Readers’ Responses to Our Question (135)

land australia http://us.cyworld.com/Spirit_Holloween usa woman http://us.cyworld.com/Spirit_Of_Halloween

are night http://www.plime.com/members/FreeRingtones/

cube watch english http://www.bebo.com/HomemadeHallowA0

right juicy clean http://organicconsumers.org/forum/index.php?showuser=3509

Freestinker,

"Are the mealtime prayers written as to include every cadet regardless of their particular religious opinions? If not, then the prayers (at a minimum) are exclusionary and potentially divisive."

As stated, the 'prayers' are very non-denominational and accomidate most every religion (except atheism since to my knowledge they do not pray).

"Are cadets permitted to stand outside the mess hall during the prayer or to sit down and begin eating before the prayer is finished? If not, then the cadets' participation is obviously mandatory."

First, its midshipmen, cadets are at West Point, Naval Academy are midshipmen.
Second, given you dont know that point, this question makes more sense. You seem to be forgetting this is a MILITARY institution. Your question makes no real sense to me, and I apologize that its hard for me to explain, but thats just not the way it works. The size of the hall, which holds over 4000 people, the fact that its pretty difficult to hear the announcements and prayer anyway, and the necessity of remaining with your unit make this unattainable. And again, there is no food out and isnt for some time even after announcements/prayer are finished, it takes a WHILE to serve 4000 people. However, I dont think I would have had a problem with anyone but a plebe (fresman) asking to be excused from announcements due to that had they asked, and if the plebe said that specific reason I probably would also have allowed him/her to miss the prayer. Nor do I think anyone else would. You have to understand that, in general, NO ONE CARES if you listen to/ participate in / or ignore the announcements or prayers. Usually there are plenty of other things occupying your mind there.

"Are mealtime prayers given by government employees on government property on government time? If so, they would (at a minimum) give the impression of government endorsement. "

Carry this argument further and see if you would agree, if a government employee on government property during his lunch break (government time) attended a political speech would you be just as critical? Or would you say its his right to do so?

"Do your religious opinions happen to be in agreement with the standard mealtime prayer?Perhaps this is why you don't see this as an infringement of the rights or others?"

Nice. So you think its okay to minimize / denegrate my personal belief on a legal issue by accusing me of mixing my religious beliefs into the discussion? Not once throughout this entire discussion have I even mentioned my beliefs or used any Biblical, Koranic, Talmudic, or other religious quotation to support my position. My position is solely based on how I feel the Bill of Rights should be interpreted (and I am a strict-constructionist) and my own experience there and as a military officer.

"If a Muslim, Pagan or Satanic prayer was the rule of the day, would you reach a different conclusion."

Who said I am not a Muslim, a Wiccan, Pagan, or Satanist? Does that have anything to do with my argument. I have repeatedly said that I do not feel that asking an anti-theist to REMAIN quiet while those who wish to pray may do so. Be it to Allah, Yahweh, Buddha, Satan, the Sun, Diana, or whoever, it makes no difference to me. The CRUX of my argument now and always is that being allowed to pray for one minute is NOT an INFRINGEMENT on anyones rights.

"Are cadets not mature enough to pray on their own or to organize informal group prayers with their chaplain(s) before mealtime? Why isn't an informal voluntary prayer good enough for those who want to pray? "

Again, you dont understand what its like there, what you state is infeasible simply based on the time and schedule of events there. And the question for me AGAIN is WHY is a rather informal group prayer said before meal SO OFFENSIVE to so many here? My suggestion is that if you have time, visit the Naval Academy for a day, particularly watch noon meal formation and march in, you may even be able to request to attend noon meal, (incidentally if you get to, recommend you go to Riordans and try the crab dip!) if you do, you will see how out of proportion and silly most peoples arguments are here. Not through any fault or intentional misstatement, but simply that the Academy is NOT like any regular college and it seems that most people here are viewing this VERY insignificant event (prayer) through that prism, and it just doesnt fit.

Mr. Mark-
You are right. Religious beliefs of any stripe don’t enter into what is permissible in the USA. The Creator allows human governments freedom to rule. By their actions, governments reveal that man cannot rule man successful (Jeremiah 10:23).

God’s Kingdom is the only solution to all mankind’s problems. Soon God’s government will put an end to all these human governments. (Daniel 2:44). In the meantime, mankind has the opportunity to learn about God’s Kingdom and decide whether they want to be part of God’s purpose for the earth (Zephaniah).

I was responding to your question: “Considering the words of Jesus, how can any Xian advocate that a public display of prayer is proper at any time and in any situation.”
I assumed “Xian” means Christian. You also added, “I’d really like to know.” So now you know the answer from a Christian. There are proper times for public prayer. The Bible shows a true Christian would have no part of a “military” prayer. Nor would a Christian prevent or promote prayer in the military. The more interesting question is, Should a “true” Christian serve in the military?

Dennis writes:
"The ISSUE at hand is a PAUSE before a meal in which a prayer is said, in which those who wish to may participate and those who dont are silent.

"I do not feel that asking an atheist or anti-theist to wait 1 minute while a unit prays with their chaplain and infringement on their rights."

Dennis,

Are the mealtime prayers written as to include every cadet regardless of their particular religious opinions? If not, then the prayers (at a minimum) are exclusionary and potentially divisive.

Are cadets permitted to stand outside the mess hall during the prayer or to sit down and begin eating before the prayer is finished? If not, then the cadets' participation is obviously mandatory.

Are mealtime prayers given by government employees on government property on government time? If so, they would (at a minimum) give the impression of government endorsement.

Do your religious opinions happen to be in agreement with the standard mealtime prayer? Perhaps this is why you don't see this as an infringement of the rights or others? If a Muslim, Pagan or Satanic prayer was the rule of the day, would you reach a different conclusion.

Are cadets not mature enough to pray on their own or to organize informal group prayers with their chaplain(s) before mealtime? Why isn't an informal voluntary prayer good enough for those who want to pray?

Dennis - and thanks for your opinion as well. No one that posts here takes their ideas for anything other than an opinion, although some may be better supported by historical evidence than others.

As to France in WWII, they well realize they were saved from the Germans, mainly by USA forces and have expressed as much on many occasions. We, on the other hand, were spared probable defeat in WWII by fired-bombing Dresden along with the Brits, and of course by dropping A-bombs on Hiroshima and Nagasaki in quick succession - the 63rd anniversary of these catastrophic events are coming up in a matter of days. Talk about civlian casualties - Iraq pales in comparison.

Without the Russians, our chances of defeating Germany prior to the Japanese surrender would have been greatly diminished. As you mention, wars are never fought in isolation, and never or lost singlehandedly. On the other hand, after more than a decade of warfare in Afghanistan, the Russian military was decimated, and this had much to do with the subsequent collapse of the Soviet Union.

WWI was waged mainly in France along the Western Front - they suffered mightily in the Great War, and perhaps never recovered sufficiently to be of much military value in the WWII campaign, coming as it did only 25 years later.

After 100 years of occupation, France departed Vietnam in defeat not too many years before our initial forays in the early 1960s. The French were there so long their influence on the South Vietnamese culture was wide and deep. I witnessed this first-hand during my year in Saigon. We threw all the firepower we had at the NVA, and wisely departed after a mere 10 years. Maybe we are smarter than France or even Russia - but not that much smarter. Otherwise, we wouldn't be in Iraq today making the same mistakes they made.

I predict, you will not see a western-style democracy emerge in Iraq in your lifetime - history, tradition, and culture will determine the eventual governmental forms that take shape in that part of the world - and now they will have a decidedly religious component as well. As always, the chaos of war has unpredictable outcomes. Truly smart people know that in advance and plan accordingly.

As for prayer in the military, I'm still holding out for a universal prayer that offends no one and includes everyone..... maybe the military can benefit from taking a look at the Unitarian Universalist style of prayer one of these days. This faith does arise from an authentic early American tradition - the Unitarian Church was in many cases the church of choice by a number of our early Founders, who were also Deists (but were not trinitarians).

To these early American geniuses, the idea of God was a completely personal and private affair, as it should be even today - and even in the military.

Secular Chaplain,

Perhaps you need to re-read the first line of my post and note that you werent the only one being addressed. Not all my response was directed to you, so consider maybe you are being defensive.

Addditionally, is any defense or challenge of specious claims 'acting defensive' now? Some statements are being made here as if they were fact, instead of being represented as the opinion of the author. You cannot make opinion into fact simply because you wish it to be so. Your opinion about the war is just that, YOUR opinion. Dont write it / present it as something more. You are using YOUR opinion, represented as fact, to further your arguments. Which is an illogical and faulty method of debate. By claiming A is true then B must be true because of A, well if A is just your opinion it doesnt follow that B is true. Understand?

Now for your opinions:
First- "I said an invaded land and an occupied people had a distinct advantage when it comes to a natural built-in group cohesion, above and beyond anything the invading force can sustain over a long period of time - now that is certainly debatable"

This is almost certainly not true. Examine France 1940, Iraq today, Algeria, Vietnam, Korea, etc. Invaded lands tend to have two or more factions that create significant infighting and fractioning. Be it communism vs. republicanism, buddhism vs. catholicism, sunni vs shia, collaborator vs resistance, etc etc. If an invasion has taken place, in most countries through history, the minor or sub-surface factionalism held in check by a 'central' authority tends to come to the surface and cause serious infighting, as we are seeing today, as has been the case in Afghanistan for the last 3 decades, as is the case in most every country that suffers such problems. While in each faction there 'may' be some strong cohesion, taken as a whole, occupied countries suffer a serious challenge in building unity. This was ONLY possible in France during WWII by the existence of outside support from the Allies, NOTE that EVEN THEN the dispute between De Gaulle and Petain was still a serious problem up to the end of the war. In Vietnam, it was not an invaded/occupied country but a unique situation where an unpopular and corrupt minoroty catholic government, installed by france and supported by the US, ruled a buddhist population. The 'unity' of the Viet Cong was negligible at best as far as support from the peasant population. While they lacked the will to resist the communists, the peasant Vietnamese never did much to support them, again, read about Tet and what the Cong THOUGHT would happen then. Generally it takes a serious blood bath after an invasion as one faction begins to seize control of the country and eliminate 'dissenters'. This is the tragedy that the US is trying to avoid in Iraq, which if successful, will be fairly unique in history.

On a quick aside, as far as the ARVN, they were actually in the fight from the very beinning, more along the lines of 20 years, not 10. The fact that they resisted so long and avoided collapse is interesting in itself. WHEN you consider how corrupt and incompetent their leadership was throughout. Dont forget that at times some of their generals were on the NVA pay roll, feeding operational plans to the Cong or NVA before it even reached the participating units. How many similar armies in better circumstances have folded? Again I go to France and point out that they repeatedly were technologically and numerically superior to Germany in WWI, WII, and Franco Prussian War (not so much F-P War though) and collapsed. North Vietnam had all the advantages of geography and facing a government/military weakened and bloodied after decades of fighting and it still took them years to finally break through.

Your last point of having a prayer acceptable/inclusive to one and all, really, is what this is about. The anti-theists want to eliminate the very opportunity to pray as a group, feeling it is a personal thing that should not infringe on their time, even if for only a minute. A point / feeling I am whole heartedly against. I do not feel that asking an atheist or anti-theist to wait 1 minute while a unit prays with their chaplain and infringement on their rights. WERE THE ATHEIST told to have to pray or punished for not participating, I would WHOLE HEARTEDLY support their case. But that is not the case here or even the complaint, but merely the PERCEPTION of discomfort or pressure by a few who, so far as I have seen, can show no tangible effect of their not praying.

The military's job is to kill people, so where does God fit in?

Dennis - I'm not going to reiterate your points, but it's clear that you've misread anything I had to say - and read in your own point of view instead.

I said an invaded land and an occupied people had a distinct advantage when it comes to a natural built-in group cohesion, above and beyond anything the invading force can sustain over a long period of time - now that is certainly debatable, but I never at any time said the insurgents in Iraq were necessarily superior fighters...in fact, that would be a foolish assertion and no doubt untrue, man to man. You're taking a very defensive posture here.

On the other hand, battle tactics are another issue - and IEDs have been used to an inordinate degree in Iraq with a terrible affect. There is no such thing as a fair fight, I don't need to tell you. There have been plenty of collateral civilian casualites all around - as there always are in these conflicts.

As to the injuries, we see the results in the VA every day. Being one of a large group of highly trained and effective fighters is not the only factor at work in any war.

