Hot Air Mobile
Home The Vault Gear About
Hot Air -- get your fill


Atheist sues Defense Department for violating his civil rights

posted at 6:16 pm on April 26, 2008 by Allahpundit
Share on Facebook | 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.


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

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

He’s alleging that one Sergeant threatened him with physical violence, another opined that he didn’t have any right to religious freedom as an athiest, and a Major threatened to bar him from re-enlisting and bring charges against him.

If what Hall alleges is true, or he believes it to be true, can you see how he might not trust his superior officers to offer him a fair hearing?

Hall, as an American citizen and especially as a soldier, has every right to seek relief from the judiciary.

RightOFLeft on April 26, 2008 at 8:19 PM

That is the most confusing thing I have ever read.

muyoso on April 26, 2008 at 8:14 PM

Heh. You should have had some of my professors! They were worse, had funny accents, and wrote very sloppily on the board. And they still demanded that you get it.

Weight of Glory on April 26, 2008 at 8:19 PM

Maybe things have changed since my day, but I find it difficult to believe that the story is completely accurate.

In my day, 99.99% of the military didn’t much care what you believed or didn’t believe. All they cared about was: do you follow the orders of your superiors and are you at least mediocre in your MOS skills.

And the .01% that did care that much about religion, would certainly be overruled in refusing to allow someone to re-enlist simply because they were atheist….

….Although, that ‘freethinker’ designation could be troublesome… I’d have to take a second look at some EM that was a ‘freethinker’… A ‘freethinker’ sounds to me like someone you probably wouldn’t want to trust your life to.

LegendHasIt on April 26, 2008 at 8:19 PM

@ stonemeister on April 26, 2008 at 8:18 PM

Well, if you are arguing against global warming, then you deserve the thrashing. If you are arguing against manmade global warming, then I agree.

muyoso on April 26, 2008 at 8:19 PM

@ Weight of Glory on April 26, 2008 at 8:19 PM

Believe me, I know that. I had an Indian teacher who taught my theism class, It was impossible to understand him, so I had to read double.

muyoso on April 26, 2008 at 8:21 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

I’ve been there dude.

But if you’re going to paint 2000 years of the Christian Church with a science-hating brush, you need to have some facts to back it up.

29Victor on April 26, 2008 at 8:21 PM

Well, if you are arguing against global warming, then you deserve the thrashing. If you are arguing against manmade global warming, then I agree.

muyoso on April 26, 2008 at 8:19 PM

Wow, so now I know how you feel about open discourse…gang up on and ridicule the opposition. This isn’t the place for the debate, but the argument in favor of global warming is extremely weak, to say the least. There is no reason NOT to argue against it if the science so dictates…and it does so dictate.

stonemeister on April 26, 2008 at 8:22 PM

Just to add something, it wasn’t so much that the Church was opposed to Copernicus and his postulate that the sun was the center of the solar system and the earth revolved around it rather than the other way around, out of dogma but from a lack of Copernicus to present the mathematical proof that his was more accurate than the standard Ptolemaic model that had been accepted since the Greeks.

Copernicus, though by Occam’s Razor was much simpler in design than the endless number of epicycles contained in the Ptolemaic model, the predictive powers of Copernicus’ heliocentric model was not much better than the former. It wasn’t until Kepler that the Church had the mathematical proof that Copernicus was more correct than Ptolemy. Only then did the Church change.

My point is that it wasn’t so much that the Church was dogmatically against science so much as it was proof of the validity of new material. After all, Saint Thomas Aquinas was very influential in church doctrine, and he relied heavily on the Greeks.

Weebork on April 26, 2008 at 8:23 PM

…and Allah shakes the jar and laughs and laughs…

29Victor on April 26, 2008 at 8:23 PM

muyoso on April 26, 2008 at 8:17 PM

Sorry dude. I meant to direct you towards the articles beneath that one.

try again

Guardian on April 26, 2008 at 8:24 PM

Well dudes and dudettes, I gotta boogie…Allah, let’s do this again sometime, excellent debates here, should be a regular feature!

stonemeister on April 26, 2008 at 8:25 PM

Do you have an example of your theory here?

muyoso on April 26, 2008 at 8:19 PM

Philosophical naturalism provides no grounds for determining whether or not a proposition is either true or false. A proposition just is. It just exists along side all the other propositions which are produced by everyone else’s natural makeup. Your view provides no way in determining who’s proposition is correct when they find themselves in conflict with each other. Resolving this must be the first step in one’s personal philosophy. For if you can’t, then all subsequent theories will eventually fall away. Part of man’s reason MUST be supernatural, in order to be able to be confident that what we conclude based on what we observe is in fact TRUE. We must possess something outside of the box in order to be able to comment on those things inside the box with assurance that what we conclude actually corresponds.

Weight of Glory on April 26, 2008 at 8:26 PM

Later stonemeister, good luck on that peer review

Weebork on April 26, 2008 at 8:26 PM

Believe me, I know that. I had an Indian teacher who taught my theism class, It was impossible to understand him, so I had to read double.

muyoso on April 26, 2008 at 8:21 PM

Why is it that the best teachers have the thickest accents. It’s a cruel joke I tell you.

Weight of Glory on April 26, 2008 at 8:28 PM

Weebork on April 26, 2008 at 8:23 PM

But Copernicus’ ideas were described at a lecture at the Vatican attended by Pope Clement VII and several cardinals. In fact, one of those cardinals encouraged him to publish his ideas.

It was only later, with Bruno’s heresy, that the Copernican model became a problem for the church (see my above post).

29Victor on April 26, 2008 at 8:29 PM

Never had any problem serving as an agnostic, although I wanted AGNOSTIC on my dogtags and, instead, they put NONE.

But I never had time to have any “meetings” (for any -ism) being too busy shooting pool and trying to pick up girls.

These guys are being silly.

If there’s no God, what’s there to have a meeting about?

Emptiness?

Rack ‘em, darlin’.

profitsbeard on April 26, 2008 at 8:30 PM

Anyway, muyoso, I think I’ll give up for the night. I’ll try to hone my point for another day. Until then, cheers.

Weight of Glory on April 26, 2008 at 8:31 PM

If there’s no God, what’s there to have a meeting about?

Emptiness?

…pure gold…

AZCON on April 26, 2008 at 8:35 PM

If there’s no God, what’s there to have a meeting about?)

profitsbeard on April 26, 2008 at 8:30 PM

or against?

lol

Guardian on April 26, 2008 at 8:36 PM

Never had any problem serving as an agnostic, although I wanted AGNOSTIC on my dogtags and, instead, they put NONE.

profitsbeard on April 26, 2008 at 8:30 PM

That’s a bummer.

My dogtags said “A Negative Baptist”

And now y’all know my blood type.

29Victor on April 26, 2008 at 8:36 PM

Hey. This has been moved over to “top picks.”

“I’m so excited, all six of my nipples are tingling.”

29Victor on April 26, 2008 at 8:40 PM

29Victor on April 26, 2008 at 7:57 PM

You make some great points there. But…to be worried about “etical and moral implications”, think about it: Ethics and morals spring from the Judeo/Christian belief system. Without God, where do ethics and morals fit into simple science?

To say that churches are accepting of science is laughable.

muyoso on April 26, 2008 at 8:00 PM

Again, it might depend on what church you’re talking to, or about. Sure…at one time the Catholic Church was like that, but no more.

JetBoy on April 26, 2008 at 8:40 PM

Weight of Glory on April 26, 2008 at 8:31 PM

Thanks for putting them up. I enjoy reading your posts.

Spirit of 1776 on April 26, 2008 at 8:41 PM

I like turtles.

JetBoy on April 26, 2008 at 8:42 PM

Ah Christianity, “Tolerance Only For The Intolerant”. Yeah, I know…here comes the lightning….wait for it….wait for it….wait for it.

DanKenton on April 26, 2008 at 8:43 PM

…and Allah shakes the jar and laughs and laughs…

29Victor on April 26, 2008 at 8:23 PM

savant

AZCON on April 26, 2008 at 8:46 PM

Hall, as an American citizen and especially as a soldier, has every right to seek relief from the judiciary.

RightOFLeft on April 26, 2008 at 8:19 PM

Ummm, it depends. And when it comes to military law, you are a soldier first, then a citizen. that is the way it is.

