Skip to Main Content (access key 1)
Skip to Search (access key 2)
Skip to Search GO (access key 3)
Skip to comments (access key 4)
Skip to navigation (access key 5)
Skip to top of page (access key 6)
Wednesday, December 19, 2007 | Reason : In the News | print version Print | Comments

Document Religious Freedom in Military Questioned

by Huffington Post

Thanks to Ron Hunter for the link.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/huff-wires/20071218/military-religion-lawsuit/

Religious Freedom in Military Questioned

TOPEKA, Kan. — A foundation that has sued the military alleging widespread violations of religious freedom said Tuesday that it has evidence showing that soldiers are pressured to adopt fundamentalist Christian beliefs.

The photos and videos of religious materials and activities are part of a lawsuit filed by the Military Religious Freedom Foundation and Army Spc. Jeremy Hall, an atheist, against Maj. Freddy J. Welborn and Defense Secretary Robert Gates.

The material was gathered from Fort Riley in Kansas, the Air Force Academy in Colorado Springs, Colo., and Fort Jackson, S.C.

Examples at Fort Riley, where Hall is stationed, included a display outside his military police battalion's office with a quote from conservative writer Ann Coulter saying, "We should invade their countries, kill their leaders and convert them to Christianity."

Another photo from Fort Riley shows the book "A Politically Incorrect Guide to Islam" for sale at the post exchange.

"These astonishing and saddening evidence which our foundation is making public today only further buttress our lawsuit," said Mike Weinstein, an attorney in Albuquerque, N.M., and president of the foundation, who graduated from the Air Force Academy in 1977.

Fort Riley spokesman Maj. Nathan Bond said the matter was being referred to post commanders for investigation. He said it is the Army's policy to accommodate all religious beliefs to the extent that they don't conflict with military missions.

"We do take this seriously," he said. If they are true, he added, they "do not seem in line with the Army values of respect."

The lawsuit filed in federal court in Kansas City, Kan., in September alleges that Welborn threatened to file military charges against Hall and to block his re-enlistment for trying to hold a meeting of atheists and non-Christians in Iraq.

Hall is with the 97th Military Police Battalion out of Fort Riley. He was serving his second tour in Iraq and has since returned to the U.S.

Weinstein said materials for a Bible studies course from Military Ministry, part of Campus Crusade for Christ International, teach soldiers that the U.S. military and government are instruments to spread the word of God. The material was found at Fort Jackson, S.C., he said.

A spokeswoman for Campus Crusade for Christ said ministry officials hadn't had a chance to review the evidence and declined to comment.

The lawsuit also alleges that Gates permits a military culture in which officers are encouraged to pressure soldiers to adopt and espouse fundamentalist Christian beliefs, and allows a culture that sanctions activities by Christian organizations.

It also says the military permits proselytizing by soldiers, tolerates anti-Semitism and the placing of religious symbols on military equipment, and allows the use of military e-mail accounts to send religious rhetoric.

The Pentagon has said that the military values and respects religious freedoms but that accommodating religious practices should not interfere with unit cohesion, readiness, standards or discipline.

Weinstein has previously sued the Air Force for acts he said illegally imposed Christianity on its students at the academy. A federal judge threw out that lawsuit in 2006.

On the Net:

Military Religious Freedom Foundation: http://www.militaryreligiousfreedom.org
submit to delicious Add to del.icio.us Posted: Wednesday, December 19, 2007 | Permalink

Comments 1 - 50 of 94 |

Reload Comments | Back to Top | Page Numbers

1. Comment #100786 by Rtambree on December 19, 2007 at 10:30 am

We like our troops docile and unquestioning.

"the placing of religious symbols on military equipment"

What's this mean - a Cross for every A-rab you blow away?

New York Review of Books - Iraq: The Hidden Human Costs
http://www.nybooks.com/articles/20906


Other Comments by Rtambree

2. Comment #100790 by annabanana on December 19, 2007 at 10:36 am

avatarIf the military is supposed to "respect and value" all religions, why then, do they have Christian Chapels in Forts, and no other religious places of worship for other religions?

Fort Jackson is here, where I live, I should have suspected as much...

