Posted on 01/01/2011 2:50:50 PM PST by wmfights
Atheist organization Freedom from Religion Foundation demanded the Army halt a spiritual fitness program designed to combat stress because its diagnostic tool allegedly promotes religion.
FFRF Co-Presidents Dan Barker and Annie Laurie Gaylor wrote a letter to Army Secretary John McHugh Wednesday to protest the “spiritual fitness” assessment of the Comprehensive Soldier Fitness program. The co-presidents say statements in the mandatory “spiritual fitness” evaluation tramples on the freedoms of nonbelievers.
The spiritual statements include: “I am a spiritual person;” “My life has lasting meaning;” and “I believe there is a purpose for my life.”
Barker and Gaylor called the assessment of nonspiritual soliders “deeply offensive and inappropriate.”
“By definition, nontheists do not believe in deities, spirits, or the supernatural. The Army may not send the morale-deflating message to nonbelievers that they are lesser soldiers, much less imply they are somehow incomplete, purposeless or empty,” stated the letter.
The Army established CSF to address the increased stress induced by sustained combat. The program is meant to enhance the resilience, readiness and potential of soldiers, family members and Army civilians.
The CSF uses Global Assessment Test to diagnose the soldiers’ overall level of physical and mental fitness. The assessment has a section titled “Spiritual Fitness” that questions soldiers on their personal support systems, motivation, and methods of dealing with stress, among other things.
Besides the survey itself, FFRF also criticizes the curriculum for those who score low in the spiritual fitness as overtly religious. Soldiers in the programs are told that “prayer is for all individuals” and to seek out chaplain guidance, according to the group of freethinkers.
Yet contrary to FFRF’s claims, the program does attempt to acknowledge and cater to the beliefs of secular soldiers. According to the training manual, spirituality and the human spirit is defined, for the program purposes, as “the essential core of the person.”
The manual does make mention of religious practices such as prayer and talking with a chaplain. However, it emphasizes that prayer can be quiet thinking time. It also emphasizes that soldiers can talk with a fellow soldier for support rather than chaplains.
Army chaplains trained last month to participate in the CSF’s spiritual fitness initiative say it is about protecting soldiers’ mental health in the event of a traumatic experience, not conversion.
"Most traumatic events have an element of soul wounding," said the Rev. Dr. Chrys Parker, an Army chaplain, in a statement about the training.
Parker asserts that chaplains are best equipped to deal with issues involving the soul.
"Quite frankly, the chaplains have the expertise on how to deal with the spiritual damage that is inherent in trauma," he said.
I am not sure why you exclude the Catholic church from the 'Judeo-Christian rule' and lump it with Islam and Marxism?
No I'm recognizing it is superior because of whom it's author is.
What makes it best is that it is predicated on free will and faith. It has to be freely chosen. You aren't to shove it down anyone's throat.
There is a lot of debate within Christianity about free will and faith. You are attempting to impose a view of Christianity based on your bias and not on Scripture. You are right Christianity is a faith of the heart. You can not force someone to believe. However, Scripture also calls for Christians to live by very specific rules.
For atheists it seems they only want the rules they come up with. Thus there is a conflict.
Well, one would think that "higher laws" would be those conducive to human personal (and social, since man is "a social animal") well-being, most importantly including those conducive to a proper understanding of the order of Reality of which humans are parts and participants. We do not "make the rules" of the universe; such "rules" preexist us, and we live in them, according to them. We were born into them: They are "givens," about which humans were never consulted.
As for any "lower laws" — I think those are the ones that man makes for himself, by himself — through legislators and regulators for instance. That is, without conscious regard to the idea of there being any necessary universal truths, independent of human will.
Though it might get me into trouble with some of my Christian confreres to say so, the ancient Hermetic tradition actually obviates the entire distinction as between "higher" and "lower" laws.
This tradition harkens back to Hermes Trisgemistus. There are two schools of thought regarding this guy: (1) He was a complete fabrication of human imaginings; (2) he was a real historical figure, as attested to by numerous contemporaries and their descendants.
I do not know which is true. All I know (not being on the scene at the time to see for myself) is what is attributed to him: In regard to universal law, he said: "As above, so below." That is, no matter how many dimensions or spheres of reality there may turn out to be, there is only One Law that governs them all. For there is finally only One universe, one world system, a single Unity which at the same time lawfully manifests a virtual riot of diversity at all scales.
The Mandelbrot Set comes to mind as a "concrete" illustration of this insight.
The Source of such law can only be divine.
Which is to say that only what we have called "the 'higher law'" ultimately rules. "Lower law" — by contrast — is only as good as it images the "higher" one.
By which route I come to the conclusion: The Lord our God is One God; and His Creation — comprising Heaven and Earth — is one cosmos that lawfully manifests His Truth and and His creative (and sustaining) Will — at all scales and "times."
FWIW.
Dear Sister, it was worth wading through this entire thread -- just to encounter that gem!
It's had authoritarian tendencies.
I'll need examples.
Bull patties, yourself. From the Apple dictionary: “noun the theory or belief that God does not exist.”
Perhaps you are an implicit Atheist (as opposed to an explicit Atheist)? If you are, you should identify yourself as such. Atheists, who do not describe themselves further are invariably taken to be explicit. Atheism not further defined would put you in the latter category.
“As for might making right, it usually is accepted that it does, although people rarely admit it.” (#77 to wmfights)
Well then, you must accept as right the bloody subjugation of the Amerinds by the Spanish Conquistadors, or the centuries-long series of bloody raids along the Brit and French coasts conducted by the Vikings. Or be relieved to know that, after over five years of horror and destruction, the Allies finally learned that they had been right in opposing the Axis powers. They certainly looked still to be in the wrong in 1943, didn’t they. And even yet today, in cowering before various international bullies, most of the world seems to believe that liberty is a failed myth.
“I'm certainly not a member of any atheist group. (#78 to betty boop)
Yet you rise in defense of an Atheist group . . . and a militantly hostile group at that, who are determined to permit no religion but theirs be recognized by the US.
“If you want to argue with me, that's fine, but argue with ME, not some French mathematician that I don't give a rip about.” (again #78 to betty boop)
Miz boop cites authorities as examples of past failed theories or past successes to fortify a point she wishes to make. Do you imagine that the thoughts you’ve expressed have never been uttered before? Do you think that ignorance of past consequences protects you from present consequences?
“And remember, I don't have to prove anything because you can't prove a negative.”
Then you must, indeed, be an implicit Atheist. Apparently you’ve learned that it’s safer to simply utter assertions rather than have to actually defend anything
And no, Christianity has not been reliably "superior." There were some very dark days some centuries back. Frankly, the superior code has been the American code of FREEDOM. That it is compatible with the free-will element of Christianity has been a happy coincidence resulting in the best country to live in that ever was. But introduce force, whether it be in the name of Marxism or Jesus, and you will kill what made this country great. Period.
Not at all. I don't mind them providing the counseling. I just don't want it to be mandatory. I've said this already.
Lack of belief, belief in lack, A does not equal B, B does not equal A, whatever. It is still not a unified movement. I've known Libertarian athiests and Marxists athiests. They only had one thing in common. Can you guess what that is, or is it happy hour where you live now?
Perhaps you are an implicit Atheist (as opposed to an explicit Atheist)? If you are, you should identify yourself as such. Atheists, who do not describe themselves further are invariably taken to be explicit. Atheism not further defined would put you in the latter category.
Define your little heart out. I don't believe in God. It doesn't mean I believe in a 70% tax bracket or starving the Russian farmers. It means I don't believe in God, period.
“As for might making right, it usually is accepted that it does, although people rarely admit it.” (#77 to wmfights) Well then, you must accept as right the bloody subjugation of the Amerinds by the Spanish Conquistadors, or the centuries-long series of bloody raids along the Brit and French coasts conducted by the Vikings. Or be relieved to know that, after over five years of horror and destruction, the Allies finally learned that they had been right in opposing the Axis powers. They certainly looked still to be in the wrong in 1943, didn’t they. And even yet today, in cowering before various international bullies, most of the world seems to believe that liberty is a failed myth.
You didn't understand what I was saying. I was saying that Christians have accepted that Might = Right, they just don't realize they've accepted it, because it's always worked in their favor. They've had quite a winning streak these last 700 years. They accept it as their due. Evidence that their God was RIGHT and their MIGHT proves it.
“I'm certainly not a member of any atheist group. (#78 to betty boop) Yet you rise in defense of an Atheist group . . . and a militantly hostile group at that, who are determined to permit no religion but theirs be recognized by the US.
Read back. I did not "rise to their defense." I merely agreed that it would be irritating to have this spiritual evaluation a MANDATORY part of my military career.
Miz boop cites authorities as examples of past failed theories or past successes to fortify a point she wishes to make. Do you imagine that the thoughts you’ve expressed have never been uttered before? Do you think that ignorance of past consequences protects you from present consequences?
I don't care who else has said it. Appeals to authority mean nothing to me, which is why I never use them. I do not care what any mathematician, author, philosopher, shephard, heir, politician, or movie star has said. Tell me your own thoughts in simple terms... or just show off your ability to Google, cut, and paste. I can tell you which approach will keep the lines of communication open with ME. If communicating with me is not important to you, then stop trying to communicate with me.
“And remember, I don't have to prove anything because you can't prove a negative.” Then you must, indeed, be an implicit Atheist. Apparently you’ve learned that it’s safer to simply utter assertions rather than have to actually defend anything
No, it is simply a logical fallacy that you have to believe in anything you can't prove the non-existence of. This is a basic.
