Today's New York Times reports that the Air Force has begun an investigation into whether its policy on religious neutrality was breached when a commander sent an e-mail to thousands of personnel in her 501st Combat Support Wing in Europe urging them to view an inspirational video on Catholic website. The video promoted by Col. Kimberly Toney depicted the life story of a man born without arms or legs who says his faith in Jesus is what helped him overcome his physical limitations. Apparently some who visited the website were more offended by other items they found there, including one comparing President Obama's support for abortion rights to activities of Hitler.
Interim Guidelines adopted by the Air Force in 2006 provide that "leaders at every level bear a special responsibility to ensure their words and actions cannot reasonably be construed to be officially endorsing nor disapproving any faith belief or absence of belief.... [S]uperiors need to be sensitive to the potential that their personal expressions may appear [to subordinates] to be official..." (See prior related posting.)
UPDATE: As a comment to this posting indicates, the continuing authority of the Air Force's 2006 Guidelines is unclear. The Conference Committee Report for the 2007 Defense Appropriation Act directed the Air Force to rescind the policy and reinstate 1999 Guidelines on the chaplains' service. (See prior posting.) Shortly thereafter, the Air Force did issue new guidelines for chaplains, reflecting its 1999 policy. (See prior posting.) However those new guidelines do not explicitly mention repeal of the 2006 Interim Guidelines. Moreover the new Guidelines govern activities of chaplains, but do not mention responsibilities of commanders regarding endorsement of religion. Finally subsequently the Air Force's publication Air Force Call republished the 2006 Guidelines indicating that they are still in effect.
Saturday, March 14, 2009
Air Force Investigating Commander's Promotion of Religious Website Video
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
.jpg)
Posts
5 comments:
Your reference to the "interim guidelines" is interesting, though not necessarily germane. The Col has repeatedly said she forwarded the story because thought it was "inspirational," not religious. Her subsequent statements imply that she may never have seen the details of the story, nor did she actually go to the website on which it was hosted.
Those are problems on many levels, to be sure, but they do not rise to the accusations of institutional endorsement of a religious belief. The fact that there was religious content in the video appears to be secondary to the other concerns.
Also, the 2007 Defense Authorization Act conference committee report actually rescinded those guidelines (though there is the possibility that the final document did not reflect that, as we saw with the discrepancies in this year's stimulus bill). (See here.) However, the Air Force has referenced them once since then.
A direct link to the video that bypasses the rest of the website (here it is) still opens a page with an overtly Evangelical Christian message that, if circulated by an officer, would violate the Air Force guidelines. Shifting the focus to what she did or didn't know of the rest of the website seems just a smokescreen.
Stern disciplinary action for both the Colonel and her CO will help send the the message that the Air Force no longer winks at religious guideline infractions by Evangelicals.
The direct link tim mentions had ad's and link's by Google that lead to what you are referring to. To go beyond watching the video and clicking around on other links or arena's is like someone inviting you to use their restroom and then when you're done you go snooping through the rest of their house on a self guided tour and then complaining about the decor.
The fact is this doesn't violate anything you are trying to say but you are trying to violate her right to share an inspirational video. Anything other than this you must prove motivation was to promote a religion. Get real - -you people are sick in the mind and would effect the rest of us if allowed. I am offended there can by any doubt that Col. Kimberly Toney has every right to share the video with others as a part of her life. She doesn't promote religion - read the Chinese on the screen before you go any further to violate someone else.
Riceski neglects to mention the following text which is on the page that opens - no following links required. That the message is overtly Christian is obvious. The question for the investigators is whether its dissemination was deliberate proselytization or a colossul blunder.
Faced with countless challenges and obstacles, God has given him the strength to surmount what others might call impossible. Along with that, the Lord has placed within him an unquenchable passion to share this same hope and genuine love that he's personally experienced with more than two million people all over the globe. Traveling extensively to over 19 nations, he's been extremely humbled by the continuous opportunities that the Lord has given him to share his testimony along with the hope that he has in Jesus with people in so many nations and situations. His greatest joy in this life is to introduce Jesus to those he meets and tell them of His great desire to get to know them personally by allowing Him to become their Lord and Savior.
Tim - I didn't "neglect" to mention anything, as I am not obligated to point out your opinion. I simply [against your best wishes apparently] pointed out my own.
You, on the other hand, neglect to point out it is not illegal for a person, any person, in the military or not, to point out an example of someone of faith who exemplifies courage. The words you so religiously take from the website are this man’s testimony, not the officer’s. The officer points out that she was sharing the inspiration of the man and not his personal faith in Jesus, God or anything else.
Are you saying by default that people of faith, including the Christian faith, are unworthy of praise for their triumphs in public life? I think you are most likely confusing my right to be shown this sort of man’s testimony of life with your right to live confused and powerless. I leave the door open to all who will see how this man overcomes the depression and defeat suffered from being born with no arms - legs - hands or feet, using and enjoying and sharing his faith in his God. There is nothing illegal in a military person’s sharing this man’s life and witness to life with all others in and out of the military. That rule of law is only welcomed in countries that are run by dictators who emulate your position and rhetoric.
Unless you have some wording from a direct copy of the Email emphatically speaking to the officer’s preference to a religion, you are simply speculating. While you are free to hold your opinions, they are not for me. I believe that those people who are Christian are free to share with me how they came to believe, and if they can do so without arms or legs, their testimony is all the more welcome in today’s climate of distrust and depression.
BTW- Colossul [sic] is spelled Colossal.
Post a Comment