{"id":12306,"date":"2011-08-04T02:24:16","date_gmt":"2011-08-04T07:24:16","guid":{"rendered":"http:\/\/christianfighterpilot.com\/blog\/?p=12306"},"modified":"2015-06-27T19:15:14","modified_gmt":"2015-06-27T22:15:14","slug":"air-force-pulls-nuke-training-over-religion-complaint","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/christianfighterpilot.com\/blog\/2011\/08\/04\/air-force-pulls-nuke-training-over-religion-complaint\/","title":{"rendered":"Air Force Pulls Nuke Training over Religion Complaint"},"content":{"rendered":"

A variety of news sources are now reporting the US Air Force ended a training class after an internet article belittled its religious content.\u00a0 Contrary to some assertions,\u00a0this is actually not a big deal.<\/p>\n

This much has been accurately reported:\u00a0 The Air Force training\u00a0slides had Bible verses, and\u00a0the course\u00a0was led by a Chaplain.\u00a0 There was a public article.\u00a0 The Air Force pulled the course to “review it.”<\/p>\n

Beyond that, much of the other reporting has been misrepresented or inaccurate.<\/p>\n

The Washington Post said<\/a><\/p>\n

The Air Force has suspended a training course for nuclear missile launch officers that used Bible passages and religious imagery to teach them about the ethics of war.<\/p><\/blockquote>\n

Unfortunately, that’s essentially a\u00a0misrepresentation, likely because the conclusion was drawn solely from a copy of the slides\u00a0used in the brief — sans notes or context.\u00a0 The course did not use Biblical citations to teach <\/em>ethics.\u00a0 The ~40-slide PowerPoint presentation<\/a> was\u00a0an ethical discussion <\/em>on the conduct of war, with emphasis on the application of nuclear weapons.\u00a0 (The title of the first seven slides is “Ethics;” the second section is “Nuclear Ethics and Nuclear Warfare.”)<\/p>\n

The course’s\u00a0focus was to address common ethical issues with nuclear weapons (some religious, some not), against which some people might harbor doubts or even objections.<\/p>\n

FoxNews translated this incident<\/a> as<\/p>\n

The Air Force has suspended a course that was taught by chaplains for more than 20 years because the material included Bible passages.<\/p>\n

The course…used Scripture from both the Old and New Testaments to show missile launch officers that it can be moral to go to war.<\/p><\/blockquote>\n

That characterization appears to be generally true: The complaint was over Biblical content, and the Air Force pulled the material over the complaint.\u00a0 It still ignores the fact the rest <\/em>of the course supported the objectives without religious reference.<\/p>\n

The slideshow certainly had religious content.\u00a0 It specifically asked “Can a person of faith fight in a war?” It then proceeded to discuss biographical examples of persons of “faith,” including Col Hal Moore from the famous We Were Soldiers Once, and Young<\/em>.\u00a0 A second section on “Can war be just?” discussed Augustine and the history of Just War theory; it noted both Christian and Jewish perspectives on war.\u00a0 That section concludes with the statement<\/p>\n

“If war in the natural order is inherently unethical, it cannot be a good illustration in the spiritual order.”<\/p><\/blockquote>\n

Notably, the entire “religious” section, including title slides, is 11 of the ~42 slides in the two-part ethics brief.\u00a0 Six slides have Biblical citations; 3 (or 3.5)\u00a0are exclusively Christian.\u00a0 While some of the verbal discussion in the course likely had Christian context, to be clear, only 3.5 of the 42 slides had exclusively Christian references.<\/p>\n

The remainder discuss general ethics as well as the numbers, and the faces, of people killed in Japan following the delivery of the two nuclear bombs.\u00a0 Tellingly, to highlight the fact there is nothing unique to nuclear weapons, the brief notes more people were killed in firebombing during World War II than the nuclear blasts.<\/p>\n

The slides conclude with information on the local religious resources at Vandenberg AFB, including Jewish and Islamic resources.<\/p>\n

There can be little doubt as to the overall objective of the brief.\u00a0 Air Force spokesman David Smith said<\/p>\n

The main purpose of the class was to help missile launch officers understand that \u201cwhat they are embarking on is very difficult and you have to have a certain amount of ethics about what you are doing to do that job.\u201d<\/p><\/blockquote>\n