And that isn’t some type of deflection either. Example: You aren’t read your rights IAW the 5th Amendment. You are read your rights in accordance with Article 31, UCMJ. they are basically the same, but there are differences.

There are other differences as well. Like terminaology. “Arrest” isn’t the same in the military as it is in the civilian world. In the military, “arrest” is a restriction of movement or freedom, like house “arrest”. “Apprehension” is the legal term used for taking a person into custody. What “arrest” is in the civilian world, “apprehension” is in the military world.

It’s important to understadn the differences when discussing this type of thing as it relates to military personnel.

The chain of command is the first authority to take these problems too.

I’ve been hearing these “he’s afraid of his superiors” arguments for years – and they are complete bull. I agree that there are officers who MAY have a grudge, or would want to protect their own.

But in todays letigious/media driven world, they know better. For just the reason this whole article and post is – it brings unwanted attention to the service, but more importantly is the image it portrays to the civilian world.

I don’t know if the COC was tried in this case, or to what level it went, but I’d be willing to bet because of the media attention, it wasn’t used much if at all.

The “judicicary” is almost never used in the military, except in the most extreme circumstances, or if the member requests it, depending on the offense. There are so many other avenues for discipline, punishment, investigation, etc.

catmman on April 26, 2008 at 8:48 PM

…But…to be worried about “etical and moral implications”, think about it: Ethics and morals spring from the Judeo/Christian belief system. Without God, where do ethics and morals fit into simple science?…

JetBoy on April 26, 2008 at 8:40 PM

Well, other religious traditions do manage to create moral and ethical systems.

And one can attempt to manufacture a completely humanistic system of morality. Kant talked about it and Hegel attempted it. And I’m sure if you talked to just about any modern Athiest they would say that they have a personal moral system (it probably resembles the Hegelian system).

My point is that whatever that system may be, if the Athiest wants to be completely honest with himself, it has to take into account my argument or it is an irrational as faith.

29Victor on April 26, 2008 at 8:50 PM

Ah Christianity, “Tolerance Only For The Intolerant”. Yeah, I know…here comes the lightning….wait for it….wait for it….wait for it.

DanKenton on April 26, 2008 at 8:43 PM

I don’t understand you point. Christianity has never taught tolerance. A central tenant of Christianity (the actions of it’s church notwithstanding) is to love everyone, not tolerate them.

Tolerance is another word for apathy. Saying that “I find him tollerable” or “I can tolerate her” used to be an insult. Tolerance is the opposite of actually caring about someone.

29Victor on April 26, 2008 at 8:54 PM

Converts tend to be evangelical about their newly acquired faith, and to challenge those who do not understand the truth as they see it. Jeremy is obviously one of these — he organizes a chapter of a club called the Military Association of Atheists and Freethinkers. We can only guess at the conversations Jeremy had with others in advertising his new club, but as atheism was his new found religion, we can guess just a bit.

That his fellow soldiers, obviously firmer in their Christian faith than Jeremy ever was, would find Jeremy’s overtures for his new church repugnant is probably putting it mildly.

That Jeremy couldn’t handle certain types of “free thinking” presented at his meetings is obvious.

I have an office partner who was once Catholic but now is Wiccan — and he never hesitates to regale me with stories of how he surreptitiously “profaned” this or that Catholic Mass he was “forced” to attend with certain Wiccan rituals. He knows I’m Catholic and strong in my faith, so there’s a bit of the knife there — the “I know better than you do”. I’ve been gracious, but I understand where he’s coming from — and it’s the same place Jeremy is obviously coming from. My office partner is obviously not being sensitive to my faith needs as he satisfies his — and I suspect that was the case with Jeremy as well.

unclesmrgol on April 26, 2008 at 8:55 PM

Christianity has never taught tolerance

29Victor on April 26, 2008 at 8:54 PM

Interesting point. Didn’t Christ himself say, and I paraphrase,

“I came not to unite but to divide. To separate the wheat from the chaff.”

and something about turning brother against brother, sons against fathers? Christ certainly had no “tolerance” for the money changers in the temple.

Tolerance, as the libs define it, is opposite of what Christ taught.

