A senior cadet by the name of Blake Page has quit the military academy at West Point this month, just six months short of graduation citing that he could no longer be part of a military engaged in the unconstitutional pandering of religion, promoting prayers and religious activities. What he fails to mention in his own blog post for some left-wing blogger is that it was apparently determined he could not become an officer for bouts of clinical depression. Well, that changes his protest a bit.
The military has found you unfit to wear the uniform of an officer or lead men and women of that service and suddenly you now have a problem with the religious aspects of the military. Oh Gasp, you’ve hit a gusher there Bob Woodward, or you would if you weren’t hip deep in your own hypocrisy. But that doesn’t stop him from railing against the apparent establishment of religion in the military, in fact he goes on to write, “countless officers here and throughout the military are guilty of blatantly violating the oaths they swore to defend the Constitution. These men and women are criminals, complicit in light of day defiance of the Uniform Code of Military Justice”
REALLY? I’m guessing that constitutional law and Christianity aren’t taught at West Point at this time otherwise he would have read in the Constitution that “Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof…” right there in the first amendment. The Establishment clause being the first half of that statement. But yet, no where in the document would you find the words separation of Church and State, why because it doesn’t exist. Well sure it appeared in the 1802 letter that Jefferson wrote to the Danbury Baptists, but that is a private letter explaining the Government would not interfere with how they exercised their religion. In fact, it would only be cited by the SCOTUS in 1947, Everson v. Board of Education when Hugo Black wrote -“The ‘establishment of religion’ clause of the First Amendment means at least this: Neither a state nor the Federal Government can set up a church. Neither can pass laws which aid one religion, aid all religions or prefer one religion over another. Neither can force nor influence a person to go to or to remain away from church against his will or force him to profess a belief or disbelief in any religion. No person can be punished for entertaining or professing religious beliefs or disbeliefs, for church attendance or non-attendance. No tax in any amount, large or small, can be levied to support any religious activities or institutions, whatever they may be called, or whatever form they may adopt to teach or practice religion. Neither a state nor the Federal Government can, openly or secretly, participate in the affairs of any religious organizations or groups and vice versa. In the words of Jefferson, the clause against establishment of religion by law was intended to erect ‘a wall of separation between Church and State.'” 330 U.S. 1, 15-16.
Seems clear-cut enough, but wait, we haven’t got to the military, where people voluntarily serve and then request access to religion. How does the state deal with that. hmmm. Well there are only really two cases that deal with that, Marsh v. Chambers (1983) that held federal funding for chaplains is consitutional because of the unique heritage of the United States, and Katcoff v. Marsh (1985). Now that second case is not a SCOTUS case but was decided by the 2nd U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals. In Katcoff, the 2nd Circuit upheld the U.S. Army’s chaplaincy on the ground that service members have a constitutional right under the First Amendment’s Free Exercise Clause to engage in religious worship, a right that the Army would unduly burden if it did not provide chaplains.
So under the “separation of church and state” no one can be punished for professing religious beliefs and no one in the military can be denied access to religion because it would hinder the constitutional rights of those seeking the comfort of religion. So I forget, what is this ass hat whining about. Oh, yeah, he is bitter he isn’t fit to lead, then went out a proved it with a tirade against the religious aspects of the military. A tirade so dense that even his fellow secular humanist classmates (he was president of the group) disagree with his portrayal of the military. “I think it’s true that the majority of West Point cadets are of a very conservative, Christian orientation,” said senior cadet Andrew Houchin. “I don’t think that’s unique to West Point. But more broadly, I’ve never had that even be a problem with those of us who are secular.”
So really, he isn’t quitting West Point over religion, it is just the smoke screen he is using as a secular humanist to cover his own failings and inadequacies when it comes to military service, which not everyone is cut out for. Maybe with some time to look back and reflect he will understand that without all the trumped-up indignation.