10-19-05, 10:30 am
On October 12, 2005, the New York Times ran an article on page A18 with this headline: Air Force Withdrew Rule That Permitted Some Evangelizing. On October 13, 2005, the Ashland, Wisconsin Daily Press ran an article that describes the evangelical credentials of the latest George W. Bush nomination for the U.S. Supreme Court, Harriet Miers.
Obviously these two articles are linked by their reference to religion, specifically of the evangelical variety. The variety of the religion is not the problem here, but the fact that religion shows up in a discussion of the Air Force and again as an important aspect of a Supreme Court discussion is a problem. Everyone has an inalienable right to think their own thoughts and be who they are, as long as they do not interfere with those same rights that are held equally by all other human beings. Pretty simple. I feel like a bit of a stuffy high school teacher saying such things, but it appears that religious zealots are impregnating our civic institutions. Shame. Abstinence education is in order.
Seriously, did you realize that the U.S. military operates with a code that officially allows a chaplain to 'instruct and/or evangelize those who are not affiliated,' but prohibits the chaplain from 'proselytizing from other religious bodies'? According to the New York Times article, 'the Air Force said the code was issued in January.' The year was not mentioned, but 2005 is inferred. On Tuesday, October 11, 2005, the code was 'withdrawn for further review' after a lawsuit questioned whether this code infringed upon the rights of soldiers with unspecified world views.
We have a military apparatus whose purpose is to protect the health, safety, and general welfare of our citizenry. Our general welfare includes our ability to practice our religion as we see fit, and to be free from religion if we so choose. Yet somehow, during the past year, a military ethics code has been written that allows a person of authority in a chaplains uniform to prey upon soldiers in what could be the most stressful time of their lives. Public funds must not be spent by any governmental entity for the purpose of supporting any type of religious behavior. Period.
Just as troubling is the other part of the discussion that I began above. Evidently, it has been determined that 'Harriet Miers is from a very conservative church and that she is an evangelical Christian.' This characteristic is fast becoming a most important credential in the Bush administrations attempt to seat her on the U. S. Supreme Court. Even though it may be valuable to know the religious leanings of candidates for public office, a nominee’s choice of religion should not be a determining factor in his or her appointment. Rather, how a nominee exercises his or her world view in daily life and on the bench should be the determining factor.
To tie this discussion together, how would Harriet Miers rule on the Air Force code that was discussed above? If she would rule in favor of allowing proselytizing by military chaplains, than she should not be considered good material for the Supreme Court.
Tolerance is the attribute that must accompany a Supreme Court Justice to the bench. Someone who would use a position on the Supreme Court bench or as an Air Force chaplain to promote their own recipe for salvation should not be elevated to such positions.
--Dale S. Scott can be reached at letters@democracywhenwherehow.org.