Other Comments by annabanana

3. Comment #100792 by Diacanu on December 19, 2007 at 10:39 am

avatarannabanana-

If the military is supposed to "respect and value" all religions,...


...why does their main job description seem to be dropping bombs on brown people?

..sorry, couldn't resist...

Other Comments by Diacanu

4. Comment #100796 by annabanana on December 19, 2007 at 10:46 am

avatarDiacanu,

Well, that too, I suppose...it just seems ridiculous for many, many reasons, that the military would try and deny it's Christian affiliations and motivations...I guess I was just pointing out one of those many reasons...

I know of at least one couple who went into the military not particularly religious and came out Fundamentalist Christian, if that tells you anything.

Other Comments by annabanana

5. Comment #100805 by HereticChick on December 19, 2007 at 11:06 am

avatarAhh, the US Military...one of the worlds finest brain-washing institutes. I should know...I was in myself ;)

Other Comments by HereticChick

6. Comment #100811 by USA_Limey on December 19, 2007 at 11:27 am

avatar"When Fascism comes, it will be wrapped in a flag, and carrying a cross"

- Ron Paul, (Paraphrasing James Madison)

Other Comments by USA_Limey

7. Comment #100812 by Styrer- on December 19, 2007 at 11:29 am

The Pentagon has said that the military values and respects religious freedoms but that accommodating religious practices should not interfere with unit cohesion, readiness, standards or discipline.


Is it cynically inaccurate of me to see this pernicious little statement as a great big nodding grin at the freethinking-sapping, mind-controlling power of one faith to unite humans under one collective banner of psychological conditioning?

And is Ann Coulter genuinely on record as saying what is reported here? If so, what, if any, is the nature of any anti-incitement laws you have in the US?

Best,
Styrer

Other Comments by Styrer-

8. Comment #100815 by GodlessHeathen on December 19, 2007 at 11:33 am

avatarI'm so sick of the hypocritical methods of the fundie crowd. If xtianity were so wonderful, why would you need pressure tactics to get people into the fold?

Not that this is news to anyone here, but: Religion is one tall, stinking pile of bullshit - and I think even the most fervent fundie knows it deep inside his or her fevered mind.

Other Comments by GodlessHeathen

9. Comment #100816 by annabanana on December 19, 2007 at 11:36 am

avatarUSA_Limey -

Don't forget that Ron Paul is quite Christian himself...he is certainly a "constitutionalist", but he has let his Christian views influence certain things like his views on abortion and the overturning of Roe v. Wade...

Styrer -

We have free speech, so unfortunately, Ann Coulter can go on saying whatever she wants and she did say this along with a lot of other hateful, inciteful, inhumanely gross things...

Other Comments by annabanana

10. Comment #100820 by Styrer- on December 19, 2007 at 11:48 am

Thanks, Annabanana

Here in Ireland and in the UK we have free speech too, of course, but with certain laws against hate speech (respectively, Prohibition of Incitement to Hatred Act, the Public Order Act). Both with possibly lengthy prison sentences for offenders.

If you have such in the US, it would be rather a satisfying spectacle to see them tried out on the less than charming Ms. Coulter.

Best,
Styrer

Other Comments by Styrer-

11. Comment #100828 by quill on December 19, 2007 at 12:10 pm

avatarComment #100811 by USA_Limey:
"When Fascism comes to America, it will be wrapped in a flag, and carrying a cross"

- Ron Paul, (Paraphrasing James Madison)
Actually, Ron Paul was quoting someone else when he said that. But here's something else that Ron Paul has said:

"The notion of a rigid separation between church and state has no basis in either the text of the Constitution or the writings of our Founding Fathers. [...] The Founding Fathers envisioned a robustly Christian yet religiously tolerant America, with churches serving as vital institutions that would eclipse the state in importance."

Other Comments by quill

12. Comment #100831 by annabanana on December 19, 2007 at 12:13 pm

avatarStyrer,

I think there was a proposal for a law against hate speech, but I don't know what it's status is. I do know that Hitch opposes it, though.

Even though Ann Coulter is a complete eyesore on the Republican Party, I think even most Republicans find her disgusting and no one actually takes her very seriously. I've often wondered if she's actually a liberal democrat (the American kind) saying all this ridiculous rubbish in the name of the Republican Party just to undermine them...but that's just my conspiracy theory for the day...

Other Comments by annabanana

13. Comment #100832 by annabanana on December 19, 2007 at 12:14 pm

avatarQuill,

I read that essay as well and was deeply disturbed by it...

Other Comments by annabanana

14. Comment #100844 by Fanusi Khiyal on December 19, 2007 at 12:43 pm

Some of this stuff is worry, but other parts reflect a groteque lack of understanding, as befits the HP. To whit:


A Politically Incorrect Guide to Islam


I've read this. It's a good book, and its scholarship, at least with respect to Islam, is spot on. And, btw, if we are, as Sam Harris points out, at war with Islam, then the troops should know this.

On the other hand, I think that the real worry is ignored. If there's a lesson to be learned from the Bush administration, it is that a fixation with 0th century nonsense is not a good guide for any kind of policy.

Other Comments by Fanusi Khiyal

15. Comment #100848 by debaser71 on December 19, 2007 at 12:50 pm

"When fascism comes to America, it will be wrapped in the flag and carrying a cross."

the quote is from Sinclair Lewis

And for anyone who thinks Ron Paul is a strident supporter of the Constitution and religious freedom read this article he wrote

http://www.lewrockwell.com/paul/paul148.html

(a quote from this was posted by an above poster)

Other Comments by debaser71

16. Comment #100850 by konquererz on December 19, 2007 at 12:51 pm

avatarI have read that Essay of Ron Pauls, and it completely changed my outlook on him. He had to go republican because he is a crazy right winger at heart.

Hope this guy wins his lawsuit.

Other Comments by konquererz

17. Comment #100855 by mdowe on December 19, 2007 at 1:02 pm

avatarThis is a huge, huge, problem in the American military. Not only atheists are running into problems ... even Christians that aren't perceived to be 'Christian-enough' are under the gun. People are, more or less, being murdered over this (the method being repetitive assignment to the most dangerous areas and duties)! Listen to the September 8 Freethought radio podcast:

http://media.libsyn.com/media/ffrf/FTradio_72_090807.mp3

Other Comments by mdowe

18. Comment #100871 by MGBOY on December 19, 2007 at 1:35 pm

avatarDon't forget from a military standpoint there is a very practicle reason to encourage belief in an imaginary friend who will grant you an after life bettter than the present.

It's far more dificult to convince atheist soldiers to throw their lives away for some simple minded president who wants to finish daddy's work in Irak.

Other Comments by MGBOY

19. Comment #100872 by onclepsycho on December 19, 2007 at 1:42 pm

well, it's a crusade after all.

Other Comments by onclepsycho

20. Comment #100874 by al-rawandi on December 19, 2007 at 1:45 pm

avatarFanusi,

The Politically Incorrect Guide to Islam really misses the point. It is fundamentalist Christian ranting. Robert Spencer has a Master's degree (UNC), he focused on Monophysites and Catholicism(John Henry Newman). It doesn't seem he has bothered himself with Arabic, Persian, or Urdu. He is a waste of time as a scholar, and his books suck. He appears on the Savage Nation (hosted by the legendary homophobe). He is just another religious nut.

Who cares in the end, fundamentalist Christians fighting it out with fundamentalist Muslims. Let 'em fight and 'god' can sort out the bodies.

Other Comments by al-rawandi

21. Comment #100881 by USA_Limey on December 19, 2007 at 2:05 pm

avatarYeah, I know Ron Paul is crazy as all hell, I just liked the quote nand thought it apt in the context of the article.

Other Comments by USA_Limey

22. Comment #100883 by USA_Limey on December 19, 2007 at 2:11 pm

avatarComment #100816 by annabanana:

We have free speech, so unfortunately, Ann Coulter can go on saying whatever she wants and she did say this along with a lot of other hateful, inciteful, inhumanely gross things


Just remember annabanana the first amendment cuts both ways. It also allows people like Christopher Hitchens to say that Jerry Falwell was an odious toad who could be given an enima and buried in a matchbox. I liked hitch saying that about the despicable Falwell, but if he gets to say that, Coulter gets to say whatever she wants to. There is nothing 'unfortunate' about her right to say those things therefore.

