1. Comment #71901 by Theocrapcy on September 19, 2007 at 11:22 pm

Unlike the army to suppress individualism.

Other Comments by Theocrapcy

2. Comment #71908 by Veronique on September 19, 2007 at 11:48 pm

Gee I hope this court action has legs.

A couple of days ago I posted a Tomdispatch link to an interview with James Carrol in which he commented on the evangelical infiltration in the Pentagon.

I also hope it's the first case of many. One can be swept under the carpet. Hundreds can't.

It really is turning into a tussle about the Constitution. I pity poor America. I wouldn't want to live there. Not now.

Here's hoping
V

Other Comments by Veronique

3. Comment #71925 by JamesDB on September 20, 2007 at 12:30 am

If you thought it may have been hard to come out to your mother about being an atheist then imagine being surrounded by dozens of highly trained, brainwashed american soldiers who kill for a living who love jesus. Telling them you think their deity doesn't exist isn't something i would feel comfortable doing in the middle of the desert. This is a good example of one of those places closet atheists must be hiding.

Other Comments by JamesDB

4. Comment #71936 by Flagellant on September 20, 2007 at 12:57 am

Here's a prediction: the MRFF and Jeremy Hall will win. There will be appeals against the judgement all the way up to the Supreme Court (if it can go that far) and the Shrub's placepeople will rule for the Pentagon.



Religion - an activity for consenting adults in private.

Other Comments by Flagellant

5. Comment #71956 by Haymoon on September 20, 2007 at 2:09 am

because of his atheist beliefs

Is the term "atheist beliefs" an oxymoron ?

Other Comments by Haymoon

6. Comment #71970 by _J_ on September 20, 2007 at 3:11 am

Haymoon,

Is the term "atheist beliefs" an oxymoron ?

Arguably so, arguably not. Following the recent discussions here about how the word 'atheist' is understood by the population as a whole, and what chance we stand of adjusting that understanding, I suspect we'd be better off without articles using 'atheist beliefs' in this way.

'The complaint [...] alleges that Hall's First Amendment rights were violated beginning last Thanksgiving when, because of his lack of religious beliefs,' or 'because of his non-religious nature', or 'because he is not religious' or 'because he is religiously neutral' or '...religiously uncommitted' or something might be nicer.

Was it Dr Benway who suggested that avoiding the word 'atheism' altogether might be wise? I think that, if we want to stop people (deliberately or otherwise) (mis)using the word in prejudicial ways, he may be right.

'Godless heathenism' is a more neutral term.

Other Comments by _J_

7. Comment #71974 by Russell Blackford on September 20, 2007 at 3:42 am

I suppose there are legal reasons to express it that way, though we don't know (do we?) whether this is meant to be a quote from the court documents.

Other Comments by Russell Blackford

8. Comment #71989 by scooternyc on September 20, 2007 at 4:52 am

Today, we are boldly stabbing back against an unconstitutional heart of darkness, a contagion of fundamentalist religious supremacy and triumphalism noxiously dominating the command and control of the technologically most lethal organization ever created by humankind: our honorable and noble United States armed forces."

What a beautiful statement.

Other Comments by scooternyc

9. Comment #71990 by Lordsuhn on September 20, 2007 at 4:57 am

I have to agree with Flagellant, if it gets to the Supreme Court, the shills on that court will find in favor of the pentagon. America is doomed to ingnorance for a generation. A modern dark age, if you will.

Other Comments by Lordsuhn

10. Comment #71994 by MuNky82 on September 20, 2007 at 5:04 am

I agree with JamesDB. One should know when to keep one's atheism to oneself. Maybe this was the last straw for the soldier. Maybe religion was forced upon him for a while and this was his moment of rebellion.

When people pray I just keep silent and look ahead. I mean you don't have to force your disbelief. You can just ignore situations of belief.

Other Comments by MuNky82

11. Comment #72002 by Alter_GX on September 20, 2007 at 5:25 am

Why does this remind me of this?