Guardian on April 26, 2008 at 9:12 PM

When Specialist Jeremy Hall held a meeting last July for atheists and freethinkers

Here’s what I call being a freethinker:

And you shall know the truth, and the truth shall make you free.
John 8:32

Red Pill on April 26, 2008 at 9:17 PM

Philosophical naturalism provides no grounds for determining whether or not a proposition is either true or false. A proposition just is. It just exists along side all the other propositions which are produced by everyone else’s natural makeup. Your view provides no way in determining who’s proposition is correct when they find themselves in conflict with each other. Resolving this must be the first step in one’s personal philosophy. For if you can’t, then all subsequent theories will eventually fall away. Part of man’s reason MUST be supernatural, in order to be able to be confident that what we conclude based on what we observe is in fact TRUE. We must possess something outside of the box in order to be able to comment on those things inside the box with assurance that what we conclude actually corresponds.

Weight of Glory on April 26, 2008 at 8:26 PM

All that reason requires is an ordered universe. I know because a unicorn told me. You know, I’m actually starting to like this philosophical supernaturalism. I can claim anything I want as long as I appeal to an authority that no one can definitively prove doesn’t exist. How utterly useless.

If two people can’t come to an agreement using only naturalistic arguments, I don’t think that’s a failure of naturalism, it’s a failure of people. And is there any other kind of argument that could be remotely persuasive? You seem to be suggesting philosophical supernaturalism as the alternative (what other alternative is there?). Forget philosophy, be practical. How am I supposed to make any useful, logical inference about the behavior of the universe based on an inexplicable, unobservable entity? Inexplicable and unobservable because it doesn’t even exist in the natural world.

RightOFLeft on April 26, 2008 at 9:19 PM

Thats fine that you believe that. No one is trying to change your mind at all, but saying that the universe didn’t just happen is of pure conjecture. There is a lot of evidence that shows that it did, “just happen”. What began it is still a mystery of course, but again, simple ignorance of its cause does not point to a divine cause.

muyoso on April 26, 2008 at 7:24 PM

The most science can properly approach to is to describe HOW the universe “happened.” WHY is another question. WHO is also outside the realm of science.

Any science that tells us WHO caused evolution to happen ceases to be science. The corollary to that is that any science that tells us there was no WHO has also ceased to be science.

The best you could do is to try to explain how it MIGHT have happened without a WHO, that is, by naturalistic means. But even if you work out all those details, that does not constitute proof that it happened that way.

theregoestheneighborhood on April 26, 2008 at 9:19 PM

Didn’t Christ himself say, and I paraphrase,
“I came not to unite but to divide. To separate the wheat from the chaff.”

The Parable of the Weeds
Jesus told them another parable: “The kingdom of heaven is like a man who sowed good seed in his field. But while everyone was sleeping, his enemy came and sowed weeds among the wheat, and went away. When the wheat sprouted and formed heads, then the weeds also appeared.

“The owner’s servants came to him and said, ‘Sir, didn’t you sow good seed in your field? Where then did the weeds come from?’

” ‘An enemy did this,’ he replied.

“The servants asked him, ‘Do you want us to go and pull them up?’

” ‘No,’ he answered, ‘because while you are pulling the weeds, you may root up the wheat with them. Let both grow together until the harvest. At that time I will tell the harvesters: First collect the weeds and tie them in bundles to be burned; then gather the wheat and bring it into my barn.’ ”

The Parable of the Weeds Explained
Then he left the crowd and went into the house. His disciples came to him and said, “Explain to us the parable of the weeds in the field.”

He answered, “The one who sowed the good seed is the Son of Man. The field is the world, and the good seed stands for the sons of the kingdom. The weeds are the sons of the evil one, and the enemy who sows them is the devil. The harvest is the end of the age, and the harvesters are angels.

“As the weeds are pulled up and burned in the fire, so it will be at the end of the age. The Son of Man will send out his angels, and they will weed out of his kingdom everything that causes sin and all who do evil. They will throw them into the fiery furnace, where there will be weeping and gnashing of teeth. Then the righteous will shine like the sun in the kingdom of their Father. He who has ears, let him hear.