These young officers were about to enter a career field that, for many years, has carried with it a certain aura (even stigma).\u00a0 Even today,\u00a0despite advances in technology of recent decades, people are generally more concerned about nuclear weapons in US bunkers than the array of arguably more <\/em>lethal conventional weapons the military actually uses<\/em>.\u00a0 Put the word “nuclear” in front of things, and people get tense.\u00a0 (In fact, the reason this controversy has legs is because <\/em>of the word “nuclear.”\u00a0 A vast majority of the internet traffic takes more issue with the US possession of nuclear weapons than the ethics training.)<\/p>\n

Air Force officers come from a cross-section of society.\u00a0 Contrary to popular belief, many of these trainees likely didn’t volunteer for the career of missile officer.\u00a0 (Missileer was commonly the last choice of most new officers, with one exception:\u00a0 Some chose the job because they heard it was so boring there was lots of time on duty to complete their Master’s Degree.)\u00a0 These officers had likely at least thought <\/em>of the ethical implications of the career field they were about to enter.\u00a0 If they hadn’t, they certainly should <\/em>have.<\/p>\n

Public reports indicate this course was the last “reminder” for their consideration prior to them signing a statement indicating their willingness to launch nuclear weapons if properly authorized to do so.<\/p>\n

\"\"<\/p>\n

How many career fields start out with that <\/em>kind of dramatic signature statement?<\/p>\n

Is it really so hard to believe an ethics class on war would precede the commencement of training for officers in charge of launching nuclear weapons?<\/p>\n

With the vast majority of the American population, and the American military, claiming some version of the Christian faith, is it really so surprising that some <\/em>portion of that discussion would include religious references — including, but not limited to, the Christian faith?<\/p>\n

That’s also precisely what they were: religious references (by a Chaplain).\u00a0 No reasonable person looking at those slides can conclude there was an effort at “promoting a particular brand of right-wing fundamentalist Christianity” or advocating “Christian nationalism,” as has been ludicrously claimed.\u00a0 Nor was the Air Force trying to teach\u00a0that “under fundamentalist Christian doctrine, war is a good thing,” as an asinine accusation from Michael Weinstein claimed<\/a>.<\/p>\n

The original article that started the web-spread was on Truthout<\/a>; Michael Weinstein is a member of its board, and he apparently provided them with the FOIA papers that amounted to more than 500 pages on this topic.\u00a0<\/p>\n

While Chris Rodda will likely be along to toot the MRFF’s horn, it is somewhat telling that the MRFF’s credibility is so lacking they had to coattail on their frequent ally Jason Leopold, giving him <\/em>the documents to write and publish on rather than Rodda.\u00a0 (And that’s saying something, given Leopold’s own history of credibility issues.)<\/p>\n

Leopold’s treatment was typical of his sensationalist and “creatively written” prior pieces<\/a>.\u00a0 For example, Leopold said<\/p>\n

One of the ethical questions contained in the PowerPoint presented to missile officers asks: “Can you imagine a set of circumstances that would warrant a nuclear launch from the US, knowing that it would kill thousands of non-combatants?
\n\u00a0
\nAnother question trainees are confronted with asks: “Can we train physically, emotionally and spiritually for a job we hope we never have to do?”
\n\u00a0
\nTo help the missile officers answer these ethical queries, the PowerPoint presentation cites numerous examples of characters from the New and Old Testament fighting “just” wars.
\n\u00a0
\nFor example, in the Old Testament, “Abraham organized an army to rescue Lot,” God motivated “judges (Samson, Deborah, Barak) to fight and deliver Israel from foreign oppressors,” and “David is a warrior who is also a ‘man after God’s own heart.'”<\/p><\/blockquote>\n

The way he tells it, it must <\/em>be bad, right?\u00a0 The problem is Leopold’s description is only true if the presentation was delivered backwards<\/em>.\u00a0 Yes, those two questions were in the brief.\u00a0 But the Biblical figures Leopold then quotes as “answers” were from the prior <\/em>portion of the presentation on a separate issue.\u00a0 If the Air Force training course was so obviously bad, why did Leopold have to so blatantly misrepresent it?\u00a0 It seems he felt the need to sensationalize it for dramatic effect.<\/p>\n

Leopold then says<\/p>\n

The documents’ blatant use of religious imagery and its numerous citations of the Bible would appear to be a violation of the First Amendment establishing a wall of separation between church and state and Clause 3, Article 6 of the Constitution, which specifically prohibits a “religious test.”<\/p><\/blockquote>\n

Leopold might try reading the Constitution one of these days.\u00a0 (It’s even on the internet<\/a>.)\u00a0 It doesn’t say anything about the use of religious imagery or religious citations.\u00a0 He also fails to explain how putting a Bible verse on the screen somehow institutes a “religious test.”<\/p>\n

