Air Force Builds Neo-Pagan Worship Circle

Response to Elldee & Jesse Medina: Most of our founding fathers were not deists. When one is born again, hopefully one can discern revisionist American history. Christians have always supported freedom of religion, including our own, which presently is at severe risk under Obama. The point of this article is that the Air Force Academy responded to Wiccan complaints of harassment by building this pile of rocks to demonstrate tolerance and diversity. Otherwise, it would not have acted. The other facilities built for mainline religions were not built for that reason. That is the difference.

Sorry to those who responded. I don't get notified by disqus unless someone responds directly to what I said. Anyhow...

"Christians have always supported freedom of religion, including our own, which presently is at severe risk under Obama."

How so?

By Obama showing outright contempt and shame for real Christianity, not his brand of radical liberation theology which gives impetus to his desire and plans for a secular humanist socialist state which above all denies the blood bought freedom in Christ that you and I enjoy. Any other religion or no religion is fine with him because such religions put people in bondage. To that extent such bondage propagandizes people to trade freedom for bondage. Hope you're not in bondage!

Something here doesn't quite track to me. Let me see if I can figure out exactly what that is. The logic of the argument appears to be:

1. Obama advocates a brand of religion that denies the idea of the "blood-bought freedom in Christ that you and I enjoy."
2. He's ok with any other religion because all other religions or religious ideas put people in "bondage."
3. Advocacy of any theology besides the one mentioned in #1 is therefore a denial of religious freedom.

This argument seems to assert, then, that Obama denies religious freedom, but it defines "religious freedom" _only_ as the freedom to believe in one particular brand of Christianity, since all other beliefs are (conveniently) forms of "bondage." That doesn't make a lot of sense to me.

To see the problem, let's alter the terms hypothetically and use the same logic:

1. All Americans deserve the freedom to buy any kind of car they want.
2. Of all the cars out there, I believe that only Fords offer true freedom.
3. That makes owning any other kind of car a form of "bondage."
4. Consequently, to advocate for any other manufacturer of car is to "propagandize" people into bondage.
5. Therefore, the only way the government can promote true "automotive freedom" is to officially adopt the position that everyone should buy a Ford.

The problem, of course, is that this is having one's cake and eating it, too: the government cannot offer freedom of religion while adopting the tenets of one particular religion as its official stance. We can either entirely allow for freedom of religion, which means living with the idea that Christian truth is not seen as capital-T truth by everyone (however much we might want and try to convince them), or we can adopt an official state religion. Can't have it both ways.

I'd also point out that this argument conflates theological with political ideas of "freedom" without justifying that move (i.e. is the kind of "freedom in Christ" offered by Christianity the same thing as the kind of political freedom that can be offered by a state?).

Truthseeker: As with "Logician" who has chosen to tuck tail from this blog for now, I respectfully and without malice, ask you to read the founding fathers and see if they had any problem "conflating" Christianity with politics. Every other religion besides Christianity is a fabrication of Satan, steeped in works, lacking the assurance and security of salvation, and did not have a messiah who died and rose from the dead. I will say again that every other religion is most certainly a devil-made form of bondage, including the modern day ecumenical, contemplative, emerging type of New Age mysticism that will prepare the undiscerning to surrender their freedoms to the socialist state promoted currently by Obama. I won't even lower myself to the level of answering your hypothetical, other than to simply say no government in and of itself, historically speaking, has ever been shown to provide and guarantee freedom(s) without Christianity being in the hearts and minds of the citizenry beforehand. Christianity (by and through Jesus Christ) is all about freedom, within the church and without in the culture. The following is provided as a Biblical refutation of your so-called logic:
Galatians 5/Galatians4:31/Romans8:2/Romans6:7/John8:36/1Cor2:12/1Cor9:1/1Cor9:19/Proverbs3:7/
Proverbs8:33/Proverbs9:8/Proverbs12:15/Proverbs15:2/Proverbs28:26.

Sorry if it seems like I've disappeared. I've been trying to respond to your posting, here, but it seems my response keeps being rejected (I'm not sure why, since the response is certainly intended to be a polite one that just continues the discussion--if I'm breaking the comment rules on this blog I'm not sure how, and I apologize if I have done so unintentionally).

