Quote Anything, Just Not From The Bible
Post date: Mar 12, 2014 4:40:55 AM
You can read the original post here:
“The Air Force Academy removed a Bible verse posted on a cadet's whiteboard after it determined the posting had offended other cadets, a spokesman for the academy said....He said the Bible verse on the cadet's personal whiteboard created a hostile environment at the academy.
"It clearly elevated one religious faith (fundamentalist Christianity) over all others at an already virulently hyper-fundamentalist Christian institution," he said. "It massively poured fundamentalist Christian gasoline on an already raging out-of-control conflagration of fundamentalist Christian tyranny, exceptionalism and supremacy at USAFA."
A few things seems out of place here. First, it seems to me that the people who were offended by the verse are themselves being very intolerant, if tolerance means that “all views have equal merit and none should be considered better than another...”1 What if the the quote was from the Qur’an, the Vedas, the Tipitaka or another religious text? Would people have reacted the same way? What if instead of a quote from the Christian Bible, it was a statement about the cadet's sexual orientation, for example his homosexuality? Would people have reacted the same way? I bet that they wouldn’t. Instead they would have encouraged it and if not homosexuals groups would have launched protests as they have done before when a homosexual has been discriminated against (see http://www.foxnews.com/opinion/2013/09/03/todd-american-dispatch-christian-bakery-closes-after-lgbt-threats-protests).
Furthermore, the article mentions that it was the “the cadet's personal whiteboard” and that “Weinstein said he immediately contacted the Air Force Academy and filed a complaint. Exactly two hours and nine minutes later, the Bible verse had been scrubbed from the cadet's whiteboard.” Seems to me that this is a violation of a person's personal property. Did anyone ask the cadet to remove the quote or whiteboard? He or she would probably have done it out of respect for promoting peace and love. If he was a Christian, he would have the command of Rom 12:16-18 “Live in harmony with one another; do not be haughty but associate with the lowly. Do not be conceited. Do not repay anyone evil for evil; consider what is good before all people. If possible, so far as it depends on you, live peaceably with all people.”
In addition, the verse that was on the whiteboard, "I have been crucified with Christ therefore I no longer live, but Christ lives in me," says nothing about whether or not the cadet believes it. It is simply a statement or quote from a historical religious text. People assumed that the cadet believes the statement or is promoting the statement. What if the quote had been from Dan Brown's The DaVinci Code “The Bible is the product of man, my dear. Not of God. The Bible did not fall magically from the clouds. Man created it as a historical record of tumultuous times, and it has evolved through countless translations, additions, and revisions...” or from Richard Dawkins “Humans have always wondered about the meaning of life...life has no higher purpose than to perpetuate the survival of DNA...life has no design, no purpose, no evil and no good, nothing but blind pitiless indifference.” or even Adolf Hitler “Do not compare yourself to others. If you do so, you are insulting yourself.” Would this have caused such a problem?
Furthermore, the verse is a personal verse, it says nothing about other people. The only two people that are mentioned in it is Paul, the person who wrote the verse, the subject, the “I” and Christ. If it was a quote that directly addressed other people then logically there could be the possibility of offense. The verse is grammatically equivalent to the sentence, “I am in a relationship with Sally.” There is only a personal pronoun (I) and a proper noun (Christ). The verse also clearly has nothing to do about religious proselytizing or conversion.
Finally, there is also the violation of the cadet's freedom of speech or expression, which according to Wikipidia, is “any act of seeking, receiving and imparting information or ideas, regardless of the medium used... the right is commonly subject to limitations, as with libel, slander, obscenity, sedition (including, for example inciting ethnic hatred), copyright violation, revelation of information that is classified or otherwise.” 2 Again, the verse in question does not slander or address anyone. It uses first person pronouns and proper nouns and does not use third person or indefinite pronouns, such as “they” or “everyone”.
It seems that people who promote tolerance and diversity are the least tolerant and the least diverse of all.
Oh, and why don't we focus most of our time, energy, attention, resources and media on more important issues such as:
// Human Sex Trafficking
// School Shootings
http://www.cdc.gov/violenceprevention/youthviolence/schoolviolence/data_stats.html
http://www.abqjournal.com/336878/news/10-seconds-of-terror.html
// Teen Suicide Rates
http://teen-suicide.findthedata.org
// Bullying
Notes:
1. http://coldcasechristianity.com/2013/the-three-ds-of-tolerance.
2. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Freedom_of_spee