About Me

Name: Josh Todd
Biography
Loading...

Create Your Own Blog Find Other Townhall Blogs

Comments

Archives

Blog Roll

 

God in the Army

Specialist Dustin Chalker has filed suit against the United States Army for its pro-Christian discrimination. He cites evangelical bias in a suicide prevention manual, the desire of certain soldiers to distribute Bibles, and the Air Force event “Team Faith.” Chalker, an atheist, believes his religious rights have been infringed.

SPC Chalker is right about a Christian bias in the military; however, he is wrong as to its constitutionality. Furthermore, his religious freedom has not likely been hindered. Lastly, the military is a different beast from everyday life, meaning that a Christian “bias” should not only be permissible but encouraged.

Christian bias: The fact of the matter is that the overwhelming majority of soldiers, sailors, marines, and airmen are Christian; thus, as is so in regular society, Christianity will be more pervasive. Chalker’s beef—and that of the Military Religious Freedom Foundation, joining Chalker in his suit—is not that the Army, or any branch for that matter, is against atheism. Instead, his beef is that the majority rules. Religious counsel is available for all faiths, or unfaiths.

Religious freedom: When I was in the Army, I remember countless politically correct talks given by chaplains and commanders encouraging soldiers to practice their own faiths. In fact, the Thanksgiving before I deployed to battle, the brigade chaplain demanded that those of other faiths “Pray!” to their own gods for strength as the hour reckoning approached. It is highly doubtful that Chalker’s religious freedom has been harmed at all—no religious expression is mandated. The US Armed Forces provides chaplains for many faiths; the population of, say, Muslim chaplains is in proportion to the population of Muslim soldiers. If there were 40% Wiccans in the Army, then roughly 40% of the chaplains would be Wiccan.

Nature of the Military: In combat, men and women are under a great deal of strain. Each soldier deals with his or her stress, and demons, in different ways, often times including faith. Troops under fire need strength, and many find that strength in God. Given the role of the military in securing our freedoms and defending the nation from enemy attack, the role of Christianity is vital to maintaining a healthy and ready fighting force.

No one knows what Chalker’s ideal outcome might be. If it is to quell Christian expression in the services, then he will be doing his nation a great disservice. Hindering the religious practices of Christians in the US Armed Forces would unalterably damage our national defense by robbing the majority of soldiers’ mode of coping with duress and finding strength in trying times of madness. And all to prove what is a moot point.
Email ItEmail It | Print ItPrint It | CommentsComments (0) | TrackbacksTrackbacks (0) | Flag as offensiveFlag as Offensive

The Mockery XXIII: Our Politicians

I haven't written a whole lot since 4 November in part due to great despair (just kidding, sort of) and because of the holidays, but today I was inspired by the selection of certain political candidates. Some municipalities, districts, and states have electoral trends (Chicago and Memphis elect corruption, for example, and one congressional district in Cleveland elects Dennis Kucinich).
 
In one case, there is a state that has done what can be described as electing Mickey Mouse as Governor and Yosemite Sam as Senator.
 
Yes, I speak of Minnesota. Would that this be a joke. Minnesota's electorate has found it prudent to elect Jesse Ventura as Governor and may elect Al Franken as Senator. Well, that Franken has a chance would qualify here anyway.
 
Sure, I know: Cincinnati once had Jerry Springer in public office, but that's only one goof. Ohio didn't elect Martin Sheen, Dave Chappelle, and the Insane Clown Posse (Were they banished to or from Cleveland? I can't remember) to the Governor's mansion, a Senate seat, and the Attorney General post.
 
This says less about Minnesota's electorate than it does about the state's crop of liberal politicians. A heavily-Demcorat state, Minnesota should be able to field more capable and credible candidates so to avoid the cartoon their politics has become.
 
Still, no state beats California. Maybe a topic for another time?
 
Next up: Mockeries of the Year.
Email ItEmail It | Print ItPrint It | CommentsComments (0) | TrackbacksTrackbacks (0) | Flag as offensiveFlag as Offensive

An Understanding, 1

I haven't written in quite some time, more or less out of a sense of political melancholy. Yes, this time, too, will pass, but that assurance in no way removes all gloom, for the future is uncertain. Of course, that the future has uncertainty is also a source of great hope and optimism.
 
Since the electoral debacles of 2006 and 2008 for the Republican Party (not necessarily conservatism), I've thought a lot about why the GOP lost, but the point here is not to diagnose (again) and try and convict the guilty parties. Instead, I aim to offer an understanding of conservatism and why it is the better way for the United States moving forward. Perhaps persuasion based on advantage as opposed to deconstructing the liberal's terrible ideas would do conservative Republicans some good on the campaign trail.
 
So, the operative question, henceforth, is: Why does conservatism make for a better country than liberalism?
 
I pondered many logical starting points and have realized that such a task is daunting, for wherever I begin the web ultimately spins too quickly to make for detailed but concise explanation. Thus, I will begin with the roots of my understanding.
 
First and foremost--and this shall be the lone subject here--conservatism offers the individual a greater sense of accomplishment, and, thus, freedom.
 
Take, for example, the young man who, as a teen, was gifted a car. Sure, the car was great because it offered some limited freedom, yet there was still Mom and Dad, curfews, and other limits. Likewise was the absence of any sense of accomplishment. The car was a gift--the young man did nothing to earn the car. Over time, the car ages and wears, and when it is damaged by the cart in the grocery parking lot, that stinks, he says, but, "Oh well. I didn't pay for the car."
 
Several years later, after college, the young man applies for a loan to buy a new car. This time, it's different. A tiny scratch created by a dumb college kid's book bag as he walked by the new car in the university parking lot is now a bigger deal. "I paid for this car," proclaims the young man. After a few years, he owns the car outright, and all is more personal. He waxes the car and drives it, glimmering in the summer sun, with pride. This is freedom for he has done it: he owns something.
 
So it goes with government. When "they" (government) provide us with certain services we can otherwise do for ourselves, we may feel relieved to have such a service, but we did nothing to earn it. On the other hand, when we work hard for what we have and for the freedoms we enjoy, there is great pride, a sense of accomplishment, and a certain resilience of character.
 
The liberal way--that is, government passing out the goodies--robs a person of self worth. Ownership, not just of material goods but also of accomplishments, is freedom. With it there is also wisdom, for now, "I know how to do it," whatever "it" may be. This, it seems to me, is better than saying, "I have because department X gave."
 
Ultimately, this means that conservatism builds character and talent, which make for a more complete individual, capable of self-sufficiency and advancement that make democratic societies work.
Email ItEmail It | Print ItPrint It | CommentsComments (0) | TrackbacksTrackbacks (0) | Flag as offensiveFlag as Offensive
« Previous1Next »