It is infact essential that she can.

Other Comments by USA_Limey

23. Comment #100886 by AlexAtheist on December 19, 2007 at 2:20 pm

avatarI am grateful that I live in a country like the USA where we have freedom of speech, even for crazies like Ann Coulter. In the UK free speech really isn't free if restrictions apply.

Other Comments by AlexAtheist

24. Comment #100889 by Styrer- on December 19, 2007 at 2:23 pm

Don't forget from a military standpoint there is a very practicle reason to encourage belief in an imaginary friend who will grant you an after life bettter than the present.


I think I agree with what you are saying. If you are saying that the military are encouraging the troops towards a single faith in order that a probably reduced fear of death is a controllable military asset, I agree wholeheartedly. If you are suggesting that the troops are themselves larger players in this, by dint of their own cultural predisposition towards faith, then this may well also be true, but rather lets the military masterminds themselves off the hook. I would have to disagree on that basis, as it is an altogether too kindly account of the substantive criticism of the military this report seeks to make.

There is an unpleasant 'jihadist' or 'holy war' odour in the import of all this, such that the devastating effects of faith as a call to action are not only being acknowledged but actively employed for the military's own ends. If so, my conviction that the faithful are all too often made to resort to outright duplicity in acquiring converts is re-inforced.

Best,
Styrer

Other Comments by Styrer-

25. Comment #100892 by Styrer- on December 19, 2007 at 2:31 pm

Just remember annabanana the first amendment cuts both ways. It also allows people like Christopher Hitchens to say that Jerry Falwell was an odious toad who could be given an enima and buried in a matchbox. I liked hitch saying that about the despicable Falwell, but if he gets to say that, Coulter gets to say whatever she wants to. There is nothing 'unfortunate' about her right to say those things therefore.

It is infact essential that she can.



Annabanana was in fact responding to my question about the status of anti-incitement legislation in the US, such as we have here in Ireland and in the UK. There is an important distinction between free speech and hate speech, as the various acts I cited before indicate. Hitch's comment on Falwell was no 'incitement' to either racial or ethnic bigotry - it was the polar opposite.

Coulter's comment is, in stark contrast, arguably incitement to racial or ethnic hatred.

Best,
Styrer

Other Comments by Styrer-

26. Comment #100894 by FitzRoy on December 19, 2007 at 2:45 pm

"Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances."

- First Amendment to the U.S. Constitution

What could be more precious than the rights that are guaranteed in the United States by the First Amendment? Where would our country be today, if would-be theocrats were not restrained by the Enlightenment values of the First Amendment?

We should be profoundly grateful that Ms. Coulter's speech is protected by the First Amendment. As is yours. And mine. At least, if we live in the United States.

Prohibitions against "Hate Speech," however well intentioned, are fundamentally misguided. The appropriate response to offensive speech is more speech.

Other Comments by FitzRoy

27. Comment #100898 by Styrer- on December 19, 2007 at 2:52 pm

23. Comment #100886 by AlexAtheist on December 19, 2007 at 2:20 pm

I am grateful that I live in a country like the USA where we have freedom of speech, even for crazies like Ann Coulter. In the UK free speech really isn't free if restrictions apply.


Well, it was under such a 'restriction' that the UK was able to ensure that the dispicable Muslim cleric Abu Hamza al-Masri is currently serving a seven-year prison sentence for soliciting murder and inciting racial hatred.

Care to re-consider your position? :)

Best,
Styrer

Other Comments by Styrer-

28. Comment #100900 by USA_Limey on December 19, 2007 at 2:53 pm

avatarComment #100892 by Styrer:

Annabanana was in fact responding to my question


Sorry - that means I can't comment?


Coulter's comment is, in stark contrast, arguably incitement to racial or ethnic hatred


I couldn't care less if she calls for me and my family to be hung drawn and quatered.

As long as I still have the right to respond in kind.

