Thursday, March 13, 2014

Just Say “No” to the Military







The military has become a hostile place for Christians. Just recently Todd Starnes of FOX reported that:







The Air Force Academy removed a Bible verse posted on a cadet's whiteboard after it determined the posting had offended other cadets. The [offending] cadet wrote the passage on the whiteboard posted outside his room. "I have been crucified with Christ therefore I no longer live, but Christ lives in me," [Gal. 2:20].







Mikey Weinstein, director of the Military Religious Freedom Foundation, complained that:







"It clearly elevated one religious faith (fundamentalist Christianity) over all others at an already virulently hyper-fundamentalist Christian institution," he said. "It massively poured fundamentalist Christian gasoline on an already raging out-of-control conflagration of fundamentalist Christian tyranny, exceptionalism and supremacy at USAFA."







While Weinstein demanded disciplinary action against the cadet and his superiors, the AFA demurred. Retired General Jerry Boykin, executive vice president of the Family Research Council responded:







"Once the academy allowed cadets to use these whiteboards for their personal use, censorship of religious commentary is unacceptable. Either the Air Force Academy is very confused about the Constitution of the United States or they don't really believe in the liberties that are provided by that document."







I wonder if Weinstein would protest if instead a cadet had drawn an obscene sexual drawing or if he had advertised a gay pride event. Certainly, others would have been offended by such expressions. After all, everyone is offended by many different expressions. If mere offense became the basis for our laws and regulations, we would all be required to live in isolation.







While it is understandable that the Christian faith is offensive to some, it is equally understandably that the secularist faith is offensive to others. In fact, every law is offensive to somebody. Instead of bringing us together, our present form of secularism has driven us apart into hostile and competing camps.







Instead, we need sane laws – laws that will enable us to live together and at peace with our varying worldviews. To this end, freedom of expression and religion, as protected by our Constitution, must be reaffirmed.







Until this time, those who have become the victims of an increasingly militant and totalitarian secularism will be coerced to run-for-cover. Perhaps it’s time for Christians to avoid the military until guarantees for their rights can be reaffirmed.

6 comments:

  1. "Perhaps it’s time for Christians to avoid the military until guarantees for their rights can be reaffirmed."

    That's a reasonable position to suggest.

    ReplyDelete
  2. I cannot agree with you two, gentlemen. If Christians do not stay and fight for our rights, we will increasingly be marginalized by the anti-God people and the Weinsteins of the US will win by default. Christians cannot complain legally unless we are participants in the struggle. Otherwise, it is only a moot point and Christians become 2nd class citizens.

    I close with a quote from Martin Luther King.

    "There are just laws and there are unjust laws. I would agree with St. Augustine that an unjust law is no law at all... One who breaks an unjust law must do it openly, lovingly...I submit that an individual who breaks a law that conscience tells him is unjust, and willingly accepts the penalty by staying in jail to arouse the conscience of the community over its injustice, is in reality expressing the very highest respect for law."

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Larry, I certainly respect your strategy. However, I am more inclined to allow the militant secularists to directly reap the consequences of their policies when Christians refuse to enter into an environment that is hostile to their faith.

      Also, I fear that such pressure and hostility might also cause Christians to compromise their faith to their own great detriment.

      Delete
  3. Lucas, For some reason your response did not appear. Therefore, I am posting it:

    "I don't think "dogmatic" means what you think it means, sir.
    You said you are certain your wife exists. How are you certain? You are not omniscient, and you must rely on fallible senses to feed you information. Given the axiom that your senses COULD BE WRONG, how can you make knowledge claims based on them?"

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Lucas, This kind of radical skepticism undermines all knowledge and communication. Applying the same skepticism, I could ask:

      1. How do you know that your questions are even logical?
      2. How do I know that you exist and that I should respond to you?
      3. Perhaps you are a mere figment of my imagination?
      4. Perhaps I don't exist. Perhaps instead I am just part of a universal consciousness, perhaps an evil deceiving consciousness?

      Delete