Matthew 13:24-30, 13:36-43

Red Pill on April 26, 2008 at 9:27 PM

Suicide Is Painless, It Brings On Many Changes
April 26, 2008: Government leaders make the most of the one thing they are popular for; the nuclear program. Atomic bombs are rarely mentioned, the emphasis is on “nuclear technology”. That’s a code word for nuclear weapons, which are immensely popular in Iran. Political and religious leaders openly boast of how clever they are in obtaining nuclear technology despite the efforts of the UN, and the world, to deny Iran access.

Iranian leaders need all the popular acclaim they can get, because the religious police have not relented in their campaign to punish women who do not dress properly. Now the religious police will visit work places and restaurants to insure that women found there are properly covered up. Those who fail inspection are issued a warning or hauled off to a police station, where they must wait for a family member shows up with proper clothing (that is not too tight, too short, to skimpy or too revealing in general). The clerics who run the country and mismanage the economy are also trying to distract the public from the shortages and 20 percent a year inflation. President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad has recommended greater use of the “culture of martyrdom”, to solve the country’s economic problem. He did not elaborate.

One subject the Iranians do not want to discuss is the continued persecutions of the Arab minority in the west, along the Iraqi border. The Iranians don’t trust their Arabs, and keep lots of secret police and Revolutionary Guards in the area, with orders to be active in the pursuit of real or imagined traitors. The government is a little more outspoken about unruly Kurds up north. In response, separatist minded Kurds openly threaten the Iranian government, something the Iranian Arabs are much more circumspect about. The most invisible victims in Iran are the three million refugees. Over 90 percent of these are from Afghanistan, and they are a major problem along the Afghan border. The refugees find the religious dictatorship in Iran more hospitable than the warlords and Taliban back in Afghanistan. Then there is the drug business. The Afghan refugees are deeply involved with the smuggling and distribution of Afghan opium and heroin. There are several million addicts in Iran, and the Afghan refugees help keep them all high and broke.

Iranian politicians also are quick to deny any Iranian involvement in the violence that still troubles neighboring Iraq. But the U.S. has a growing pile of evidence that says otherwise. Documents, equipment and interrogation transcripts all detail Iranian efforts to, well, that’s where it gets murky. There are several Iranian factions meddling in Iraq. Some are most interested in establishing a religious dictatorship, as Iran has, in Iraq. Others just want to support those who are willing to kill American soldiers. Others only want to make money, any way possible. U.S. troops have killed or captured hundreds of Iranians and Iraqis who are working for various Iranian government factions, plus some private Iranian groups that could best be described as “armed entrepreneurs.”

Iran has gotten itself involved in a public feud with al Qaeda. It began when Iranian president Mahmoud Ahmadinejad publically claimed that the September 11, 2001 attacks were a ploy by Israel or the CIA, to justify a war on Islam. A few days later, an al Qaeda leader, Ayman al Zawahri, rushed out an audio tape, denouncing the Iranians for casting doubt on the fact that al Qaeda had planned and carried out those attacks. Although Shia Iran and Sunni al Qaeda occasionally cooperate, they are, in fact, bitter enemies.

Commercial photo satellite pictures have revealed a ballistic missile assembly and test facility 230 kilometers southeast of the capital. Layout is similar to such facilities in North Korea. Iran is not particularly upset with this kind of exposure, and officials openly boast of getting around UN and European sanctions by getting what they need from “East Asia” (code word for North Korea and China.) Iran even tries to export its weapons, but was recently expelled from a Malaysian weapons trade show because UN sanctions prohibit Iran from exporting weapons. At first, Malaysia allowed Iran to exhibit, but then the UN intervened and the Iranian exhibit and salesmen were gone.

Twice in the last two weeks, armed Iranian speedboats (the favorite ride of the seagoing Revolutionary Guards) have come too close (a few hundred meters) to U.S. ships in the Persian Gulf, and warning shots were fired by the Americans. Interestingly, the Iranian government denied both incidents. That’s not unusual. The government is a collection of factions that don’t communicate well. The Revolutionary Guards are often out of control, and make everyone in the government nervous.

April 12, 2008: A bomb went off in a southern Iraq mosque, leaving a dozen dead and nearly 200 wounded. Police later denied it was a bomb, and blamed the explosion on an accident involving weapons left in the mosque after a military exhibition. Mosques are frequently used to store and show off weapons. Islam considers itself a “militant” religion, so weapons are welcome in mosques.

Hmmm…

I am now convinced that I am convinced that I am right.

Disclaimer:

I did not compile this post, but I am completely comfortable with it.

winemkr on April 26, 2008 at 9:27 PM

… I’ve been hearing these “he’s afraid of his superiors” arguments for years – and they are complete bull. I agree that there are officers who MAY have a grudge, or would want to protect their own. …

catmman on April 26, 2008 at 8:48 PM

I won’t split legal hairs with you, you obviously know military law better than I do.

I could buy that Hall should have brought his complaint to a corresponding military venue – but isn’t that beside the point? The problem I see, which is a problem you’ve hinted at in the bit I’ve quoted above, is that there are rare situations where bad apples in the military can abuse their superior rank to commit whatever kind of rights violation they want.

I’m sure that soldiers don’t have exactly the same rights as ordinary citizens, and I’m also sure that arrangement is necessary for an effective military. I’m just not willing to overlook the serious misbehavior alleged of Hall’s superior officers because of some technicality of jurisdiction.

If what you’re saying is true, the civilian courts will eventually recognize the appropriate jurisdiction. In any case, I’m not going to accept that Hall deserved his alleged mistreatment because he wasn’t an expert in the finer points of military jurisdictional law (if that’s the right term).

RightOFLeft on April 26, 2008 at 9:34 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

You’re living in a fantasy world, where brave and noble science is at war with evil and ignorant religion.

The far more common problem is people who seize on “oppositions of science, falsely so called” as an excuse to reject Christianity.

Christianity is not at war with science, but some of those at war with Christianity hide behind bad science.

And yes, evolution is bad science.

I’m confident that as science develops, there will be many people who continue to claim it disproves God, and there will be many believers who find their faith in God confirmed by science.

Yes, both groups will draw contrary conclusions from the same science.

Are you sure we’re evolving?

theregoestheneighborhood on April 26, 2008 at 9:35 PM

As an outspoken Christian, I hope no American is ever coerced into silence or acquiescence about his or her faith or lack thereof. It’s wrong to persecute anyone for believing or not believing.

jgapinoy on April 26, 2008 at 9:36 PM

What ever, it’s my night off and I’m drinking copious amounts of Dewars in honor of my father.

I love you dad, BURP! Don’t worry, we are still safe,RIP!

winemkr on April 26, 2008 at 9:37 PM

Whether it’s the example cited here by AP, or the suppression of intelligent design in academia, or any form of belief-related persecution, the persecutor is always demonstrating a profound lack of faith.

jgapinoy on April 26, 2008 at 9:38 PM

Whether it’s the example cited here by AP, or the suppression of intelligent design in academia, or any form of belief-related persecution, the persecutor is always demonstrating a profound lack of faith.

jgapinoy on April 26, 2008 at 9:38 PM

So where do you stand on the suppression of psychic surgery in hospitals?

RightOFLeft on April 26, 2008 at 9:56 PM

You guys are all so involved with your dog.mah that you’ve lost sight of the point entirely.

Iraq is healing.

Some Officers and grunts both now minus life under trajectory have pause to attend a meeting other than an engagement huddle.

Maj. Freddy J. Welborn would likely not have refused cover fire laid down by Specialist Jeremy Hall, perhaps not long ago or perhaps Hall and Wellborn didn’t share the same dirt sandwich quite enough to get past pesky details like personal feelings.

Whichever, its the lack of immediate war efforts that allows time to remember prejudices.

Speakup on April 26, 2008 at 9:59 PM

winemkr on April 26, 2008 at 9:37 PM

cheers!

AZCON on April 26, 2008 at 10:00 PM

Hey AP! Somewhere Pavlov is saying “not again!” :-)

baldilocks on April 26, 2008 at 10:11 PM

Oooooohhh, baldilocks.

Speakup on April 26, 2008 at 10:26 PM

Isn’t a lawsuit a bit much? Couldn’t he just try and have the officer reprimanded or demoted?

