Centerfield

As a veteran myself, I tend to take mainstream reports about military life with a grain of salt. There aren't many bylined reporters out there with active duty in their backgrounds.

I also note that the AUSCS report is loaded with "We understand that...We have heard that..." and the like. This doesn't really constitute, you know, evidence. And where there are confirmable incidents, they seem minor to me.

I think, too, that it is important to remember who the targets of this so-called proselytizing are: these are high-achieving, tough-minded and disciplined men and women. I have the privilege of knowing several military cadets and prospective cadets in all three service academies. They are not unfocused, easily influenced high school grads. They are the leaders.

They officer corps, back in my day, included young men who could command and effective campaign groups of hundreds of fighters and support technicians. Much as I complained about officers, they were then and are now, a rare breed.

My own military service came in the days when the DI said on the first day, "What's your religion? Don't have one? Pick one." Which was dutifully stamped on your dog tags, and for the rest of boot camp, you attended your selected service on Saturday night or Sunday morning (I don't recall any wiccans in my company). After that, of course, services and chaplains were available, but not mandatory.

I'll start to worry about the Air Force Academy when the cadets show up at graduation wearing homespun robes chanting songs in a dead language. Until then, I will assume that AUSCS won't be satisfied until they remove the Chaplain Corps from all the services.

I would just like to add that you can tell how inflammatory this issue is by the number of commenters.

Frankly, I think it is an issue assuming the story is true. The fact that these people might be strong minded is besides the point--they are still 18-22 year olds. And, anyway, what the hell business is it the Air Force Academy's to allow proselytizing. If the story is not true or exaggerated, that's one thing. But I don't see any reason to assume this chaplain is a crackpot.

As for saying, we should only worry about the Academy when the cadets show up in robes, I find that offensive. I'm not one that thinks religious minorities should be able to dictate the religious practices of the majority in schools. But to have to put up with proselytizing is too much (again, assuming the story is true). Why should there be any incidents at all at the academy, whether they are "minor" or not?

And it doesn't matter whether the cadets are bothered or not. It's my tax dollars and I don't want it going for religious proselytizing.

My point wasn't that the cadets are strong-minded or not - it was that the story doesn't meet the test of common sense, given the so-called proselytizers and their targets.

As to the "it's my tax dollars" argument, my suggestion is that you should withhold from the IRS that portion of your taxes which fund government activities of which you disapprove. Then let us know what your new email address is.

"As to the "it's my tax dollars" argument, my suggestion is that you should withhold from the IRS that portion of your taxes which fund government activities of which you disapprove."

That's a ridiculous argument. Since when is religious proselytizing a legitimate government activity? This isn't a matter of disagreeing with the policy, this is a question of using tax dollars for something that is probably illegal.

Real nice blog! Rachel