Anwyay, I'm going to try to post just a chunk of my argument, which is a response to only a small portion of yours (the comment about the religious views of the founders):

The thing is that I _have_, as you very correctly recommend, read the founding fathers very carefully for myself, perhaps not every last one, but nearly so. I see them "conflating" _religion_ with politics insofar as they draw ideas about what they see as an ideal moral code from several religious sources. The so-called "Judeo-Christian" tradition is the main one, but not the only one: Jefferson, for instance, often cites Mohammed as a figure on a level with Jesus as an important moral teacher. Jefferson most certainly believed that Jesus was a great teacher, but explicitly denies that there was anything supernatural about him. He even produced his own version of the Bible, which was essentially the moral code of Christianity with all references to the supernatural excised. Thomas Paine, to cite another example, explicitly dismisses the idea of the divinity of Christ as silly superstition (in _The Age of Reason_), Benjamin Franklin is clear about his belief in a "watchmaker" God that isn't interested in being involved actively with human history (can't remember the specific work off the top of my head, but I'll be happy to provide a reference if desired). So these three, at least, are only Christian insofar as they ascribe to the moral code of Christianity, but it seems difficult to me to accept as a true Christian someone who explicitly denies the divinity of Christ, as these, and most of the other founders whose writings we can examine, most certainly did. Jefferson, Washington, Franklin, James Madison, Ethan Allen, Thomas Paine, and James Monroe, just to name a few, were all deists, and that deism is clearly demonstrable from their own writings. I have a hard time thinking I'm doing "revisionist" history when I read the founding fathers expressing these ideas in their own words.

Historical context matters here, too: those founding fathers were part of a generation that came on the heels of events in Europe like the Thirty Years' War, where states that officially adopted certain stripes of Christianity (to say nothing of conflicts between entirely different religions) were slaughtering one another to the tune of millions over matters of doctrine. They didn't want to see that kind of violence happening in the new United States, and knew that a large part of what was giving rise to that violence was the adoption of official state religious doctrine--they wanted to ensure that no single group, religious or otherwise, had too much power over all the others. They therefore decided that the US would NOT adopt an official religion or doctrine, but rather allow each person to worship according to the dictates of his/her conscience. They didn't want to see the kind of persecution of non "state-sanctioned" sects that had become commonplace in Europe. That Jefferson was thinking in this vein is clear from his _Notes on Virginia_, in which he writes, among other things, "Difference of opinion is advantageous in religion. The several sects perform the office of a common censor over each other. Is uniformity attainable? Millions of innocent men, women and children, since the introduction of Christianity, have been burnt, tortured, fined, imprisoned; yet we have not advanced an inch towards uniformity. What has been the effect of coercion? To make one half the world fools, and the other half hypocrites. To support roguery and error all over the earth." Notice that he's explicitly interested, here, in working against the kind of violence he'd seen in Europe, and explicitly states that the way to do that is to not only tolerate but encourage difference of religious opinion so that no single sect will gain more power than the others. The differences cause each sect to act as part of a system of checks and balances toward all the others; it's the same kind of logic that created the separation between the legislative, judicial, and executive branches of government, each branch helping to ensure that no single individual or group had so much power that they could force their issues and beliefs on everyone else.

Consequently, the idea that that founders were interested in the freedom offered not simply via Christianity in general, but in just one particular doctrinal subset of Christianity, just isn't supportable from the historical evidence. This doesn't mean that you can't argue that we _should_ only allow for one religious point of view if you think that's the only one that offers true freedom (though I'd disagree with that idea), but I don't think you can support that argument by saying that that was the intention of the founders without running very far afield of the facts on the ground.