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4s9F7p3w9jQ

Other Comments by Alter_GX

12. Comment #72003 by scooternyc on September 20, 2007 at 5:29 am

"One should know when to keep one's atheism to oneself"

I disagree with this statement, it would be like saying "one should know when to keep their anti-racist views to themselves".

If the moment, any moment, presents itself where someone invokes god or religion, THAT person has opened the door to rejection of the idea, premise, word, etc. He/She opens the door, I'm walking through it.

Now, if I've misunderstood your point, please let me know where my mistake is located in this thought process.

When you say, "when people pray I just keep silent..." in what context?

The ignoring of inappropriate behavior is what keeps sending the silent message of endorsement of the behavior.

Other Comments by scooternyc

13. Comment #72005 by Scott McMeekin on September 20, 2007 at 5:35 am

@Munky82 (#10)
I can see where you are coming from, but I have to wholeheartedly disagree. Why *shouldn't* we start pushing back on these people. If you're in a restaurant, and the guy across the way from you starts talking to his imaginary friend "Bill", you may not get up and walk out, but I'm willing to bet you'd be keeping "half and eye" on him at very least.

Why is it that just because the general consensus thinks this kind of behaviour is ok, that you think we should all conform, or keep our rational silent? This kind of mentality simply does not work, especially when the people in power not only believe in "Bill", but have a holy book that advocates (nay, demands) that everyone else in the whole world must believe in him too!

It's only really in the last hundred years(ish) that people can now stand up and say "You're full of it", without the clear and present danger of being dragged outside and lynched/burned/tortured etc etc. I can sympathise with the sentiment of trying to get along with people, but dammit, isn't there a part of your being that is secretly screaming for you to just come out and call a spade a spade?

"One should know when to keep one's atheism to oneself". Ok. For the sake of argument, let's say that's a reasonable statement. Now replace the word "atheism" with "religion" and see how reasonable you consider these people are, by your own words.

Scott.
[edit] Dammit Scooternyc! You type too fast =D

Other Comments by Scott McMeekin

14. Comment #72012 by konquererz on September 20, 2007 at 6:08 am

This country is just going nutz! I can't believe what I'm hearing around the christian world but there are actually backing the military! Talks of "christian nation" and other bullshit like that are just going like wild fire! Religious freedom my ass, its the "freedom" to be a christian around here! If this gets allowed in the military, ultimately by the supreme court, things are going to get bad real quick. Once the government has allowed religion to be imposed, the time of freedom is going to collapse. I feel great dread and sorrow over the future of this country. I fear for the free future of my children, and my childrens children.

Other Comments by konquererz

15. Comment #72032 by jimbob on September 20, 2007 at 7:24 am

The implications of this may be more profound than they appear at first glance.

When you consider that radical islam claims that the jihad is against the "crusaders" you can, perhaps, see how some extra juice might get squeezed out of this lemon!

Also, it just occurred to me that RD mentioned in TGD that Bush I said atheists cannot be patriots because the US is "one nation under god."

Hope somebody asks the shrub about this one in public!

Other Comments by jimbob

16. Comment #72038 by MuNky82 on September 20, 2007 at 7:35 am

No I mean the context of the situation should warrant the behavior. If I were in that soldier's shoes, then I would hold hands and play along. (As JamesDB in #3 said) That is why I say that this specific incidence might have been the straw that broke the camel's back.

At the small company where I work the boss start the weekly meeting with prayer. I think it is wrong, but I am the only non-Christian in a company of 5 people. So I just shut-up and stare ahead. Same with a dinner party where I am a guest.

This is where the homosexual parallel comes in. If you are gay, fine. This doesn't mean you have to be loud & flaming all the time. If your gay (or rather human) rights are infringed, yes then make a issue out of it.

Yes, it is wrong that religion is in politics. It is wrong that someones religion shapes my world, and that should be fought, but if that man and "Bill" doesn't bother me, then I would continue to eat my food with half an eye on him, ;-). If he holds a steak knife in his hand and demand I recognize "Bill", I would, just so that I can get out of there and call the cops. I would not march over and tell him that "Bill" doesn't exist, he might just reach for that steak knife...