After 5 years and 150,000 troops currently in Iraq, and with at least that many civilian support personnel, we have won plenty of battles, but haven't won any wars - we can argue all day about the justification for invading/occupying Iraq, or lack thereof - the point is, Iraq is a total mess and Afhanistan is backsliding rapidly. It would appear that you continue to support this effort. Am I correct in this assumption?

If we folded our tent tomorrow, it would take about 2 years to fully extract men and equipment from Iraq. All realists know we will be there for years to come - and after 10 years, it still won't be a better idea than the decade we spent in Vietnam.

Contrary to your speculation about my service record, if you'd read what I said, I believe I did mention duty in Vietnam. I personally witnessed a year of continuous high altitude B-52 bombing runs, while steering fighter jets around on the Tan Son Nhut airport runway in 1965-66.

While the Vietcong were eventually marginalized, the NVA were clearly in for the long haul, despite massive losses - the capabilities and fighting spirit of the ARVN is another matter, and quite a debatable point as well. If you can't win a war in 10 years, you can't win the war - who would imagine otherwise?

Victory in Vietnam was never meant to be - folks that carry around the burden of 'defeat' after 30 years while still playing the blame game, are really beating a very dead horse....but with alot of conviction.

PS. I've been to the Wall, and Vietnam was still never a good idea.

Group cohesion (or a lack thereof) is a commonly noted force (among many) in group and social behavior - as noted in every sociology book ever written. This being the case, the dynamic of group cohesion would certainly be in effect in military organizations.

At one point early on in this conversation, I believe we speculated on whether or not group prayer was necessary or desirable in building group cohesion in the military - to be perfectly fair to one and all, we would need a prayer that would neither offend nor exclude anyone, would not show preference for one religious faith over another, or in any way violate one's individual secular right to remain silent during this universal prayer. Can this be done?

I think prayer in the military is highly overrated as an issue, but that's just my opinion......

For Daniel and Secular Chaplain,

Obviously one of two things is true, either neither of you have been in the military, or you never really fit in if you were there.

First off, the Taliban/AQ/Sunni-Shia militias are NOT better man for man in any fight in their own territory. Exactly what metric are you using to make that assertion? Casualty ratio? Territory controlled? Population sympathies? Battlefield victories? On all fronts those elements lose. The casualty ratios are astronomically in favor of US forces in overall and single engagements. The very reason AQ in Iraq have resorted to road side bombs/etc is the unbalanced fighting capabilities of the two forces. Your specious unfounded claim that they are man for man a better fighting force shows your complete lack of impartiality or ability to assess military capability. Likewise, your history is completely off track as well. By 1969, the Viet Cong had virtually ceased to exist as an effective fighting force, their one 'offensive' led to only 2 temporary advances in Hue City and Saigon, both of which did more to destroy them and ruin their local sympathizers (especially after massacres in Hue City) also evidenced by the complete lack of civilians 'rising up' to support them as predicted. Likewise, even the ARVN proved as capable as the NVA and capable of standing their ground WHEN PROPERLY supplied and supported. They stopped the NVA in their tracks during the Easter Offensive of 1972 and likewise, even without support, many units fought hard during the final fall in 1975. So giving communist/extremist armies some free pass on capability and ignoring the evidence is just ignorant and shameful.

Second, Unit Cohesion is NOT just some buzz word created by Washington or anyone else. It actually comes from Ancient Greece, LONG before Christianity existed, if any of you want to pick up a history book once in your life. Unit Cohesion, ie Western Military Discipline, was what enabled Sparta then Rome to field relatively small armies against forces many times their size and win. To brush it aside as propaganda says once again how ignorant you are of military history and culture as well as biased. Its not based on any one thing, but a host of things, but common religion is not one of them. As I could not tell you the religion of anyone who I ever served. Nor could they tell you mine. Trying to bring Unit Cohesion into the argument, or ignorant debates about the 'righteousness' of this or any war are just as stupid and tangential. The ISSUE at hand is a PAUSE before a meal in which a prayer is said, in which those who wish to may participate and those who dont are silent.

To: Pottery

You said the following:

"How does racial prejudice reflect on one's religious beliefs? "

This is not the question at hand, and would appreciate it if you did two things. First off, not try to drive the discussion down an unrelated tangent. Second, dont judge the religion by every single one of its SUPPOSED followers. I have met a lot of people of different faiths. The ones that have even READ their holy book/s are few and far between. So to say that because person 'a' is a 'christian' or 'muslim' and does or espouses action/belief 'b' does not mean thats what their religion teaches. Your statement is very closed minded and prejudicial.

Next you said:
"Regarding the military, mandatory prayer becomes nothing more than a ritual forcing like thinking and common identity among the enlisted men and women."

This discussion has nothing to do with mandatory prayer. As it has been stated in the article and by people who have attended the academy, aka me, prayer isnt mandatory. So to try to drag it down a tangent that EVERYONE with a reasonable system of beliefs would agree with, ie no prayer should be mandatory, is, again, pointless.

For Mr. Mark,

You asked if I would consider that perhaps the practices (and I will add on atmosphere - ie peer pressure dynamics) have changed since I attended. Which in fairness was 9 years ago. I dont believe it has or could. There are many reasons I believe this, but the crux of it is for two reasons. First, I know many recent graduates and current officer advisors there. This story has, as you might guess, been on the alumni skyline before it hit the Post. So first hand accounts have told me it has not changed. Incidentally, though the article was brief, I will again point out that one of the plantiffs said she stopped pretending to pray in her third year and stated no repercussions.
Second, and most important to me, is the idea is very anachronistic to the way the Academy is culturally. Throughout my time there, and I know it still is taught this way, midshipman are imbued with three loyalties - ship, shipmate, self. Meaning their loyalty/duty goes to the ship then to their shipmate, then to themselves. The idea of pressuring or ostracising someone based on religious or non-religious beliefs is counter to that concept and I could not see it happening given how heavily you rely on your shipmates there. Its NOT like other schools, you cannot 'go it alone', hide in your room and just study with your head down. You HAVE to have help from your shipmates, even those you may not like. Its just the way it is. The idea of punishing someone over something as trivial as whether they prayed at noon meal is stupid. The people who felt uncomfortable in not doing so, in my opinion were just being petty and MISSED the boat on what they were supposed to be learning there. Because, 75% of what I learned that is important to me as an officer, wasnt learned in the classroom. These people didnt learn those lessons of duty, loyalty, of teamwork, and tolerance. Yes TOLERANCE, meaning being able to be around people who are practicing something you may not like or believe in and not feel threatened or uncomfortable and being of strong enough character to let them do what they need to do to get through one more day.

I served in the Navy as a medic during the Gulf War and did 3 tours in Iraq. They NEVER made me pray.... in fact I was a non believer in GOD until my 2nd tour when I was almost blown up and shot at, I prayed my butt off. whether or not your made to pray....eventually you will.

Mr. Mark writes: "Our founding documents are entirely SECULAR in nature and intent. Religious beliefs of any stripe don't enter into it."

The Declaration of Independence of the United States says: "When in the Course of human events, it becomes necessary [...] to assume among the powers of the earth, the separate and equal station to which the Laws of Nature *AND OF NATURE'S GOD* entitle them [...] We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed *BY THEIR CREATOR* with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness."

"We, therefore, the Representatives of the united States of America, in General Congress, Assembled, *APPEALING TO THE SURPREME JUDGE OF THE WORLD FOR THE RECTITUDE OF OUR INTENTIONS*, [...] And for the support of this Declaration, with a firm reliance on *THE PROTECTION OF DIVINE PROVIDENCE*, we mutually pledge to each other our Lives, our Fortunes and our sacred Honor."

Full text here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_Declaration_of_Independence

Would you agree that a) The Declaration of Independence is *A* founding document of the United States? b) The text of the Declaration includes several references to God, The Creator, Divine Providence, and the Supreme Judge of the World?

Perhaps you would like to re-phrase your original statement?

My response it to the posed question: Three in 10 Americans acknowledge feelings of racial prejudice, and yet 9 in 10 say they believe in God. How does racial prejudice reflect on one's religious beliefs?

Regarding the military, mandatory prayer becomes nothing more than a ritual forcing like thinking and common identity among the enlisted men and women. Does it make you a Christian to bow your head and recite words, or more likely have a moment of reflection while another recites a prayer? No. It would seem to have little to do with God, but forcing adherence to a dominant belief system, and for those reasons, would good for people who have a common mission as long as the prayer is non-denominational.

I feel that since the time of the Crusades, and the Christian churches in Europe sanctioned it's minions to conquer the lands of non-believers in Christ, for their own good, it's been seen as White. In many minds, such as those who can't quite believe that Sen Obama is Christian, it's not about religion, but our God versus their false God. Our race versus their race. We are Christians. Therefore, many people who think themselves Christian identify with it because of a European cultural heritage, rather than the adherence to crucial tenants of Christianity.

Of course, many people are cafeteria Christians, a majority of us probably, who pick and choose what's real or realistic in Christian doctrine, much of it taken from the Old Testament. I eat shellfish and don't practice slavery, or a number of other things the Old Testament prescribes.

Dear Christie -

What the Bible does or doesn't say about prayer in the public space has NO BEARING WHATSOEVER on the Constitution, and therefore has no bearing on what is permissible in the USA.

Why not quote what the Koran has to say? How about the religious beliefs of Native Americans?

Our founding documents are entirely SECULAR in nature and intent. Religious beliefs of any stripe don't enter into it.

It's that simple.

Mr. Mark:
In response to your wondering of 7/25/08: Is public display of prayer proper at any time and in any situation?

The Bible sheds light on that question if you read:

Solomon’s inauguration prayer before the alter of Jehovah in front of all the congregation of Israel- 1Kings 8:22-53

Prayers at Christian meetings- Acts 1:24-25; 2:42; 4:23-31; 6:3-6; 12:5; 13:1-3; 14:23; 16:25……

The PROPER role of religion in the military?

The PROPER role is to teach that Jesus rules the universe, right down to sub-atomic particles.

And that Jesus saw fit to give the USA only SOME oil.

He gave the rest to that bastich Muhammad.

That was a mistake. And stupid. Only Jesus ain't stupid and he don't make mistakes.

He put all the oil under Muhammad's sand for a REASON.

Jesus is a Muslim terrorist.

And THAT's the proper role of religion in the military. Gitmo Jesus.

The most outstanding mark of true Christians is that they have real love among themselves. (John 13:34, 35) They are not taught to think that they are better than people of other races or skin color. Neither are they taught to hate people from other countries. (Acts 10:34, 35) So they do not share in wars. True Christians treat one another as brothers and sisters.—1 John 4:20, 21.

Jesus taught his disciples to be no part of this wicked world. (John 17:16) They do not get involved in the world's political affairs and social controversies. They avoid the harmful conduct, practices, and attitudes that are common in the world. (James 1:27; 4:4)

Since true Christians practice neutrality when it comes to war, a chaplain employed in the service of any branch of the military, according to the Bible, would not be a true Christian.

The Bible foretold that after the death of the apostles, wrong teachings and unchristian practices would slowly come into the Christian congregation. Men would draw away believers to follow them instead of Christ. (Matthew 7:15, 21-23; Acts 20:29, 30) That is why we see so many different religions, which claim to be Christian, serving in the military.

By contrast, the Bible says: “If anyone makes the statement: ‘I love God,’ and yet is hating his brother, he is a liar.” (1 John 4:20) Jesus even said: “Continue to love your enemies.” (Matthew 5:44)

Only half way through the posts. Mr. Mark has found a vicious bunch of nuts to practice his impeccable reasoning on. Keep up the good work Mr. Mark. I truly admire your calm persistence.

I don't always agree with the ACLU, and this is one of those times, but I believe their activities are an unfortunate necessity. I sure would want them fighting for me if my unpopular beliefs become a crime. Geez, the way it's going they might be a crime already! For any democracy, so-called, to survive it needs to be tested all the time. The ACLU keeps us on our toes, or at least tries to. I just wish congress and da'prez would stop calling us consumers and start calling us citizens again. But still I suppose we don't act much like "citizens" anymore. Can I interest you in a pay-day loan, anybody?

Our War on Terror and Aggression needs no meal prayers just determination and a lot of USA taxpayer money:

And update since someone noted the current War on Terror and Aggression in Iraq:

The terror and aggression via a Partial and Recent Body Count

1) Assassination of Benazir Bhutto

2) 9/11, 3000 mostly US citizens, 1000’s injured

3) The 24/7 Sunni-Shiite centuries-old blood feud currently being carried out in Iraq, 4,127 (3,360 from hostile action, 767 non-hostile)US troops killed and 86,136 – 93,995 Iraqi civilians have died.

http://www.defenselink.mil/news/casualty.pdf

http://www.iraqbodycount.org/

4) Kenya- In Nairobi, about 212 people were killed and an estimated 4000 injured; in Dar es Salaam, the attack killed at least 11 and wounded 85.[2]

5) Bali-in 2002-killing 202 people, 164 of whom were foreign nationals, and 38 Indonesian citizens. A further 209 people were injured.

6) Bali in 2005- Twenty people were killed, and 129 people were injured by three bombers who killed themselves in the attacks.

7) Spain in 2004- killing 191 people and wounding 2,050.

8) UK in 2005- The bombings killed 52 commuters and the four radical Islamic suicide bombers, injured 700.

Other elements of our War on Terror:

1. Saddam, his sons and major henchmen have been deleted. Saddam's bravado about WMD was one of his major mistakes.

2. Iran is being been contained. (beside containing the Sunni-Shiite civil war in Baghdad, that is the main reason we are in Iraq. And yes, essential oil continues to flow from the region.)

3. Libya has become almost civil. Apparently this new reality from an Islamic country has upset OBL and his “crazies” as they recently threatened Libya. OBL sure is a disgrace to the world especially the Moslem world!!! (or is he??)

3. North Korea is still uncivil but is contained. With the opening up of rail traffic between North and South Korea after 50 years and with the assistance of the US Navy in retrieving NK ships and personnel, a fresh sense of civility is afoot.

4. NK has finally started to destroy in nuclear weapons’ capabilities.

5. Northern Ireland is finally at peace.

6. The Jews and Palestinians are being separated by walls. Hopefully the walls will follow the 1948 UN accords and the Annapolis Peace Conference is at least somewhat successful.

7. Bin Laden has been cornered under a rock in Western Pakistan since 9/11.

8. Fanatical Islam has basically been contained to the Middle East but a wall between India and Pakistan would be a plus for world peace. Ditto for a wall between Afghahistan and Pakistan.

9.Timothy McVeigh was executed. Terry Nichols will follow soon.

10. Eric Rudolph is spending three life terms in prison with no parole.

11. Jim Jones, David Koresh, Kaczynski, the "nuns" from Rwanda, and the KKK were all dealt with and either eliminated themselves or are being punished.

12. Islamic Sudan, Darfur and Somalia are still terror hot spots.

13. The terror and torture of Muslims in Bosnia, Kosovo and Kuwait were ended by the proper application of the military forces of the USA and her freedom-loving friends. Radovan Karadzic was finally captured on 7/23/08 and is charged with genocide, crimes against humanity and violations of the law of war -- charges related to the 1992-1995 civil war that followed Bosnia-Herzegovina's secession from Yugoslavia.

14. And of course the bloody terror and aggression brought about the Japanese, Nazis and Communists was with great difficulty eliminated by the good guys.

Dear Pseudo,

You have returned! What do you think of Freestinker's prayer, which I paste from another thread?

Freestinker's Grace:

God's a hunch, let's munch!

I wonder if the Christo-terrorist in Tenneesee said "grace" before his meals...

This military under Momma's Little Cocaine Cowboy and Darth Cheney are using religion, and from reports most often in a way where Xtianity is the only acceptable alternative, to keep the team together in situations where our soldiers are often forced to kill noncombatants in order to survive, because we are at war in a destroyed nation where if the citizens aren't fighting us, they are fighting each other. Our soldiers have been in this illegal and immoral travesty longer than most soldiers were in battle in WWII where at least the enemy war a uniform, and had committed attrocities.

Religion is being used by our military to pump up troops to do battle in a nation (Iraq) when we are engaged in an illegal war of aggression with the sole purpose of destroying a nation to control their resources.

Any clergy involved in this travesty should be very, very ashamed.

Freestinker's Grace:

God's a hunch, let's munch!

Kids, kids. Let's not mish mash about supposed theological differences. That's ridiculous.

And Daniel, if you really think you should base your relationship with Christ based on the musings of one cat, then you need to hit the altar post haste because that just isn't so.

Back to this original thought: the argument shouldn't be over whether the soldiers have the right to pray during lunch, it should be whether the ACLU has the right to mandate WHERE those prayers are focused.

If you're Muslim, pray at Annapolis. If you're Buddhist, chant silently. If you're an Atheist, just shut up and get back to your frozen peas.

ACLU is doing their thing (which is strongly discuss a lot more here: http://hiscrivener.wordpress.com/2008/07/25/aclu-creates-a-new-war-with-the-us-military/)

But that is the rub. In this world where all religions collide, we need some neutral space in government spaces. I get that, but why is it that the ACLU never seems to launch their onslaught against that Muslim, Buddhist or Atheist?

Their focus is Christians, and that is what really should not be tolerated. But it is, and worse, it's expected.

God help us all.

Hammerhead

Is it my problem that you can't understand plain English?

Jesus does not seem to be doing you any good. I do not know what kind of relationship you have with him, but you certainly do not seem to know much about the teachings of Christ nor about Christianity.

So why should I or anyone be influenced by someone like you?

Hammerhead

I was clear in my comments. You did not get the meaning that I intended; you put additional meaning into it, that has come from inside your own head. And then based on your own invented thoughts about what I have written, you have an extremely hostile attitude towards me.

Why don't you try and get your Jesus-mania under control, for your own good as well as others? I think the ugly side of yourself that you show here is exactly the problem we are disucussing, the bullying Jesus-maniacs. You need to get over your sense of entitlement, and be a little more humble towards other people, who have just as much right to be here as you do.

What makes you so supererior to everybody else?

To secular chaplain from Daniel. Thanks for thoughtful reply.

Daniel In the Weasel's Den,
I see.
So although you referenced "conservative religious zeal" "conservative christians acting like bullies",etc,etc,,, in a thread devoted to prayers in the military, you by no means meant to make any connection to the military prayers,or the emphasis military christians saying said prayers might express?
Really?
Do you sell used cars for a living?

Hammerhead said:

"Daniel in the weasel's den,
"untrue",Really?
You descrbed these military prayers as being given with a:

"conservative religious zeal"
(Daniel in the lions den)"

I made a reference to "conservative religious zeal" but I was not referring to prayers before meals. I was referring to Conservative Christians acting like bullies, in general, towards people who do not believe as they do. You are a perfect example of such a person, and such a bully. It is not really necessary for me to explain anymore is there? since you seem to misunderstand, deliberately, what other people say.

I think I was VERY clear in what I meant. You got it COMPLETELY wrong. You don't have very good comprehension skills, in addition to being hostile, paranoid, and a bully. The fact is, you are safe and sound in American with your reiligious freedom, so what are you so afraid of?

Never been in the Military have ditld? There is far more to unit cohesion and discipline than that.

Daniel in the weasel's den,
"untrue",Really?
You descrbed these military prayers as being given with a:

"conservative religious zeal"
(Daniel in the lions den)

Since you have declared yourself to have such insight into the nature of these military prayers,
exactly what specifics are being prayed for?
I would love to know?

Guilt over the Vietnam War?? Not here!! Too bad we did not win it outright. Sure the "commies" took over but now they are happy capitalists and the Communist scourge is history except for North Korea.

Saying Grace before and after meals had no effect on said history.

For Daniel

"Group Cohesion" is some sort of military-speak propganda type word. All soldiers need to promote "group cohesion" is loyaly to home, family, and nation; that is all; pepele can pray, as they want or not; Freedom of religion is not a new or revolutuinary idea. It should not be threatening to anyone. If it is, whose problem is that?

For Hammerhead
Jesus does not seem to be doing you much good. Your comments, which are more rants, have a touch of paranois in them, as I think that just about every single statement that you made is not well-founded, and is untrue, and comes more from some weird delusions inside your head. Maybe you should pray more to Jesus, to help settle your confused mind.

It is easy to spot the people here who do everything short of holding their nose as they proclaim "I support the troops"
What phonies.
All you have to do is put their false,phony,insincere claims of "supporting the troops" in the light of their obvious narrow minded,generalized notions that any prayer said by someone in uniform is by definition a prayer for, killing'em all, plentiful slaughtering,no shortage bombs&bullets,etc,etc, fill in stereotyped answer here________.
So large and tightly secured are their blinders to their thick skulls that the thought never occurs to them that these fine people in uniform may actually be praying for,peace,end of conflict,safety,preservation of life,etc,etc,,,.

In the context of any ancilary issue such as is being addressed by this article they can't help themsleves from letting you know what they really think of the military.
The ironic part is that in actuality they are the true circling buzzards of death. Taking a ghoulish delight in giving you the most recent tally of the american dead.
The deaths being useful to them for political purposes only.

Daniel - thanks for your response. With regard to the idea of 'fighting spirit' and the sense of group identity that this frame of mind necessarily requires - I propose that this is a multi-dimensional problem, and is determined by time, place, and circumstance. Here we're talking about the military in general and warfare by inference.

Religion aside, fighting the enemy on their own soil has proven to be a fairly intractable undertaking (e.g. Vietnam). Particularly so, when the motives for invading a sovereign nation are largely circumstantial and generally suspect.

Initial high levels of motivation for the fight will typically erode, when the operation becomes protracted and mired down - the bodies pile up, with no victory in sight as the years drag on and public sentiment turns negative.

Under these circumstances, religion and a sense of nationalism are clearly on the side of the country that has been invaded and/or occupied. The circumstances predict a very high level of group cohesion and powerful sense of purpose (whether right or wrong) - despite the internecine sectarian strife we see in Iraq, the national identity is very much intact. How this country is broken up or governed after our departure will predictably follow traditional historical trends and patterns - acknowledging this probability 5 years ago would have completely altered the present reality in Iraq. By any measure, we'll be there for years to come in some as yet undefined capacity. This will continue to cost lives and money.

The same holds true for Afghanistan - the Taliban have not gone away and are reported to be growing stronger by the day. Of course the Russians were undone by Afghanistan, so they know all about this first hand. Had we brought all of our force to bear on Afghanistan 5 years ago, we might have made a permanent difference - as it is, no one would predict what the political future holds for these people - and coupled with an economy based on harvesting the opium poppy. Where is the progress in Afghanistan?

So the bottom line is this - how does prayer, a sense of nationalism, and the resultant and highly touted group cohesion prepare an American fighting force to deal with these odds?

Soldiers are by definition put in a position of self-defense under battle conditions - survival is a powerful motivator. And in the end, an invading force is just following orders and trying to survive - with mounting casualties and without signs of progress a sense of purpose begins to fade.

At that point, and after 2-3 rotations in country, group prayer will not go far in re-instilling that original esprit de corps. The odds begin to look very bleak indeed.

In the end, it's much better if the warmakers that are sponsoring prayer breakfasts in the White House pray less and think more, before manufacturing a chaotic state of war that will invariably have unforeseen consequences, and not necessarily of the good kind.

Robert McNamara has only in recent years acknowledged the vast futility of the Vietnam war - and he was responsible in large measure for that monumental fiasco that cost 58,000 American lives, over a million Vietnamese lives, and untold billions over more than 10 years duration.

It is said that certain governmental forces in Vietnam favor McCain for president, because of the likely political and economic fruits in the form of reparations resulting from the collective American guilt still lingering after more than 30 years. Perhaps the Vietnamese still know McCain better than he knows himself.

This is exactly where we are in Iraq today - and this outcome was predicted with certainly by informed observers right from the start.

This business of prayer in the military is just another diversion. All the praying in the world won't change the outcome of unrighteous wars.

Concepts of god are things for churches and temples not mess halls and dining rooms.

Religion In The Military

The issue is an absurdity requiring a hard look. When the U.S. Constitution was enacted, religion was not attacked only until
recently. For example, Jews who have been in this country, nearly four hundred years, an absolute minority, have flourished without experiencing organized recrimination, whether secular or religious. Throughout American history most religions have experienced some form of prejudicial swipes, but not of the kind that demonstrated aggressive energy and finance, as now.

The ACLU evolved from the Bureau of Civil Liberties and its leanings are very definitely to the left; and its activities very definitely selective. A West Coast billionaire is the principal source of funding for the ACLU. The ACLU's activities are less humanitarian, as they are, at resulting divisiveness.

The ACLU's most pronounced direction, during the last decade, is separation of church and state. It's charging along like a loose locomotive, principally Christian directed. As stated, the U.S. Constitution did not establish an incline toward policing religion in the public sphere; after the Constitution was adopted, those that were part of it, did not see ambiguity that intended other. Throughout 175 years, people lived with the secure knowledge that their religion would not be targeted so as to reduce it to something less by government fiat.

Trotsky, Stalin and Hitler, practiced a religion of secularism; they went out of their way to eliminate theism by strong measures, such as, destruction-confiscation of houses of worship; beatings; imprisonment; and death.

The ACLU's direction is apparently motivated by guidance that is
intended to achieve fear. It is organized, and is proceeding along as would a professional that demolishes structures, brick by brick. The absurdity is in perceiving the threat more than detailing the history of the thrusts and direction, state by state. It is likened to a locomotive having both a trail and an objective.

Most curious is the ACLU maintaining a demure position with a public, funded private school ( K-12 ), in Florida, brought about to selectively teach a religious language. Although the cited language could be easily taught in a regular public school, as part of the curriculum, the Congressman who was instrumental in establishing the school, also wants to establish such public funded private schools, to teach a religious language, across the country. The issue in this instance, is selective application.

.

s

Religion In The Military

The issue is an absurdity requiring a hard look. When the U.S. Constitution was enacted, religion was not attacked only until
recently. For example, Jews who have been in this country, nearly four hundred years, an absolute minority, have flourished without experiencing organized recrimination, whether secular or religious. Throughout American history most religions have experienced some form of prejudicial swipes, but not of the kind that demonstrated aggressive energy and finance, as now.

Coincidence or not, in 1917, the Bureau of Civil Liberties was formed to lend help to leftist agitators; most were followers of Leon Trotsky, whose design was world domination by a few. Over 300 of Trotsky's followers in this country, left to effect the 1917 Russian revolution. Trotsky's design included destruction of religious practice, and seizure of all privately owned property, 80% of which was in the ownership of peasants. Trotsky and a minority of his followers, controlled the Duma ( the ruling body in Russia ) for a number of years. During his rule and subsequent rulers, 20 to 50 million Russians died.

It is believed that Trotsky's very aggressive world revolution activities, post 1918, particularly the effected 1918 revolution in Germany, launched Hitler. Trotsky's influence was indeed greatly feared in Western Europe all during the 1920s and early 30s.

The ACLU evolved from the Bureau of Civil Liberties and its leanings are very definitely to the left; and its activities very definitely selective. A West Coast billionaire is the principal source of funding for the ACLU. The ACLU's activities are less humanitarian, as they are, at resulting divisiveness. Coincidence can be seen in many things, and Trotsky's himself mentored, that sowing divisiveness was best way to power and control.

The ACLU's most pronounced direction, during the last decade, is separation of church and state. It's charging along like a loose locomotive, principally Christian directed. As stated, the U.S. Constitution did not establish an incline toward policing religion in the public sphere; after the Constitution was adopted, those that were part of it, did not see ambiguity that intended other. Throughout 175 years, people lived with the secure knowledge that their religion would not be targeted so as to reduce it to something less by government fiat.

Trotsky, Stalin and Hitler, practiced a religion of secularism; they went out of their way to eliminate theism by strong measures, such as, destruction-confiscation of houses of worship; beatings; imprisonment; and death.

The ACLU's direction is apparently motivated by guidance that is
intended to achieve fear. It is organized, and is proceeding along as would a professional that demolishes structures, brick by brick. The absurdity is in perceiving the threat more than detailing the history of the thrusts and direction, state by state. It is likened to a locomotive having both a trail and an objective.

Most curious is the ACLU maintaining a demure position with a public, funded private school ( K-12 ), in Florida, brought about to selectively teach a religious language. Although the cited language could be easily taught in a regular public school, as part of the curriculum, the Congressman who was instrumental in establishing the school, also wants to establish such public funded private schools, to teach a religious language, across the country. The issue here is arriving at selective application.

.

s

liberalism and secularism will lose soon for christianity,not because christianity is the way nor the truth nor life, none of this ,its because liberalism on the decline ,liberalism failed to contain the issues of humanity.

christianity failed to contain humanity as well, but christianity still connected to god or at least christianity believe in the existance of god .

What is the proper role of religion in the American military?

Probably the answer to this question will hinge on whether one is an optimist or pessimist. By this I mean if one is secular, optimistic and believes war is being put at bay more and more each day--that in fact the U.S. military will not be really pressed in the future--then of course there is no need to question what provides group cohesion in the military let alone call for attempts to make the force more religious all to the effort of making it better cohere.

But if one is a pessimist and observes that all too many peoples are nationalistic--and in fact in many places cohering under an extreme religious urge--and furthermore that the world does not seem to be moving as well as we would like toward peace and prosperity--then of course the paramount question for the U.S. military--even U.S. society--is how best it can cohere--and it seems a little religion introduced is not out of the question.

We would like the U.S. military today to be more like American society in general--more multicultural and respecting of this right and that--but the questionable nature of the world makes us on the other hand strive to make it a uniform and coherent force. The question really is which direction the world will take. But it does seem prudent that the U.S. military would be something of stronghold against things going wrong--in other words should be a place which today informs us of how we might have to see and act to preserve ourselves should things go dreadfully wrong. We should probably not have to be indoctrinated into this or that religion, but religion in general (generic statements) should be made as a foundational structure to our nation.

We can be optimistic outside the military and hope all military affairs in the world will be terminated and that we will all become increasingly secular and progressive, but within the military we should be pessimistic--and we should be respectful of such pessimism from a vantage point outside the military as well. American society should have these two sides to its nature. What would be a disaster is to confuse the outside for the inside and vice-versa. The military should understand that society is moving in a secular direction. But secular society should understand that the world is a dangerous place and we might need some of that old-fashioned religion and nationalism. A question of estimations and degrees.

A prayer before meals then--and a prayer that we do not have to fight any more wars.

