The U.S. Air Force Academy has decided that it has the right to forbid a cadet to write a verse from the Bible on his personal white board for inspiration. 

I disagree.  I don't think that they have that right. Nor does, I believe the United States Constitution. 

I sent this letter to the Superintendent of the academy today.  If you agree, pass it on, and do the same, in your own words.  I'd love to see a million letters on her desk.  Please be respectful and polite, and give your communication to a Major General in the Air Force the thoughtfulness that it deserves. 

===========================

William G. Leslie

100 West Powell Blvd.

Gresham, OR 97030

(503) xxx-xxxx

williamleslie99@gmail.com

March 28, 2014

Superintendent, United States Air Force Academy

2304 Cadet Dr., Ste. 3300

USAF Academy, CO 80840-5001

Attn:  Maj. Gen. Michelle Johnson

Dear General Johnson:

As a patriot, I cannot let the recent actions by the United States Air Force Academy to stifle religious freedom among the Corps. of Cadets stand without a personal response. The Constitution of the United States does not provide for freedom of worship.  It is much broader than that.  It says, in part, Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech…”  By forbidding the cadets to freely express themselves, and to demonstrate their faith, you are ignoring a document that you have sworn to protect. Do you take your oath so lightly?

It is not difficult to see that the writing of a personal message of inspiration on a cadet’s personal white-board is a protected form of communication, under both the freedom of expression clause of the Constitution, and under the freedom of speech clause.  

Please take a moment to review the Constitution.  It has stood up well for more than two hundred years.  Shall one of our nation’s finest institutions toss it aside carelessly?

Sincerely,

William Leslie

The Thought Police Have Arrived

Not long ago, a University of Oregon professor announced a writing assignment.  Students were told to choose an issue that was controversial, and write an argument in favor of either side of the issue. Students were told that they must choose a topic that had two valid sides.  The professor announced that some topics, like gay marriage or abortion couldn't be chosen, because there is only one valid argument or side to these issues.

Does this make you cringe?  It should.  One would think that a liberal arts college would encourage a diversity of opinion.  In this case, the professor forbid even a discussion of two of the most controversial - indeed, divisive - topics that our nation is dealing with today.

What are we teaching our students?  Certainly not to think.

The Heritage Foundation recently posted what follows.  Our liberal institutions of higher learning no longer even allow a diversity of opinion:

One student from Swarthmore said: “What really bothered me is, the whole idea is that at a liberal arts college, we need to be hearing a diversity of opinion. I don’t think should be tolerating conservative views because that dominant culture embeds these deep inequalities in our society.”

It is time to speak up.  Get involved.  When you hear things that disturb you, tell others. 

If you Disagree, Just ignore your Promises

I watched with interest as Oregon Attorney General Ellen Rosenblum announced that she would not defend the 2004 amendment that Oregonians passed in which they stated that marriage consists of a union between a man and a woman.  This places our Secretary of State in the positon of announcing that she will not respect, not be bound, by the oath she took when she was sworn into office.

Some will applaud her stance.  "Good for her.  She is standing up for what she believes in."  I see it differently.  When the founding fathers found that they could not serve a distant crown because their conscience would not allow them to enforce unjust laws, they resigned their positions. Rather than take the honorable step of resigning, which I could respect, our Secretary of State dishonorably chose to ignore her oath.

In a press release Ms. Rosenblum announced that "there is no rational basis for Oregon to refuse to honor the commitments made by same-sex couples."  I can think of a rational basis - in fact, I can think of 1,028,546 rational reasons.  That's how many Oregonians voted in favor of the amendment to our constitution, which Ms. Rosenblum swore to defend.

She stated that she also swore an oath to defend the Constitution of the United States, but that Constitution has no amendment regarding marriage, and the opinion of the U.S. Supreme Court has yet to been heard.  In contrast, the Oregon amendment is clear and explicit.

I felt a similar twinge when our governor announced that he would not sign any orders for the execution of any death row inmates for as long as he is in office.  Upon reflection, I realized that that's different.  Our own statutes require the governor's concurrence before an execution can be carried out.  That may be a good plan, or a bad one, but it is clear that it is the governor's prerogative, and there is nothing in any statute or ordinance to require his concurrence.  His decision may defy the will of the people, but it is certainly honorable and lawful, and within the structures of laws that we have established.

The Secretary of State's stance is akin to to the employee who steals from his employer because he believes that he is not being paid enough.  The employee's own opinion allows him to justify his action.  When each of us does what we want to, and ignores the laws by which we have collectively agreed to be bound, that's lawlessness.

Some will say, "Ah, the author is anti-gay," but they are missing the point.  I am not anti-gay.  I am pro rule of law.  If the Supreme Court of the United States rules that the states should allow gay marriage, that will be the law of the land, and it would be wrong for our Attorney General to defy that law.

And it's wrong for our Secretary of State to ignore her oath because she, in her own mind, has decided that the Oregon Constitution is not "rational."

Our World Sure Has Changed: Banks and Credit Unions

On Monday I called my credit union to check on CD rates.  I was transferred twice and put on hold twice before I got to the right person.  I think I had to answer seven questions about my identity before she would quote me current CD rates. Who else is on your accounts? (Easy).  When did you open your first account?  (Hard.  It was thirty-nine years ago.)  What branch did you open your account at?  (No clue.)  When did you open your home equity line of credit?  (No clue.  We've never borrowed a cent on it).  The questions went on and on.  In the end, convinced that I was who I claimed to be, she quoted 0.21 % for a twelve month CD.  In a year I would earn about what it would cost her to mail me a confirmation for the new CD.  I told her I would pass.

I called my business bank today, and got the same sequence of events.  I think there were eight or nine questions to prove my identity.  My date of birth?  (Gee, I'm not sure I should trust you with that.  What's your date of birth?  Oh, you aren't allowed to share it, because it isn't safe?)  This conversation was made more difficult because I was talking to someone overseas, to someone with a heavy accent.

My bank encourages me to make deposits via eDeposit, which involves taking a picture of the check with my cell phone.  To make a deposit I have to provide my log in, my password, my pin, and the name of my best man.  It's supposed to save me time.  I think it takes ten minutes for me to log in and deposit one check.  If my time is worth anything, I'd be better off mailing the check.

I passed my lovely wife an envelope over coffee this morning.  It contained directions on where to dig in our front yard after I die, to get to our savings account.  It's in a mason jar.  It took me less time to dig the hole and write the note than it did to call the credit union.  While I dug, I listened to the birds tweet, and to the wind in the fir trees.  And when I was done digging, my blood pressure was lower than when I began.

Our world sure has changed, hasn't it?