Atheist sues Defense Department for violating his civil rights
posted at 6:16 pm on April 26, 2008 by Allahpundit
Send to a Friend |
printer-friendly
Yes, there are a few of us in foxholes. I’m sympathetic, just like I’m sympathetic to the 96% of the Military Religious Freedom Foundation’s soldier-clients who are Christian but evidently not Christian enough. The tricky part of these cases, of course, is balancing the rights of the soldier with the military’s need to restrict some of those rights to promote discipline and improve morale. Hard to see how threatening a kid for being godless does either:
When Specialist Jeremy Hall held a meeting last July for atheists and freethinkers at Camp Speicher in Iraq, he was excited, he said, to see an officer attending.
But minutes into the talk, the officer, Maj. Freddy J. Welborn, began to berate Specialist Hall and another soldier about atheism, Specialist Hall wrote in a sworn statement. “People like you are not holding up the Constitution and are going against what the founding fathers, who were Christians, wanted for America!” Major Welborn said, according to the statement.
Major Welborn told the soldiers he might bar them from re-enlistment and bring charges against them, according to the statement…
Major Welborn declined to comment beyond saying, “I’d love to tell my side of the story because it’s such a false story.”
But Timothy Feary, the other soldier at the meeting, said in an e-mail message: “Jeremy is telling the truth. I was there and witnessed everything.”…
In November 2007, Specialist Hall was sent home early from Iraq after being repeatedly threatened by other soldiers. “I caution you that although your ‘legal’ issues are yours and yours alone, I have heard many people disagree with you, and this may be a cause for some of the perceived threats,” wrote Sgt. Maj. Kevin Nolan in Specialist Hall’s counseling for his departure.
I’ve written posts about the MRFF before and the comments tend to split between “they’re exaggerating” and “yeah, it happens, but to an acceptably small degree.” To the extent that that’s originating from a slippery-slope concern about litigation making commanders worry overly about their rhetoric in war zones, fair enough — but we’re not talking about a live-fire situation here. On the other hand, it’s worth noting that one of our more knowledgeable readers thought the Foundation was wrong on the law when it complained about Pentagon brass violating DoD regs by appearing in a video for a Christian ministry. They’ve also got a nasty habit, all too common among my fellow atheists, alas, of letting their own rhetoric run away with them: Witness the press release comparing Hall’s treatment to “rape” or Mikey Weinstein’s infamous threat to leave “sucking chest wounds” on his opponents. Or better yet, just go watch the first 20 seconds of the group’s introductory video. That analogy is sufficiently disgusting that it should keep any conscientious atheist away.
You must be logged in to post a comment.
Blowback
Note from Hot Air management: This section is for comments from Hot Air's community of registered readers. Please don't assume that Hot Air management agrees with or otherwise endorses any particular comment just because we let it stand. A reminder: Anyone who fails to comply with our terms of use may lose their posting privilege.
Trackbacks/Pings
Trackback URL
Comments
Comment pages: « 1 [2] 3 4 5 »
@ JetBoy on April 26, 2008 at 7:29 PM
The “soul” as you say is not something measurable or quantifiable. Its the name we place on the ability to think and formulate advanced thought. The fact that we have the largest brains of any other species is pretty good evidence of why we might have this “soul” you speak of.
muyoso on April 26, 2008 at 7:32 PM
Judaism
So Christians always tell the truth? Is Allah a liar because he is an Atheist?
Pam on April 26, 2008 at 7:33 PM
@ Guardian on April 26, 2008 at 7:31 PM
Sounds like a personal problem.
muyoso on April 26, 2008 at 7:33 PM
So they’ve discovered that the basic nature of atoms makes it likely to form molecules, which in turn make it likely to form amino acids, which in turn make it likely to form DNA, which will self-modify, self-correct, and eventually lead directly to self-aware beings such as ourselves. And somehow you see this as a coincidence?