To the secular chaplain from Daniel. My interest in this question is not nearly as much promoting religion in the military as asking what provides group cohesion in the military from one generation to the next. I believe there are various ways of providing group cohesion and fighting spirit. I also believe in this discussion we are having that people summarily dismiss religion--in fact could care less about group cohesion in the military. It may or may not be that religion is a good binding force for military men. But certainly it seems multicultural NATO is having trouble against religious extremists in Afghanistan. Religion might be a good binding force...The problem seems to be a conflict between forces which are great at breeding a fighting spirit and forces which dispense with such a spirit and which might be forces better suited to a forward movement of the human race. The problem is not all societies move forward to a humanistic view uniformly, so if a society dispenses with methods of cohesion which breed a fighting spirit too soon it might find itself unable to defend itself against a society which is still in "military mode". The U.S. seems to have been having problems for years what with the war in Vietnam and now against religious extremists. Both the Vietnamese and the religious extremists today were more clear in their organization than the U.S. military (clear in aim, organization, way of seeing in general). What does the NATO force in Afghanistan fight for? How does that compare to the Taliban? It seems man for man the Taliban is the superior force--and they cohere by a love of land and religion. I want to see a study which shows how the best fighting forces have cohered--a study which shows their view of the world. I suspect it will be a view which is the opposite of our modern American view--especially opposite a multicultural humane view. This is neither to indict the military or to try to improve it--just get at the matter. But it does seem senseless for a society to become more humane in a world where so many other societies decide to remain beastly. This is why I ask what provides cohesion in the military and why I do not easily join the ranks of those calling for a dismissal of religion in the military, etc. Hope that was a satisfactory answer and not too rambling.

Military Chaplains are generic, something non-military people do not comprenhend. I have 24 yars in the military and have confronted these issues as part of command.

Chaplains pray to "the Commander in CHief in Heaven, or some generic diety. They would never say something to specialize a religion, such as Mary Mother of God (catholic), the one true Prophet (Mohammad) or anything to make an endorsement of a particular religion.

All references should be to “God” and each listener can address that in his/her own terms. There is nothing wrong with talking about “God” as it allows everyone to think of God in their own terms, with out attaching any particular sect to the term.

Mike Pheneger,
The king size sensitive egos I mentioned.
I never said a word with regard to"self-esteem" issues.
Not sure were you got that from.
If I may ask, how do you have personal knowledge of each of the 9 individuals current status?

Dennis -

Thanks for staying engaged in the conversation and for offering your first-hand perspective.

Question: is it not possible that things have changed at the Academy since you were there, and that the tenor of the prayers offered at these mandatory meals and the pressure brought to bear on non-Xians from their fellow midshipmen and even officers has become aggressive and intrusive? That is possible, isn't it?

Dennis,

If the food is not servbed until after the announcements and prayer, then why not simmply serve the food after whatever necessary announcements are maed,a nd let those who wish to pray do so, while those who don't wish topray begin eating?

To Mike Pheneger

Sir, You did well stating your position in a rational way, however, if I may, I would like to express my opinion on some of what you said.

You said:
"...comments that suggested that the midshipmen who contacted the ACLU were sub-standard whiners or had sensitive egos and self-esteem issues.
Those who complained that have not yet graduated are still enrolled at the academy. Generally the service academies do not have cadets or midshipmen who have self-esteem issues."

This is only partly true. As I assume you are directing this generally at me as I have made a case that it is an issue. I do whole heartedly believe this is a confidence issue. As you have said you are in the military, I am sure you have been in a position where you have been ordered or had to support an order with which you do not agree. Correct? Even at times when you felt the order was wrong and detrimental to the units mission, but inherent in your oath of service is to obey orders that are not illegal or that will cause death/serious injury to those in your charge. In a sense, prediction of failure is not an excuse to disobey orders. Similarly here, these midshipman (and officers as in the article it did say some had already graduated so there are officers included in the complaint) are facing a situation with which they do not feel comfortable. However in this case, unlike the assertions of many here, its not even an order. As I am an Academy grad, I spent 4 years there and every meal had a prayer before it. These were in no way mandatory, many people chose not to pray and remain at parade rest or simply at rest. There was no compulsion or even the remotest sense of peer pressure for anyone to join in, and as stated in the article and from experience, the 'prayer' is non-denominational and pretty bland generally, ie any major religion could reasonably find it acceptable. The prayer isnt led by anyone ONE religion, but Rabbis, Catholic and Protestant priests, and any other denomination of chaplain (or midshipman) could lead the prayer. But its not compulsory and it is the only time (except I think graduation) where there was a prayer. So, this leads me to the conclusion that for some reason these 9 people have drawn the opinion that they were being pressured and felt compelled to participate. EXCEPT one admitted she stopped doing so in her third year and YET STILL GRADUATED. So obviously there were no repercussions for her except those she perceived. While I am sure she probably did feel uncomfortable, but it seems she is suffering from an over active sense of self consciousness or self esteem issues and feeling like there is pressure when there is not.
NOW, the repercussions of this, to me, are great. As you said you had been in the military a while. Perhaps in that time you have been in the position to see shots fired in anger, or been in the position to be waiting to cross the line of departure into combat. IS this same kind of officer going to be offended if her platoon or division wishes to pray together? What if the chaplain offers to lead the Battalion (or ship) in prayer in formation (or over the 1MC) before entering combat. Is this "mandated prayer"? Will she feel pressured then? Will she demand it be stopped because she feels compelled to participate? Should the entire battalion/ship not be allowed to participate in a general prayer led by the chaplain before entering combat because this officer has issues with a unit "prayer"? These are the ripple effect questions that this case brings to me and my confidence in anyone who thinks that their right to not have to pray means that others may not do so in front of them, simply because it makes them feel self conscious and uncomfortable.

As far as how the Academy develops its officers, there in no religious inculcation. My entire plebe year there, the only times I saw the chaplains were when I sought them out or when they taught classes for coping with stress (which were COMPLETELY non-religious).

Finally, let me restate the crux of the issue, there is no COMPULSORY prayer, anyone who states there is, is either lying or hasnt been there and is jumping to conclusions to suit their interests.

thanks for water or a meal is ancestral,and is not basically denominational.An atheist can say thanks to his taste-buds,while a believer says thanks to some supreme being.
Gratitude for water or food is instinctive.Just look at your pets,who are non-denominational!
We are told that there are no atheists in fox-holes.I would not like to be put to the test.
In the fox-hole,at death or fear of death,if people cry for comfort to someone or thing--OK.
This could be their God,or Allah,Buddha,sex,power money.Whatever they worship.It is an individual thing,and should not be imposed.
At meals,or prayer-times,people should be allowed to address their particular divine-image in silence,if preferred.

thanks for water or a meal is ancestral,and is not basically denominational.An atheist can say thanks to his taste-buds,while a believer says thanks to some supreme being.
Gratitude for water or food is instinctive.Just look at your pets,who are non-denomina