Truthseeker: Deism is a heresy just as surely as ecumenism, liberation theology and/or secular humanism. Instead of the intended "non-revisionist" history lesson which is speculative (and prejudiced) at best, you should have concentrated on the chunk edited out which would have produced better fruit. The "select founding fathers" you refer to may have had literary interests in the popular Deist movement, the translation of the Koran because of the Barbary Coast's dislike of America, and a distaste for the Old World (temporal) interference of government in religion, but they still had a truly faithful grounding in (and awareness of) the predominant Christian character of the nation. Despite their sometimes dislike for organized religion and dogma, they were at least politically (or at least nominally) Christian. For documentation check out: www.wallbuilders.com/LIBissuesArticles.asp?id=65. Even Franklin defers to Jesus Christ in his autobiography, e.g., "#13 Humility-Imitate Jesus and Socrates". So where do you fall theologically? This nation cannot survive without the acknowledgment of Jesus Christ as THE way, THE truth, and THE life. Are you with Him or are you a deist?

Actually, I agree with much of what you say here, and there's much that I never intended to question. I'd agree that the founders certainly had a strong belief in God, and had great respect, even reverence, for Jesus. But for me, here's the rub: when I use the word "Christian" as an adjective, I want it to mean something that goes beyond a mere cultural characteristic; I want it to mean more than just "related to the historical tradition of Christianity." I think the term should refer to the core of the Christian faith--the Gospel of the death, resurrection, and grace of Jesus Christ. For something to be "Christian," for me, it has to demonstrate a primary focus on the Gospel.

When I read the founders, I see, quite clearly, an indebtedness to the historical tradition of Christianity, mixed in with a whole host of other theological, philosophical, and cultural factors (enlightenment philosophy being the other real biggie). I also see much respect for Jesus and his teachings. But what I also see, very consistently, are flat-out rejections of the idea that Jesus was anything more than just a great teacher, some of which I mentioned in my previous post (obviously I can't quote them all in this forum, but I can at least say that I'm looking at those writings as wholes and trying to be honest about what I read in them, and not trying to selectively proof-text). In the tradition in which I was raised, the idea of the divinity of Christ has been a pretty non-negotiable quality that has to be there for something, someone, or some idea to "count" as legitimately and authentically Christian.

So, for instance, while Franklin, as you point out, lists the idea of emulating the humility of Jesus as something he wants to do, the fact that he wants to emulate Jesus' behavior does not make him a Christian in any substantive sense of the word. He also places Jesus, in that very line, directly on the same level as Socrates--he sees them both as people worthy of emulation in their quality of humility, nothing more. That's also the _only_ mention of Jesus in his entire autobiography. The whole theme of that autobiography, taken as a complete text, is his quest to make himself the best person he can be on his own efforts. To call his philosophy "Christian" and have that mean something, I'd have to see places where he bases his whole philosophy on the Gospel--and he simply doesn't. And, as I mentioned before, he explicitly rejects the divinity of Christ and talks about his view of God as a watchmaker figure who created the universe, wound it up, and let it run. He does, in the Autobiography, talk very generally about God's goodness and providence, but that still doesn't amount to anything I think I could legitimately call a "Christian" ethic, since the Gospel itself is nowhere to be seen in his writings.

In Jefferson's response to the Danbury Baptists in the link you provided, I see Jefferson affirming the idea that the government has no business legislating religious belief and practice. The Dabnury folk were worried (according to that same website), that the idea that congrees would "make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof" meant that the constitution was implying that the free exercise of religion was something that the government "granted" to the people rather than a natural right. His reply seems to suggest that he was aware of that concern, and really thought of the free exercise of religion as a natural right. I'm not sure how one can make that square with the idea that "freedom of religion" can only mean freedom for the government to officially adopt the doctrines of one particular sect of Christianity--everything I read in his work and that of the other founders suggests to me that they would be diametrically opposed to such a notion.

As to where I stand, no, I'm not personally a deist. I believe in the grace and salvation made possible through the sacrifice of Christ as the Son of God. But I don't think our government should adopt that gospel as its official doctrinal position (the constitution prohibits the government from adopting _any_ doctrinal position or influencing the religious beliefs or practices of its citizens at all). Nor do I think that, even if that could be achieved, that getting a _government_ to adopt that position would be helpful (historically, this has always done more harm than good--to the tune of millions of deaths). What I _do_ believe is in preserving our freedom to so everything we can to make sure not that this is a "Christian nation" but that this is a nation that contains as many Christians as we can possibly lead to the Gospel of Jesus Christ. Governments are there to fullfill a useful and legitimate function in this world by helping a sinful, fallen humanity live together in community, but they don't, and shouldn't, have anything whatever to do with the next.

