Friday, May 13, 2005

I read the story about evangelical proselytizing at the Air Force Academy in yesterday's New York Times, and I read the follow-up in today's Washington Post. You know about this, right? As the Post reports,

One staff chaplain reportedly told newly arrived freshmen last summer that anyone not born again "will burn in the fires of hell."

And from the Times we learn that

A report sent to the Air Force in late April by Americans United for Separation of Church and State, an advocacy group based in Washington, said that academy officers and staff members opened mandatory events at the academy with prayer, sent e-mail academy-wide with religious taglines, and published advertisements in the academy newspaper asking cadets to contact them to "discuss Jesus." ...

Fliers advertising a showing of the movie "The Passion of the Christ" were placed at every seat in the dining hall, with the tagline, "This is an officially sponsored USAFA event," according to the report.


A survey conducted last year

found that more than half of the cadets said they had heard derogatory religious comments or jokes at the academy.

Captain MeLinda Morgan, a chaplain who has spoken out about the problem, has now been removed from administrative duties and will serve next in Okinawa. She says,

"People at the academy were making cadets feel an obligation that they are serving the will of God if they are engaging in evangelical activities, and telling them that this is harmonious and co-extensive with military service."

There's a serious problem here -- but what's bothering me is this paragraph in the Times story:

This is the second major investigation at the academy by the Air Force in recent years. An investigation into sexual assault in 2003 found 150 women who said they had been sexually assaulted by fellow cadets. That inquiry led to the replacement of the academy's top commanders.

May I say something naive? Why is it even possible that both of these things are true?

Aren't evangelical Christians opposed to rape?

If conservative Christians have long been the dominant force at the Academy -- and, as we see in the current issue of Harper's, in surrounding Colorado Springs -- why didn't they as Christians do anything about the rapes? Why didn't outrage at the rapes come from the conservative Christian community?

Can someone point me to evidence that evangelicals have been among the leaders in the struggle to deal with the rape problem at the Academy? I can't find any such evidence. I haven't found any evidence that evangelical leaders think preventing rape is even a Christian issue.

*****

I did find this astonishing post at the right-wing gang blog RedState.org, from an ex-Air Force officer, now living and attending church in Maryland:

... a second major investigation is underway at the academy. The first was in 2003 when dozens of former women cadets came forward saying they had been sexually assaulted at the academy. This latest investigation involves allegations that its faculty and staff have pressured cadets to convert to evangelical Christianity; what a contradiction.

... I'm sure the women would have preferred to be
pressured to follow Christ instead of being pressured to have sex.

Good grief.

*****

UPDATE: Here are some thoughts from Bulworth about sexual abuse and religious abuse.

*****

UPDATE: Mark A.R. Kleiman notes that theocracy is being rewarded:

The Pentagon said Monday that it wanted to promote one of the top commanders at the Air Force Academy, a "born-again" Christian who has been the subject of complaints that he improperly mixed religion with education....

Brig. Gen. Johnny Weida, the academy's No. 2 officer, was nominated to receive the second star of a major general.

In an e-mail in May 2003, Weida urged cadets to "ask the Lord to give us the wisdom to discover the right.... The Lord is in control. He has a plan for … every one of us."

Later he issued a memo stating that cadets were accountable first to their God....


He also notes that the American Jewish Committee is calling for congressional hearings.

(Michael Medved, I gather, was unavailable for comment.)

No comments: