Navy Removes Religious Rules on Website for Sailors' Moms
WASHINGTON -- The Navy has announced new Community Guidelines, removing its restrictions on religious speech on its Navy for Moms website. This change is in response to a letter Liberty Counsel sent to Secretary of the Navy Ray Mabus, demanding an end to religious discrimination and reinstatement of users' free speech rights on the website. In its response letter to Liberty Counsel, Navy Admiral J. F. Kilkenny wrote, "I have instructed my staff to remove the current restrictions on religious and political debate. The goal of the revised guidelines is to allow for more open discussion without compromising the purpose of the website...."
NavyForMoms.com was set up by the United States Navy to provide support and a means of communication for mothers and other loved ones of current and potential sailors.
A group called "Christian Chat" was established on the Navy for Moms website. A website administrator informed the group that it could not use the name "Christian Chat." The administrator said the group's name had to be changed, because such blatantly religious speech is too divisive for a public forum. The Navy for Moms Community Guidelines had also been revised to prohibit the posting of religious discussions except for prayers offered for sailors. Those restrictions have now been removed, and the Christian Chat group is free to retain its name.
Avoiding controversy is not a valid reason for restricting speech in a public forum. These kinds of restrictions on private speakers using a government-sponsored forum are not required in order to avoid a violation of the Establishment Clause of the First Amendment.
In announcing the revised rules to its members, Rear Admiral Robin Braun said that "personal freedoms are extremely important to the Navy and my hope is that these updated Guidelines provide the best possible balance between the defense of those liberties and the integrity of the website."
Mathew D. Staver, Founder of Liberty Counsel and Dean of Liberty University School of Law, commented: "We applaud the Navy for responding by removing restrictions on religious speech. To forbid 'Christian Chat' as a chat forum for Navy Moms, under the notion that the name is too divisive for a public forum, was absurd. About 90 percent of Americans profess belief in God, and the majority of them are Christian. Of all places, religious freedom must be respected in our armed services. To remove the word 'Christian' from a chat forum is like banning hot dogs in a baseball stadium. It is simply unthinkable."
Sign up for the OV Daily Newsletter
OV Social
In the military , we have a whole religious profession. Why would anyone think a chat forum for family members would be controversial?
Point to note - 16% of the US from Pew's recent religious survey indicated no religious affiliate, or being secular, agnostic, or athiest. I do not know what that means compared to the OP's 10%, but I don't see what percantage of majority has to do with this issue anyway.
...It could be subject to controversy, but I do not know the true motives behind the ban. It could have been as benign as over-cautiousness on the part of whoever banned the Christian group.
With religion on trial in the court of public opinion given our nation's current slide leftward, I can see them being cautious.
You know how touchy liberals can be when it comes to /any/ evidence of a conservative ideal, real or imagined.
The plural of 'anecdote' is not 'data'.
There is so much equivocating these days thanks to so many people being spoonfed their ideologies from only two brands of thought-toasties...
Conservatives used to feed Christians to lions.
Religion has always been on trial. It's just the "court of public opinion" (which is more of a gameshow than a court) gets a lot of face time these days cause it generates the most advertising dollars. In other "courts" it remains accused of every crime known to man, with no grounds of aquital in sight.
Honestly, this was probably not an issue at all. A moderator that did not know any better probably, made a call on the side of caution (a conservative move, unclouded by ideology we hope) and the cognizant authority corrected him.
Then some yahoo's latched onto it as if to say the Navy was picking the sword and lunging into a new crusade...
If anyone is being touchy its people that think the political left has actively influenced any moderators of a military web site.
"Honestly, this was probably not an issue at all. A moderator that did not know any better probably, made a call on the side of caution (a conservative move, unclouded by ideology we hope) and the cognizant authority corrected him."
Of note is the phrase: "made a call on the side of caution".
Why would it be a cautious act unless there was concern about the foaming-at-the-mouths There-Is-No-God crowd who take instant offense at any mention of religion . You know.... Those moonbats who will sue a school district to ban prayer , and even the pledge of allegiance!