Truthseeker: 'No longer a Christian nation' Obama said. Looks like you agree with that pompous and inaccurate pronouncement. Where I differ with you I suppose is this: I believe that in a heretofore bottom up society, where the people decided what government can and cannot do, it has been a historical fact that America supported, lived by, and was guided by Judeo-Christian principles. As opposed to early America when many Christians were in government, saw the need to participate in same, made laws in conformity with Judeo-Christian tradition and code, the Bible read (and prayer said) in schools, people free to proselytize publicly, the ten commandments displayed, and public buildings memorialized with Judeo-Christian quotes and symbols, we have clearly tipped in the other direction, where Christians are ostracized, so that, in the name of religious freedom and diversity, all forms of pagan, apostate, perverted and apostate religions (and lifestyles) can (and do) have dominance. Only recently has Christianity been deemed (by Obama and his pervert appointees) to be a serious risk to freedom of religion, because when confronted and exposed by the above anti-Christian religions authored by Satan as mentioned, Christianity is viewed as intolerable and indeed a threat to them, propagandized by a government presently held hostage by an anti-Christian president and administration. The risk to freedom of religion lies not in Christianity becoming the state religion, but in all others suppressing Christianity. If that sounds too fundamentalist for your taste, would you prefer that our country be scrubbed of all Judeo-Christian thought, law, tradition and symbolism, because of the alleged risk above described?

You're putting words in my mouth. I never said anything about wanting to "scrub" Judeo-Christian thought from America (that would be impossible even if I wanted to). The active suppression of Christianity (or any other religion) by government would be every bit as wrong as the official adoption thereof.

My only point in the previous posting was that I don't find that the idea that the founders were themselves Christian in any meaningful sense of the word is supportable by documentary evidence. There's a difference between drawing on Judeo-Christian thought as a cultural tradition and being _authentically_ Christian. You seemed to be arguing that the founders were themselves Christians (some were, most weren't) and that they believed that "religious freedom" only meant "the freedom to be Christian" and not anything else. I disagree with that assessment on historical grounds. Let's not descend into ad-hominem attacks.

So if the founding fathers intended for this to be a strictly Christian nation, why would they make the first amendment about freedom of religion? Surely they weren't stupid enough to believe that everyone just kind of "got" that they meant freedom to practice the only one true religion of Christianity?

Talk about trying to rewrite the Constitution!

The other key point we should draw from this is that the Air Force Base is a government complex. This is something that would have caused the founding father's turn over in their graves. This action is government sponsored. It would be the same as any other Military base establishing a Muslim Mosque on its grounds for the Muslims. The action shows peculiar preference and makes a statement. Elldee, you are condoning this action which the fathers, for the reasons you stated, would have rejected. Jesse Medina, you are right about the fact that America is not the Church. It is increasingly looking like Rome. However, we were a Christian nation, one built to glorify Our Lord. That does give us if only slightly more responsibility over our flag than did the Roman or Chines Christians.

Soli Deo Gloria

"The other key point we should draw from this is that the Air Force Base is a government complex."

-First, this is the Air Force Academy. Now, as one living in Colorado Springs, I can tell you that for freshman cadets, going off base, even for religious purposes is very limited. In order for the Air Force to NOT infringe on freedom of religion, they must accomodate the beliefs of those who would not otherwise be permitted to worship. That is why they have a Protestant, Catholic, Buddhist, and Muslim worship area. If you don't like the wiccan worship circle, I assume you don't like the rest either. So why is it that the founding fathers would turn over in their graves over a wiccan exercising his/her freedom to religion on an Air Force base, but not anyone else? Why should I not consider this a double standard?

"However, we were a Christian nation..."

-No, we're not, we never have been. The best defense you have for this claim is that we were founded on supposed Judeo-Christian values which are limited to neither Judaism or Christianity. That some of the founding fathers were Christian, held Christian values, or even wanted everyone to be Christian does not make this a Christian nation. If the founding fathers had in their mind to create a Christian nation, they would have spelled it out in the Constitution that America should be such. They didn't. Instead, they wanted a free nation where all people, Christians included, could worship freely. That's why they set it up the way they did.

