Posted on 11/14/2008 2:37:10 PM PST by PeteePie
Coalition complains of religious discrimination in the services By Leo Shane III, Stars and Stripes Mideast edition, Wednesday, November 12, 2008
WASHINGTON — A coalition of atheists and agnostics wants the new White House to protect young military members from what they see as rampant religious discrimination in the services.
The Secular Coalition for America held a news conference Monday urging new rules against proselytizing and more training for chaplains on how to handle nonreligious troops.
"When they say ‘there are no atheists in foxholes’ it’s slanderous," said Wayne Adkins, a former Army first lieutenant who served in Iraq in 2004 and 2005. "To deny their existence is to deny that they serve."
(Excerpt) Read more at stripes.com ...
You make perfect sense, little jeremiah. Unfortunately, those on the left who preach tolerance rarely seem to practice it. I respect atheists even if I disagree with them. I’m not rude to them or demand they be quiet when they express views I disagree with. I only ask the same from them.
When I was in the military, we often had chaplains come in and give prayer. Everyone was respectfully quiet even if they didn’t believe. That is the real meaning of tolerance—giving others the right to express their faith or lack thereof. Tolerance doesn’t mean we have to conform/limit our freedoms to conform to the demands of a radical minority.
AMEN!
No, these Brave Young Men are not trying to take away anyone's freedom but simply stating that they do want to be discriminated against nor required to recognize a God that they do not believe exists.
And, as I read the First Amendment it not only provides Freedom of Religion but also Freedom From Religion.
As for the Fine Brave Men fighting for our Freedom and Safety in Iraq and Afghanistan, they are all heros no matter what their Religion of lack thereof.
LLS
Please see my response below as to my lack of a /s tag.
LLS
LLS
For instance, different religious believers may not share many beliefs with someone of another faith. Many people have attended religious services of other faiths - even if they don't share every belief. It's called respect and tolerance.
If atheists are so angry and aggressive that they can't tolerate any mention or practice of religious belief, then it's their responsibility to hang out only with other atheists, not force religious believers to bend to their will.
I can actually see both sides of the argument.
I remember having this one Catholic OIC beginning every staff meeting with prayer. That made everybody HIGHLY uncomfortable.
I remember running into a reserve chaplain (evangelical protestant) who very aggressively pushed his particular brand of Christianity on everybody at a deployed location. One time he asked me if I had a "church home." When I answered that I was Catholic, his response was definitely non-accepting of this. We'll leave it at that.
Both the two examples above were greatly in the minority. Most Christians in the military that I saw, regardless of denomination, were very respectful of others beliefs or lack thereof.
OTOH, militant atheists in the military were generally a major pain in the butt, looking down at anybody who was "idiotic" enough to have a sincerely-held religious belief, no matter what that belief system was. After all, they were "free thinkers" and "rational," while us theists were "delusional." Their objective, though unstated, was not to have the liberty to not believe, but to deny those of us who did believe that right. All in the name of "tolerance."
Now that they have one of their own in the White House, you can expect even MORE militancy from them. Be ready. They believe it is their time.
(And, if you believe that there will be an upcoming persecution, you will understand that they are right)
To the left, “tolerance” has developed a new meaning. It means “Dominance of us over you!!”. Those 65 plans of communist domination or whatever they’re called are looking more and more like a done deal.
It’s the left’s way of forcing normal people who believe in God and morality into the closet. Removing all freedoms from us. It’s dangerous and not a light or little thing.
I wouldn’t mind going to any kind of religious service (I have in the past) (and I’ll leave Islam out of this) even if I don’t practice those methods of worship, and don’t share some of the tenets of belief. My view is - at least they’re worshipping God in some manner, and they have free will, too. And how about respecting others as a general principle?
I have atheist relatives and acquaintenaces and I don’t hate them or try to shove anything in their faces.
And of course - pressurized proselytization should never happen especially in the military where there is a more or less captive audience. But that can be taken care of. If I were in the military, especially in a war zone, I’d be happy to hear prayers from anyone, regardless of sect or religion (leaving Islam aside again, sorry I’m sort of negative about them now).
*Freedom from religion*
You read the constitution like the USSC (stuffed with liberal activists from the FDR administration) do...
Perhaps you should read up and study some history....
Start with George Washington, John Adams, or perhaps Jefferson.
Our Constitution strictly forbids the law (or the liberal judiciary-atheists-queers et al) from prohibiting the free exercise of religion. (notice the period!) "Our constitution was made for a moral and religious people, and is wholly inadequate to the government of any other- John Adams
I linked to a post by Cvengr first, and then to my reply. Here's the link to Cvengr's post again, since you seem to have missed it the first time.
You complained that all I did was link to my own post. That's a blatant lie. Even if I had, my post quoted Cvengr's post in its entirety.
Are you not paying attention, or are you so anxious to smear other posters that you don't care how misleading you have to be?
The Judeo Christian Tradition is from where all morality and true justice derive. Good soldiering requires adherence to a strict moral code, else our military would have long ago devolved into anarchy and the barbaric practice reminiscent of other pagan or amoral cultures. The American military would not hold that reputation so well earned over two centuries, were not the Judeo-Christian Traditions central in its doctrine of moral conduct.
