Flightlines

Weinstein spars with Fox’s Megyn Kelly over academy oath

Military Religious Freedom Foundation President Mikey Weinstein got into a dustup with Fox News anchor Megyn Kelly last night over the Air Force Academy’s controversial honor oath. As we reported yesterday, the academy is considering dropping or changing its honor oath over its concluding phrase, “so help me God,” which Weinstein says violates the constitutional guarantee against a religious test for office.

The interview is worth a watch (and former “M*A*S*H” actor Mike Farrell, AKA B.J. Hunnicutt, who sits on MRFF’s board, even gets a mention here).

Sound off below, or in our forums. Do you think Weinstein is right, and the entire phrase should go? Should it stay as is? Or do you think a compromise can be struck that accommodates all beliefs?

Tags: , ,

Comments

  1. Tom Says:
    October 24th, 2013 at 8:42 pm

    The Academy and the Air Force always cave to Mikey…so just appoint him the religious cleansing consultant and let him wipe away everything religious from everything Air Force…that way we don’t have to hear the politically correct excuses from the Air Force leaders as they fail (as usual) to stand up against this bullying…yes, I said bullying. Does the Air Force have any leaders today willing to stand up to this guy? My God, what happened to the Curtis LeMay’s, George Kenney’s, and Billy Mitchell’s?

    Here is an except from the United States Constitution, Article 6, Clause 3 from the Cornell University School of Law (http://www.law.cornell.edu/constitution/articlevi):

    “The Senators and Representatives before mentioned, and the members of the several state legislatures, and all executive and judicial officers, both of the United States and of the several states, shall be bound by oath or affirmation, to support this Constitution; but no religious test shall ever be required as a qualification to any office or public trust under the United States.”

    If “So Help Me God” was that big of a deal, why was it included in the U.S. Oath of Office for all public servants, military and civilian? Why wasn’t it removed long ago, or even never even included?

    I hate to attack people, but Mikey Weinstein is an inflamer

  2. Dan Says:
    October 25th, 2013 at 7:07 am

    Mr. Weinstein is not trying to strike down everything religious in the military, only government/military-endorsed religion. Be glad we have patriots like Mikey who are standing up for what is right and preserving the intent of our Constitution. You can have your religion, just don’t use the gov or military to push it on others.

  3. John Says:
    October 26th, 2013 at 9:52 pm

    The only person I hear pushing views on religion is named Weinstein.

  4. Dan Says:
    October 27th, 2013 at 12:37 am

    John, would you care to provide an example instead of blowing rhetoric and baseless claims? Last I checked, standing up against people who are using government to push their religious beliefs onto others isn’t pushing religious views. It’s called separation of church and state, something that has been violated for a very long time. It should have never been allowed to begin with. And be thankful we have such a thing as opposed to a theocracy. It is what allows you to have the freedom to practice your religion without discrimination.

  5. Jonathan Says:
    October 29th, 2013 at 4:42 pm

    Except that the whole “Separation” argument is fallacious at its core, stemming from one Thomas Jefferson letter to the Danbury Baptists, which argued that federal government cannot meddle in state affairs nor in religious/church matters, not the other way around. In other words, it’s been misinterpreted by Weinstein and his ilk for the past ~60 years. Former Chief Justice William Rehnquist pointed out that the current emphasis on elimination of religious references IAW the “Separation” interpretation is flat wrong. It also ignores a multitude of other letters, official documents, etc. (to include the Federalist Papers) that advocate just the opposite. For example, if it REALLY was supposed to eliminate all references to religion, then WHY was one of Congress’ first acts to create a congressional bible? And why did congress stress that it was critical that military officers be men of faith? Or that the Founders used John Locke as inspiration for the Constitution, yet Locke himself drew upon Christianity for his writings. You cannot cherry pick random quotes to drum out religious aspects of our society without taking into account the context and totality of the historical record. That’s fallacy #1 of historical research. The only reason it has gotten to this point is collusion by leftist SCOTUS courts and congressional lawmakers that are ignorant of the Constitution, the Federalist Papers, the Bill of Rights, and all other aspects of the Founders that shed light on this subject as they attempt to apply today’s humanism to the past. Shameful, really.

  6. Travis Mann Says:
    October 30th, 2013 at 2:05 pm

    Small people, like Mikey, have nothing important to do so they try to cause trouble for those of us who have important things to do. Just their way of trying to inflate their own egos. Mikey, get a life!

  7. Dan Says:
    November 4th, 2013 at 11:52 am

    Jonathan, Glenn Beck much? For starters, Congress did not create a Congressional Bible. They only approved Aitken to print the Bible. They did not fund it, distribute it, or play any further role. Congress even went so far as to state that it was Mr. Aitken’s intent to print said Bible in HIS interest of religion and promotion of arts, not Congress’s intent. In addition, your claim that Separation stemmed from a Thomas Jefferson letter is so laughable, I need not to address it, especially considering the numerous references made to separation of church and state. Also, you claim lawmakers are ignorant of the Constitution regarding this matter, yet the Constitution mentions God zero times? The truth is, the Founders were very religious. And they came from a nation where they were discriminated against for practicing a Christian denomination not endorsed by the state. Their intent was very clear, church and state shall not meddle in each other’s affairs. What I also find remarkable is the belief that we can somehow be a Christian nation. The differences between mainstream Christian beliefs are so radically different, it would be impossible to institute a Theocracy without discriminating against all but one of the major Christian denominations. Be careful what you ask for, you might just get it.

Leave a Reply