Air Force Halts Nuclear Ethics Course for Bible References

[rug]

The Air Force recently suspended a military ethics course taught by chaplains because the training referenced the Bible and featured religious imagery.

Church and State separatists herald the decision as a victory for the U.S. Constitution. However, legal group Liberty Counsel argues that chaplains, by right of their office, are free to invoke religious themes in their trainings.

"Allowing chaplains to include Christian values and themes in ethics presentations does not violate the establishment clause. It's not even a mixing of church and state," asserted LC Founder Mathew Staver.

Rather, Staver said, "it's a violation of freedom of religion when the Air Force seeks to suspend this ethics course solely because it has some Christian themes that are being taught by chaplains."

http://www.christianpost.com/news/chaplains-nuclear-ethics-course-suspended-for-excessive-bible-references-53304/

What an odd story. I hardly know where to begin.

Nuclear ethics?

Taught by military chaplains?

Is it me or is the issue nuclear ethics in the first place, bible or no bible?

[Jim__]

1. "Is it me or is the issue nuclear ethics in the first place"

I'm not sure what your question means. To me, the use of strategic nuclear weapons is unethical. The air force has strategic nuclear weapons, so it would seem to have an interest is teaching at least some of its cadets, that the use of these weapons can be ethical. In that case, the class (outside of the use of the bible) makes a kind of sense.

[rug]

2. On what possible basis can the use of nuclear weapons have an ethical base?

This class is to the AF what sake was to the kamikaze.

[cleanhippie]

3. Join the air force and get assigned to an ICBM squadron. Then you will know.

[rug]

5. The chance of me joining an ICBM squadron is as high as the AF having an ethical basis to use them.

[cleanhippie]

8. Hehe.

:fistbump:

[Jim__]

4. I have to make hypothetical arguments because I don't believe it can.

One of the goals of having accurate targeting mechanisms on strategic nuclear weapons is that it gives you the capability to wipe out the strategic nuclear force of your enemy before they launch. That could arguably be an ethical use of strategic nuclear weapons, especially in a case where there is a high potential for a near-term enemy launch.

A second, more complicated argument, for having a class that indoctrinates cadets that a nuclear launch can be ethical is so that you can populate your launch sites with crews that form a credible threat to a potential nuclear enemy. This credible threat can be part of a MADD type of defense.

[rug]

6. Those arguments have been around for some time.

The MAD arguments strike me as analagous to exchanging infants and holding revolvers to their heads.

I agree, only in the most hypothetical sense can nuclear weapons be justified. The problem is there is nothing hypothetical about the Air force's nuclear weapons. The net result of these kinds of classes is more likely to dull or neutralize one's ethics rather than to apply them.

[PoliticAverse]

7. So they won't be teaching "Thou shall not kill" then ? n/t

[rug]

9. Get this:

"A PowerPoint presentation obtained from the course referenced scripture verses such as Hebrews 11 to show that people of faith can and have engaged in war, in a section entitled "War and Faith." The section also cited biblical figures including Abraham, Samson and David as religious figures that fought wars in a righteous manner. Additionally, a picture of a menorah was featured on a slide highlighting the Maccabees' revolt against their oppressors."

:wow:

They go from fighting Goliath with a slingshout to the instant incineration of millions.

[NMMNG]

10. Good old Matt Staver

If soldiers can't be taught that Jesus wants them to nuke any non-Christian nation Christians are being persecuted. Christian Jihad, anyone?

[rug]

11. Dean of Liberty University School of Law since 2006

At least he has an impressive loss rate.

[NMMNG]

12. He's been a loser far longer than that

[rrneck]

13. There are no nuclear ethics. There is only ethics. nt

[PoliticAverse]

14. Next you'll be telling us there are no 'nuclear families'... n/t

[Iggo]

15. '...chaplains, by right of their office, are free to invoke religious themes in their trainings...'

Then maybe it's time to get rid of chaplains. That's the logical progression. Careful what you wish for, Liberty Counsel.