where the writers are
Imagine the Right's Religion
Amazon.com Amazon.com
Powell's Books Powell's Books

For decades I’ve been told by my adversaries in the religious right that they only seek a “place at the table” for their Christian worldview – well, their version of Christianity, that is.

But evidence has mounted recently that what they really want is something else entirely: to own the table, determine what goes on it and force-feed everyone the same gruel they consume.

Consider the outcry over the U.S. Air Force Academy’s decision to alter the Honor Oath cadets take every academic year. It formerly concluded, always, with the phrase “So help me God.”

The problem is that some cadets didn’t want to say a religious oath. Since it makes no sense to force a person to swear an oath that he or she disbelieves, academy officials made the eminently sensible decision to make the God part optional.

Religious right groups immediately went ballistic. The Tupelo, Miss.,-based American Family Association is urging its legion of followers to write to the commandant of the Academy to “preserve religious liberty by defending the oath and recommending the Academy keep the current language intact.”

The Family Research Council’s Tony Perkins asserted in a radio broadcast that even giving non-believers the option not to say “God” would somehow reflect an “anti-Christian bias.” According to Perkins, making these four words optional would not be “inclusive” since it would not include military personnel like George Washington, whom he claims initiated that phrase. (Washington didn’t do that, but that’s another column.)

Think about this for a moment. How does it protect “religious liberty” in this multi-cultural and multi-religious nation to force all cadets to affirm support for something an increasing number of them do not believe is true?

Read the rest at The Washington Post.

3 Comment count
Comment Bubble Tip

right wing intransigence

Mister Lynn,  I enjoyed reading your comment on the Air Force oath but I fear we are only talking to each other. Just as the right can only hear each other. What could possibly be wrong with "optional"? Some swear to God they'll do it, others just swear they'll do it. I believe honesty of expression is more important and reliable than faking adherence to something that really isn't felt or believed. Now if the Academy had ordered that nobody could say it in the  original form that would be another matter.

But we all just witnessed -- from afar, thankfully -- a slaughter where anyone who couldn't recite from the Koran would be killed. "Optional" is the difference between them and us. But for how long? ---------- Charlie

Comment Bubble Tip

I like you...

You should join me as a blogger for the HuffPo. Good words. I'm going to add your bood to my reading list.

Comment Bubble Tip

a pleasure

Steve, (Guess that's okay.) My computer was down for a few days and was just revived 15 minutes ago. When my computer lady left the first thing I saw was your welcome comment. First time I saw the term HuffPo too. I'll look into it and see if I can get on it. Thanks, though, for the comment. I've found that as long as I keep the blogs or comments light and fluffy I get responses but as soon as I get serious there's dead silence. (So to speak.) So when I say, "welcome" I do mean welcome. Thanks so much. ------- Charlie