After your declaration in #77, surely you are not now condemning anyone for possessing the might sufficient to be right. If you are, then you are suggesting a higher standard for right than mere might.
“don’t make this about atheists”
Let’s see . . . what is the title of this thread? Why I think it is, indeed, Atheists Complain of “Spirituality” in Army’s Mental Health Program.
“If you try to shove your religion down athiest throats, you might as well be Muslim.”
If anything, it strikes me that it’s Atheists who are trying shove their religion down the Army’s throat.
My point is, anyone who declares that atheism is the cause of brutality, and Christianity or theism in general is an automatic improvement on man’s treatment of his fellow man is going against the facts. And as I have said about five times now on this thread, I am against the military making spiritual counseling M-A-N-D-A-T-O-R-Y. I hope not to have to say it yet again.
snip: In regard to universal law, he said: “As above, so below.” That is, no matter how many dimensions or spheres of reality there may turn out to be, there is only One Law that governs them all. For there is finally only One universe, one world system, a single Unity which at the same time lawfully manifests a virtual riot of diversity at all scales.
Spirited: Man has always lived by revelation and Hermes Trismegistus was no exception. In contemporary terms, Trismegistus was an “astral plane traveler.” During one of his “out of body” experiences he encountered a great Red Dragon that later appeared to him as a beautiful spirit of light.
It was the Dragon who revealed to Hermes the “occult secret” (wisdom teaching) of “as above so below,” meaning that only the natural dimension exists and everything is therefore a part of nature (or the cosmos, matter + energy, the Force, etc). This is the doctrine of Monism.
The god of occult philosophy has many guises, but in this case God is an incomplete, inept, impersonal deity who requires man to “complete him,” that is, restore him to his pre-temporal wholeness. Man is therefore a part of the process of salvation. God is saved by man in other words.
This is the specific teaching of Hegel. Marx stripped Hegel’s dialectic of its’ spiritual aspect to make it a secularized version: material dialectics.
A fine example of Monistic reasoning is in the writings of Meister Eckhart (1260-1328), a German mystic. Eckhart writes:
“God’s divinity comes of my humility.” There follows a lengthy, wild, rambling explanation of why this is the case. In conclusion, Eckhart writes: “Therefore, if God is to exercise his divine property by his gifts, he may well need my humility; for apart from humility he can give nothing...That is why it is true that by my humility I give divinity to God.”
Monism is like a coin. One side is evolutionary materialism and the other is evolutionary pantheistic vitalism. At bottom, both deliver the same message: “Ye can be as God.” This means that Hermes “One Law” is the law of god-men spiritually energized by the Dragon.
In reviewing my response I saw that I had neglected to say that Monism always, without exception, erases the Creator-creature distinction, a fundamental teaching of all occult systems, including those disguised behind secular terminology.
The spirit of Monism teaches: Man is a god in the making. Out of One (matter + energy, the Force, Christ Consciousness, etc) has proceeded the diverse many, and back into One (annihilation for materialists for example) are the many traveling.
Ping to #153.
So, for those tendencies you exclude Catholics from the Christian world and lump them with Muslims and Marxists. Go figure.
Outstanding post.
The appeal to Occam’s Razor (abused & misunderstood in most cases) gives the veneer of intellectualism when in fact it is the avoidance of thinking altogether.
Yes, the liberal/progressive Trinity is:
Amor sui
Libido dominandi
Aspernatio rationis
It goes: Nomine Amor Sui, Libido Dominandi , et Aspernatio Rationis
Translation: In the name of self love, lust for power, and the spruning of reason.
This marks the true beginning of all their actions.
Good job saving the kitten and I don’t mean to imply that atheists are immoral or evil or cannot discern right from wrong.
Having been an atheist, though, it seems to me that I am happier now than I was then. My relationships are better and free from acrimony. I’m gentler and more loving and all that came about after my conversion to Christianity.
I feel that it is my relationship with Jesus Christ that strenghtens my marriage and family. I’m a better husband, father and friend then I ever was before my conversion.
That said I still have the same problems and challenges. Am I simply deluding myself? Is this just a survival strategy imposed by genes or environment? I don’t think so.
When I was baptized I felt utterly free of burdens, pure, fresh and new. Now, your contention is that I’m deluding myslef, but I don’t feel that way.
There are rebels in the military that don't think wearing a helmet should be mandatory either. If it's any consolation, the way things are going you will get your wish. We will have gay atheist mixed-sex minority combat troops that won't follow orders they don't like and will all be killed on the battlefield. What does it matter? America is falling on all fronts. The turning point for America was giving women the right to vote. No modern Democrat could ever get elected without that. Democracy is way overrated.
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.