]
If you look at the historical record the original intent was not to have a state religion as in England.

I'm aware.

Again, we are not talking about hosting prayer. The president can call for a moment of silence and this does not violate separation. The president can offer prayers himself.

But here is a situation where prayer is required, rewarded, and failure to pray is punished. The reason I said the spirit of the thing is being transpressed is precisely because seperation of church and state refers to the government passing laws esbalishing religion. Since no law has been passed by Congress requiring soldiers to pray, the separation of church and state itself has not been violated.

But the spirit of it certainly has. If you want to look at Jefferson, he strongly believed that religion is between a man and his God. I sincerely doubt the idea of a soldier to be forced to observe a religion he did not adhere to would have sat well with the man.

If my job were to require prayer tomorrow, they would not be violating church and state because they are not the State, nor are they Congress. But they would be violating my state's discrimination laws, which includes discrimination on religious grounds.

But when you are speaking of a military branch, it gets much thornier because the military is part of the government. Even if there aren't laws being created to enforce prayer, forcing it through peer pressure and rewards is violating the idea that Jefferson held dear...that a man should be free to follow his religion without interference from the government. The military represents our government and our ideals, so getting it right is meaningful in a way that goes beyond simple adherence.

[ted08721]

You know I posted this in another thread it actually belongs here seeing how this thread is about religion and the military

From the article "The true nature of evil is subtle.It uses a virtue! patriotism,” love for our country - to convince us to do things against the will of Christ."

It goes on to say we can't give our country/government our ultimate, unquestioned loyalty, only Christ gets our ultimate, unquestioned loyalty.

The true nature of evil is subtle.It uses a virtue! patriotism,

[elamigo]

Originally Posted by ParallelJJCat

I'm aware.

Again, we are not talking about hosting prayer. The president can call for a moment of silence and this does not violate separation. The president can offer prayers himself.

I think you and I have more afinity that what it seems.

Originally Posted by ParallelJJCat

But here is a situation where prayer is required, rewarded, and failure to pray is punished..

Even though that was not originally enforced by the Founding Fathers because they saw it differently than you I agree with you in principle.

Originally Posted by ParallelJJCat

The reason I said the spirit of the thing is being transpressed is precisely because seperation of church and state refers to the government passing laws esbalishing religion.

Agreed but there is more to it. The separation of church and state as viewed today is not what was viewed in the past by the Founding Fathers. In the letter the is constantly quoted on what Jefferson said is a wall to keep the government away from interfering with religion. It is very often misquoted.

Originally Posted by ParallelJJCat

Since no law has been passed by Congress requiring soldiers to pray, the separation of church and state itself has not been violated.

I was a Soldier for 32 years, retired in 2010, and I was in numerous ceremonies where prayer was done. I will say that I never saw any leaders mandating Soldiers to pray. He may have included prayer in a ceremony. I and many of my peers did not care for praying. We just stayed quietly polite. It is a simple courtesy for those that prayers was important. Once I became a leader on certain ocassion did respect a request from others not to be in a ceremony where prayer was going to be said.

Originally Posted by ParallelJJCat

But the spirit of it certainly has. If you want to look at Jefferson, he strongly believed that religion is between a man and his God. I sincerely doubt the idea of a soldier to be forced to observe a religion he did not adhere to would have sat well with the man.

Well, I got news for you. He did support something like this. That is what I mean that the Founding Fathers did have a different view that we have today. Personally? I am glad we have departed from that. What I do not agree is how we have by eroding the principles in the Constitution. We could have done that still following the principles.

Originally Posted by ParallelJJCat

If my job were to require prayer tomorrow, they would not be violating church and state because they are not the State, nor are they Congress. But they would be violating my state's discrimination laws, which includes discrimination on religious grounds.

I do not know the exact wording of your state laws regarding that but just like that this is in the spirit of the Constitution and I agree with that.

Originally Posted by ParallelJJCat

But when you are speaking of a military branch, it gets much thornier because the military is part of the government. Even if there aren't laws being created to enforce prayer, forcing it through peer pressure and rewards is violating the idea that Jefferson held dear...that a man should be free to follow his religion without interference from the government. The military represents our government and our ideals, so getting it right is meaningful in a way that goes beyond simple adherence.
[/font][/color]

Again, here is where I believe you need to do further research about Jefferson and a lot of other founding fathers and what the states had enacted AFTER the Constitution was ratified.
Peer pressure? I will tell you this. I do not agree that peer pressure is enough for me to support banning prayer, specially at any of the military academies. If you buckle under pressure because those around you are praying, you have not business to handle further pressure in the battlefield.

The bottom line to me establishing religion is mandating an official religion from Federal Government. That is why it says "Congress shall make no law...." If you notice "no law" and to me that means either way for or against establishing religion. Many of the Founding Fathers knew what they had in mind because in some cases they established rituals like praying when Congress open their sessions. They did not see that as establishing religion. I can go on and on. Maybe later I can give quotes from Jefferson and many others regarding this issue and I believe you would be surprised based on todays views. Take care.