In what may be one of the more unbiased presentations of the “media controversy” thus far, the Christian Post presents a somewhat fuller picture of the nuclear missile officer course that floated to the surface a few days ago.  They are the first large media organization to highlight the fact the brief wasn’t exclusively Christian:

The section also cited biblical figures including Abraham, Samson and David as religious figures that fought wars in a righteous manner. Additionally, a picture of a menorah was featured on a slide highlighting the Maccabees’ revolt against their oppressors.

In fact, they are also the first to consciously highlight that the brief wasn’t even exclusively religious: 

The course also taught ethical principles such as a “win at all costs will cost you.” A nuclear ethics section encouraged trainees to consider the deadly power of nuclear weapons and ask such questions as “Can you imagine a set of circumstances that would warrant a nuclear launch from the U.S. knowing that it would kill thousands of non-combatants?”

The article extensively quotes Mat Staver, founder of the Liberty Counsel, responding to the criticism of the course.  At one point he said:

“Allowing chaplains to include Christian values and themes in ethics presentations does not violate the establishment clause. It’s not even a mixing of church and state,” asserted LC Founder Mathew Staver.

which is, of course, categorically true even to the most cynical observer.  He also said

“it’s a violation of freedom of religion when the Air Force seeks to suspend this ethics course solely because it has some Christian themes that are being taught by chaplains.”

That is debatable.  As was noted previously, the military is entirely entitled to run this course however they choose, including eliminating it altogether.  It is not an exercise of religious freedom, nor does it establish a religion, nor is it a religious “test.”

Staver does raise a potentially valid point, however.  When the military takes targeted action based purely on religion, it may be an issue of religious freedom and appropriate government conduct.  For example, pulling a course purely because it had religious content — despite the fact the religious content violated no standard and may have served the intended academic purpose — could arguably be described as creating an environment hostile to religion, which the government cannot do.

Staver took issue with the Air Force’s decision to “wrongly allow[] themselves to be influenced” by Michael Weinstein’s contradictorily named “religious freedom” “group.”  The Christian Post quotes Weinstein saying the training

“comes across as Jesus loves nukes, nukes are good, it’s inevitable, it’s part of what we should be doing,” said Weinstein.

Anyone who actually looked at the Air Force material would quickly see such a characterization is asinine, but Weinstein knows gross caricatures get more attention — and most people won’t bother to look at the actual course material to find out he’s egregiously misrepresenting it.  The internet is awash with people who will join a cause against the military saying “Jesus loves nukes.”  Many of those same people won’t bother to find out for themselves that the military never said that.

That’s not true of everyone, of course.  A self-described atheist Poli-Sci teacher defended the study of Just War theory as necessary, regardless of the religion or ideology of those who formed the basis of it centuries ago.  A former Air Force officer helped explain Weinstein’s gross mischaracterization of the Air Force course:

As a former AF missileer, I actually took this course as part of my training. We always concluded the lecture with a prayer, a $20 donation to the Pope, and everyone walked over to the local confessional to bare their souls.
 
No, wait. As I recall, it was a short lecture targeted mostly at conscientious objectors. The bottom line of the class, aethiest [sic] or no, was, “Don’t take this job if you cannot turn the key.” By lobbying to eliminate the class, the anti-God community has made it more likely, not less, that religious beliefs will enter into military decisions…because those military officers will no longer be told “we don’t care about your religious objections, the Pope says it’s okay”.

When recently challenged by a pastor to provide “documented evidence” that “fundamentalist Christian doctrine teaches that war is a good thing,” which was taken from Weinstein’s prior characterization of this Air Force course, Weinstein fumbled over himself and said “Read the slides in question.”  Naturally, the slides neither say nor imply any such thing.  As is common, Weinstein is unable to provide actual evidence for a sensationalized and inflammatory quote that was little more than an intentional effort at getting attention. 

For its part, CNN weighed in as well, finally noting at least a portion of the very valid reason the Air Force had the course in place to begin with:

The briefing was meant to mimic an academic setting where concerns could be voiced, according to Smith who claims chaplains were used to oversee the briefing for that reason.

“A chaplain is not required to take action if concerns are voiced,” [Air Force spokesman David] Smith said.

For those that still haven’t gotten it, the objective of the course was to address the officers’ possible objections to the use of nuclear weapons — objections that might include components of religion, morality, history, justice, or others, each of which was addressed in turn.  Despite the 3.5 slides of Christianity dominating the news, the other 38 slides in the two-part ethics course were equally as valid.

In the end, Mat Staver was able to accurately summarize Weinstein’s “position” on “religious freedom:”

Staver argued that Weinstein’s position on religious separatism in the military is “inconsistent with our history; it’s consistent with the First Amendment; it’s contrary to freedom of conscious [and] freedom of religion and it is simply nonsensical.”

Valid.

With reference to the ADF.