It sounds to me as if you were saying that the universe was designed to make life like us inevitable. Oops! There goes that “designed” word. If you have a design, you pretty much have to have a designer.
stonemeister on April 26, 2008 at 7:33 PM
Bishop James Ussher (1581-1656)
29Victor on April 26, 2008 at 7:33 PM
Are we having fun yet, AP?
TwinkietheKid on April 26, 2008 at 7:33 PM
The article says…
Someone brought up that that would be .000036%. Hardly a big issue.
JetBoy on April 26, 2008 at 7:33 PM
Loosely speaking, yes. But there are many wonderful literary elements in play. There is a lot of highly stylized poetry known as parallelism, even in the first chapter of Genesis. There are hero stories, encomiums, epics, satire, etc. In fact the OT more than the NT has these elements, which makes it very fun to read. You just have to know what to look for, and how ANE writers wrote these elements.
Weight of Glory on April 26, 2008 at 7:35 PM
True, but if the Major was abusing his authority in that way, then that is a problem.
29Victor on April 26, 2008 at 7:35 PM
Atheists have no skin in the game.
AZCON on April 26, 2008 at 7:36 PM
Yeah, and you are assuming that all the EO complaints made it to the Pentagon. I never filed a complaint myself, but that is because I knew it wouldn’t get anywhere.
Blarg the Destroyer on April 26, 2008 at 7:36 PM
Ah, we have finally arrived to that have we? That was quick! :)
Guardian on April 26, 2008 at 7:36 PM
@ stonemeister on April 26, 2008 at 7:33 PM
Absolutely not. There does not need to be a design at all. We are here because we were more adaptable than other species a few hundred thousand years ago, and were able to survive by using our brains. We had no defenses on our body, and were pretty weak species comparatively, except for our brain. We honed our one asset, our brain, much like other animals hone their assets. No design needed.
muyoso on April 26, 2008 at 7:37 PM
Stonemeister,
It’s not a “message board”. It’s a widely-read website that deals in, among other things, exactly what you claim that you can prove.
It’s abovetopsecret.com . Go there and click on “board” or “board home” (depending on how it may look to a non-member) and scroll down and check out “Member Debates”. If you’ve got the goods, that’s the place to sell ‘em.
Seriously, gimme a shout if you’re ready to get down to the brass tacks of it. I’m not saying I’m the one who’s gonna debate you, but someone, no doubt, will grab at the chance to engage that debate.
Tuning Spork on April 26, 2008 at 7:37 PM
Guys, that’s dangerously close to name-calling. We’re all above that kind of thing. Poopie-heads!
stonemeister on April 26, 2008 at 7:37 PM
So, are you assigning all you reasoning abilities to the natural cause and effect relationships that occur when your genetic makeup shapes our brains, which in turn yields the firings of synapses, which in turn, cumulatively, yields your conclusions, propositions, theories, etc.?
Weight of Glory on April 26, 2008 at 7:39 PM
No, just a Christian, mostly Baptist but currently unaffiliated.
Esthier on April 26, 2008 at 7:39 PM
@ Guardian on April 26, 2008 at 7:36 PM
If you choose not to read what I send you, then you dont want to possibly learn anything. I showed you that there HAVE been amino acids created under conditions which could have been present on early earth, something you said couldnt happen. Then you, as usual, lol at the title of the article instead of read it. It happens every time I talk to someone who doesn’t care about the truth but rather cares about preaching.
muyoso on April 26, 2008 at 7:39 PM
Dare I dream to be published alongside such notables? I think I’ll shoot for something higher…maybe even higher than the DailyKos!
stonemeister on April 26, 2008 at 7:39 PM
This story reminds me of a valiant 7th Day Adventist that I served with in 1991.
He would not comprimise on his beliefs. He was threatened and berated but he would not relent. He said “I told them my beliefs when I signed the enlistment papers and they told me they were compatible with the service.”
In the end his refusal to work on his Sabbath was viewed as incompatible with the military and he received an honorable discharge. It was one of the bravest and most noble things I have ever witnessed. He was kind and respectful throughout his ordeal and yet he never waivered.
Mormon Doc on April 26, 2008 at 7:40 PM
Evolution without design is like randomly dropping several thousand rocks from space and expecting them to land in the assembled form of a perfect pyramid. Every time.
Guardian on April 26, 2008 at 7:40 PM
@Esthier
We’ll take you. Just let me know if you are looking for a group with which to affiliate. : )
Mormon Doc on April 26, 2008 at 7:41 PM
Not to mention opposable thumbs.
Esthier on April 26, 2008 at 7:41 PM
@winemkr
I disagree. The officers that took me on when I was a lowly E-2 received answers to their challenges. You can’t be subject to punishment under the UCMJ for a discussion at a meeting. I don’t know about the Marine Corps but I’m guessing that the UCMJ is the same across the board. Of course, if the specialist was simply looking for something to whine about then I understand why he responded like a hurt pup.
Mormon Doc on April 26, 2008 at 7:04 PM
Disagree all you want, and stop using my comments to you when talking to other posters.
The United States Marine Corps demands and receives respect everywhere from the parade deck to the battlefield. We don’t debate, we focus on our mission.
You can UCMJ off all you want, but you are living in a dream world when it comes to military discipline.
Wake up and smell reality.
One other thing. Don’t bother responding to me. I don’t waste time talking to sissies with a religious agenda.
Semper Fi
winemkr on April 26, 2008 at 7:42 PM
Or finding an empty bottle on the beach and deciding it was just a natural process of the sand coagulating and forming the shape. When something is obviously engineered, then someone or something had to engineer it.
stonemeister on April 26, 2008 at 7:42 PM
@ Weight of Glory on April 26, 2008 at 7:39 PM
Absolutely. What else would I assign it to? Why does a snake not strike at objects that are bigger than it can swallow? Because it has a soul? Why does a lion not attack anything that moves in front of it, but cues in to the weakest of its prey? Because it has a soul? Our ability to reason has come over thousands of years of having NOTHING but our brain as a tool to survival. We dont have claws, we dont have massive jaws. We cant defend ourselves in any way other than to outsmart other species.
muyoso on April 26, 2008 at 7:42 PM
@JetBoy
Excellent point. I think this is a tempest in a tea pot. While I was in the military I saw very little religious bigotry. There was a lot of ignorance about religion but I can see how those two things get mixed up sometimes.
Mormon Doc on April 26, 2008 at 7:43 PM
Hey, muyoso, what did you dream about last night? Hmmm? OH. Then prove it!
stonemeister on April 26, 2008 at 7:43 PM
Perhaps…but it’s more than simply “the ability to think and formulate advanced thought”…it defines us as individuals, rather than just members of a collective species. So far, nothing in science…nothing…ever has, nor ever will, disprove the existence of God.
Agreed. Just not a “big” problem. Hardly worth making a big deal out of.
JetBoy on April 26, 2008 at 7:44 PM
C.S.Lewis Miracles
Weight of Glory on April 26, 2008 at 7:44 PM
I don’t doubt that Christians do things like this, both in and out of the military. As a Christian, I would certainly question the propriety of this.
Something nags at me though. As atheists become more militant, vociferous, and . . . seeking converts, does the MRFF, and other such organizations deal with complaints against them? I’m in no way suggesting a “you do it too” argument - harassment on either side is wrong. But there is prostylization on both sides of the aisle.
nailinmyeye on April 26, 2008 at 7:44 PM
@ stonemeister on April 26, 2008 at 7:42 PM
Ah, finally, the watchmaker argument. Good to see that you have fallen back on a well refuted classic.
muyoso on April 26, 2008 at 7:45 PM
Yeah, look at me, I deserve respect, but I’m going to act like a petulant child, nyah! nyah! nyah!