Other Comments by MuNky82

17. Comment #72044 by heathen2 on September 20, 2007 at 7:50 am

I feel great dread and sorrow over the future of this country. I fear for the free future of my children, and my childrens children.

konquererz, I'm trying not to feel the same, but it is unavoidable. It seems I hear the "christian nation" stuff more in the media and expressed on bumper stickers, I just don't see everyday people in normal interactions talk about this. They have better things to do, thankfully, then go around yelling about how we have a "christian nation".

I guess my despair comes from the realization of the ignorance and utter lack of desire on the part of most people to actually think or to educate themselves which leads them to hold fast to their religious beliefs. I know many, many people with a decent formal education in science and that have science degrees who believe in one or more god(s). Some even admit to disbelief in evolution without hesitation. What bothers me most is that they are sending their kids down this path (religious schools, church, etc).

Ok, end of rant.

Other Comments by heathen2

18. Comment #72046 by heathen2 on September 20, 2007 at 7:58 am

MuNky82,

I get what you are saying, but as in the situation when a gay person's rights are infringed upon, your rights (not to waste your time participating in a prayer) are also infringed upon. I might do as you are doing, because it is also wasteful to go around just making a fuss over everything. But after awhile, I might get tired of it and just decline to participate. Your boss ought to be more sensetive.

Other Comments by heathen2

19. Comment #72050 by MuNky82 on September 20, 2007 at 8:09 am

But I do understand the error of what happened. In a situation where one act in behalf of a government representative, your personal religion should not control, or influence your actions.

That sergeant is wrong in his capacity as a sergeant of the US Army. But if the soldier knew this would happen he should have avoided the situation altogether, by playing along. But if the confrontation was unexpected, yes, sue the bastards. If the soldier got tired of all the praying and decided to rebel, then he approached the situation incorrectly. He should have joined the prayer (for the sake of company morale) and then follow the proper procedure of reporting misconduct. If this lawsuit is because procedure was followed and unsatisfactory results attained then I agree with the lawsuit. But I am sure a higher ranking officer would have sorted the situated out correctly before a lawsuit was made.

Other Comments by MuNky82

20. Comment #72052 by MuNky82 on September 20, 2007 at 8:13 am

About my boss, it doesn't bother me and it boosts company morale, so let it be. If I am forced to pray in fear of losing my job, yes then I would contact the Department of Labour.

Other Comments by MuNky82

21. Comment #72076 by bungoton on September 20, 2007 at 9:14 am

I'm sure the whole lawsuit is a scam. Everybody knows there are no atheists in foxholes.

It must be a New Atheist conspiracy to force their godless beliefs on a Christian nation.

;)

Other Comments by bungoton

22. Comment #72117 by annabanana on September 20, 2007 at 11:36 am

Is the term "atheist beliefs" an oxymoron ?

I know this discussion has moved on from this, but i don't think atheist beliefs is an oxymoron. A belief doesn't have to be associated with religion. People have beliefs about many things that have nothing to do with religion. Therefore, saying that one holds the "belief" that there is no god or in other words holds "atheist beliefs" is a completely valid statement. Religions have just taken over the connotations of the word.

Anyway, on the subject of the article...I'm thoroughly disgusted and if the courts rule in favor of the pentagon I'm leaving the country.

Other Comments by annabanana

23. Comment #72137 by MagratGarlick on September 20, 2007 at 12:19 pm

"Also, it just occurred to me that RD mentioned in TGD that Bush I said atheists cannot be patriots because the US is "one nation under god."

Hope somebody asks the shrub about this one in public!"


The quote was actually from Bush Senior, not the current president. However, if blokes will insist on trying to turn their sons out as 'mini-me' carbon copies of themselves by giving them the same name (and when said sons fail to rebel against such puppetry by picking their own name), they only have themselves to blame when people mistakenly take them for the same person. :o)

Other Comments by MagratGarlick

24. Comment #72142 by MagratGarlick on September 20, 2007 at 12:31 pm

"That sergeant is wrong in his capacity as a sergeant of the US Army. But if the soldier knew this would happen he should have avoided the situation altogether, by playing along."


MuNky82, this line of argument is called 'blame the victim'. I agree that no one would blame the soldier if he DID keep quiet out of fear. However, what you are doing is blaming him for NOT giving in to intimidation and keeping quiet. In other words, you are criticising him for showing courage, something which is normally regarded as worthy of praise.

Do you condemn the Suffragettes for not giving in to intimidation? Or the early gay rights activists? If it wasn't for them this world would be an even sorrier place than it is.

One day, you might be able to openly state your atheism at work without fear of reprisals. What kind of behaviour do you think is more likely to hasten that day? Behaviour like yours? Or behaviour like that of this soldier?

I have every sympathy with your reluctance to 'stand up and be counted'. I don't know your circumstances, and I would not presume to judge your response to them. What makes you think you have the right to judge other peoples different responses?

Other Comments by MagratGarlick

25. Comment #72305 by Satanburiedfossils on September 20, 2007 at 5:40 pm

No atheists in foxholes.

GI: "Okay, we've dug the foxhole. Now we have to find a place for the choir and the pipe organ."

Other Comments by Satanburiedfossils

26. Comment #72319 by Satanburiedfossils on September 20, 2007 at 6:14 pm

Speaking of "no atheists in foxholes", Woolsey Teller attacks that tired old refrain in his essay CHRISTIAN COWARDICE AND ATHEIST COURAGE (The Truth Seeker, 1945). Excerpts follow:

The implication now going the rounds is that atheists cannot remain godless under the shock of shellfire, that men must inevitably drop to their knees and pray to God when the battle becomes hot. "There are no atheists in fox-holes" has come to take its place beside the conventional belief, common in Christian circles, that sooner or later, atheists recant. Tales of death-bed "horrors" and of infidel 'remorse" will soon be superseded by the more colorful story of the fox-holes of Bataan.

The two Pious soldiers who sponsored this slogan and who found themselves on their knees at the battle of Bataan, should ask themselves the question: "Did our praying pay?" Certainly their prayers did not win the battle for our troops or stop the enemy; and, though their own two lives were saved, so were the lives of numberless Japs. On the other hand, hundreds of their fighting buddies, in near-by fox-holes, were killed or wounded, in spite of prayer.

Who actually knows how many atheists did, or did not fight at Bataan? The two pious Christians who, in one lone fox-hole, fell on their knees and whimpered to God, should have called the roll first. To say, as they did, that there were no atheists in the fox-holes of Bataan, is the same as saying that there were no grocery clerks, no Masonic members, or no lawyers fighting there. How could they know? The Bataan defenders were not asked to state their religious opinions while the battle was on. They fought, regardless of their religious or irreligious beliefs.

What is there in the teachings of Jesus to make a Christian brave? Can one consistently fight his enemies if he is taught to "love" them? Did the two Christians on their knees "love" their enemy, the Japs? If they didn't, why didn't they? As Christ-worshippers, they should have rushed from their fox-holes and hugged those who were showering them with lead. And why, too, did they "resist" evil? Didn't Jesus teach them not to do so? They should have turned the other cheek to those who were invading their territory. And why, too, when things looked black and they prayed for help, were their prayers not answered? Was God interested in seeing the Japs win?

http://www.edwardtbabinski.us/essays/courage.html

Other Comments by Satanburiedfossils

27. Comment #72329 by Converse02 on September 20, 2007 at 6:40 pm

[quote=MuNky82]But if the soldier knew this would happen he should have avoided the situation altogether, by playing along.[/quote]

I am outraged to hear this. I can't believe you are actually encouraging someone to be a hypocrit. No atheist should be cowed into fear, pressured into acknowledging a deity they do not believe in.

The soldier is an atheist, period. There is absolutely nothing wrong with that. By joining in prayer, he is making everyone else think he is Christian when he is not. He is implying he supports its. He is not only lying to others, he is lying to himself.

The atheists of history did not speaking out and "went along," they wanted to be polite. Now look at the mess the world is in today. With the vast majority of ppl theists, the world threatens to be torn apart.

By speaking out, he is educating other soldiers who know him that it is possible to live a full life without an imaginary God. He is bringing attention that it is inappropriate for Christians in the military to impose their views of others. He perhaps inspires other cowed and spineless atheists that, just perhaps, they should speak up for their beliefs more often, rather than having others speak for them.

Other Comments by Converse02

28. Comment #72330 by magetoo on September 20, 2007 at 6:44 pm

Magratgarlick,
I really believe you should read the posts you are responding to, before doing so.

Other Comments by magetoo

29. Comment #72332 by magetoo on September 20, 2007 at 6:50 pm

By speaking out, he is educating other soldiers who know him that it is possible to live a full life without an imaginary God. He is bringing attention that it is inappropriate for Christians in the military to impose their views of others.

Unfortunately, he is also educating them on the fact that he's not part of the team, and that he puts his own personal views above loyalty to the group. (Well, arguably anyway.)

What I'm saying is that MuNky82 is right in saying that the soldier should have avoided the issue altogether, if he knew it was going to cause a problem.

IMO, there really are situations where speaking out on what you believe is not appropriate. And nobody is arguing that the actions of the Major were correct, or that this should not be in court.

edit: hopefully clarified the argument.

Other Comments by magetoo

30. Comment #72348 by sabre_truth on September 20, 2007 at 7:29 pm

Onward atheist soldiers ;)

Other Comments by sabre_truth

31. Comment #72616 by J.C. Samuelson on September 21, 2007 at 11:53 pm

To borrow from the usual text that accompanies military awards, I say that SPC Hall's actions reflect great credit upon him, his unit, and the United States Army. As a long-time military member myself, who is also the only open atheist in my unit, I applaud SPC Hall for his courage in standing up.

There are certainly situations in which speaking out would be, in my opinion, inappropriate. Some examples might be a funeral or other solemn ceremonial occasion (such as a change of command or promotion), mission briefings, formations, and so forth. Neither the Thanksgiving dinner nor the off-duty meetings SPC Hall organized match any sort of official criteria as described. Furthermore, if the dinner was an official (and mandatory) function, the commander would still be 100% in violation of the Establishment Clause by requiring a prayer. Both the Staff Sergeant (I am the equivalent rank in the Air Force) and the Major were out-of-line. Period.

SPC Hall acted appropriately and within his rights under the Constitution and the UCMJ, no matter what others here might say.

Incidentally, this wouldn't even be in court were it not for his standing up. It makes no sense to say that the defendants were wrong and deserve to be in court while at the same time saying SPC Hall should've stayed quiet. You can't have it both ways. Sorry.

Other Comments by J.C. Samuelson

32. Comment #72619 by Veronique on September 22, 2007 at 12:39 am

28. Comment #72330 by magetoo

Hang on here. What if, when he enlisted, he didn't know of the mandatory Christian belief system being tied to his enlistment? He enlisted before he realised that he would be pressured to become a 'born again' Christian? He was suckered before he knew it.

I am sure that no recruiting office would cite Christian evangelism as a criterion for enlistment! NOW, having been confronted with this by his (carefully selected by the shrub and others) superior, he is affronted. And so he should be. And he is taking some reparative action. And so he should. Good on him and the 5,000 others just going into the legal pipelines. May they create a constitutional and legal battle. No one else is getting close to testing this crisis that is burgeoning in the US.

MagratGarlick - I think I know what you are saying. It's all good. jimbob was saying that it was Bush 1, I think you just misread him. Of course Bush Jnr should be made to articulate what it is that is patriotic. Quite right.

Cheers
V

Other Comments by Veronique

33. Comment #72678 by BT Murtagh on September 22, 2007 at 8:46 am

As a veteran, I cannot disagree more with those who are saying he should have just played along under those circumstances. I actually cannot imagine a better circumstance to stand up for his rights.

Consider. They were not in any kind of situation where speaking out put anyone in danger, nor was any important military function being disrupted. The only "problem" it caused was to hurt the feelings of the people who were illegally and obnoxiously trampling on this soldier's feelings, and his Constitutional rights. Meekly swallowing the pressure to conform would only exacerbate the problem, by perpetuating a climate in which soldiers are afraid to speak out against it. The problem was entirely created by the evangelicals, not by the soldier who stood up against their bullying.

Don't give me any tosh about "hurting unit morale" either; what do you suppose were the effects of this kind of behavior on that soldier's morale, or on other atheists in the unit, or Muslims or Hindus or Buddhists, or any other non-evangelical Christians whose specific beliefs didn't quite fit the agenda? Enforcing religious conformity is neither a necessary or an appropriate way to attempt to meld a U.S. military unit.

IF there is any arena outside the education of children where secularism is most important to maintain, the military is that arena. To quote myself from an earlier essay (http://tinyurl.com/2o8u3r) on this subject,

If impartiality of religion is not vigorously enforced as a principle of military life, eventually you will end up with a self-enforcing culture; only Christians will be able to effectively work in the unit, because the existing members won't trust or bond with a non-Christian.

There's a reason why Iraqi police and military units aren't typically mixed Shia and Sunni; the analogous issue fails of becoming a problem for US forces by a much smaller margin than you might imagine. Take it from one who's been there.

Other Comments by BT Murtagh

34. Comment #72781 by Converse02 on September 23, 2007 at 12:40 am

"By magetoo - Unfortunately, he is also educating them on the fact that he's not part of the team, and that he puts his own personal views above loyalty to the group. (Well, arguably anyway.)

What I'm saying is that MuNky82 is right in saying that the soldier should have avoided the issue altogether, if he knew it was going to cause a problem."

I agree, he's showing he isn't being part of the team...team Christianity, BECAUSE HE ISN'T, HE'S AN ATHEIST!!!!!
He is putting his personal views (integrity, defending the Constitution, etc) above that of a bunch of deluded faith-heads. I don't see a problem with that.

Now, for the atheists who would have bowed their heads and "went along," you're hypocrites who can't confront Christians. You allow them to walk all over you. You wouldn't see Dawkins giving in. You're weak.
"Meekly swallowing the pressure to conform would only exacerbate the problem, by perpetuating a climate in which soldiers are afraid to speak out against it."-poster above. I agree, by not speaking out, one ADDS to the problem, making it worse.

It is the Christians who are causing problems. The atheist soldier is fixing them.

Make no mistake, it is the CHRISTIANS who are the ones who "should have avoided the issue altogether" by shutting the fuck up, not asking non-believers to pray, and breaking up gathererings. The atheist has every right, even duty, to demand they be prosecuted to the fullest extend of the law.

People must stand up for integrity, soldiers must defend the values of America and the Constitution. The military violates those values when they create a culture that favors Christians soldiers over non-Christians. It is the Christian who are being disloyal and hurting morale, not the atheist soldier.

The atheist soldier in this article clearly has the right stuff, his has guts to stand up what is right. Unfortunately, some of us here do not.

Other Comments by Converse02

35. Comment #86036 by JamesDB on November 7, 2007 at 11:53 pm

Oh man no one will probably read this post seeing as it is quite an old thread but i just wanted to make a quick point to cover the point i made earlier that munky82 commented on.

American soldiers are semi-brainwashed killing machines. When they are praying and you don't and single yourself out its kind of like a bunny rabbit in a fox den. Pretend to be a fox purely for your safety because i don't trust a bunch of soldiers in the desert after critisizing their beliefs

Other Comments by JamesDB