Other Comments by USA_Limey

29. Comment #100911 by Mr. Grape on December 19, 2007 at 3:19 pm

"Well, it was under such a 'restriction' that the UK was able to ensure that the dispicable Muslim cleric Abu Hamza al-Masri is currently serving a seven-year prison sentence for soliciting murder and inciting racial hatred.

Care to re-consider your position? :)"

In the same sense, Charles Manson is behind bars in the U.S., though he never directly murdered anybody. There is a profound difference between "hate speech" and murder in the second degree. Hate speech is a term used by people who want to silence critics. No matter how well guided you feel, it can swing back your way. I'm glad in the U.S. we at least have the first ammendment.

Other Comments by Mr. Grape

30. Comment #100915 by Donald on December 19, 2007 at 3:25 pm

al-rawandi wrote:
The Politically Incorrect Guide to Islam really misses the point. It is fundamentalist Christian ranting. Robert Spencer has a Master's degree (UNC), he focused on Monophysites and Catholicism(John Henry Newman). It doesn't seem he has bothered himself with Arabic, Persian, or Urdu. He is a waste of time as a scholar, and his books suck.
Spencer is a Catholic, so does not have my unequivocal support, but when I have inspected his claims about the Koran and Hadith in the context of the teachings of Islam, I have have found them accurate. He is an Arabic speaker and reader.



Other Comments by Donald

31. Comment #100921 by Styrer- on December 19, 2007 at 3:41 pm

In the same sense, Charles Manson is behind bars in the U.S., though he never directly murdered anybody. There is a profound difference between "hate speech" and murder in the second degree. Hate speech is a term used by people who want to silence critics. No matter how well guided you feel, it can swing back your way. I'm glad in the U.S. we at least have the first ammendment.

Sorry, I am not clear here. Should Manson, in the absence of committing any murders whatsoever, be behind bars or not in your opinion?

On what grounds is he there?

Best
Styrer

Other Comments by Styrer-

32. Comment #100923 by Styrer- on December 19, 2007 at 3:55 pm

28. Comment #100900 by USA_Limey on December 19,
2007 at 2:53 pm

Comment #100892 by Styrer:


Annabanana was in fact responding to my question


Sorry - that means I can't comment?


Retract your prickles, Limey. You can comment as much as I can provide background to comments you're responding to.

The anti-incitement legislation is actually a tacit acknowledgement of the violent action that can follow faith-based words and speeches.

What the fuck are we doing here if not lamenting this very phenomenon? You yourself are one of the most vocal against it!

The legislation is designed to save lives. It has worked, and free speech is not suffering a damn because of it.

Styrer

Other Comments by Styrer-

33. Comment #100924 by Goodwithwood on December 19, 2007 at 4:21 pm

avatarThis has been going on for years. It has been reported on for years and it has been ignored by the MSM the military and government for years. This one will be thrown out of court just like the last one.
If you think that the military will protect us from the Brownshirt Christians of Blackwater well think again. This country is slowly being taken over by Christian Supremesits. Open your eyes America.
Pat Tilman was an atheist who's Commanders and most of his fellow soldiers were of this Reich wing religious machine And look what they did to him.

GWW

Other Comments by Goodwithwood

34. Comment #100935 by dialector on December 19, 2007 at 5:00 pm

I guess if you really integrated "Christian" values into the military it would have to become a pacifist organization. You know, "Love your neighbor as yourself", "Love your enemies" and all that non-violent stuff that Jesus supposedly taught. But then all the churches were never really all that much into Jesus.

Other Comments by dialector

35. Comment #100944 by Don_Quix on December 19, 2007 at 5:19 pm

avatar
Don't forget that Ron Paul is quite Christian himself...he is certainly a "constitutionalist", but he has let his Christian views influence certain things like his views on abortion and the overturning of Roe v. Wade...

I'm not entirely sold on Ron Paul, and I hadn't seen the article linked above that he wrote. However, regardless of his personal religious views, he does talk a good talk when it comes to libertarian ideas. He's certainly saying a lot of things that none of the other candidates would even think of saying...which is probably why he almost certainly won't get the nomination :)

As for his views on abortion, he is an obstetrician and has delivered thousands of babies, after all. With that in mind I think I personally can forgive him for being on the pro-life side of the abortion issue. Also, his position on Roe v. Wade is somewhat consistent with a libertarian philosophy (states rights, etc), although even that is certainly debatable...and there are as many different libertarian opinions on the abortion issue as there are libertarians.

