Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

Military atheists want new rules on prayer
Stars and Stripes ^ | 12 Nov 08 | Leo Shane III

Posted on 11/11/2008 9:15:45 PM PST by GATOR NAVY

click here to read article


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-2021-4041-6061-8081-84 next last
To: allmendream

I think the pollster is not separating the idea “God doesn’t exist” from those who accept that philosophy.

Religious people will, of course, reject that as an abominable notion. At the same time, most Christians I’ve ever met absolutely loved talking to atheists. Made them think they’d done their daily duty.

They didn’t dislike the people at all. (With the exception of Richard Dawkins who practices at being insulting.)

In the case of radical cultists, they really believe those to be dangerous people.


61 posted on 11/12/2008 7:04:04 AM PST by xzins (Retired Army Chaplain Pro Deo et Patria)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 59 | View Replies]

To: allmendream
That was exactly what I saw in boot camp in the early 90’s at Lackland AFB. It was “go to church on Sunday” or “clean the barracks”. Many of the holdouts on the first Sunday ended up going the next Sunday, and I don't think it was because they were moved by the Holy Spirit. ;)

Same here, it was amazing how holy people became when given those options.

62 posted on 11/12/2008 7:05:08 AM PST by Travis T. OJustice (Change is not a destination, just as hope is not a strategy.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 60 | View Replies]

To: xzins
I believe the question was something along the lines of “Do you think a _______ can be a moral person.” and more Americans indicated that they thought a Muslim could be moral than an atheist (never mind that Muslim “morality” includes “honor killing”, homicide bombing, genital mutilation, and beheading nonbelievers).

http://atheism.about.com/od/atheistbigotryprejudice/a/AtheistSurveys.htm

Not sure if this is the same one I read, but it shows the same trend.

63 posted on 11/12/2008 7:18:52 AM PST by allmendream (Wealth is EARNED not distributed.... so how could it be Redistributed?)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 61 | View Replies]

To: GATOR NAVY
The coalition also wants President-elect Obama to develop a new directive for all chaplains and commanders that eliminates public prayers from any mandatory-attendance events for troops and ensures the Defense Department will not endorse any single religion, or even the idea of religion over nonreligion.

And so, their solution is to endorse nonreligion over religion?

64 posted on 11/12/2008 7:22:39 AM PST by DrewsDad
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: allmendream

It sounds to me like that poll really found out more about how Americans define the word “moral” than it found out about atheists.

Ask them: “Would you feel safer spending the night with an American atheist or spending the night with a radical, fundamentalist Muslim?” and I’ll bet they choose the American atheist hands down. :>)


65 posted on 11/12/2008 7:24:03 AM PST by xzins (Retired Army Chaplain Pro Deo et Patria)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 63 | View Replies]

To: GATOR NAVY

It seems the near universal opinion on this conservative forum is that this is ‘no big deal’. But it is a big deal. The nontheists are just asking for support so they can serve.

Assertions are that there really is no discrimination going on. The demeaning and derogatory opinions against atheists expressed here are representative of those in the military. How successful can an atheist expect to be with that kind of sentiment from all sides, especially the chain of command?

Several have suggested that these people aren’t really atheists or wouldn’t be in a foxhole. That may be a comfortable myth, but the truth is that they have been in foxholes. The MAAF site has a long list of atheists in foxholes - http://www.maaf.info/expaif.html

Then there is the assertion that the poor poor evangelicals that hold a majority position at every level of command are the real persecuted majority. The only problem lies with those who want to abuse their power to blast prayers over loudspeakers, or to give Christian prayers to a captive audience, or to fund multi-million dollar global evangelism programs under the guise of ‘family support’ like Strong Bonds. It is part of our Oath to the Constitution and the first clause of the first amendment to put the mission first. There is still an opportunity for personal religion and the second clause of the first amendment as long as it’s not done officially.

Another assertion is that atheism isn’t a religion and doesn’t deserve protection. That’s really the important problem to solve. The deeply-held beliefs of nontheists are equivalent personally and legally to traditional religious beliefs, and it only helps to build the team by reaching out to the nontheists to provide morale, family, equal opportunity, and counseling support.

People here seem to want to shout down the minority. Atheists just want to serve without feeling like second-class citizens. It’s no different than Women, African-Americans, or Jews before us.


66 posted on 11/12/2008 7:54:53 AM PST by dday76
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: DrewsDad
And so, their solution is to endorse nonreligion over religion?

Sounds like a logical conclusion to me.
67 posted on 11/12/2008 8:11:45 AM PST by Girlene
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 64 | View Replies]

To: DrewsDad

Option A: religion over nonreligion
Option B: nonreligion over religion
Option C: equal treatment of both
Option D: neutrality with respect to both

The preference is for the Constitutional treatment: A combination of D and C with D taking precedence by default and C being accommodated when neutrality is infeasible. And of course private expressions in private activities remain unrestricted.


68 posted on 11/12/2008 8:25:51 AM PST by dday76
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 64 | View Replies]

To: dday76
The demeaning and derogatory opinions against atheists expressed here are representative of those in the military.

Curious that you take five years to espouse your opinions of FReepers' opinions of atheists.

Another assertion is that atheism isn’t a religion and doesn’t deserve protection. That’s really the important problem to solve. The deeply-held beliefs of nontheists are equivalent personally and legally to traditional religious beliefs, and it only helps to build the team by reaching out to the nontheists to provide morale, family, equal opportunity, and counseling support.

Protection from what? Not hearing something you don't agree with? Atheists are free to express their non-beliefs. But how can you express a non-belief? It seems atheists (at least the ones who want to change our public discourse), want others to not express their beliefs publically. The end result is limiting speech, not encouraging it.
69 posted on 11/12/2008 8:30:42 AM PST by Girlene
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 66 | View Replies]

To: Alex Murphy

“...President-elect Obama...”

I still can’t get used to that.

More to the point,I will NEVER get used to “Commander-In-Chief” Barack 0bama.
NEVER.
NEVER.
NEVER.


70 posted on 11/12/2008 8:50:18 AM PST by gimme1ibertee (Revolution!!!!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 10 | View Replies]

To: GATOR NAVY

hmmm- I thought these were supposed to be big tough military people? I guess I was mistaken in believing that they are- Seems they are so sissified that they can’t bear to have their ‘feelings’ hurt? Grow a spine you atheist personel- Words won’t kill you- don’t like what ya heaR? All I got to say is cry me a stinkin river eh?


71 posted on 11/12/2008 8:51:32 AM PST by CottShop
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: dday76

If your preference for neutrality is implemented, how would that change what is being done today?


72 posted on 11/12/2008 8:54:54 AM PST by DrewsDad
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 68 | View Replies]

To: PghBaldy

Excellent post.


73 posted on 11/12/2008 10:24:32 AM PST by GATOR NAVY (guess I'm just a spudboy)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 45 | View Replies]

Comment #74 Removed by Moderator

Comment #75 Removed by Moderator

To: kosta50; Kolokotronis; wagglebee; jude24; P-Marlowe; Gamecock; enat; pissant; jazusamo; Girlene

The point is that, whether for good reasons or not, soldiers have religious needs when their lives are on the line.

So far as pastoral care is concerned, that is limited to one’s flock...even in the military. However, the skills used in pastoral care are the same skills as those used in many counseling settings.

In the military such counseling by chaplains IS available to all on an equal basis.

Local commanders are in charge of everything on their installations, to include medical and chaplain care.


76 posted on 11/12/2008 10:56:41 AM PST by xzins (Retired Army Chaplain Pro Deo et Patria)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 74 | View Replies]

To: dday76
Another assertion is that atheism isn’t a religion and doesn’t deserve protection. That’s really the important problem to solve. The deeply-held beliefs of nontheists are equivalent personally and legally to traditional religious beliefs, and it only helps to build the team by reaching out to the nontheists to provide morale, family, equal opportunity, and counseling support. People here seem to want to shout down the minority. Atheists just want to serve without feeling like second-class citizens. It’s no different than Women, African-Americans, or Jews before us.

First you will have to make up your mind as to whether atheism is a religion, as you claim; or a race, or gender as you also claim .

Or is it just a choice people make, for which you think all others should behave so that those who freely made the choice should never, ever have their feelings hurt, as you also claim.

One is a belief, one is a race, the third is childishness masquerading as a legal right.

Or is it just whatever is most convenient to your agenda at the time ?

77 posted on 11/12/2008 10:59:17 AM PST by Red Boots
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 66 | View Replies]

To: kosta50; wagglebee

That is, in terms of war, a just war discussion.

In terms of maintaining civil peace, it is a justifiable force discussion.

I’ve never found any argument that truly was as rational as the individual, community, and international self-defense arguments.


78 posted on 11/12/2008 10:59:45 AM PST by xzins (Retired Army Chaplain Pro Deo et Patria)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 75 | View Replies]

To: xzins

It is very rare that both sides will agree that a war is just. The only example I can think of is when Germany acknowledged very shortly after the end of WWII that the Allies were justified in stopping the Nazis.


79 posted on 11/12/2008 11:24:30 AM PST by wagglebee ("A political party cannot be all things to all people." -- Ronald Reagan, 3/1/75)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 78 | View Replies]

To: wagglebee

Whether the sides agree or not, rational people can look at the facts and discuss them in light of the theory.


80 posted on 11/12/2008 11:27:47 AM PST by xzins (Retired Army Chaplain Pro Deo et Patria)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 79 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-2021-4041-6061-8081-84 next last

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson