Skip to content

Air Force Class Canceled Over Biblical Words

Military Religious Foundation: Air Force Teaching New Recruits that Jesus Loves Nukes! Beware! Beware!

The Airforce has suspended (see video) a mandatory ethics class due to a complaint filed by the Military Religious Freedom Foundation representing 31 missile launch officers.  Sen. John  Cornyn, a Republican, sent a letter to Secretary of the Air Force Michael  Donley expressing his concern over the suspension.  He wrote, ““Although our Founding Fathers rightly included language in the Constitution  that precludes the Federal government from establishing an official religion,  this language does not, as some have argued, protect them from exposure to  religious references.”

I took a mandatory philosophy class at West Point, “Critical Reasoning“, which I believe was similar to this class.  Within the class, we read a book called Just & Unjust Wars.  This book attempts to outline the mindset and philosophy of how a person (in this case, a soldier) can approach a very profound issue- is there such a thing as a just, or moral, war?  And within either a just or unjust war, is there such a thing as just & unjust actions of a soldier?  When is it not ok to follow orders, for example?  (remember  Lieutenant William Calley in Vietnam?)  As a soldier, this is the difference between sanity & insanity if you have to shoot people dead someday.

But before we could even approach this book, we first needed to answer the question, is there even such a thing as ‘Just’?  In other words, is there any such thing as ‘right’ and ‘wrong’, ‘moral’ and ‘immoral’- and if there is, then is there such a thing as ‘universal morality’– ie, a God?  Because if there is no such thing as Right & Wrong that ALL people can agree on- then there can be no such thing as a ‘just’ war in the first place and the whole exercise is moot.

Do you follow the logic?

And before we could even approach the question of universal morality, we needed to address the issue of Critical Reasoning.  In other words, logical argument.  If A=B and B=C, then A must be = to C.  Stuff like that.

Therefore, the class went like this:

1) Learn the art of critical reasoning & logic based argument.

2) Determine if there is Universal Morality (we couldn’t- it ended up with a leap of faith to be taken or not taken).

3) Determine if there is such a thing as a just war (we decided there was).  Is there such a thing as just actions of an individual in war? (we decided there was).

In the process of moving through these questions, we evaluated all the great philosophers of human history- Aristotle, Socrates, Nietzsche, Machiavelli and of course, the Bible.  Did we also study the Koran & Buddhism?  About as much as the Bible.  Did we study quotes from the Bible?  Don’t remember, but probable.   The point was not to indoctrinate the students into a (or ANY) religion, but to examine the various philosophies that have formed Western thought (and subconsciously, each & every student there).   We did not delve deeply into Christianity either.  But rather examined the moral implications of having One God & one morality for every human being on earth.  To study the philosophy of humans without the study of religious thought is intellectually disingenuous.  Whether atheists wish to believe it or not, religion has shaped all thought that exists today.  It is the most vital component in world law.  Perhaps in another 1000 years, atheists will have stamped out all religious thought, but the study of religion, as concerns philosophical thought, will still be studied as relavant to human societal formation.  It is an absolutely valid & critical component when discussing moral thought.

And yet, here we see another example of Progressivism thwarting logical thought, valid philosophical reasoning & intellectual honesty- in the name of a non-existent promise of religious ‘equality’ that atheists & progressives like to claim is part of the Constitution.  Let me print, again, the First Amendment:

“Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or
prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of
the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the
Government for a redress of grievances.”

Where does it say that all religions must be either 1) wiped out of government or 2) represented equally among governmental agencies?  It. Doesn’t.  This was meant as a limitation of government’s power to interfere in an individual’s religion- not to ensure that there was equal representation thereof.  Nor to ensure that no person was ever exposed to religious language.  The question must be:  does this thing force a religious practice upon an individual by the government?  Does this prohibit an individual’s right to exercise their religion?  A class that demonstrates the idea of just vs. unjust wars with the use of some biblical words to point either way does not meet either of these criteria.  Students are not forced to subscribe to anything.

Further, this intellectual dishonesty is hurting the future soldier leaders of this nation.  The class I took was, undoubtedly, the number one best class I ever took in my life.  This class changed me from a stupid 12th grader into an adult- in one semester.  Cadets were pounding on their desks and confronting one another vehemently with ideas.  Shouts reverberated in the hallways as we strove to bring our immature, young minds into focus over these massive ideas.  We ultimately came to a point (mind you, most of the cadets were top ranking students in high school with high IQ’s and test scores) where we ALL had to admit:  you can’t prove the existence of God.  Nor can you disprove it.

Does that sound like Christian indoctrination to you?

To cancel this class is to do a great disservice to our nation.  I wonder if they will move to cancel this class at West Point now?  Who do you think will lead our military in the future?  Did you know that the graduates of the three academies (West Point, Annapolis, and the Air Force Academy) represent 90% of the generals & admirals of our military?  Do you really want them to not understand the concepts of just and unjust wars- and just and unjust ACTIONS within the battlefield environment?

Your choice.

Political correctness has run amok and is destroying what made this nation great:  a deep & abiding love of God.  It is the moral character of a people who will determine its success or failure.   People.  I know government is broken.  But We, the People, still have power.   But the power comes from our collective mindset & soul.  It is when that rots, that the leadership rots.  And we all lose.  Think about it.


  1. Dear Ms. Rebel, I could be wrong, but I think one of the places your opinion diverges from us atheists (pointed here by Larry the Barefoot Bum) is…..I’m not sure how to say this. I have the same way with words that George W. Bush does.