Other Comments by Don_Quix

36. Comment #100989 by kraut on December 19, 2007 at 6:11 pm

"With that in mind I think I personally can forgive him for being on the pro-life side of the abortion issue."

I do not give a hoot if someone dislikes abortion or not, if he sees it as a non issue or likes to dicourage it. Where the shit starts stinking is the implementation of criminal law against women who abort - towards idiots who advocate that I have no mercy, they do not belong into office, having absolutely nothing learned from history.

As to the religious army - only befitting a christian empire...After all, what do you expect from a Commander in chief who has gods approval for his wars he started after 9/11.

It also makes it easier for any islamist to see the devil in those misguided fools...better for target practice.

Other Comments by kraut

37. Comment #101105 by dawson on December 19, 2007 at 9:01 pm

It wasn't mentioned, but the vast majority of complaints received by this organization are from Christians. Since the MRFF was founded (last year I think) it has fielded about 6,000 complaints, mostly in regards to evangelicals preaching to other Christians that they're not Christian enough. It's scary that 40% of the U.S. military are evangelicals. Luckily, 20% profess no religion.

Other Comments by dawson

38. Comment #101117 by Downunder on December 19, 2007 at 11:10 pm

avatarDiacanu re my post 21 and your 24 in the "Synthetic DNA" thread, I'm drafting a reply and will send it to you as a pm; it will take me a couple of days. I'll let you know; via whichever RD thread will then show your most recent post.

Other Comments by Downunder

39. Comment #101293 by al-rawandi on December 20, 2007 at 7:34 am

avatar"but when I have inspected his claims about the Koran and Hadith in the context of the teachings of Islam, I have have found them accurate."

Spencer uses the post hoc ergo propter hoc logical fallacy. He hates Muslims, therefore there must be evidence to support his hatred, so he goes looking. He is a racist, and uses dubious methods of selecting evidence. The real problem with religious texts is they are very contradictory. For every negative verse, there is a positive one somewhere. That is why religion is false, not because it says mean things about Jews.

The incoherence and stupidity of the religious text is a better argument than a subjective morality argument.

Other Comments by al-rawandi

40. Comment #101318 by annabanana on December 20, 2007 at 8:16 am

avatarYikes! I went home for the day and started a whole debate that I wasn't there for!

Firstly, thanks Styrer for your defense of my comments.

Ok, just to clarify USA_Limey, I said that it was unfortunate that Ann Coulter could go on making whatever remarks she likes because I think it's unfortunate that someone would be able (in their own conscience) to make such deplorable remarks, especially publicly. That doesn't mean that I want her right to free speech taken away (and Styrer, I don't think anyone takes her seriously enough to be incited to commit murder). I am a huge supporter of the First Amendment and would never want any restrictions placed on our freedoms of speech. However, as stated before, I believe there are enough laws in place that (like the ones that have convicted Charles Manson) when someone directly causes a crime to be (even if only with words) committed that they can be prosecuted and convicted. If your right to free speech infringes on someone else's basic human rights (like living), then that right is null. And I'm not really a supporter of Hate speech laws because I don't really trust ANYONE to be able to come up with a good enough definition of Hate speech to be able to protect our freedom of speech. The problem arises when you've got a defendant with endless means to buy the best defense attorney who knows how to manipulate the system, but that's a whole other can of worms.

When I said that Ron Paul was a constitutionalist, I mean that he is a constitutionalist in that he wants the Federal Gov't to be fairly small and local gov'ts like the states to hold most of the power. Also, despite his Christian views and his views on abortion, I think he actually does a good job on separating his personal views from what the people have voted on. Or in other words, he wants the people to hold the power, despite what he thinks. I do think, though, that he thinks that as a nation with a Christian majority that voters will all pretty much align with his views, which may or may not be the case. The problem with giving the states more power is that the more conservative ones will do ridiculous things with their power (like Alabama holding on to segregation for as long as absolutely possible) and doing things like overturning Roe v. Wade and causing unnecessary deaths among women who would try at-home abortions and other such barbaric methods.

