Military Community, Marine Corps Community, military installations, discussions, blogs, photos, videos - Marine Corps Times

Letters

Prayer objection wrong

I can’t believe what I am reading in Marine Corps Times.

I understand the argument made for getting rid of the prayer [“Current, former midshipmen object to Naval Academy’s noontime prayer, July 7] — the only problem is that the argument is asinine.

What is next, getting rid of the invocations at ceremonies? Why not get rid of the chapel and chaplains, since they are federally funded?

The U.S. is going down a scary road with this and the American Civil Liberties Union needs to be reined in, as they are making us less and less tolerant of everything.

If nine midshipmen of the thousands that have gone through the Naval Academy in recent history are offended, I think we are doing well. If nine lance corporals are upset that we field day every week and they want to live like pigs, can they change that policy now? Lets see the ACLU take up that fight.

I leave you with a thought from a bumper sticker I saw recently. In it, a child asks God, “Why are you letting all these innocent children die in schools?”

God’s response: “You won’t let me in school.”

Gunnery Sgt. Jonathan Oakley

New Bern, N.C.

The recently commissioned ensign who went to the American Civil Liberties Union revealed her true motivation for starting the prayer debate even though she was afraid to reveal her name. Since she feels uncomfortable with prayer, she wants to make a 163-year practice go away.

The ensign is proving she has no moral character because she hides behind the ACLU in order to try and eliminate something she does not like. The prayer is voluntary and never promoted the beliefs of a specific religious denomination, therefore it is not violating the Constitution.

The Constitution gives us a freedom of religion, not a freedom from religion. The majority should not have to conceal their belief because of this ensign’s lack of belief.

1st Lt. Ed Kotulski

Camp Pendleton, Calif.

‘Rifles vs. diamonds’

I am a gunnery sergeant and have been in the Marine Corps for more than 16 years. When I read the “Rifles vs. diamonds” column [Back Talk, July 7], I hung my head in shame as a staff noncommissioned officer.

I cannot believe that a master sergeant in the Marine Corps would start such a ridiculous debate. It sounds as silly to me as the debate about the Corps being better than the other branches of service, grunts being better than POGs or drill instructor being better that the other special duty assignments.

One would assume that once you reach the rank of a SNCO that you would have the knowledge and professionalism to realize that regardless of branch of service, military occupational specialty, or SDA, we all have our own challenges and responsibilities.

I was offended by the column because I aspire to be a first sergeant and completely understand that the role of a first sergeant is to be the senior enlisted adviser to the company commander — not as the senior leader. But maybe I am just being “sensitive” or do not see the “humor” in the article.

I view a first sergeant as more than a “baby sitter,” or the one that deals with the negative issues. They do more than handle nonjudicial punishments. I think I can speak for the majority of first sergeants in saying there is a lot of pride and gratification in promoting, awarding, retaining and professionally developing Marines.

Gunnery Sgt. Edsen B. Hughes

Camp Lejeune, N.C.

Photo complaint

In your July 7 issue, Marine Corps Times features a follow-up story about Sgt. Jermaine Nelson’s unwillingness to testify against his fellow Marines [“Offering little to grand jury, sergeant in contempt again”].

I found it odd that the photograph you chose to depict Nelson does so in such a negative, stereotypical way. On the cover he was shown in his Service Charlie uniform, but on the inside a photograph appears with him in civilian attire.

Why is it that in a companion story, another Marine charged with Nelson, Sgt. Ryan Weemer, was shown in uniform, but Nelson was not? There are plenty of photographs of Nelson, but it seems as though you were attempting to project a specific image of him in your article.

For about seven months, Nelson worked directly for me and I always found him to be exceptionally professional. Your choice of photograph is nothing but subtle yellow journalism and a twisting of perception in order to influence the reader. I find your actions completely unbecoming of a newspaper meant to accurately report on Marine Corps matters in an unbiased manner.

Regardless of the charges against him, Nelson is still a Marine. He should be portrayed in one light only, that of a Marine.

Gunnery Sergeant Dan Liesik

Camp Pendleton, Calif.

[Editor’s note: Both photos used were provided by Joseph Low, Nelson’s attorney.]

Light bulb concerns

In reference to the article on the military replacing standard light bulbs with Compact Fluorescent Light bulbs [“New light bulbs are a bright idea,” Fast Track, June 30], I certainly hope the bases have taken into account that CFLs contain a small amount of mercury and cannot be disposed of in the normal “throw-it-in-the-trash” method.

Also, if a CFL is broken, the room must be cleaned using specific techniques. These issues and more also are addressed on the Web site cited in the article, http://www.energystar.gov.

CFLs are indeed a great way to save energy, but this savings comes at a cost to the environment in other ways.

Army Maj. David Parker (ret.)

Huntsville, Ala.