From the sounds of it, the US Air Force is being corrupted by fundamentalists. The Colorado Air Force base of operations is at risk from a fundie base nearby:

The fact that Colorado Springs is home to some of America’s most powerful evangelical Christian organisations has exacerbated the situation, [Captain Melinda Morton] said.

“Many of them have particular goals when it comes to people in uniform, that they are there to teach and encourage those folks to use their power and their position in the military,” she added.

Focus on the Family – perhaps the most powerful lobbying organisation on the Christian right – is over the road from the academy.

The complaints include some pretty sad examples of hate speech:

One man leading the charge is Mikey Weinstein, a graduate of the academy who served in the Reagan White House.

His eldest son is also a graduate, and his youngest son had been there just a few months when he complained of abuse from evangelical cadets.

Mr Weinstein said his son had complained of being called an “f-ing Jew” and was told Jews were responsible for “executing Jesus”.

It’s not about differences in belief or religion, though; this is about an institution that is not protecting its members from the hate and intolerance espoused by the fundies.

Mr Weinstein said 117 people had given him examples of abuse. Only eight of them were Jewish, he said – the rest were Catholics, Baptist, Lutheran, Episcopal, Presbyterian and Methodist.

“They’re not used to being preyed upon… by their evangelical brothers and sisters. But that’s exactly what’s happening.”

Mr Weinstein believes that some senior officers are so heavily involved in a culture of intolerance – and the rest are so blase about what is going on – that the entire academy leadership should be replaced.

The double-talk of fundies is not hard to find. They come out swinging, trying to call their hate speech and bullying the equivalent of rational discourse:

“Liberal movements in America treat people like they’re stupid,” said [Ted Haggard] whose national prominence means that he talks to President George W Bush most weeks.

“Are we saying that we want those students to understand representative government… but they can’t understand religious discussion?”

This guy is obviously lost. He confuses hate speech with regular discussion.

People are saying that religious discussion is different from hate speech. Calling someone a f-ing anything and accusing them of historic crimes based on their race, religion, creed etc. violate the principles of free speech. The idea that hate and prejudice would be able to infiltrate a secular institution on the premise of religious discussion…now that treats people like they are stupid. It will be interesting to see if the Air Force can pass this test of tolerance and representation by controlling the fundies; and even if they do pass the first test of representative government whether they then can pass the test of executive branch outsourcing to militant fundie contractors like Blackwater. Apparently Blackwater has just purchased a ship to start its navy operations…maybe planes are next.

Interesting report. Do you think this means generation Z will be more or less adverse to security than generations Y and X?

Director Frances Crook said children were rarely consulted about “the impact of crime on their lives”.

“The surveys revealed that these crimes are often not reported as children think adults will not listen to them or the crime will be viewed as too small to bother with,” she added.

“Ironically, the very institutions where children should feel safest – their school environments set up and patrolled by adults – are where children are most commonly victimised.

I am not sure I would agree with the conclusion.

I certainly never thought of school as an environment where I should feel safest; the opposite actually. I felt safest at home, where I was not forced to be in close proximity with strangers regulated only by even stranger rules and weak control systems that everyone seemed to know how to circumvent.

Something tells me that the “findings” are heavily weighted by an adult agenda to impose stricter controls under the guise of a “silent request” for safety. Strangely, the report does not discuss any trend over the period surveyed.

Every year, between 1997 and 2006, the survey asked children about their experiences of crime in the previous twelve months.

I mean there should be some data on whether there was an increase or decrease in the rate of criminal activity in the schools, no? 1997 to 2006 seems like an awfully short period as well. Why not survey adults about their experiences as a child — experiences of crime in the previous twenty/thirty years? Perhaps that would eliminate the error from lack/fear of reporting?

I suspect the bully effect is as old as the concept of the playground itself, so the question really should not be whether there are bullies or not but what are the appropriate (most successful?) controls among children as well as between them and adults. Perhaps there are simple ways to resolve some of the problems that do not require greater adult intervention and/or surveillance?