USAFA Supe Highlights Character, Religion in Recruitment Message
In a widely distributed op-ed style piece, US Air Force Academy Superintendent LtGen Michelle Johnson answered the question “Why you should consider attending a service academy,” though by “service academy” she meant USAFA. The Supe highlighted leadership, followership, sports — and also the culture of character:
At the Academy, character is paramount – while they’re evaluating our Academy we’re evaluating them to determine if they have the honor and fortitude it takes to succeed at the Academy and serve in our Air Force…
Our four-year curriculum and emphasis on character development is interwoven in all aspects of cadet life to create an atmosphere of trust and accountability amongst cadets and staff…
Our emphasis on impeccable character is why it becomes “news” when an extremely small minority of our cadets does not meet our high standards. We hold ourselves to a higher standard.
(Despite using similar language about character, LtGen Johnson’s column did not include a disclaimer as BGen McGregor’s did.)
Character is, of course, extremely important, but simply saying “impeccable character” is required — or even building a “Center for Character and Leadership Development” — doesn’t communicate the kind of character required, or how it will be imbued. This is an ongoing struggle in the military, as the current military leadership — much like military leaders over the past centuries — recognizes the importance of character, but it now struggles with how to engender it in others. This “new” struggle is largely occurring because of the challenge of teaching morality and ethics in an environment some feel must be wholly divorced from religion and God — the ultimate standard of morality and character.
Another interesting reference in LtGen Johnson’s column was naturally to the military’s standard claim of diversity. The two stories she chose to highlight were that of a female high school football kicker and another who built a Hindu temple:
The impeccable character and personal achievements of our applicants produces an exceptionally well qualified and diverse pool of candidates. Consider this: while still in high school, one young man from the class of 2018 spent over a year of his after-school time building a 78-foot tall Hindu Temple.
Implicit in LtGen Johnson’s statement is something increasingly rare from military leaders: There was virtue in a now-cadet spending months in high school working on a religious temple. Increasingly, military leaders have acknowledged the right of service members to participate in religious activity, but have most often declined to acknowledge the virtue in doing so.
LtGen Johnson’s statement about the Hindu temple will likely go unnoticed, but had she said the same thing about a Mormon mission trip or a cadet candidate working on a Southern Baptist church, critics would likely have piled on — first claiming religious activity should not be considered in cadet qualifications, and second that the Supe was “endorsing” the religious activity by speaking positively about it. Neither is true, of course, but this is an age in which any military leader who dares to speak about religious — that is, Christian — activity in a remotely positive light is slammed by Michael “Mikey” Weinstein as a Christian supremacist who wants to instigate a second Holocaust.
Though he is largely — and correctly — dismissed as lunatic fringe now, there are still some who would like to avoid the hassle of dealing with Weinstein at all, and they will sometimes self-censor or censor others not because it is required, but because it is convenient.
That said, as LtGen Johnson’s statement highlights, there is value in talking about diversity. She obviously thought there was good reason to mention a Hindu temple in a recruiting message — a recruiting message to a population which is 0.7% Hindu. There is similarly good reason to freely talk about churches, synagogues, and mosques — and those who attend them. If diversity is to be celebrated, then celebrate diverse diversity — not just the politically expedient elements of it. And don’t censor or quash diversity simply because Mikey Weinstein doesn’t like it.
USAFA can build character, and it does benefit from diversity. That much is true. The methods it can use to develop character and the diversity in its message of diversity may leave room for discussion.
ADVERTISEMENT
The need for disclaimers… The fear of speaking positively about Christianity… What is the world coming to!?!
In the same post lamenting the sad state we are in where Christian military leaders can no longer wear their religious beliefs and values on their sleeves you wrote this:
“This “new” struggle is largely occurring because of the challenge of teaching morality and ethics in an environment some feel must be wholly divorced from religion and God — the ultimate standard of morality and character.”
For emphasis:
God — the ultimate standard of morality and character.