As for the Military using Fundamental Christian religion to its own ends, well of course it does, but the soldiers should be able to decide for what reason they want to die for their country, not have it dictated to or brainwashed into them! I really sincerely hope that this case does not get thrown out and that it is won. That would be a huge step in the right direction.

Other Comments by annabanana

41. Comment #101320 by zenmite on December 20, 2007 at 8:19 am

avatar"I know of at least one couple who went into the military not particularly religious and came out Fundamentalist Christian, if that tells you anything."

The same happened to my nephew when he joined the marines a few years ago. He went in an atheist and within 6 weeks or so had embraced fundamentalist xtianity. I was floored. Peer pressure brainwashing.

Other Comments by zenmite

42. Comment #101445 by USA_Limey on December 20, 2007 at 11:21 am

avatarAnnabanana said:

Yikes! I went home for the day and started a whole debate that I wasn't there for!


Don't worry this just means you are not quite hopelessly addicted yet. This site is like crack cocaine. I'm lucky if I can go a couple hours without logging in these days.

Other Comments by USA_Limey

43. Comment #101448 by annabanana on December 20, 2007 at 11:24 am

avatarHahaha,

USA_Limey, I probably would be more addicted if it weren't for my boyfriend (who isn't an atheist and is sometimes offended by the things on here) so I have to get my "fix" while I'm at work...which hopefully won't get me in trouble!

Other Comments by annabanana

44. Comment #101473 by USA_Limey on December 20, 2007 at 12:12 pm

avatarComment #101448 by annabanana

I probably would be more addicted if it weren't for my boyfriend (who isn't an atheist and is sometimes offended by the things on here)


Tell that boyfriend of yours to get with the program! He's missing out on some very smart things his girlfriend is saying that he could learn from.

Nothing less than his complete conversion to atheism is acceptable. You have your orders.

:-)

Other Comments by USA_Limey

45. Comment #101488 by annabanana on December 20, 2007 at 12:36 pm

avatarUSA_Limey,

Not to worry, we debate quite a bit...I only wish that he thought the things I say are "smart" (he's an economist and I'm a biologist, what is one to do?). Thank you for the compliment, though.

He's a deist...and he's insisted that I musn't try and deconvert him lest he break up with me...

Other Comments by annabanana

46. Comment #101490 by Diacanu on December 20, 2007 at 12:38 pm

avatarI was a deist.

Deists are on the ropes, trust me.

He'll come around. Just give him time.

Other Comments by Diacanu

47. Comment #101492 by AllanW on December 20, 2007 at 12:41 pm

avatarOh dear Anna.

If he's a deist and an economist I presume he worships Mammon?

Anyway, just ask him to draw the graphs for you that describe how he reached the decisions he made on religion (economists do a lot of that) and justify how they are optimal :)

Other Comments by AllanW

48. Comment #101493 by Diacanu on December 20, 2007 at 12:46 pm

avatarI don't see why he'd be doggedly against de-conversion.

Proper enlightenment deism is about seeing the creation as the revelation, and thus one understands and properly worships God by learning more about science.

And learning evolution and cosmology shows you there's no God.

To plug your ears and go "la la la", to the conclusions of science isn't being a proper deist.

Other Comments by Diacanu

49. Comment #101495 by annabanana on December 20, 2007 at 12:50 pm

avatarLol @ AllanW...He hasn't drawn me any graphs yet...maybe I'll ask...

And thanks for the encouragement Diacanu, but I don't know if he'll ever budge...anyone know any atheist cyclists? j/k...

Other Comments by annabanana

50. Comment #101496 by debaser71 on December 20, 2007 at 12:53 pm

For me, I went from mild theism (raised liberal catholic) to deism (god the creator), to agnosticism (wishy washy), to atheism. But me, I liked talking about god and such. The more conversation I had the louder the whisper inside my head grew. It was whispering, "there is no god".

Other Comments by debaser71
Reload Comments | Back to Top

More Comments: 1 2 | Next | Last

Comment Entry: Please Login

Register a new account

Username:

Password: