Given this one here: http://www.truthout.org/docs_2006/100807J.shtml (http://www.truthout.org/docs_2006/100807J.shtml)


This one might get some wheels: http://www.truthout.org/docs_2006/091807R.shtml (http://www.truthout.org/docs_2006/091807R.shtml)

Been following this for a few weeks now. This is but one case among many of proselytization becoming unofficially official military policy -- it's apparently quite widespread at the USAF academy in CO. Onward Christian soldiers, and all that.

Will make for some interesting questions to ask those running for federal office?

I can attest that fundamentalist proselytizing/pressure has been part of the culture at the USAF academy for at least 25 years, as alluded to in the second article; it was already becoming an issue when I had acquaintances there while I was in ROTC before dropping out of college and enlisting, and their competition drill team was already thick with zealots when we would see them at the drill meets, conspicuously praying, etc. This was, ironically enough, going on simultaneously with the first generation female cadets going through the academies (the first females graduated the USAF academy in 1981) and the unprepared and frequently actively disdainful/misogynistic staff being hapless to prevent, and often contributing to, an environment where the females were being almost constantly sexually (and otherwise) harassed and the rape rate topped 30%. By contrast, the non-academy Air Force and Navy ROTC detachments, which lacked a captive, highly constrained and enculturated audience, had relatively low harassment rates and relatively cordial relations between the sexes, Tailhook and other scandals notwithstanding (and much less proselytizing, although it went on).

It's interesting, and somewhat heartening, that Weinstein, the fellow heading the organization filing the lawsuit, has such strong conservative and military credentials; it bodes well for the suit getting some traction, and indicates that at least *some* conservatives get that the religious fundamentalism that they let spring up like a weed for the sake of expedience and marketing value, having been allowed to take over, now poses the same dangerous threat to liberty that we ostensibly shed the blood of our soldiers for.

That military officers would actively oppress and seek retaliation against soldiers asserting their First Amendment rights is reprehensible, but unsurprising (petty retaliation by command officers and NCOs occurs over many things, including gender, sexual orientation, politics, and religion); although I was pleasantly suprised by the direct and bold language used in the lawsiut and the language used by Weinstein upon filing the lawsuit particularly impressed me (pasted for the click-impaired/lazy):

"Today, we are boldly stabbing back against an unconstitutional heart of darkness, a contagion of fundamentalist religious supremacy and triumphalism noxiously dominating the command and control of the technologically most lethal organization ever created by humankind: our honorable and noble United States armed forces."

I do hope that the US District Court judges that hear this give this case the consideration that it deserves, regardless of their own religious affiliations, something that even Reagan, bless his Alzheimers' addled, in its own way dangerously zealous soul, seemed to understand most of the time.

Regards,
Nydia

Will make for some interesting questions to ask those running for federal office?

What will be even more interesting is the dances around the interesting questions.

That military officers would actively oppress and seek retaliation against soldiers asserting their First Amendment rights...

Sorry, but when I was in the Army, I remember being told that serving in the Armed Forces suspended many of our Constitutional rights.
While I agree, the Armed Forces are no place to be "Bible-thumping", if a soldier exercises "Freedom of Speech" during an operation where silence is required, it could prove detrimental. I would expect an officer to oppress such actions, if this were the case.

The Court of Military Appeals now holds that servicemen are entitled to all constitutional rights except those expressly or by implication inapplicable to the military

If you look online, there are many instances in which soldiers in the Armed Forces have tried to assert their constitutional rights as having been violated, through the UCMJ. As far as I can tell, the prevailing thinking is, the constitutional rights of soldiers are at the whim of the military.

http://supreme.justia.com/constitution/article-1/44-raise-and-maintain-armed-forces.html

Sixee, I am aware of the oath we took and that military personnel have suspended or curtailed Constitutional rights in certain areas for the sake of command and national security. However, this has *nothing to do* with this case and the rights being trampled on here are explicitly guaranteed even to military personnel (hence Muslim, Native, and Wiccan chaplains, among other things). If you want to nitpick, fine, but be aware that I used the exact language the litigant used in this case - and ugh, I'm late for work. Do you have any *salient* reply to this thread?

Regards,
Nydia

Ok, when I was in Basic Training in Ft Jackson, SC, I attended Sunday Services.
Not because I was a Christian or felt pressured to "convert", far from it.
It was the closest I was allowed to the female recruits, the whole time I was there....:devil

If it gives a person a way to cope with the pressures of serving in the Armed Forces, I say, more power to them.
I was a Wiccan in my Permanent Duty station stateside, and never felt persecuted for my beliefs.

The story related, if found to be true, is appalling. Hopefully, the truth will come out of it all.
Kudos to the soldier, for standing up for his beliefs, or lack thereof.

I was a Wiccan in my Permanent Duty station stateside, and never felt persecuted for my beliefs.That's great, though prior to last April there was an official policy (http://www.startribune.com/484/story/1138325.html) against having the Wiccan pentacle placed on a soldier's gravestone. That recognition didn't stop the army from removing from the chaplain corps a Pentecostal chaplain who had converted (http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/02/18/AR2007021801396.html?sub=AR) to Wicca. Persecution still exists.

And your reply still has nothing to do with Nydia's point.

Sorry if I was a bit snippy in that post btw - I was both rushed and had a blinding headache at the time. Now that I've made it through my morning lab and had my morning caffeine and 800 mg of Ibuprofen and can think halfway straight, I want to address why fostering a culture of fundamentalist Christianity in the military goes far beyond 'offering comfort' or simply impinging on the *personal* rights of soldiers, but is in fact dangerous both to command and control and to national security - in short, it undermines the ability of the military to perform its function in a rational manner at all levels, and is *dangerous* for this reason, beyond being unconstitutional and generally unpalatable.

Take a good look again at the quote I highlighted above, and consider what the emphasis of this lawsuit is on - it's not just about the liberty of individual soldiers, but something even more fundamental - the danger represented when a culture of extremism and blind zealotry is allowed to take over the apparatus of the most powerful military in the world. It is a culture that resists asking rational questions, putting evidence above ideology, or even reasoning in a rational fashion and as such poses a jeopardy to the *mission* of the military.

It is arguably this culture of fundamentalism, above and beyond the usual motivation/inculcation by which military command officers and personnel operate, which has resulted in both the Iraq debacle itself (and we have direct evidence for this with regard to our (cough) Commander in Chief and his inner circle) and why many of those in command have stayed silent for so long in the face of mountains of evidence that our divine mission in Iraq was a hubris and zealotry-driven, reality-ignoring, stinking quagmire of a failure - they *believe* that God is on their side, so to speak. Now the administration is pushing for us to go to war with Iran and I would argue that said culture of religious fundamentalism blinds our military command to thinking critically about *why* we might go there, *what* the objectives are, and how to go about accomplishing them (those questions should be being asked by our brass *before* we engage, btw :) ). Prying the tentacles of fundamentalism back out of the military and restoring it to a secular force, where all faiths are tolerated and their individual agendas are recognized as separate from the military mission, is crucial in order for it to be able to act on evidence and reality - in other words for it to successfully function on said missions - and to understand what 'preserving freedom' really means.

Regards,
Nydia

Now the administration is pushing for us to go to war with Iran They are?

This is the part, where we are told the media (under the control of GWB) is trying to scare us into allowing this to happen.

They are?

Cheney has been advising Bush to attack Iran for the last half year at least, as has been reported in newspaper and television media by those in the administration.

One must wonder if Cheney wants Iran attacked because he knows what they have, having assisted in it's development via Halliburton contracts. Aw, c'mon, Akipt, ya know I had to go there. :D

I am sorry for derailing this thread, but this type of assertion and allegation happens way too often on this board.

Cheney has been advising Bush to attack Iran for the last half year at least, as has been reported in newspaper and television media by those in the administration.

The harshest I've seen is "all options are on the table" and sit down, this is going to be a crippling blow -> "The Iranian regime needs to know that if it stays on its present course, the international community is prepared to impose meaningful consequences."

All options are on the table for a military strike on Canada. Doesn't mean it's ever going to happen though.

And the French have said harsher things concerning Iran than Bush/Cheney.. so please, adjust your omgbushisevil rants accordingly.