Gee… I wonder why people push back at military leaders who offer their very positive and very constructive thoughts on topics like character? Could it be that they have a habit of inserting potentially inflammatory claims like the bazaar and totally unsupported idea that god is the standard of morality?
Not only are such comments controversial and potentially offensive (to those who do not agree), but when they come from your boss or your boss’s boss in an environment where subordinates feel obliged to support the chain of command – in all areas – then one can see the problem. Add to this the unfortunate history of Christian leaders pushing their views on others, especially at USAFA, and you can now understand why there might be push back when overtly Christian leaders (people who are on record saying ‘god is the source of all morality and character’) take certain positions on certain topics.
@AFP
That George Washington guy. How offensive, right? The point: The concept that morality ultimately derives from the Divine isn’t new; in fact, it was understood for centuries, if not millenia. It may not be popular now, but that detracts not one wit from its truth.
You are conflating “disagreement” with “offense.” Surely you are not suggesting that US troops require governmental protection from “different” ideas? More to the point, though:
This characterization is a frequent refrain of Michael “Mikey” Weinstein, and it makes the claim US troops are one of two things: suck-ups or cowards. Which one are you asserting?
Military members and leaders routinely speak of their ideas, concepts, opinions, experiences, and personal philosophies. This is not only permitted, it is encouraged. “Every Airman has a story,” and telling that story furthers the relationship between the military and the Nation it serves, and it also promotes the military’s goal of enhancing diversity.
When that future officer is commissioned, he shouldn’t be prohibited from telling the story of working on the Hindu temple, nor should the kicker be prohibited from telling the story about her school career on a football team. Just because their subordinates know those things about their leaders does not mean they’ll feel coerced into running out and converting to Hinduism or advocating female NFL players. In fact, some people in their units may be — will likely be — encouraged and inspired in knowing these things about their leaders.
Yet there are people who say they should be prohibited from relating those events from their lives — at least, if those events relate to Christianity. Even if, back to the point, something like morality cannot truly be understood, or at least discussed, without some reference to the Divine.
This “religiophobia” that wants to ban any mention of God in the public or government sphere runs counter to the foundational principles of the United States of America. Religious freedom is the “first freedom,” and liberty is supported with the full knowledge that some may be “offended” by differing ideas — because the best tool against a bad idea is more ideas, not less freedom.
JD – Your appeal to authority (Washington) and appeal to tradition (“it was understood for centuries”) reveal the weakness of your position. I suggest you make an actual argument that god is a good source of morality. When you attempt this – which I doubt you will – prepare yourself for my rebuttal which will be replete with bible quotes and the literal word of god, showing clearly that by today’s standards – really, by ANY standard – the Christian god is among the worst sources for moral guidance.
Back to the argument at hand…
You are guilty of yet another logical fallacy when you challenged me with the false dichotomy argument that I must think “US troops are one of two things: suck-ups or cowards”. Surely there are suck-ups and cowards in our military. But I don’t think a member of the military needs to be either of these to worry about their standing with their chain of command in certain situations. In my own military career, as a USAFA cadet and officer, I experienced fellow cadets, officers and superiors routinely “sharing their Christian perspective” with me and often with larger groups. As an atheist, I was always concerned about revealing my religious views (or lack thereof). Call me a coward if you’d like, but I suspect most readers would acknowledge that certain non-religious admissions can lead to harm for members of the military. This was unquestionably the case in the 1980s.
“How is your walk with the Lord?”
I was asked this on several occasions throughout my career. How, exactly, should a First Lieutenant respond to a Colonel who asks this question without acting as either a suck-up or a coward?
You downplay this very real situation by suggesting that military members are merely “telling their stories”, and hey, if their story happens to be about building a Hindu temple, what’s the big deal? And as far as you are concerned, if their story happens to be about their attendance at a weekend meeting with Pastor Kevin Swanson railing about the biblical justification for the death penalty for homosexuals (see this fine video for an example: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LgZU6pGKgRk), what’s the big deal?
For my part, I don’t want the hyper religious to be discouraged from speaking their mind and sharing their “stories” and values. On the contrary, I want these folks running around telling everyone else how to live their lives and bellowing about what is right and wrong (according to their interpretation of god’s word). What I am after is a more sane, rational public (and military) populated with people who are capable of thinking critically, rejecting all religious nonsense for what it is and dismissing those that make obnoxious statements revealing their antiquated thinking and ignorance.
Someone who says that “God [is] the ultimate standard of morality and character” qualifies.
@AFP
Your logical takedown of my position would have been well done if you were, in fact, addressing my position. Unfortunately, I was not attempting to support an argument that God is the source of morality. The argument (as explicitly stated following the words “The point:”) was that the belief that morality derives from the Divine is neither unusual nor new — in regard to your accusations such beliefs are “bizarre,” etc. The statements made relate to that position without fallacy.
You appear to be misunderstanding “false dichotomy.” Further, your personal example moves the goalposts. Your original statement said “one can see the problem” because subordinates “feel obliged to support the chain of command.” As said in the original comment, Mikey Weinstein uses that same loaded argument to claim that “helpless” (in his words) subordinates are pressured, cajoled, and “coerced” into such extremes as pretending to be Christians simply because they find out their commander is a Christian. That is, they are either attempting to ingratiate themselves to their chain of command or they lack the moral courage to hold on to their own beliefs.
Your “concern” about revealing something about yourself isn’t the same thing, but it is relevant to this discussion:
Simple. With the truth.
What do you think Christian cadets and officers do when, say, their commander and their peers launch into profanity-laced tirades and crude fighter pilot songs, or pressure others into getting falling down drunk, or do anything else that a Christian might feel is inconsistent with his Christ-modeled character? Personally, I hope they have the moral courage to continue to stand for what they believe to be right, even if they feel it isn’t popular.
I would hope that a reason-based atheist would similarly stand on his beliefs. Anyone, Christian or atheist, who changes their appearance or character based on another’s perception, whether as a result of peer pressure or for personal gain, lacks either professional integrity or moral courage.
Given your penchant for referencing fallacies, beware the ad hominem.
JD wrote: “I was not attempting to support an argument that God is the source of morality”
Good thing. You obviously can’t. But let’s split hairs for a moment.
I challenged you to make an actual argument that god is a good source of morality *because you stated this to be the case twice*. Reminder:
“…God — the ultimate standard of morality and character”
“The point: The concept that morality ultimately derives from the Divine isn’t new; in fact, it was understood for centuries, if not millenia. It may not be popular now, but that DETRACTS NOT ONE WIT FROM ITS TRUTH.”
[All caps emphasis added – this is the important part of your quote that you left out in your most recent rebuttal]
And yet you now dodge the chance (the obligation?) to convince me and your readers that your claims were legitimate by suggesting that what you were, in fact, arguing was simply that many people have thought this about god for many years? Is this what you are now saying?
Hmmm… I understood you to be making personal claims that god is the ultimate source of morality and character, so I challenged you to back those claims up. I’ll happily concede all other points about my poor logic and misuse of fallacies if you back up this claim – a claim you clearly made.
@AFP
Your efforts to engage in a discussion are notable, and discussion itself is generally valuable. Unfortunately, your tone is argumentative and insincere, which doesn’t encourage others to engage with you. You’d catch more flies with honey.
Also, you provide dripping critique of others’ positions without volunteering your own. For example, rather than demean a point made here, why not explain how you think the government can impart morality and character on its troops? That is, positively express your own position, rather than simply attacking others’.
You are free to do what you want, of course, but you’ll likely find people more responsive if you’re more approachable. If you only see silence in response to your comments, you’ll know why.
Incidentally, God is the ultimate source and standard of morality and character.
Simply claiming that “God is the ultimate source and standard of morality and character” is not an argument.
Excellent change of subject, otherwise. You are almost certainly correct about my “tone” and “dripping critique”, but let’s agree… this point has nothing to do with what we were talking about. It has nothing to do with the fact that you can’t make a single argument that god is a source of morality and character.
Your advice is noted anyway.