It veers into histrionics rather quickly:
If the founders didn’t intend to require that cadets be Catholics or Baptists, they also clearly didn’t intend that they be atheists. Page therefore found himself in a system designed not to eliminate atheists, but still not intended to make them comfortable. The values with which the Academies want to instill cadets are not specifically sectarian, but they are religious.
It is clear that this young man did not do his homework before he applied to West Point, or he would have known that one of the principle persons responsible for establishing the academy was the third President of the United States, Thomas Jefferson. While the Left has often portrayed Jefferson as a man opposed to religion in general and Christianity in particular, he was in fact a man of faith. He supposedly edited his Bible to remove elements of the divine, but the values he embraced in what was left were emphatically religious.
Yeah. That’s right. Thomas Jefferson edited out all of the bible’s miracles and magic in order to emphatically embrace religion. In what universe does that make sense?
Even as an attack piece, it overstays its welcome. There’s little substance other than dancing around definitions of words, and conveniently avoiding a defensible legal standing of her position.
It ends on an impossibly low note. My response is below the fold.
I stand by my statement that West Point is religious.
I left this comment:
“I stand by my statement that West Point is religious.”
Well then taxpayers better get a refund. I think you’ll find that West Point disagrees with your statement, and wishes you wouldn’t say these things. They want people to bash Blake Page, but not to let the cat out of the bag about what they know to be unconstitutional (*see end).
All the military atheists want is equal opportunities, access, and a seat at the table. We’re not a religion, but we are a ‘religious preference’ – the military’s term.This entire op-ed reads like hatchet job from an evangelical who has never heard of Limited Public Forum law. Simplified: All points of view must be given full equal treatment, when allowing speech on any given topic in a government setting. They can ban all speech / groups on a given topic (religion) or they can welcome all speech / groups. No in-between. You want theist groups? You must allow atheist groups.
—–* Supreme court ruling on favoring theist groups over atheist*—-
It is one of the fundamental principles of the Supreme Court’s Establishment Clause jurisprudence that the Constitution forbids not only state practices that “aid one religion . . . or prefer one religion over another,” but also those practices that “aid all religions” and thus endorse or prefer religion over nonreligion. Everson, 330 U.S. at 15. See Wallace v. Jaffree, 472 U.S. 38, 53 (1985)(“[T]he individual freedom of conscience protected by the First Amendment embraces the right to select any religious faith or none at all”)