I Will Support and Defend....SO HELP ME GOD!

[Bonnie]

Mark Alexander

August 12, 2005

"Whatever may be conceded to the influence of refined education on minds of peculiar structure, reason and experience both forbid us to expect that National morality can prevail in exclusion of religious principle."
--George Washington

There are no ACLU lawyers on the actual warfront with Jihadistan demanding military compliance with the erroneously-named "separation clause." There are, however, plenty of American Patriots on the front who daily offer intercessory prayer to God. Yes, they are in uniform and on official assignment with the U.S. government, and yes, they do petition GOD, not "the man upstairs," "the higher power" or some other PC-neutral deity. They even receive encouragement and guidance from official military chaplains.

How do they get away with it?

Well, the closest any ACLU gofers come to a "warfront" is arguing with their high-brow breed about what wine will best complement their entr?e at fashionable urban bistros. What they don't argue about is their commitment to a vigorous and relentless crusade to remove any reference to God from all public life -- using their cadre of judicial activists to twist Thomas Jefferson's allusion to a "Wall of Separation" into grossly errant interpretations of our Constitution's First Amendment. They want to take "God" out of our national pledge, motto, official oaths, monuments, seals, schools, currency, political dialogue, etc. (Taking God out of places of worship will be next -- after all, they are tax-exempt organizations, synonymous in liberal parlance to "state supported.")

On the real warfront, where uniformed Patriots are defending our Constitution in actual combat operations, there are few atheists in the trenches, but stateside, atheists boldly target the enemy from their lofty ACLU perches. Their most recent military target was the Air Force Academy (USAFA), where a few hand-wringing bed-wetters complained of religious intolerance.

Without the first legal shot being fired, Acting Secretary of the Air Force Michael Dominguez appointed Air Force Deputy Chief of Staff for personnel, Lieutenant General Roger Brady, to investigate this crisis and determine if there was adequate diversity indoctrination for both USAFA faculty and cadets to promote the "free exercise of religion" and comport with the "establishment clause."

General Brady and his brigade were deployed to the USAFA, where they found deplorable examples of intolerance. For example, cadets, 85 percent of whom identify themselves as Christian, were encouraged to attend chapel. If that were not bad enough, an Academy staffer put some New Testament verses in an official e-mail, and worse, some cadets used the USAFA's e-mail system to encourage others to see the movie "The Passion of the Christ."

"There is a lack of awareness on the part of some faculty and staff, and perhaps some senior cadets, as to what constitutes appropriate expressions of faith," said Gen. Brady upon concluding his investigation. "There is a lack of operational guidance that tells commanders and senior supervisors exactly what is appropriate in regard to free exercise of religion." Echoing Brady's assessment, the USAFA's superintendent, Lt. Gen. John Rosa said, "We've got a long way to go."

To that end, the Academy has created a new diversity curriculum called "Respecting Spiritual Values of All People." "This program tells cadets that people believe different things and come from different places," said Gen. Brady. Nonetheless, that did not silence critics like New York Rep. Steve Israel, who said of Brady's report, "It is not a whitewash, but it does resemble a milquetoast." (Seriously, that's what he said.)

Milquetoast notwithstanding, Rep. Israel and the ACLU claimed their first victim in this skirmish. In reviewing promotions for 21 Air Force generals last week, the Senate passed on awarding another star to the USAFA's commandant of cadets, Brig. Gen. Johnny Weida, a 1978 academy graduate and, unfortunately for his future billet prospects, a Christian. (For a full explication on how the ACLU aborted the career of another distinguished American, a USMA graduate and decorated Vietnam veteran, click here. )

His offense: Gen. Weida apparently told cadets in his June, 2003, "guidance" statement that they were "accountable first to your God." Of this overt reference to God, disgruntled USAFA cadet parent Mikey Weinstein whined, "Weida lost his constitutional compass, which resulted in him violating the oath he took to preserve, support and defend the U.S. Constitution."

Ah yes, "the oath he took." That would be the one that concludes, as all official U.S. oaths do, with these words: "So help me God."

On 30 April 1789, America's first Commander in Chief, President George Washington, took his presidential oath of office with his hand on a Bible opened to the book of Deuteronomy, Chapter 28. He ended his oath with "So help me God," which was added to military oaths by Act of Congress 29 September 1789, and all officers and enlisted personnel have proclaimed them since.

In his "Inaugural Speech to Both Houses of Congress," President Washington said: "It would be peculiarly improper to omit, in this first official act, my fervent supplications to that Almighty Being who rules over the universe, who presides in the councils of nations, and whose providential aids can supply every human defect." Such was the conduct of his administration.

In his Farewell Speech of 19 September 1796, George Washington concluded with these words: "Of all the dispositions and habits which lead to political prosperity, Religion and morality are indispensable supports. In vain would that man claim the tribute of Patriotism, who should labor to subvert these great Pillars of human happiness, these firmest props of the duties of man and citizens. ... Let it be simply asked, where is the security for property, for reputation, for life, if the sense of religious obligation desert the oaths, which are the instruments of investigation in Courts of Justice? And let us with caution indulge the supposition, that morality can be maintained without religion. Whatever may be conceded to the influence of refined education on minds of peculiar structure, reason and experience both forbid us to expect, that national morality can prevail in exclusion of religious principle."

However, "subverting the firmest props" which "sustain security for property, for reputation, for life" is the axis of the ACLU's agenda.

Despite misguided efforts by the DoD to accommodate that agenda, the fact remains, on the frontlines of our war against Jihadistan, that four words ultimately transform American citizens into Soldiers, Sailors, Airmen, Marines and Coast Guardsmen -- "So help me God."

God bless you Patriots!

http://www.townhall.com/columnists/markalexander/printma20050812.shtml

 

[mattskramer]

"Whatever may be conceded to the influence of refined education on minds of peculiar structure, reason and experience both forbid us to expect that National morality can prevail in exclusion of religious principle."
--George Washington

Was George Washington correct in all that he ever said?

There are no ACLU lawyers on the actual warfront with Jihadistan demanding military compliance with the erroneously-named "separation clause." There are, however, plenty of American Patriots on the front who daily offer intercessory prayer to God. Yes, they are in uniform and on official assignment with the U.S. government, and yes, they do petition GOD, not "the man upstairs," "the higher power" or some other PC-neutral deity. They even receive encouragement and guidance from official military chaplains.

So. It is quite arrogant and presumptuous for them to assume that they speak for all members of the military with they petition God.

How do they get away with it?

Well, the closest any ACLU gofers come to a "warfront" is arguing with their high-brow breed about what wine will best complement their entr?e at fashionable urban bistros. What they don't argue about is their commitment to a vigorous and relentless crusade to remove any reference to God from all public life -- using their cadre of judicial activists to twist Thomas Jefferson's allusion to a "Wall of Separation" into grossly errant interpretations of our Constitution's First Amendment. They want to take "God" out of our national pledge, motto, official oaths, monuments, seals, schools, currency, political dialogue, etc. (Taking God out of places of worship will be next -- after all, they are tax-exempt organizations, synonymous in liberal parlance to "state supported.")

So, is it your position that interpretation should be based upon the original intent of the writers. If so, there can be no consideration made for their biases or for contemporary circumstances. The constitution has received amendments since it was signed. Also, it is unlikely that the founding fathers ever considered the vastly different religious views that would be held by US citizens today.

Why are churches tax exempt? They are physical buildings like any other building. Anyway, as long as all "churches" are tax exempt (for the sake of fairness) I have no objection. I think that I'll turn my home into a church: "The church of MattSKramer". It has a nice ring to it. Then I can apply for tax exempt status. I'll believe that the ACLU attempts to take God out of places of worship when I see it.

On the real warfront, where uniformed Patriots are defending our Constitution in actual combat operations, there are few atheists in the trenches, but stateside, atheists boldly target the enemy from their lofty ACLU perches. Their most recent military target was the Air Force Academy (USAFA), where a few hand-wringing bed-wetters complained of religious intolerance.

Atheists are in the military. I don't know of any member of the ACLU who has Enuresis. Any such person should see a doctor.

Without the first legal shot being fired, Acting Secretary of the Air Force Michael Dominguez appointed Air Force Deputy Chief of Staff for personnel, Lieutenant General Roger Brady, to investigate this crisis and determine if there was adequate diversity indoctrination for both USAFA faculty and cadets to promote the "free exercise of religion" and comport with the "establishment clause."

General Brady and his brigade were deployed to the USAFA, where they found deplorable examples of intolerance. For example, cadets, 85 percent of whom identify themselves as Christian, were encouraged to attend chapel. If that were not bad enough, an Academy staffer put some New Testament verses in an official e-mail, and worse, some cadets used the USAFA's e-mail system to encourage others to see the movie "The Passion of the Christ."

Did those who do not identify themselves as Christian get an encouragement to attend chapel? What would have happened to them if they asked their superiors to not make such a recommendation to them? Was there a Mosque for any cadet who may be Muslim? Did the Academy staffer include verses from the Koran and the Bhagavad Gita?

"There is a lack of awareness on the part of some faculty and staff, and perhaps some senior cadets, as to what constitutes appropriate expressions of faith," said Gen. Brady upon concluding his investigation. "There is a lack of operational guidance that tells commanders and senior supervisors exactly what is appropriate in regard to free exercise of religion." Echoing Brady's assessment, the USAFA's superintendent, Lt. Gen. John Rosa said, "We've got a long way to go."

Oh please! It is not that difficult. Simply consider the other people. Ask each cadet about his or her religion. Find out what the cadet considers to be a "holy book" and an appropriate place of worship. Then make appropriate accommodations.

To that end, the Academy has created a new diversity curriculum called "Respecting Spiritual Values of All People." "This program tells cadets that people believe different things and come from different places," said Gen. Brady. Wow! You told people that people believe different things and come from different places. Incredible!! I guess that the 85 percent could not figure it out for themselves. That must have been big of you. Congratulations. At least it is a start.

Nonetheless, that did not silence critics like New York Rep. Steve Israel, who said of Brady's report, "It is not a whitewash, but it does resemble a milquetoast." (Seriously, that's what he said.)

Awwww. Don't be too hard on the fella. At least he is trying.

Milquetoast notwithstanding, Rep. Israel and the ACLU claimed their first victim in this skirmish. In reviewing promotions for 21 Air Force generals last week, the Senate passed on awarding another star to the USAFA's commandant of cadets, Brig. Gen. Johnny Weida, a 1978 academy graduate and, unfortunately for his future billet prospects, a Christian. (For a full explication on how the ACLU aborted the career of another distinguished American, a USMA graduate and decorated Vietnam veteran, click here. )

His offense: Gen. Weida apparently told cadets in his June, 2003, "guidance" statement that they were "accountable first to your God." Of this overt reference to God, disgruntled USAFA cadet parent Mikey Weinstein whined, "Weida lost his constitutional compass, which resulted in him violating the oath he took to preserve, support and defend the U.S. Constitution."

Ah yes, "the oath he took." That would be the one that concludes, as all official U.S. oaths do, with these words: "So help me God."

He should not have received the award, but I would have criticized him differently. He was arrogant and presumptuous against those who don't believe in God. His comment, to theists and non-theists, of being accountable "your God" was not appropriate even though the official US oath does include "So help me God". Such a phrase should be removed.

On 30 April 1789, America's first Commander in Chief, President George Washington, took his presidential oath of office with his hand on a Bible opened to the book of Deuteronomy, Chapter 28. He ended his oath with "So help me God," which was added to military oaths by Act of Congress 29 September 1789, and all officers and enlisted personnel have proclaimed them since.

In his "Inaugural Speech to Both Houses of Congress," President Washington said: "It would be peculiarly improper to omit, in this first official act, my fervent supplications to that Almighty Being who rules over the universe, who presides in the councils of nations, and whose providential aids can supply every human defect." Such was the conduct of his administration.

In his Farewell Speech of 19 September 1796, George Washington concluded with these words: "Of all the dispositions and habits which lead to political prosperity, Religion and morality are indispensable supports. In vain would that man claim the tribute of Patriotism, who should labor to subvert these great Pillars of human happiness, these firmest props of the duties of man and citizens. ... Let it be simply asked, where is the security for property, for reputation, for life, if the sense of religious obligation desert the oaths, which are the instruments of investigation in Courts of Justice? And let us with caution indulge the supposition, that morality can be maintained without religion. Whatever may be conceded to the influence of refined education on minds of peculiar structure, reason and experience both forbid us to expect, that national morality can prevail in exclusion of religious principle."

So. George was wrong in this case and the phrase should be removed. Perhaps an atheist may someday have the courage to refuse to include that phrase when he takes the oath. I still recall the brave atheist Marlin Brando as he refused to use the phrase "so help me God" when he served as a witness in a court case.

However, "subverting the firmest props" which "sustain security for property, for reputation, for life" is the axis of the ACLU's agenda.

To remove reference to "God" is to subvert the firmest props which sustain security for property, for reputation, for life?!?! Perhaps, for some desperate people, that prop serves as a crutch. Sometimes I wonder: Would Christians still have their faith if it were not for government recognized reminders of God ("in God we Trust", "one nation under God", "so help me God", etc.)?

Despite misguided efforts by the DoD to accommodate that agenda, the fact remains, on the frontlines of our war against Jihadistan, that four words ultimately transform American citizens into Soldiers, Sailors, Airmen, Marines and Coast Guardsmen -- "So help me God."

No, it does not. The words "so help me God" does not transform someone into a soldier. A commitment by someone (be he an Atheist, Theist, or Agnostic) makes him into a soldier. Would there be no US soldiers if the phrase were removed? I seriously doubt it.

God bless you Patriots!

Thank you for your service, and may whatever you believe in give you peace.