News National Interfaith Alliance Lawsuit is TOSSED OUT

  • Thread starter Thread starter mugaliens
  • Start date Start date
AI Thread Summary
Four faculty members from the USAF Academy, supported by the National Interfaith Alliance, filed for an injunction against the Academy's National Prayer Breakfast, primarily objecting to the selection of Lt. Clebe McClary as keynote speaker. Concerns were raised about potential career repercussions for those who chose not to attend, despite the event being optional and poorly attended. A judge dismissed the lawsuit, citing a lack of evidence, reinforcing that government facilities can host religious events as long as no single religion is favored. Discussions highlighted differing interpretations of the First Amendment regarding the separation of church and state, with some arguing that taxpayer money should not fund religious activities. The debate underscores the ongoing tension between religious expression and government neutrality in the military context.
  • #51
nismaratwork said:
I'm sorry mug, but I agree with this 100%.

Did you not read where I said prayer breakfasts are paid from voluntary donations to the chapel, not taxpayer funds?

I know it's unpopular, but nonetheless, it's what I believe. To me, the history of any involvement of religion and state has no positive outcome in the long run.

Really. Have you done any psycho-social studies to determine the primary impetus behind our winning World Wars I and II, if not the cold war? Or the motivation behind why the U.S. leads the world in charitable contributions to needy or disaster-ridden people?

If you believe these decisions were made void of any religious basis, you'd be ignoring the fact that most folks serving in the military and civilian areas of government, from your average city mayor to most presidents of the U.S., have had significant religious convictions.

I find it far more disturbing that most large-scale massacres and genocides, to the tune of more than 100 million people total, have been promulgated by the a-religious, untroubled as they were by an apparent lack of moral conviction.

I find that last to be a very important concept at its most basic level, and it's one that a prayer breakfast which our MILITARY and politicians patronize is just that.

It appears you're intentionally side-stepping the concept of the term "voluntary," as in "not compulsory." Yes, a couple of leaders have "highly encouraged" their troops to attend, and wrongly so. These incidents, however, are few and far between, and pale to near nothingness compared to the vast majority of prayer breakfasts which are run properly - I never witnessed a single incident of such "emphasis" associated with the prayer breakfasts throughout two decades in the military. Mikey Weinstein would love for you to believe they are ubiquitous. Please do the world a favor. Don't believe his rhetoric. He has a huge bone to pick, most likely due to having had one commander who overstepped the line.

If I know the military, there's already an anonymous tip line, spot surveys, and someone way smarter than I am in statistics to ensure the results are adjusted to eliminate biases.

There is another side to this supposed "Freedom" that you get when you mix religion and government...

Contrary to your misdirected words, it's not a "mix." Members of the military are afforded the opportunity to participate in religious services. Contrary to Weinstein's babble, it's not mandatory.

I think that as long as religion is inextricably tied to functional "values" that show up in politics, we're going down the wrong path.

Modern history says otherwise.

Freedom exists when nobody has the advantage...

Freedom exists when every has a choice, to either believe, not believe, participate, or not participate. That's what we have today. No one's twisting your arm. I get the distinct impression, however, you'd eliminate the opportunity, the choice, if you could.

That's messed up.

Remove it from the debate, and put it back in temples, churches, mosques, etc... and homes.

Now we're getting somewhere. A chapel is a church, but so are homes, and gathering of people who share similar religious convictions. In fact, the term church never original referred to a building at all, but a body of believers. The building was called the temple.

Being raised a particular way, attending any service you want, reading what you want, and expressing that legally (pretty broad terms in the USA) isn't enough?

Sure it's enough. But again, I get the distinct impression you're wanting to eliminate any and all religious expression by changing it from it's current status as legal, to that of an illegal act.

"Congress shall make no law ... prohibiting the free exercise thereof." I don't get the impression you're espousing freedom of religion. I get the impression you're espousing freedom from religion.

Wrong country.
 
Last edited:
Physics news on Phys.org
  • #52
This is now resulting in numerous guideline violations of stating opinion as fact, failing to cite sources, misinformation, and slurs against the non-religious.

Closed.
 

Similar threads

Replies
65
Views
10K
Replies
20
Views
4K
Back
Top