The breadth to which this is misunderstood (or is being misrepresented) is evident in the quotation of a “senior missileer” who is helpfully anonymous:<\/p>\n

“If they wanted to help people with their spiritual\/religious\/secular justification for serving as missile officers…<\/p><\/blockquote>\n

The very first sentence is all that’s needed.\u00a0 This course wasn’t intended\u00a0to help people with “justification,” though that premise adds a layer of melodrama that makes it more palatable on the internet.\u00a0 This course\u00a0was intended to make sure future nuclear launch officers had consciously\u00a0considered their personal views on the ethical implications of their new career path, whether the source of those implications was religious or not.\u00a0 The objective was to give them the chance to say “No” now<\/em>, rather than face that ethical conflict either in training or when called upon to execute their mission.<\/p>\n

The military clearly recognizes that something in the vein of this course must\u00a0<\/em>be done.\u00a0 This event was the last-chance “filter” for ethical objection prior to the signing statements referenced above.\u00a0<\/p>\n

If there’s any doubt about the gravity of this, reference the case of Ensign Michael Izbicki<\/a>.\u00a0 The would-be submarine officer’s saga started when he answered “No” to the Navy’s version of this filter, a ‘psychological test’ in which one of the questions was whether or not he felt he could launch nuclear weapons.\u00a0 By his own admission, he got all the way to that entry point before he finally figured out his stand — a stand the military knows must be determined before <\/em>they hand them missile launch keys.\u00a0 There can be no “assumption” that everyone is “all good” with whatever they have to do.\u00a0 Izbicki was ultimately discharged as a conscientious objector.<\/p>\n

In the end, it is important to note this “scandal” has nothing to do with religious freedom.\u00a0 Nor, despite the claims of Michael Weinstein, does it have anything to do with the Constitution.\u00a0 For decades the US Air Force has conducted a course to bring up ethical issues to confront potential doubts or objections from those who may someday be called upon to launch nuclear weapons.\u00a0 The course has addressed religious, ethical, historical, moral, and other elements of potential reservation.<\/p>\n

As was said in the beginning, this “scandal” isn’t really a big deal.\u00a0 The Air Force can alter, replace, or eliminate the training at its whim.\u00a0 Whether it keeps the course or eliminates it, it does not prohibit the free exercise of religion, nor does it establish a religion.\u00a0 If there is a controversy, it is manufactured.<\/p>\n

The Air Force has currently “pulled” the course and is deciding if it wants to rework or replace it.\u00a0 It is entirely entitled to do so.<\/p>\n

It would be nice, though, if the US military could do its job without people being so hypersensitive over the non-profane mention of Jesus during military training.\u00a0 From the grandstanding over this brief, you’d think the Constitution prohibited the government from referencing the “J-word.”<\/p>\n

Did anybody else notice no one complained about the reference to the Maccabees or the multiple slides of Jewish scripture?<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"

A variety of news sources are now reporting the US Air Force ended a training class after an internet article belittled its religious content.\u00a0 Contrary to some assertions,\u00a0this is actually not a big deal. This much has been accurately reported:\u00a0 The Air Force training\u00a0slides had Bible verses, and\u00a0the course\u00a0was led by a Chaplain.\u00a0 There was a public article.\u00a0 The Air […]<\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":1,"featured_media":0,"comment_status":"open","ping_status":"open","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"footnotes":""},"categories":[28],"tags":[134,2014,23,5284,175,96,82,2024,86,2023,2021,44,929,39,2016,2022,1142,85,2,5218,7,36,1495,10,171,1559],"class_list":["post-12306","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-government-and-religion","tag-air-force","tag-augustine","tag-bible","tag-chaplain","tag-chris-rodda","tag-christian","tag-constitution","tag-david-smith","tag-ethics","tag-hal-moore","tag-icbm-training-material","tag-islam","tag-jason-leopold","tag-jewish","tag-just-war","tag-maccabees","tag-michael-izbicki","tag-mikey-weinstein","tag-military","tag-military-religious-freedom-foundation","tag-mrff","tag-navy","tag-nuclear","tag-religion","tag-religious-freedom","tag-vandenberg"],"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/christianfighterpilot.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/12306","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/christianfighterpilot.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/christianfighterpilot.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/christianfighterpilot.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/1"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/christianfighterpilot.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=12306"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/christianfighterpilot.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/12306\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/christianfighterpilot.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=12306"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/christianfighterpilot.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=12306"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/christianfighterpilot.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=12306"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}