You have a lot to learn on the subject of respect.
Blarg the Destroyer on April 26, 2008 at 7:46 PM
@winemkr
Easy there fella. No need to get up on your hind legs.
Mormon Doc on April 26, 2008 at 7:47 PM
@ stonemeister on April 26, 2008 at 7:43 PM
You mean what did I think about when my brain was dumping chemicals into itself, which is well documented? You get the exact same dream state if you freebase DMT, or dimethyltryptamine.
muyoso on April 26, 2008 at 7:47 PM
I appreciate the offer, but I’m probably going to stick with what I know when we finally get out of bed on Sundays.
Esthier on April 26, 2008 at 7:48 PM
Then if your conclusion, that our mental faculties are purely natural, then why should I believe your conclusions and not my own, which have been produced by my natural processes? Your claim leaves us both in the dark, and leaves no room for reason. You MUST find a place for reason, and to say all is natural (philosophical naturalism) leaves no room for reason…just atoms, and squishy tissue.
Weight of Glory on April 26, 2008 at 7:48 PM
@ JetBoy on April 26, 2008 at 7:44 PM
Oh, believe me, the existance of God will be made to be such a giant leap of faith that most wont make it after more and more of our world is explained through science. That is the fear that the church has, and why they constantly attack science.
muyoso on April 26, 2008 at 7:48 PM
Old, but well tested. If you think your “consciousness” or “soul” or whatever is just an electromagnetic field of some sort, then test it by forming an opinion, step into a strong magnetic field (say, in an MRI?), and see if your opinion changes. Or sing a song and see if the way you sing it changes. Or any other test you can think of. Obviously within that magnetic field, your brain-generated field is bent totally out of shape, but has zero effect on your “soul”.
So, what is your soul made of, then? What generates it? It’s not biochemical or bio-electrical. At least we know that part. (Okay, I know it can be influenced by chemicals, but obviously that’s not the whole story).
stonemeister on April 26, 2008 at 7:49 PM
@muyoso
Which churches attack science?
Mormon Doc on April 26, 2008 at 7:50 PM
Now you’re saying it!
Guardian on April 26, 2008 at 7:50 PM
@ Weight of Glory on April 26, 2008 at 7:48 PM
I dont understand what you are even saying. Just because our brains developed the same doesnt mean that we will think the same. You dont see any animals acting that way, they all can think on their own. Even the most simple of animals are individuals. How can you explain the reasoning that is found throughout the animal kingdom, and not just in humans? Do they all have souls?
muyoso on April 26, 2008 at 7:50 PM
So you’re saying that as science increases, religion decreases? As you study history, do think you see that theory confirmed or refuted?
Weight of Glory on April 26, 2008 at 7:51 PM
For the sake of argument let’s say that this major really did what is alleged. It seems like if the specialist went up the chain that the issue could have been resolved “in house” so to speak. Agree/Disagree?
Mormon Doc on April 26, 2008 at 7:53 PM
@ Mormon Doc on April 26, 2008 at 7:50 PM
Are you serious? The catholic church as well as many other denominations have attacked science ever since people wanted to explain things with anything else other than “God did it”. Whether it be the the sun at the center of the universe, the earth not being flat, man descending from simpler life or the early formulation of life on earth. Every step of the way the church attacks and attempts to discredit science.
muyoso on April 26, 2008 at 7:53 PM
Animals and plants do not practice science. So they must then believe in God, having no alternative.
AZCON on April 26, 2008 at 7:53 PM
In order for your argument to have weight you would have to say “Nasa scientists observed without interference…. instead of created..:)
Guardian on April 26, 2008 at 7:54 PM
So some churches attacked science. I’ve seen racists use that type of illogic: some black people mugged a friend of mine, so all black people are muggers. Sorry, if you’re going to make these kind of bigoted arguments, you’re going to lose.
stonemeister on April 26, 2008 at 7:56 PM
Which is precisely why it would be a mistake to use that word before establishing the existence of a designer. And, incidentally, why the “argument from design” is usually just an empty exercise in circular reasoning, not an assessment of any kind of physical evidence (not that any conceivable assessment of physical evidence could result in support either for against any proposition about entities which are, by stipulation, non-physical).