All of Western civilization owes its birth, its liberty, its jurisprudence, and its prosperity and longevity to the Catholic Church, and the Christian moral code, without which no semblance of the above attributes would have risen from the rubble that was the old Roman Empire. That is not my opinion, but historical fact.
I have no intention of arguing Catholic apologetics with you, not wanting to cast pearls before swine. I long ago discovered atheists comprise the most closed of all intellects, while the irony is they claim to have enlightened minds.
Moreover, the typical arguments the atheist conjures involve circular logic and the disproval of negatives.
I would expect that the “fringe” remark is more in line with your “beliefs.” I doubt there are many soldiers following your “creed” of atheism, just as I seriously doubt your view is supported by but a few here on FR. Shall we put your assertion it to a vote?
There were two other replies. It appears the only one with a reading difficulty (or compulsion to lie about what other posters have posted), is you.
That era was called the Dark Ages. The light of science in those years was found in the Arab countries.
With the Renaissance and The Enlightenment the breakthroughs came when Europeans escaped the dominance of the churches and replaced unquestioned religious dogma with free and unfettered investigation.
That is not my opinion, but historical fact.
B.S.:
Nicholas Copernicus (1473-1543) Polish astronomer. First mathematical system of planets going around Sun. Attended European universities. 1497 Became Canon in Catholic Church. 1533 Presented his system at Vatican. Pope Clement VII approved, urged Copernicus to publish; also by Catholic Bishop Guise, Cardinal Schonberg, and Protestant Professor George Rheticus. Copernicus never under threat of persecution. Referred to God in his works. Did not see his system in conflict with Bible.
Sir Francis Bacon (1561-1627) Philosopher. Established Scientific Method for discovery of truth, service to country and Church. Rejected atheism: “…a little philosophy inclineth man’s mind to atheism, but depth in philosophy bringeth men’s minds about to religion; for while the mind of man looketh upon second causes scattered, it may sometimes rest in them, and go no further; but when it beholdeth the chain of them confederate, and linked together, it must needs fly to Providence and Deity.”
Johannes Kepler (1571-1630) Mathematician, Astronomer. Early work on light. Established laws of planetary motion. Came close to Newtonian concept of universal gravity. His idea of force changed astronomy radically. Extremely sincere, pious Lutheran. Works contain writings how space, heavenly bodies represent the Trinity. Suffered no persecution for open avowal of sun-centered system. Allowed to stay in Catholic Graz as a Professor (1595-1600) when other Protestants had been expelled!
Galileo Galilei (1564-1642) 1633 Published controversial work on solar system. No proofs of sun-centered system. Telescope discoveries did not indicate moving earth. His proof based on tides was invalid. He ignored Kepler’s elliptical orbits. Put Pope’s argument in mouth of simpletons, offending his old friend. Forbidden to teach sun-centered system. Did useful theoretical work on dynamics. Expressly said the Bible cannot err. Saw his system as alternate interpretation of biblical texts.
Rene Descartes (1596-1650) Mathematician, Scientist, Father of modern philosophy. Roman Catholic. Retained deep faith. At 24, sought to gather knowledge in one system of thought. Asked what could be known if all else doubted. Proposed “I think therefore I am.” Sought to establish God’s existence. Only if God exists and would not want us deceived by experiences, can we trust senses and logical thought processes. Wanted his God centered philosophy adopted as standard Roman Catholic teaching.
(Rene Descartes and Francis Bacon regarded as key figures in development of scientific methodology. Both had systems in which God was important, and both seem more devout than the average for their era.)
Isaac Newton (1642-1727) Genius, innovator in Optics, Mechanics, Mathematics, Chemistry. Saw mathematics, numbers central in all. Devoutly religious. Considerable work in biblical numerology. Aspects of beliefs not orthodox, but thought theology very important. In his system, God essential to nature, absoluteness of space. From Principia: “The most beautiful system of the sun, planets, and comets, could only proceed from the counsel and dominion on an intelligent and powerful Being.”
Robert Boyle (1791-1867) Chemist. Founder, key member of Royal Society. Encyclopedia Britannica: “His will endowed lectures ‘for proving the Christian religion against notorious infidels.’ Devout Protestant. Promoted Christian religion, giving money to translate, publish New Testament into Irish, Turkish. In 1690, developed theological views in The Christian Virtuoso, to show study of nature a central religious duty.” Wrote against atheists. More devoutly Christian than average in his era.
Michael Faraday (1791-1867) Son of blacksmith. One of greatest scientists of the 19th century. Work on electricity, magnetism revolutionized physics, and led to modern lifestyles, (computers, telephone lines, etc). Devout Christian member of Sandemanians, which significantly influenced and strongly affected way in which he approached, interpreted nature. Originating from Presbyterians, the Sandemanians rejected idea of state churches, tried to go back to New Testament Christianity.