Ok, when I was in Basic Training in Ft Jackson, SC, I attended Sunday Services.
Not because I was a Christian or felt pressured to "convert", far from it.
It was the closest I was allowed to the female recruits, the whole time I was there....:devil

If it gives a person a way to cope with the pressures of serving in the Armed Forces, I say, more power to them.
I was a Wiccan in my Permanent Duty station stateside, and never felt persecuted for my beliefs.

The story related, if found to be true, is appalling. Hopefully, the truth will come out of it all.
Kudos to the soldier, for standing up for his beliefs, or lack thereof.


I went to the Episcopalian services at Ft. Jackson b/c they let us have coffee and tea after the service. :D Plus, the Baptist service was held inside the battalion and I wanted as far away from there as I could get!!! :D

I am sorry for derailing this thread, but this type of assertion and allegation happens way too often on this board.



The harshest I've seen is "all options are on the table" and sit down, this is going to be a crippling blow -> "The Iranian regime needs to know that if it stays on its present course, the international community is prepared to impose meaningful consequences."

All options are on the table for a military strike on Canada. Doesn't mean it's ever going to happen though.

And the French have said harsher things concerning Iran than Bush/Cheney.. so please, adjust your omgbushisevil rants accordingly.

A simple flick of the search wrist reveals.....

The vice-president, Dick Cheney, has long favoured upping the threat of military action against Iran. He is being resisted by the secretary of state, Condoleezza Rice, and the defence secretary, Robert Gates.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/usa/story/0,,2127115,00.html



Seymour Hersh reports the White House dismissed a classified CIA assessment that found no evidence of a secret Iranian nuclear weapons program.


http://video.aol.com/video-detail/cheney-pushing-iran-war/3991700138


Seymour Hersh’s latest article (http://www.newyorker.com/reporting/2007/10/08/071008fa_fact_hersh) in the New Yorker reports that: the White House has tasked the Joint Chiefs of Staff with redrawing plans for a possible attack on Iran. The administration wants to shift away from Iran’s alleged nuclear weapons program, to Iran’s alleged interference in Iraq as the latest casus belli.

From the Telegraph (http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/main.jhtml?xml=/news/2007/09/30/wiran130.xml): The US is training Gulf air forces [eg., the United Arab Emirates, Jordan] for war with Iran.

From the New York Times (http://www.nytimes.com/2007/09/30/us/politics/30watch.html?ex=1348804800&en=99584dd6163c334b&ei=5090&partner=rssuserland&emc=rss): The new, deep-pocketed conservative group Freedom Watch, which is led by two former senior White House officials, “will sponsor a private forum of 20 experts on radical Islam that is expected to make the case that Iran poses a direct threat to the security of the United States, according to several benefactors of the group.”

From Pakistan’s The News (http://thenews.jang.com.pk/daily_detail.asp?id=74168): Iraq’s vice president, Adel Abdul-Mahdi, says “his country will not be used as a base to launch attacks against Iran or Syria.”From the AP (http://apnews.myway.com/article/20070929/D8RV6ST00.html): Iran’s parliament approved a non-binding resolution on Saturday to label the CIA and the US military “terrorist organizations.”

From Raw Story (http://rawstory.com//news/2007/Combat_Outpost_Shocker_The_base_that_0928.html): The US is building a military base five miles from the Iraq-Iran border.

From Steve Clemons at the Washington Note (http://www.thewashingtonnote.com/archives/002381.php): Clemons hopes someone will “ask Joe Wilson how he squares Hillary’s vote in favor of the Kyl-Lieberman Iran resolution…. Hillary helped give the White House (which she may very well occupy) implicit authority to trip into war with Iran. The Joe Wilson I know wouldn’t be too pleased with Hillary’s vote….”

Via the Progressive Daily Beacon (http://www.progressivedailybeacon.com/morenews.php?id=3127), from the Telegraph: The Bush administration has ordered American diplomats to create a dossier detailing Iran’s violations of international law, which would probably be used to justify war. The full story is here (http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/main.jhtml?xml=/news/2007/09/30/wiran230.xml).

UPDATE:

From Talking Points Memo (http://talkingpointsmemo.com/archives/054582.php): “There are two big articles (AP and NYTimes) on the right-wing pressure Freedom’s Watch and two big facts that stand out from them. First, both articles note that Freedom’s Watch is made up of Bush-Cheney big-money givers and former staffers at the White House. But the AP makes explicit what the list of personnel makes clear: These aren’t people close to “Bush” or “the White House”. It’s more specific than that: The activists and givers are people close to Dick Cheney. Second, as the NYT explains, coming off the Petraeus press-rollout, Freedom’s Watch’s next press campaign is for confrontation (i.e., war) with Iran.

Put the two together, and you understand what’s coming.



http://noquarterusa.net/blog/2007/09/30/pushing-for-iran-war/

The push for war can be easily located: it stems from the office of Vice President Cheney. Newsweek reports: There are still voices pushing for firmer action against Tehran, most notably within Vice President Dick Cheney’s office. But the steady departure of administration neocons over the past two years has also helped tilt the balance away from war. One official who pushed a particularly hawkish line on Iran was David Wurmser, who had served since 2003 as Cheney’s Middle East adviser. A spokeswoman at Cheney’s office confirmed to NEWSWEEK that Wurmser left his position last month to “spend more time with his family.” A few months before he quit, according to two knowledgeable sources, Wurmser told a small group of people that Cheney had been mulling the idea of pushing for limited Israeli missile strikes against the Iranian nuclear site at Natanz—and perhaps other sites—in order to provoke Tehran into lashing out. The Iranian reaction would then give Washington a pretext to launch strikes against military and nuclear targets in Iran. (Wurmser’s remarks were first reported last week by Washington foreign-policy blogger Steven Clemons and corroborated by NEWSWEEK.) When NEWSWEEK attempted to reach Wurmser for comment, his wife, Meyrav, declined to put him on the phone and said the allegations were untrue. A spokeswoman at Cheney’s office said the vice president “supports the president’s policy on Iran.”

The notion that Israel would be used as a U.S. proxy in the launch of an air war against Iran is hardly far-fetched. Security experts in Israel now regularly state off-the-record that last year’s disastrously misplanned Lebanese campaign was timed and stage-managed by the White House, and that the impetus for it came from Vice President Cheney with the involvement of Elliott Abrams and David Wurmser. So the tactical notion of using Israel as the “tip of the spear,” which is frequently labeled by Middle East experts as lunatic, has a well established provenance. The real question, of course, is whether Cheney is the author of the president’s policy on Iran. If he is, then another war is on the horizon, no matter what the generals think.

http://www.harpers.org/archive/2007/09/hbc-90001292



A former official on the staff of U.S. Vice President Dick Cheney, has reportedly confirmed the vice president has been pushing for war with Iran.

David Wurmser, Principal Deputy Assistant to the Vice President for National Security Affairs since 2003, according to two knowledgeable sources, told a group of people Cheney was considering having Israel launch missile strikes on the Iranian nuclear site at Natanzto, to provoke Iran into lashing out.


http://feeds.bignewsnetwork.com/?sid=284861


Hmm...

so please, adjust your omgbushisevil rants accordingly.

Please see above post. And Akipt, regardless of how far into your pillow you bury your head, the fact will remain that Cheney is an egomaniac who could care less about anything but himself, his family and his bank accounts. He loves power. His attempts to portray himself as a patriot are disgusting, when his business practices are taken into account.

And I would gladly lay the violation of church and state constitutional protections by the military brass at his feet if I could.

I went to the Episcopalian services at Ft. Jackson b/c they let us have coffee and tea after the service. :D Plus, the Baptist service was held inside the battalion and I wanted as far away from there as I could get!!! :D

LOL thats classic Fild...at Parris Island I went to church solely to get a break from the freakin' DI's.

the biggest bummer was once someone farted really loud in church and we paid dearly for it.

Please see above post. I see lots of speculation and dubious sources. Again, the French Foreign Minister can be quoted directly as being much more threatening than either Bush or Cheney. Try again.

"A former official on the staff of U.S. Vice President Dick Cheney, has reportedly confirmed the vice president has been pushing for war with Iran. "


a former staff member, was it his gofer who got pissed at Cheney so now nay says him for attention.