    From an atheist perspective, morality has both natural and historical origins. I would propose that religion, whichever one you choose, gets as it’s starting point the same, namely natural evolutionary predispositions AND local history. I think we atheists recognize this and have a hard time understanding why the religious insist their religion was the origin of morality. It seems to us you’re claiming precedence where you don’t have it. Note I’m not claiming superiority for atheism but it seems to me, if you wanted something “truly moral”, you would start with the natural rather than the supernatural.

    It seems you think we atheists are somehow morally defective and I realize you have no interest in pursuing a defective line of reasoning but would like to ask, as a small personal favor, please take the time to read the humanist manifesto to see what you think. It’s not that long and perhaps you’ll get another blog post out of it. It’s at the first link but the other two are worth looking at.

    Best wishes,


    • Scott, it always appears to me that this is the basis for most atheist anger: that others might see them as immoral. Atheists always put more meaning into my words than I, myself, put into them. I do not attempt to prove God exists. But I will defend my belief in God to be every bit as logical, scientific and rational as an atheists’ lack of belief.

      I claim only that I believe God has precedence over human existence. And yes, I believe that morality stems from God. And if God existed before Man, then Morality must have existed before Man. As for atheist versions of morality having some historical claim to precedence, I find it quite absurd. Also, how the heck could you ever prove that? All historical records show the Church & religion to be the founding organizations of all human society. Do you claim people were atheist before they were religious? Did cavemen leave atheist drawings on their caves? Are you claiming that first there was atheism, then there was religion and now we are ‘advancing’ back to atheism? Is that how humans have evolved? Sounds like a yo-yo. Never seen ‘progress’ made that way before!

      Here is what I do know: atheists could never pragmatically make law- they could NEVER agree on what laws to make. Geez. A group of seven people can’t even decide where to go for dinner. Try getting the world together to decide something as enormous as defining ‘morality’ without God! They could never agree on what a ‘moral’ law should be. What would that morality be based on? And what would that law be based on? Will that law change tomorrow? Why? Did the majority get to make the decision? If so, then atheists should content themselves with the majority of Christians who make the laws of this country. We are the majority. Or should the minority make the laws? On what basis? Color, size, shape, background, education?

      Atheist belief is completely non functional in society. It piggy backs off the laws made by religious people. Atheists NEED religion and religious people to make proper laws for them. The opposite is not true. Religious people don’t need atheism to make good laws. That being the case, how can anyone argue that ATHEISM was the foundation of society and not religion?

      Yes, you are correct that I have no interest in reading the details of such a flawed outer concept of atheism. I appreciate your politeness and time for visiting, however.

      • Dear Ms. Rebel, politeness is always appreciated. Forgive me for picking a nit but I feel you’ve misunderstood at least part of what I was trying to say or perhaps I wasn’t clear.

        I did not mean to imply atheism preceded religion at least not the modern well thought out type of atheism we’ve come to mean. I meant religion has a natural origin. It derives from evolutionary principles that are self reinforcing. As this takes time, local history also effected how religions evolved. Hence you end up with different religions, from the Muslims to the Christians to the Norse Gods, to the Mayans, etc.

        My impression from you was there was nothing people would have considered moral before it was received by us from the hand of some Almighty. For example, the Romans before Christianity behaved in a way they thought moral but changed their definition of morality when Christianity was introduced.

        I can’t follow up on this thread too much more as I’m just passing by in my Internet travels. I really, really hate to just leave links and run because it means I’m asking you to do my job for me. But under the circumstances it’s the best I can do.

        I know you’re open to new ideas and better understanding of the world around you (I read your bio) so here are two book recommendations. The Demon Haunted World helps us understand human biases and how our thinking can be flawed and Godless talks about, in a respectful way, how and why one evangelical preacher gave up his beliefs.

        Again, best wishes.

  2. “Whether atheists wish to believe it or not, religion has shaped all thought that exists today. It is the most vital component in world law.”
    Again: misguided. You simply write about your preferences. Not reality.

  3. You’ve already shown yourself to be completely unaware of or indifferent to the basic tenets of intellectual honesty and integrity. Without the text of the complaint or the Air Force’s response, we cannot exclude bias or your own intentional misrepresentation of the facts of the case.

    • Again, Larry, where is your courage man? I would actually find it refreshing to find an atheist or a liberal who could make a point based on logic or fact. Rather than address the article, you wish to question my bias? What does my bias have to do with it, Larry? If I had no bias (read: opinion), why would I write the article? See, the whole point of writing a piece like I wrote is to tell my opinion (my BIAS) about something. I present the facts of the matter as they occur. I provide the link for you to see the original story, and then I say what I think. See? And you, clearly a person who does not agree, someone with a different opinion (I think) or BIAS, should tell me either why I my reasoning or facts were in error or how you have more facts and/or reasoning to help clear up the whole thing.

      As you have neither of these, all your comment is reduced to is a big huffy breath, a flounce and a middle finger in the air. Do you have anything of substance, Mr. Bum?

    • Like I said, as the basic rational for atheists is illogical, I have no interest in delving further into the mindset. I’m not trying to be disrespectful, but that would be like me trying to delve further into bad science to understand why people do it. Atheist morality does not, indeed, start with nothing. You mistake me entirely. It piggy backs off of religion- rather like a deperate parasite. It counts on the current version of morality & law on which to base itself. But it has no original foundation. It ‘prays’ that religious people continue to make moral laws for them to ride like ponies. Atheists can not create a single law on their own. Or a single moral thought. They are, simply, not original. That is what makes atheism the weakest of all mindsets. Also the most impractical as to the making of law or any ‘rules’ of morality. 7 people can’t even decide what to do on a Friday night. I would just LOVE to see a bunch of atheists from around the world get together to hammer out their version of ‘morality’. It would be comical.

%d bloggers like this: