Setting guidelines for tolerance

o7The Air Force this week has announced new guidelines for religious

tolerance that seek to have members of the service refrain from

public prayer at official functions. The move comes in response to

allegations of pervasive religious intolerance that favored Christian

evangelicals at the Air Force Academy in Colorado Springs. Some have

wondered if the guidelines will be implemented fairly. What do you

think of the guidelines and the chances of their being properly

implemented?

f7

To the majority of Americans in the armed forces, religion serves

as a moral compass in circumstances that often test the human

character. Prayer plays an important role for our brave men and women

in uniform, specifically during a time of conflict.

I believe it is important to encourage members of the Air Force to

pursue their religious beliefs, including prayer.

At the same time, one’s religious pursuits should never come at

the expense of another’s.

I feel that if indeed there is intolerance in the Air Force, then

only the offenders should be held accountable. To deny all members of

the Air Force the right to prayer at official functions because of

the unconstructive acts of a few is wrong.

Ultimately, it is the responsibility of the leaders to pave the

way of proper conduct. If the leadership of the Air Force displays a

responsible approach to religion, all will follow. I have full

confidence in those leaders that they will be fair and honest in

implementing guidelines necessary for the fulfillment of the

religious needs o7allf7 Air Force members, regardless of religious

affiliation.

RABBI SIMCHA BACKMAN

Chabad Jewish Center

Glendale

“There are no atheists in foxholes,” or so the saying goes. Shall

we assume this adage has no application stateside? Before reading the

complaints and subsequent guidelines, several questions came to mind,

the first being, what was the nature of the alleged religious

intolerance?

After perusing the USAF Headquarters Review, two issues emerged.

Half the academy’s population is made up of mostly teenage young men,

often from disparate areas where they haven’t had much social

intermingling. To say that a few among the evangelical majority was

acting contrary to Christian teaching regarding neighborly behavior

is only to say that this is unfortunate but understandable. Having

recognized it, the department has now addressed the issue.

The other problem seems to be that the religious minorities felt,

well, like minorities. Left out, they became resentful. It became

obvious that the mere invitation to attend Sunday chapel by a fellow

cadet was cause for complaint. The guidelines state that everyone’s

rights should respected, “including the right to hold no beliefs.”

Who would argue? Consider, however, that servicemen are one bullet

this side of eternity, and if prayer is the majority practice before

engaging the enemy, why cannot the sensitivities of those that have

no critical regard for God be held in check as their comrades

establish a homecoming with their maker, especially before they risk

their lives for their compatriots of opposite disposition? If you

think it superstition, then indulge your evangelical brothers that

you might someday be saved by one in the midst of his religious zeal

to “lay down his life for his friends” (John 15:13).

REV. BRYAN GRIEM

Senior Pastor

Light On the Corner

Montrose

I am glad that it has been recognized that Christian evangelicals

have been brow-beating others at the Air Force Academy. The idea of

new guidelines being implemented is a good one. But it is anybody’s

guess how it will turn out.

One has to be encouraged that “officials” (whoever they are!)

recognize that “freedom and justice for all” needs to be observed --

but whether the implementation of justice occurs depends upon what

happens in the future.

I would say that having new guidelines is a good start, because

the academy’s willingness to embrace them means that somebody has

heard the hue and cry of those who have felt put upon, and I believe

that’s a good thing.

It is, of course, altogether possible that those in charge are

only “pretending” to make some changes, but I kind of think that

enough of a ruckus has been raised that they “pretend” to make

changes only at their peril!

If the abuse persists, some “Zoomie” officers’ heads are going to

roll (figuratively speaking, of course!), and some careers will

suffer.