Blacklake on April 26, 2008 at 7:56 PM
@ Weight of Glory on April 26, 2008 at 7:51 PM
My argument is that as science explains more and more of the universe, the attempt to explain things with God will lessen.
muyoso on April 26, 2008 at 7:56 PM
It seems like the more science reveals the more elegant and interwoven all of existence is throughout the cosmos. From my perspective it reminds me of the omnipresent nature of God and inspires me. From the atheists perspective what happens? I’m not trying to be argumentative I’m just curious.
Mormon Doc on April 26, 2008 at 7:57 PM
@ stonemeister on April 26, 2008 at 7:56 PM
Do you think a majority or minority of churches endorse evolution? Exactly.
muyoso on April 26, 2008 at 7:57 PM
I would like to agree. But, it would rely entirely on his chain of command.
Blarg the Destroyer on April 26, 2008 at 7:57 PM
Excellent point. I’m not interested in this debate, belief in God creating something out of nothing is a matter of faith, just as is belief in the Big Bang doing the same thing.
I’m more interested in the ethical and moral implications of believing that man is just part of a cosmic accident. That he has no intrinsic worth than anything else created by that same accident.
Also the implications as far as “free will” is concerned. If we are simply a link in a billions-year-old chain reaction then every thought I have, every breath I breathe and every word I type on this blog was predetermined at the Big Bang.
Which goes back to the moral discussion. If everything that has ever happened in the universe was contained in that singularity then Hitler is no greater or worse than Mother Theresa. Their actions are simply the results of electro-chemical interactions in their brains reacting to stimuli in their environment, and both those interactions and the stimuli are simply part of the chain reaction that is our universe.
29Victor on April 26, 2008 at 7:57 PM
Perhaps there was a time when the Church attacked science…but it’s not like that anymore. I still say, you cannot simply have either science, or God. Both are hand in hand. To eliminate one from the equation, you must eliminate both.
JetBoy on April 26, 2008 at 7:58 PM
Animals and plants do not practice science. So they must then believe in God, having no alternative.
AZCON on April 26, 2008 at 7:58 PM
@muyoso
If you have to go back to Copernicus to demonstrate the how the church resists science I thik you may be on shaky ground.
Mormon Doc on April 26, 2008 at 7:58 PM
@ Mormon Doc on April 26, 2008 at 7:57 PM
As more of the universe is explained scientifically, the reliance on God becomes nil. The beauty in the natural world is enough without having to involve God.
muyoso on April 26, 2008 at 7:58 PM
@ Mormon Doc on April 26, 2008 at 7:58 PM
Evolution.
muyoso on April 26, 2008 at 7:59 PM
@ AZCON on April 26, 2008 at 7:58 PM
Seriously, who let you use the computer? Does your mommy know you are on her computer?
muyoso on April 26, 2008 at 7:59 PM
Designer : Designed, that’s cause-and-effect, not circular logic. If you find the effect, you might have found the cause. Now, this may not be the ONLY cause for that effect (I have to be intellectually honest here), but just recognizing that this particualr cause:effect relationship exists is the first step. And I think that is a valid conclusion (as opposed to a “proof” — just using accurate lexicon).
Now for the next step…examining other possible causes for something that’s designed…anyone?
stonemeister on April 26, 2008 at 7:59 PM
@ JetBoy on April 26, 2008 at 7:58 PM
My friend, who is pretty religious, attempted a devil’s advocate argument against intelligent design the other day, after a bunch of his churchmates went to see expelled. He was attacked on every level as if he was satan. To say that churches are accepting of science is laughable.
muyoso on April 26, 2008 at 8:00 PM
Except that, as was pointed out, religious affiliation has not decreased.
Even though we now explain hurricanes with science, it doesn’t stop people from saying God had a hand in it. People even do the same with evolution.
Esthier on April 26, 2008 at 8:01 PM
Let me try again. If everything is natural, then even our thinking is natural. And if our thinking is natural (ie. Propositions, ideas, theories, etc.) then what can we appeal to when there are opposing theses? For neither can be right and neither can be wrong, for they are simply what has been genetically programmed, or the product of chemical imbalances, or______ (site any other natural cause). You’re philosophy yields no place for “reason,” just preprogrammed responses that has no more “truth” value than hair color, height, or nose size. Again, you must start with a philosophy that allows for reason, otherwise no matter how “sophisticated” your arguments are, they will be tossed aside. I will just say to myself, “He just says that because of his genetic makeup.” This is why I was disappointed with the link you provided earlier when I saw its discussion on epistemology.
Weight of Glory on April 26, 2008 at 8:01 PM
Just trying to get down to your level of thinking, and obviously, haven’t managed to get down there yet.
AZCON on April 26, 2008 at 8:03 PM
Well put, Victor. I’m sure you’re always the life of the party ;)
Those might be valid points for atheists to believe, but not the only conclusions they can reach.
stonemeister on April 26, 2008 at 8:04 PM
That should be “your”
man I get sloppy.
Weight of Glory on April 26, 2008 at 8:04 PM
AZCON, muyoso, do I have to separate you two and send you to your rooms? There don’t have to be any ad hominem attacks here.
stonemeister on April 26, 2008 at 8:04 PM
@ Weight of Glory on April 26, 2008 at 8:01 PM
That is like saying that a lion can never make a mistake when going after a gazelle. Even though that can be a mistake, they can still be said to have reasoning abilities. So do they have a divine spark? Do they have a soul?
muyoso on April 26, 2008 at 8:05 PM
LOL (:
have a nice afterlife, muyoso!
AZCON on April 26, 2008 at 8:06 PM
@ AZCON on April 26, 2008 at 8:03 PM
I have crushed all of your “arguments” since you posted back on the first page. You haven’t posed an argument that an elementary schooler couldnt soundly defeat. At least try to come up the level or “weight of Glory” or “stonemeister”.
muyoso on April 26, 2008 at 8:07 PM
Caution: Thread Derailed
Caution: Thread Derailed
Blarg the Destroyer on April 26, 2008 at 8:07 PM
@muyoso
I hardly think that your friend’s experience of being attacked by church members is reflective of current religious thinking. I think it is a better representation of the kind of people he is hanging around with. They sound scary.
Mormon Doc on April 26, 2008 at 8:07 PM
@ AZCON on April 26, 2008 at 8:06 PM
I will. As plant food, just like you.
muyoso on April 26, 2008 at 8:07 PM
Now you’re really going off on a tangent. I don’t think you can find two people who agree on a definition of the word “soul”.
I use the term interchangeably with “self awareness”, but it only has 4 letters, so it’s so much easier to type. I think we can all agree to that extent what we mean by a human soul.
stonemeister on April 26, 2008 at 8:08 PM
@Muyoso
Generally speaking a person doesn’t make the determination about whether or not they themselves were successful in a debate. It is the determination of the broader viewership and the level of persuasiveness of your argument.
Mormon Doc on April 26, 2008 at 8:09 PM
@ Mormon Doc on April 26, 2008 at 8:07 PM
Are you saying that if I went to a random church, that there would be say, even a 50/50 chance that if I held up a sign that evolution was real, that I wouldnt be soundly verbally attacked and read scripture?
muyoso on April 26, 2008 at 8:09 PM
@ Mormon Doc on April 26, 2008 at 8:09 PM
Welcome to my debate style. I declare myself the winner in the middle of the debate. I tend to win them more often that way, lol.
muyoso on April 26, 2008 at 8:09 PM
And what is the point of arguing with a being destined to be plantfood?
Peace, brah.
AZCON on April 26, 2008 at 8:10 PM
@muyoso
I guess it’s the best thing to do when you lack solid information.
Mormon Doc on April 26, 2008 at 8:10 PM
@ stonemeister on April 26, 2008 at 8:08 PM
I am simply answering the questions people pose to me, something they refuse to do when I am the one posing the questions.
muyoso on April 26, 2008 at 8:10 PM
Wow, muyoso, you are a lot braver than I. I don’t think I could go to sleep at night being so self-assured that death means oblivion…one moment you are fully rational, thoughtful, and the next…total void.
Wow, that’s scary!
stonemeister on April 26, 2008 at 8:10 PM
@ Mormon Doc on April 26, 2008 at 8:10 PM
Look who can’t take a joke. Coming from the side where the enswer to every question is “God did it”, I wouldnt talk.
muyoso on April 26, 2008 at 8:11 PM
I must not be making myself clear. Which is not unusual, I rarely do. For what I was saying is not like saying that, “a lion can never make a mistake when going after a gazelle.” For your response actually supports my thesis, although I’m sure you won’t think it does, but that is because I’m poor at writing clearly. Let’s try it the ol’ dialectic way: If you pose a thesis, and I respond with an antithesis, how does your view of reason being natural provide the grounds upon which synthesis occurs, yielding a new hypothesis?
Weight of Glory on April 26, 2008 at 8:11 PM
As far as the lawsuit against the Army about “religious descrimination”, I’m not sure I get that.
Is he saying that he has a religion as an atheist? Or that Christians are persecuting him for his beliefs? What beliefs? I thought atheists didn’t believe in god?
Was he descrminated against having the freedom of assembly? No. They had their meeting by all accounts.
Just reading what is provided, it seems like a simple case of harrassement - from the Major and maybe some others?
And that warrants a lawsuit against the DOD?
This is one thing people don’t understand about the military justice system.
We have the UCMJ. If this happened oversees, the UCMJ is the sole source for military jurisdiction. American civl law wouldn’t apply. Even if any American civil code were applicable, the UCMJ is the first and usually last arbiter. Not every time, but damn near.
Is there any evidence of his other allegations? Was he or any of the other guys there not actually allowed to re-enlist? Did the “threats from other soldiers” constitute anything other than verbal harrassement? Light hearted ribbing perhaps? Heavy handed ribbing even?
Again, this is all supposition on my part, but this case has no chance of doing anything.
Other than probably forcing the DOD to create more beuracracy so thinned skinned pansies don’t get their feelings hurt.
Now In addition to letting the satanists use chapels if they want, I’ll have to attend a briefing or do some CBT about ahteism sensitivity.
Don’t get me wrong. I’m all for anyone who committed a legitimate crime here for being punished appropriately. That is as it should be. If this Major did what he is accused of, he should be punished. And I do agree, that if he said the things he said, he was out of line.
But this continuing pissing and moaning from everyone about every little thing they deem to be some type of affront is starting to piss me off.
I’ve been in the military 21 damn years and have suffered through my fair share of dress downs, ass chewings, “counseling”, whatever you want to call it. Some of it I felt was a bit off-base, but some of it was well deserved. When it was over, I snapped my heels, saluted smartly, about faced and pressed on with my mission and life.
Grow the hell up.
catmman on April 26, 2008 at 8:12 PM
Muyoso, when did this practice end?
Zorro on April 26, 2008 at 8:13 PM
@ stonemeister on April 26, 2008 at 8:10 PM
It sucks, wish I could live forever. But I am not gonna convince myself that there is an afterlife just so I can sleep easier at night. I think a lot of people do though, and its sad. I find much more beauty in the fact that I will serve as a nice fertilizer for a plant, which will flower and spread its seed across the world, and that the same molecules that made me up will serve to promote life in the future. Instead of thinking that I sit in some cloudy place playing bingo with mormons.
muyoso on April 26, 2008 at 8:13 PM
@ Zorro on April 26, 2008 at 8:13 PM
It hasn’t ended.
muyoso on April 26, 2008 at 8:13 PM
Muyoso, I don’t want to make this personal, just wanted to chat to the merits of the discussion, but you’re really coming across as a condescending and close-minded spinmeister. That’s just not honest debate. You’re far better than that.
And what’s this declaring yourself a winner? That really doesn’t sound good, dude.
stonemeister on April 26, 2008 at 8:14 PM
1) The sun isn’t at the center of the universe… so I’m glad they didn’t accept that one. They did, however, disapprove of the idea that the sun was the center of the solar system. But only after they accepted the idea.
You see… the reason they later rejected Galileo’s ideas after accepting Copernicus’ ideas is that, in the interveining time, Copernicus’ model of the solar system had been co-opted by the heretic Giordano Bruno as part of his heliocentric cult. The Copernican model wound up so closely connected to this cult heresy that one was seen as part of the other.
So…the idea of a heliocentric solar system wasn’t rejected by the church because it changed their view of the universe, it was rejected because it was too closely tied to a heresy.
This fact that the church’s rejection of the heliocentric view of the solar system receives so much attention really only highlights the fact that there were thousands and thousands of scientific discoveries made during and after the Renaissance that the church had absolutely no problem with.
2) I don’t recall anything about the church having a problem with a round earth.
29Victor on April 26, 2008 at 8:14 PM
@ Weight of Glory on April 26, 2008 at 8:11 PM
That is the most confusing thing I have ever read.
muyoso on April 26, 2008 at 8:14 PM
In reference to your nasa link earlier muyoso which I did read by the way.
Guardian on April 26, 2008 at 8:14 PM
I don’t know what defines a soul. But Eccl 3:21 says they have a spirit. I mention this only to comment that existence of something more than physical in other beings is not clearly not excluded. If one believes that, then other beings, however less intellectual, cannot be excluded from having reasoning affected or guided by such.
Spirit of 1776 on April 26, 2008 at 8:15 PM
Really? There are no Catholic Hospitals? Wow.
Zorro on April 26, 2008 at 8:15 PM
@ 29Victor on April 26, 2008 at 8:14 PM
Touche. But you know what I meant. Its hard being the only one arguing against a dozen people.
muyoso on April 26, 2008 at 8:16 PM
That’s your body that will become plant food. Mine will add to global warming. And I don’t care about the discards, was talking about the soul (re: previous discussion of definitions).
stonemeister on April 26, 2008 at 8:17 PM
In fact, backing up a step, how does one with your philosophy even approach an argument in good faith, assuming a conclusion can be made? For what we would call the “conclusion” couldn’t be known to be, in fact, a conclusion. Rather just another effect of our genetic makeup. In other words, and as briefly as I can, if you are right, then I have to believe your theory is wrong, or better irrelevant.
Weight of Glory on April 26, 2008 at 8:17 PM
I would disagree.
Following a purely mechanistic view of the universe, there isn’t much wiggle room.
Now, they may come to other conclusions to help keep themselves sane, but those conclusions are no more proveable than God.
29Victor on April 26, 2008 at 8:17 PM
@ Guardian on April 26, 2008 at 8:14 PM
http://www.expelledexposed.com/index.php/the-truth
Using that movie for anything for your side is a joke.
muyoso on April 26, 2008 at 8:17 PM
The officer is out of line. If the soldier is an atheist and is doing his job, he should be able to smooze with other like minded soldiers. I did not read that he was trying to be an asshat by being one of the pushing boys trying to push religion out of the military. There are those who are doing just that. The story on it’s own sounds like the officer shouldn’t have been there.
thatcher on April 26, 2008 at 8:18 PM
Comment pages: « 1 [2] 3 4 5 »