Error on Air Force test sparks debate over religion

[cbayer]

http://www.airforcetimes.com/story/military/2015/03/05/air-force-test-on-constiution/24464031/

By Jeff Schogol, Staff writer 7:57 p.m. EST March 5, 2015


A screenshot from the Air Force Test shows that the "correct" answer confuses the 1st and 5th Amendments.(Photo: Courtesy of the Military Religious Freedom Foundation.)

An Air Force test question about constitutional rights has led to accusations that the service is not only confused about religious freedom protections, but also believes civil libertarians are predators.

Thirty-one people have contacted the Military Religious Freedom Foundation about an Air Force security administration test that confuses the First and Fifth Amendments, said Mikey Weinstein, the group's founder and CEO.

One captain sent an email to the foundation saying the test asks which "commonly violated civil liberty" is protected by the Fifth Amendment. The captain tried to pick the answer that defined the legal protections under the amendment, but he was told he was wrong.

The captain, whose name Weinstein is withholding, eventually selected the answer that said the Fifth Amendment says "Congress shall make no law prohibiting the free exercise of religion," which the test accepted as the correct answer.

more at link

[tanyev]

1. Oh, you elitists with your facts and your knowledge.

[TreasonousBastard]

2. And why is the Air Force defining...

a "commonly violated civil liberty"? That wording bothers me as much as the obvious mistake in amendments.

[cbayer]

3. Agree. I think that is even more egregious.

[Stargazer09]

5. They don't have the brightest people writing the tests

The best and the brightest do more important things than write tests.

(Education and training are very important, of course, but that doesn't mean that the Air Force hires the best test writers for their courses.)

[Stargazer09]

4. The Air Force is too religious

I did not want to set my religious preference as anything unusual, because I knew people in my unit who were radical Christians, and I did not want to tangle with them.

Granted, I don't really have a preference, so it didn't hurt me to fib a little bit, but I certainly didn't feel comfortable being 100% honest.

I wish things were different.

[cbayer]

7. I think the MRFF is making some inroads, but the AF is the hardest nut to crack.

[Jim__]

6. It looks like they have the right answer as one of the options.

"No person shall be held to answer for a capital, or otherwise infamous crime, unless on a presentment or indictment of a grand jury, except in cases arising in the land or naval forces, or in the militia, when in actual service in time of war or public danger; nor shall any person be subject for the same offense to be twice put in jeopardy of life or limb; nor shall be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself, nor be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation."

And, given that the government does seize property today without due process of law, I'm not even sure I object to the wording. The mistake looks similar to what happens with some electronic voting, you select Democrat and the machine chooses Republican.

[cbayer]

8. This is a good point.

It could be a simple programming error and not as big a mistake as it appears.

[muriel_volestrangler]

10. However, there's only one line in that option, that we can't see the end of

What we have is

No person shall be held to answer for a capital crime unless indicted by the ...

and, from the formatting of 'correct' and 'Knowledge Check'(?) being centred, that's over half the quote (possible capital 'G' for 'Grand' following it?). I don't think they'll have fitted in the bit about private property in the remaining space.

I don't know if it is common to bypass grand juries for capital crimes, but I'd have thought that would be a fairly definite breaking of the constitution that could be cleared up quickly. It's not an issue I've heard much complaint from anyone about, anyway.

I'd like to see the full form of that line, but I think it's more likely they did want to ask about free exercise of religion, but put '5th' instead of '1st' in the question.

[AtheistCrusader]

9. Weinstein is the guy that bigot Pat Robertson called 'One Little Jewish Radical'

said he 'terrorized' our poor military.

http://www.rightwingwatch.org/content/pat-robertson-one-little-jewish-radical-has-terrorized-our-cowardly-military

Weinstein is doing yeoman's work.