When is it OK to display religious verses in military settings? What about your barracks?

Major, I think those same progressives are behind fueling this debate in the military. Divide and conquer. This debate does nothing but cause division among the ranks. Everyone should be able to express their views as long as they are not trying to force others to believe their way. The cadet was not trying to impose his views on another. If someone did not like what it said, then they have the right to ignore it.

The Academy is a public school. The lack of force in going there has nothing to do with what you are talking about. If it were a private institution, you would be correct. I went to the Lutheran School and several Jewish institutions. It's not the private places that are the problem.

It is still voluntary to attend, Sir, which is mostly my point. Also as I said, no one is forced to participate in any religious practices. There are typically two main reasons to attend the academy I would say. Earn an education, and achieve commission in the Armed Forces. It is safe to assume that individuals have goals, and students are trying accomplish theirs. In no way does one student posting biblical references interfere with the free will of another who is pursuing his/her purpose. Therefore, there is no problem. One student has freely expressed himself, and all the other students remain unobstructed from their pursuit of life, liberty and happiness. Public, private, it doesn't matter, at the root of all this no one has had their rights infringed or their freedom to be themselves reduced. The establishment clause is irrelevant here because the constitution limits the legislative branch from writing laws which establish religion. The Academy isn't comprised of Congressmen, nor has it tried to establish a religion on behalf of the government. What we are talking about here is people being who they are, which rather than be admonished in a public building or school, should be embraced. Until someone can show me how one citizen's public display of religion has obstructed another's natural liberty, the debate is complete. Just as Westboro Baptist Church free speech/free religion rights are equally protected under the law, so is the Soldier/Cadet with a whiteboard.

I had to go back and reread this whole thing. I was just trying to explain the position of other people as I saw the situation. Personally, I don't care about displaying bible verses on some kid's whiteboard. I get a little iffy when it's carved in stone at taxpayer's expense. I agree that there isn't a problem with the simple act of writing something like that on a whiteboard, I was expressing... or attempting to express how the proselytization that goes on at the Academy is the real problem, and because of that, what people write on whiteboards becomes a problem. Does that make sense?

It does, I just absolutely disagree with people reading to far into the word "God" as it is displayed by Government. Rather than endorsing solely Christianity, it is intended in broad terms, to effect unto the reader whatever God he/she bears faith in. There is a deeper meaning that gets missed these days because the common reaction is one of political correctness and abrasiveness. The intent is actually to embrace the people's religious freedom and to encourage the morality stemming from one's faith in "God." It is not a law forcing one God on the people by a tyrannical government who only recognizes one God. In recognizing all of our nations history I would think that would be clear. Of course, a hundred years ago or more no one could have predicted that so many people would turn their backs to religion and practice atheism. Non-believers still do not comprise the majority of Americans, and even if they did it would not negate the validity of a broad approach to civility such as "trust in your God." If you don't have one, then I suppose by virtue of liberty the concept doesn't apply to the free thinking individual. Either way, it doesn't hurt to support the principles of unity and faith amongst a free people. It would send a far more authoritative message to remove "God" and messages regarding faith from all public buildings and the people's government. By reversing a stance on encouraging the people's faith, and essentially removing it from the framework language, government would then be quietly advocating religious censorship. It would be like saying, "We don't recognize the deeper meaning of trust in one's God anymore and even if we did we won't talk about it publicly." That sets an informal precedent that it is no longer correct to be public about religion at all. Not good. People have the right to privacy, but not the requirement of privacy. I don't mean to sound condescending, but there is a LOT more that I worry about regarding taxpayer expenditures than a stone carving that touts our nation's religious freedom. Quick question...Do you oppose the Code of Conduct for the same reasons? It seems absurd to me to disregard the COC because of its mention of "your God," when the deeper meaning of Article VI is to embrace freedom and the principles that made our country free to begin with. It is difficult to ignore that our first settlers arrived here largely as a result of religious persecution (by Christians!). Recognizing the history resulting from an empirical religion, it is easy for me to see the true meaning of "trust in God" and embrace it. No offense intended to anyone in particular, but it is my feeling that the "freethinkers" who want to remove God from our language just aren't very "deepthinkers."

SSG Hasbun, That's a funny; an atheist quoting scripture from the bible, which is not as same as quoting Army regulation.  If you're not an atheist then I apologize.  I find it humorous when a non Christian quotes scripture to a Christian as if they found the regulation and they have proven them to be in violation.  The kid wasn't doing anything the scripture described not to do.  He or she wrote scripture on a white board which was public and other got butt hurt due to not being tolerant of other beliefs but I have to be that way to a guy that wears a turben and sports a full beard on his face due to religious beliefs which I have not problem with.

If your Soldier was wearing his uniform incorrectly, you'd base your correction off of AR 670-1 right? Well, when a Christian seems to have never read his regulation, I might as well show him the applicable passage.

SSG. H, I would say I agree with your statement but I personally have seen the double standard in religion. I have seen Muslim soldiers allowed to do prayer in public & yet those that are catholic have had to hold their prayer service behind doors. There Obviously needs to be a set Standard Across the Board with Every Branch of service to Include Reserves & National Guard so that All religions are treated Equally & Fairly.

Trampling on the freedom to practice religion and religious expression is a slippery slope. A Christians duty is to spread the gospel, Christ's teachings, and to bring souls to Christ. If this young man was spreading the word, and was doing it in a way that was not intrusive or disrespectful to other religions, then his rights were not protected...the Air Force Academy is in the wrong. If he is not legally prohibited, by regulation, from making statements of faith, written or verbal, in a manner not disturbing of good order and discipline, then the academy is guilty of violating his rights, borderline discrimination since he was threatened with removal from the academy. Forcing a Christian out of an educational opportunity for peacefully and respectfully practicing his faith is discrimination in my opinion.

Capt Gregory Prickett , you make my point sir. At the time the constitution was penned, there were state religions. Your interpretation of the establishment clause is not the one in which was written but a twisting to suit your personal needs.

I understand. I am talking about what it was as written. You are talking about what lawyers and other horrible jurists have twisted it into today.

Those states would either not have been admitted to or not have joined the Union if your position were correct. Furthermore, if they had there would not have been a need to pass any laws dropping a religion beause the entire body of law would have been rendered moot upon ratification of the bill of rights.

Staff, You say "Those states would either not have been admitted to or not have joined the Union if your position were correct.". Unfortunately you missed the point.

"Those states" WERE admitted an his position IS correct. The Constitution of the United States of America (originally silent on the matter) was amended to provide that "Congress" (read as "the Federal Government") should not provide for a state religion or interfere with the several states if they wished to establish an official state religion. (Possibly the fact that the word "state" had two meanings is what is confusing the issue.)

The Founding Fathers didn't object to there being "established religions" - but they were unanimous in the position of "If it isn't going to be MY religion which is the established one for the whole country then it sure as hell is NOT going to be YOUR religion which is.".

Inside should be fine unless there are regulations for what can and cannot be on the walls and doors (religious or otherwise).

It is an academy setting, and like basic training, part of that is rigidity and conformity. Its up to the institution what they choose to allow or not allow, so long as everyone is treated equally.