Were it not for the militant politically correct theophobes, there would not be a need for "caution".
The plural of 'anecdote' is not 'data'.
Those moonbats who will sue a school district to ban prayer , and even the pledge of allegiance! Were it not for the militant politically correct theophobes, there would not be a need for "caution"."
Those are my people you are talking about! We the militant moonbats take very seriously any religious encroachment on government. Now I know that some of the moonbats are more moony than me. Let's be honest here, each side has some pretty crazy folk. Most of us are pretty mild mannered moonbats. I most definitely would not lobby to have the Pledge removed, but you are absolutely correct on "school sponsored prayer". That is not to say that kids should not be given a moment of silence in the morning or be allowed to quietly pray over their lunch.
Most of us really do believe that your right to religion is equal to my freedom from it. As long as it's not being mandated in the public sector, then fine fine fine. You want creation and prayer in school, go to private school. You want freedom from religion and contemporary science , go to public school. Stay out of my bedroom, and I will stay out of yours, etc etc etc.
... Any government mandated religious practice in this country. I'm happy to leave such ideals in the Middle East, tyvm.
I agree with you here, tek. Government does not have the power to mandate religion . At the same time, I do not think that the balance between freedom of religion and freedom from religion is being maintained in America. I feel that it is slanted away from freedom of religion towaqrds freedom from religion. I further feel that any and all attempts to correct this unbalance seems to those such as yourself as encroachment.
The plural of 'anecdote' is not 'data'.
Freedom volleyball being played for sure. I don't really know if it's slanting towards freedom from. I agree that there is a general feeling of a surge away from religion . Atheists and others are definitely getting louder than at any time I am aware of, and the general population seems to be moving away.
I know we disagree here, and I know that it comes with growing pains, but I am glad to see people moving away from religion. I also know there will be consequences. However, our Constitution guarantees the Freedom of Religion. That's a good thing, and it must be ensured that that freedom is never lost. It is one of our most fundamental freedoms.
I have heard several cases of religious freedom being hindered, even by my definition. But when you chase the story down a little more you always find out that the land is used publicly, or it ends up being a for profit, etc. I am definitely open to hearing of any true offenses, and will regret that it took place. But I really don't feel like the slant is heavy in my direction. Imagine the uproar when we try and take "god" back off our money , or back out of the pledge. Now that was some slanting getting them put in. I can't imagine it ever slanting hard enough back in my direction to ever see that changed.
In any case, this post is getting long. I feel like I can safely say that we both cherish the same things, and can agree to disagree respectfully. I ask that while I try to protect your rights, you protect mine.
...Owned and operated by the Federal Government, protecting free speech as enumerated in the First Amendment is good policy.
The plural of 'anecdote' is not 'data'.
Join me on rationalizing this out. First, understand that I don't care if there is a Christian chat forum. As long as there is now a forum for each of the many countless religions out there, what do I care if Christians want a forum. I wonder if there will be much cross posting between the Islamics and the Christians. Hell, this might be fun to watch. But, I digress.
My actual point of this post is do you and anyone reading this believe that the government has freedom of speech? I would argue that it doesn't. It is not free to do and say many things that would be protected for the citizens. The federal government is not free to say that Jesus is the way, the truth, and the light. It is not free to say that Mohammed had it right. It is not free period. It is kept confined by the Constitution and by the peoples of this land (when we are paying attention anyway).
I only bring this up because of your post and look forward to your opinion.
Do I believe that the Government has the right to free speech ? NO!
The government does not have any rights at all. They have powers. There are also strict seperation issues which spring to mind when subjects such as Government promoting religion are raised.
I feel it is the responsibility of the government to prevent infringement of the peoples' rights as enumerated in the Bill of Rights. In this case, I think it was mandatory that the government lift the ban preventing the chat group, which is a group of citizens.
If I am understanding you correctly, I think we are likely on the same page, or nearly so.
The plural of 'anecdote' is not 'data'.