Gregor Mendel (1822-1884) Abbot. Laid mathematical foundation of genetics in 1856 (3 years before Darwin published Origin of Species). Unknown until 1900, when botanists, rediscovered him. 1860’s notable for X-Clubs, dedicated to lessen religious influence, propagate image of conflict between science and religion. Darwin’s cousin, geneticist Francis Galton, a proponent of eugenics, wrote how the “priestly mind” not conducive to science, while a monk made breakthroughs in genetics.
William Thomson Kelvin (1824-1907) Physicist. More religious than average for era. Physicists George Gabriel Stokes (1819-1903) and James Clerk Maxwell (1831-1879) also of deep Christian faith in era when many nominal, apathetic, or anti-Christian. Encyclopedia Britannica: “Maxwell regarded as scientist of 19th century who had greatest influence on 20th century physics; ranked with Newton, Einstein for fundamental contributions.” Creationist, estimated Earth 20-100M yrs, upper limit 500M.
Max Planck (1858-1947) Physicist. Quantum Theory. Revolutionized understanding of atomic, sub-atomic worlds. 1937 lecture “Religion and Naturwissenschaft” expressed view God everywhere present: “holiness of the unintelligible Godhead conveyed by holiness of symbols.” Atheists attach too much importance to symbols. Believed in almighty, all-knowing, beneficent God; that Science, religion wage “tireless battle against skepticism, dogmatism… against unbelief, superstition” with goal “toward God!”
Albert Einstein (1879-1955) Physicist. Britannica: “Firmly denying atheism, expressed belief in ‘Spinoza’s God who reveals himself in the harmony of what exists.’ Said to physicist “I want to know how God created this world, I am not interested in this or that phenomenon, in the spectrum of this or that element. I want to know His thoughts, the rest are details.” On Uncertainty Principle “God does not play dice.” On religion “Science without religion is lame, religion without science is blind.”
P.S. ... I have just cited for you 500 years of scientific achievement, advanced by renowned men of science whom also held a devout Christian faith. These were and remain giants of the scientific world, who were leaders in their fields of study, and whose contributions shaped our ideas on the universe, the solar system, and the planet we inhabit.
So, I stand on the shoulders of giants, men who knew this universe was created by an omnipresent, omni prescient being... the being we call God.
You, sir, stand on the shifting sands of indifference and relativism.
So you are suggesting that because I don't agree with your narrow fundamentalist view of religion I am a communist?
Don't be more of an ass than you have to be.
I was active and voting as a conservative when the theocons were still Democrats.
In 1616 the Inquisition warned Galileo not to hold or defend the hypothesis asserted in Copernicus' On the Revolutions, though it has been debated whether he was admonished not to 'teach in any way' the heliocentric theory.That sure sounds like the church supported science, eh? What a joke!Despite his continued insistence that his work in the area was purely theoretical, despite his strict following of the church protocol for publication of works (which required prior examination by church censors and subsequent permission), and despite his close friendship with Maffeo Barberini who later became Pope Urban VIII and presided throughout the ordeal, Galileo was forced to recant his views repeatedly and was put under life-long house arrest (1633-1642).
The Inquisition had rejected earlier pleas by Galilei to postpone or relocate the trial because of his ill health. At a meeting presided by Pope Urban VIII, the Inquisition decided to notify Galilei that he either had to come to Rome or that he would be arrested and brought there in chains. Galileo arrived in Rome for his trial before the Inquisition on February 13, 1633. After two weeks in quarantine, Galilei was detained at the comfortable residence of the Tuscan ambassador, as a favor to the influential Grand Duke Ferdinand II de' Medici. In April 1633 he was formally interrogated by the Inquisition. He was not imprisoned in a dungeon cell, but detained in a room in the offices of the Inquisition for 22 days.
On June 22, 1633, the Roman Inquisition started its trial against Galilei, who was then 69 years old and pleaded for mercy, pointing to his "regrettable state of physical unwellness". Threatening him with torture, imprisonment and death on the stake, the show trial forced Galileo to "abjure, curse and detest" his work and to promise to denounce others who held his prior viewpoint. Galileo did everything the church requested him to do. (The idea that he muttered Eppur si muove! - "But it moves anyway!" - is a legend.) That the threat of torture and death Galileo was facing was a real one had been proven by the church in the earlier trial against Giordano Bruno, who was burned at the stake in 1600 for holding a naturalistic view of the Universe [emphasis added].
Galileo was sentenced to prison but because of his advanced age was allowed to serve his term under house arrest at his villas in Arcetri and Florence. Because of a painful hernia, he requested permission to consult physicians in Florence, which was denied by Rome, warning that further such requests would lead to imprisonment. Under arrest, he was forced to recite penitentiary psalms regularly, and his social contacts were highly restricted, but he was allowed to continue his less controversial research and publish under strict rules of censorship. He went totally blind in 1638 (his petition to the Inquisition to be released was rejected, but he was allowed to move to his house in Florence where he was closer to his physicians). His Dialogue was put on the Index librorum prohibitorum, a black list of banned books, until 1822. Source
Since The Enlightenment we don't have to kowtow to the shamans and what they think of science, and I wish you fundamentalists would learn that.
Coyote you are a shaman for the ape-to-man fantasy religion
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.