|
|
Latest Column:
Stopping
the Meltdown
What Beltway Republicans Need To Do
..........
CaliforniaRepublic.org
opinon in
Reagan country
..........
..........
Jon
Fleischman’s
FlashReport
The premier source for
California political news
..........
Michael
Ramirez
editorial cartoon
@Investor's
Business
Daily
..........
Do
your part to do right by our troops.
They did the right thing for you.
Donate Today
..........
 ..........
..........
tOR Talk Radio
Contributor Sites
Laura
Ingraham
Hugh
Hewitt
Eric
Hogue
Sharon
Hughes
Frank
Pastore
[Radio Home]
..........
|
|
Contributors
Ken
Masugi- Columnist
 Ken Masugi is the Director of the Claremont Institute's Center
for Local Government.
Its purpose is to apply the principles of the American Founding
to the theory and practice of local government, the cradle
of American self-government. Dr. Masugi has extensive experience
in government and academia. Following his initial appointment
at the Claremont Institute (1982-86), he was a special assistant
to then-Chairman Clarence Thomas of the U.S. Equal Employment
Opportunity Commission. After his years in Washington, he
held visiting university appointments including Olin Distinguished
Visiting Professor at the U.S. Air Force Academy. Dr. Masugi
is co-author with Brian Janiskee of both The
California Republic: Institutions, Statesmanship, and Policies (Rowman & Littlefield,
2004) and Democracy
in California: Politics and Government in the Golden State (Rowman & Littlefield,
2002). He is co-editor of six books on political thought,
including The
Supreme Court and American Constitutionalism with
Branford P. Wilson, (Ashbrook Series, 1997); The
Ambiguous Legacy of the Enlightenment with William Rusher,
(University Press, 1995); The
American Founding with J. Jackson Barlow
and Leonard W. Levy, (Greenwood Press, 1988). He is the editor
of Interpreting
Tocqueville's Democracy in America, (Rowman & Littlefield,
1991). [go
to Masugi index]
 Hunting
Religious Zealots at the Air Force Academy
The politically correct assault on religion at the Academy
in Colorado Springs...
[Ken
Masugi] 5/9/05
Having taught
for three years at the Air Force Academy, I have strong opinions
about the institution, mostly highly positive. The overblown
reaction to alleged religious intolerance at USAFA is a topic
we have previously commented
on. The latest
iteration (David Kelly, LAT) seems to stretch some
plausible concerns into silliness: "A history instructor ordered
students to pray before a final exam...." What is omitted from
the article is an assessment of why some cadets feel a need
to assert themselves against those of different faiths.
The same
moral corruption and temptation that prevails on ordinary college
campuses [see my
posts on Tom Wolfe's novel I am Charlotte Simmons] appears
to be receiving a healthy response in affirmation of one's
faith. That religious conviction has its excesses in religious
zealotry is an old story. Studying the Founding Fathers and
Abraham Lincoln is the best cure for such behavior; that's
the approach I took in teaching political theory at USAFA.
But what's the chance of that cure being pushed by the Rev.
Barry Lynn and all the consultants doubtless being enlisted
in confronting this latest jolt to the preparation of young
officers?
In his reporting
on alleged religious discrimination by evangelicals at the
U.S. Air Force Academy, Dan Kelly of the LA Times presents
what amounts to a brief for Barry
Lynn, executive director of Americans United for Separation
of Church and State. (See our previous
post on this issue. I taught political science at USAFA
for three years and saw problems as
well as excellence; see this
post): Nowhere does Kelly, whose latest article is here,
quote a cadet or anyone else who might offer a different perspective.
To the extent
there are abuses and conflicts, they should be seen in light
of other problems. For example, the time allotted (virtually
every cadet minute is planned) for religious clubs to meet
was effectively curtailed, in what was apparently some bureaucratic
struggle. Some Christians felt that their ability to practice
their faith was under attack. Kelly reports “The [critical
outside] report's authors were told that cadets who refused
to attend chapel after dinner were marched by upperclassmen
back to their dorms in a ritual called ‘heathen flight.’” That,
I’m reliably told, is a terrible misrepresentation of a joke:
Having an hour of rest or study was regarded as a bonus. The “heathens” might
well be devout cadets who preferred solitude; the “ritual” was
not religious hazing. Did Kelly not realize that many evangelicals
felt uncomfortable at declining alcohol at raucous unofficial
parties and events? And that they were harassed for not behaving
like, well, like most
college students do? Hence might not any faculty encouragement
of evangelicals in fact have helped serve a disciplinary (i.e.,
secular) purpose?
In defense
of Kelly, it is difficult to get cadets, who think the media
is out to get them, to talk. And they may have been ordered
not to talk. But enterprising reporters should have been able
to get the other view, not one that plays to stereotypes about
evangelicals and the military but one which more accurately
portrays life at USAFA.
Finally,
some moving thoughts by an Academy graduate who contacted me:
....The
Academy has been under attack for a long while. Most of the
attacks, no matter how baseless (consider how few of the "sexual
misconduct" cases have actually been found to have merit
since the initial outbreak of the scandal), erode the Academy's
core. The Academy since its inception has embraced four pillars,
one of them being "spiritual". Yet in my time there, I watched
the cadets embrace this pillar with more fervor than had
been seen in years, yet it seemed that the leadership constantly
tried to hold back this fervor....
[R]eligious
freedom was a vulerability for the Academy as a government
instituion. Clearly the Academy has put itself in other much
more vulnerable situations. Consider ... the fact that it
houses male and female rooms, not just in the same building,
but sharing the same hallways with rooms right next to each
other. This has put the Academy in an extremely vulnerable
position as they realize that college age males and females,
cadets or not are subject to temptation. Yet we have not
seen a movement to get rid of this because it would express
to the public a feeling that males and females would not
be equal (as "separate but equal" is a foul taste in the
mouth of America) Likewise, the Academy knows that when it
has a huge population of life living faithbound cadets ...
it is vulnerable to attacks of "separation of church and
state" issues. What it does not fear and does not consider
itself vulnerable to is an attack on its prevention of the
free expression of religion. Hence it is easier to tell a
Christian group that it may not meet between certain hours
on campus (much like public high schools may try to enforce),
than to try to encourage as much free faith as possible....
How far
have we come? I reflect upon what the soldiers under George
Washington would have thought if their commander was told
that he would not be allowed to pray publicly for them before
they fought for their country….
I think
that the Academy like I said is a soft spot in America. It
is the best and brightest of our nation. We want them to
represent what America stands for. Integrity and professionalism
are high on the list. The Academy was established on the
fact that a cadet's life should be balanced among his academic,
military, athletic and spiritual duties. This was how a professional
officer should be developed. Excelling in one area but not
at the cost of lacking completely in another. For example
the smartest cadet at the Academy would still be disenrolled
if his military bearing was unacceptable, or he was unable
to pass the tests of his physical fitness. In the same way,
all cadets are always encouraged to develop their spiritual
core. Their moral compass is found here. Yet this is with
an understanding that it does not have to be one common religion
to meet this goal, merely the freedom to practice any religion
which would support the core values of Integrity First, Service
Before Self, and Excellence in all We Do.
Unfortunately
those who do not understand these concepts (whether it be
media personalities or liberal political activists) have
aligned themselves with ex-cadets who also perhaps did not
understand them, in an effort to cast down the goal of developing
a spiritual center for the future officers of America. Male
and female cadets worshipping together as brother and sister
of a common spiritual heritage are certainly not the ones
who would be sexually assaulting one another. Those who pray
with one another for pure hearts of integrity are not the
ones sitting before the [disciplinary] honor board.
Yet we
see that so far the answers to every recent Academy "problem" have
been secular in nature. "Female cadets have possibly been
mistreated? Then we shall tear down the words 'Bring Me Men'" [above
the archway leading to the grounds]…. "Give them secular
sensitivity training and this also will alleviate these problems." Only
time will tell what the results of choosing psychological
development over spiritual development will do to the officer
corps of the future. But it is my firm belief that with each
blow of the hammer on the spiritual pillar of the USAF Academy,
we have lost just a little more of what makes America what
she is... tOR
[Note:
More on this from Hugh
Hewitt and Col.
Buzz Patterson.]
copyright
2005 Claremont
Institute.
|
|
|