My fathers brothers roomate in college said " .... "

and I went to church during bootcamp in San Diego for a chance to sleep and the cookies kool aid were a nice added bonus. It was a simple all protestant service wrapped up into one.

When I went through basic training, the options given on Sunday were:
1- Clean the latrines, do pushups or run around the barracks
2- Go to church

There was most certainly pressure to do the second. I viewed it as a good chance to get a nap.

I don't think that the religious pressure put on people in the military is anything new. I think that people are perhaps more willing to speak out against it than they have been in the past, though. I also think that the press (the internet in particular) is more able/willing to spread the news around as well.

I see lots of speculation and dubious sources. Again, the French Foreign Minister can be quoted directly as being much more threatening than either Bush or Cheney. Try again.


So what exactly constitutes a non-dubious source? I'd take the Guardian over Fox News anyday. Also, will you explain to me how the French PM threatening Iran in any way negates the fact that Cheney is on the record regarding military actions against Iran, which is the issue at hand?

Well, he was a big jerk when he said it!

Unless it proves their point it is a dubious source. People constantly link to Wiki sites, which can be edited by anyone, and yet complain about other sources...

When I went through basic training, the options given on Sunday were:
1- Clean the latrines, do pushups or run around the barracks
2- Go to church

There was most certainly pressure to do the second. I viewed it as a good chance to get a nap.

I don't think that the religious pressure put on people in the military is anything new. I think that people are perhaps more willing to speak out against it than they have been in the past, though. I also think that the press (the internet in particular) is more able/willing to spread the news around as well.

We still had to wax and shine the bay floor and clean the latrines but we were given a set time to do it in and that occurred after church service. If you didn't want to go to church you had "free" time which consisted of writing letters to home or squaring away your wall locker, shining boots, etc. We were not pressured to do one or the other. We were not allowed to attend services of any kind for the first two weeks and I remember losing the priviledge once b/c some dumbass did something that got the whole battalion smoked one Sunday. It sucked :(

If you didn't want to go to church you had "free" time which consisted of writing letters to home or squaring away your wall locker, shining boots, etc.

I remember a time I fell asleep on the floor next to my bunk one Sunday morning.
Fortunately, my own snores woke me up before my drill sergeant found me there....

Unless it proves their point it is a dubious source. People constantly link to Wiki sites, which can be edited by anyone, and yet complain about other sources...

So what exactly constitutes a non-dubious source? How about some quote from Bush or Cheney or Rice or someone other than an ex-family member's dog who suddenly got sick on the phone when asked to verify what he barked at?

what's wrong with newsweek ~kelraz's negative rep hit
Don't make me laugh. Did you even f'ing read what Newsweek wrote? /boggle

I'm not denying here that military action against Iran is off the table. But military action of any level should never be taken off the table, including using nukes. Ask Obama about his plunge in the polls after stupidly claiming they'd be off the table for him.

Will we attack Iran? Probably not, not during Bush's term. Will we set up a base on the Iraq/Iran border to stave off their war against Iraq? Already being done.

What right do we have in denying Iran access to nuclear power?Just so everyone knows, I puke a little in the mouth whenever someone says this.

Anyway, when Iran can contribute something to world civilization more complex than a pensil eraser then they can have nuclear technology.

Right now all it exports is terrorism and persian rugs. Oh and while they're at it, they may investigate those little girls and all the not-homosexuals they stone to death. Fix those things, then we can talk about you joining the post-20th century.

Anyway, when Iran can contribute something to world civilization more complex than a pensil eraser then they can have nuclear technology.


And what are India and Pakistan's contributions that make them more acceptable for having nuclear technology? Other than being "allies"?

Will we set up a base on the Iraq/Iran border to stave off their war against Iraq?

LOEL.

And what are India and Pakistan's contributions that make them more acceptable for having nuclear technology? Other than being "allies"? /smirk

Right now all it exports is terrorism...

Yeah, we're making this up as we go along.

http://www.state.gov/s/ct/c14151.htm

If you want to dispute Iran's status on that list, feel free to write your congressman.