Religious Civil Rights: Why Have The Washington Times And The Air Force Academy Savaged Them?

Albert Einstein once famously said, "There are only two things that are infinite; the universe and human stupidity; and I'm not sure about the universe." To that end, especially that part about the infinite depth of human stupidity, one is compelled to pose the following question; has The Washington Times editorial staff fallen so low on the ethical, rational, reasonable and integrity scale that they've taken to "drunk dialing in" their editorials now?

Last Thursday evening, May 5, 2011, The Washington Times published a breathtakingly hurtful and almost preposterously ignorant screedentitled"Air Force witchcraft: political correctness casts a spell on the armed forces." In this pathetic and putrescent journalistic piece of filth, parading as the opinion of an alleged so-called leader of the "conservative" newspaper world, the Times revels itself to be just another run-of-the-mill, prejudiced bully cum bigot.

Among other asinine assertions, the Times argues that certain nonmainstream religious faiths being practiced in the United States military are "fringe ideas" not worthy of any institutional respect, and even derides one faith group's worship area at the United States Air Force Academy as "a pile of rocks." A complete detailing of the Times' egregious savaging of the legitimate, religious civil rights of honorable US military members, who apparently don't meet the Times' own convenient "religious test of legitimacy," is beyond the intended scope of this brief rebuttal. I will restrict my responsive comments to two substantially enormous errors committed by this degradingly disgusting Times editorial; to wit, (1) the illegality and real-world danger of the Times' "religiously profiling" any faith as "fringe"; and, (2) the Times' selection of the United States Air Force Academy as the would-be quintessential example of too much religious accommodation gone awry.

It seems that the Times has either suspiciously forgotten or is engaged in "willful ignorance" (i.e., being stupid on purpose) regarding the purpose of the Bill of Rights of the United States Constitution. This compendium of the first ten Amendments was absolutely not passed for the convenience of the majority, but to protect the minority from the tyranny of the majority. Who is the Times to establish a "Religion Legitimacy Star Chamber" to seemingly render verdicts, sua sponte, on which faiths are "mainstream" and, thus, deserving of constitutional rights in our nation's armed forces and, alternatively, which are "fringe" and, consequently, should inherit the wind?

More