Which of the founding fathers are the ones you you characterize as specifically Christian, rather than deist, and why?

I am a bible-believing, born-agan Christian, yet I cannot condemn this action. Whether we agree with them or not, Wiccans consider their beliefs to be a religion. If we work toward forbidding their expression of faith, we will lose ours. I agree that most of our Founding Fathers were at least diests, believing in the God of the Old Testament, but they did not specifically make Christianity the official religion. Instead, they remembered the persecution that drove their ancestors to the new land of America where they could worship in freedom rather than by government mandate.

A few things:

1. Freedom of religion means that America, whether founded on Judeo-Christian values or not, will be a pantheon. The only way to prevent this is to stray from our Judeo-Christian values. You cannot have your cake and eat it, too. Either there will be freedom of religion making allowance for these incidents (including those that benefit Christians) or there will not be and the risk of our becoming oppressed (or becoming the oppressors) is expedited.

2. This worship circle sits aside the various structures the Air Force has already built including space for Protestants, Catholics, Jews, Buddhists and Muslims. I know because I live in Colorado Springs just a few miles away from the Academy and have been to the church there on multiple occasions. If you're going to be upset about the worship circle, be upset about the rest, too. Double standards are oozing here.

3. Why should we care? This isn't a church building a pagan worship circle. It doesn't deprive Christians of their rights. Nor should it impact how we Christians live our lives. Why should we be upset when our secular nation acts like a secular nation?

So what's the alternative? The government establishes a few "recognized faiths," (presumably including Catholicism, Protestantism, Judaism, and Mormonism, but not any others)? Right. Like conservatives are all for government determining what faiths can practice at military academies.

oops, I posted that I like this! That was a mis-key on my part. It is a fact Jarrod that I do not like your argument here. The ideal government is a Christo-centric Theocracy with Christ reigning as King in Zion. This is not yet come to pass, so as it is, no government is perfect. However, there are several levels of imperfect right down to down right wicked! Our nation, as it was established was a Biblical one where such as this would not have been tolerated in generations past. We had then, all-be-it an imperfect government, a better one. And what we have now only points forward to the downward spiral of our present government. The sponsor of all things and all religions only ultimately leads to the intolerance of ours. Why? Because we are a religion of intolerance. A religion that does not tolerate sin and instead proclaims the offensive message of Hope found in Christ and Him Crucified. Thence, the stone henge of Colorado (my poor poor homeland) may not be the writing on the wall, but it is the sin that lead thither.

Soli Deo Gloria

Jarrod: Our constitution protects freedom of religion with no interference from or support from government. Besides the fact that this country was founded on Judeo-Christian principles, and those of that tradition find pagan religions such as Wiccan offensive, it is NOT the duty or obligation of government (or a military school funded by taxpayers) to assist in the creation of worship facilities or paraphernalia to mitigate perceived discrimination. That is except under the Obama administration.

I would agree with much of your reasoning here, although it would suggest to me that the proper course here would be not to allow any faith-specific worship spaces on military bases whatsoever, Christian, Wiccan, or otherwise. The most the government would be obligated to do would be to provide multi-use spaces and not disallow their use by personnel for religious purposes.

When this nation was founded. There was one religion in mind. That religion was Christianity. If that hairlip's people. They need to hit the alter in repentance. This nation was not founded as multi-religous. This nation was founded under the 1st commandment principle. You shall have no other god's before Me. He is the Lord and there is no other. He is not the God of the Muslim's. He is the Lord of Host's the God of the army of Isreal. The true God and eternal life is found in the Lord Jesus Christ alone. As a side note if they was doing something like this for Christianity. the A.clu would be up in arm's with lawsuit's to court's. But there true color's shine through. They are Marxist organization bent on removing anything that has to do with Lord Jesus Christ. Because they are of their father the devil and the lust of their father they will do.

I just saw this article on foxnews.com and followed it to the posting on the USAFA website. I was planning on forwarding the topic to VCY, but it looks like you guys are on top of it.

It's frustrating to see taxpayer money supporting this. What's worse is that the cadets that participate here are going to be the future officers/leaders of our Air Force.