In any case, I’m not going to make a judgment until I get more than a he said/he said. However as Allah suggests, the atheist soldier may be well served not to ally himself with the al-Dawkins Loudmouths Brigades, he’ll garner zero sympathy from the public surrounding himself with a bunch of obnoxious Dawkins/Hitch style haters.

doubleplusundead on April 26, 2008 at 10:32 PM

RightOFLeft on April 26, 2008 at 9:34 PM

It is a problem that this isn’t being handled the military way.

We have a seperate justice system for a reason.

The military system of justice can handle this type of crap, if it’s allowed to work.

I asked this earlier – did this guy even give it more than a cursory attempt? If not, he’s not interested in justice, he’s trying to make a point.

That’s how it is.

This guy also has to surmount tremendous hurdles in this case and none of it is going to be good for this guy, his friends or the service.

Maybe it’s me, but when I see stuff like this, I think back to the movie “In Harms Way”

John Waynes character, a Navy Captain was in charge of a task force. He was sent out to try to intercept the Japanese fleet. In the course of his mission, he ordered his ships to stop zigzagging.

This would make him more vulnerable to attack. He knew the risks, was advised of the risks by several junior officers, yet made the decicion to stop zigzagging.

Well his ship was torpedoed. He was injured, sailors were killed.

When he came back, he had a meeting with the CINC. He was told that his decision would probably result in severe punishment for him – he would probably lose his command and suffer other bad stuff.

The Admiral said he could fight it. That he could request a court martial, dragging everything he cared for through the mud.

He was asked if he would do that.

JW said that he would not. He would take any punishment his service deemed necessary.

Moral? JW could have made a fight of it and could make the case that his decision was sound and explain his reasoning, but he chose honor over self in that moment. He would rather be punished than sully his services name and reputation.

In my book, something as trivial as this isn’t worth the mud dragging and slinging it will ultimately bring. Just look at this board – a simple case of military justice has turned into a knock down drag about about everything religious or not religious; what came first the chicken or the egg (and who or what made either of them, if anything).

I already said the Major should be punished along with anyone else who may have committed a crime. I’m not insinuating that the military should try to cover anything up. I’m also not buying that the guys only recourse was a lawsuit since he was afraid of retribution. I’ve seen what happens to officers and others who try that crap and it always comes back to bite them.

Crap like this cheepens the military (in every way) and makes both systems of justice weaker.

catmman on April 26, 2008 at 10:35 PM

They’ve also got a nasty habit, all too common among my fellow atheists, alas, of letting their own rhetoric run away with them

This is the same thing as arguing that they don’t ***really*** mean it. The radical athiests who believe (like radicals in so many other areas) that their “rights’ include shoving their beliefs down your throat say nasty things because they believe it.

These goobers make the analogy between Christian, Bible-reading soldiers and suicide bombers with Korans, because they believe that the analogy is true. They do believe that there is no difference. They do believe that religious American soldiers are no different than Islamo-facist terrorists.

Radical athiests like these do not strive to vindicate their right not to believe in religion by demanding toleration of their right to pursue their point of view – they seek to do so by tearing down and destroying the views that they don’t hold.

So, let’s not assume that their rhetoric has simply “run away” with them. It takes them exactly where they wish to be.

seanrobins on April 26, 2008 at 11:31 PM

In my book, something as trivial as this isn’t worth the mud dragging and slinging it will ultimately bring.

It is not trivial. Granted, you spent 13 more years in the service than I did, but every single invocation, every single holiday observance, etc. had a Christian bent to it.

Not once was I forcibly coerced into attending a Jewish observance, nor Muslim, nor Hindu, nor Bhuddist, etc. Your position in this highlights the arrogance of Christians.

You want to be a Christian, great. I have no problem with that. I chose not to believe it. But the fact that every single observance I was forced to attend was only Christian disturbed me very much. It is nothing more than forced subjugation to a tenet that I don’t believe in.

If every single time an invocation was offered at any event, and it was required that invocations of all whom were present be required, I think the prayer business would dry up quickly at military functions.

It is okay to force a non-Christian to listen to Christian doctrine/preaching. But, heaven forbid a Christian be forced to listen to non-Christian canon.

Blarg the Destroyer on April 26, 2008 at 11:33 PM

If every single time an invocation was offered at any event, and it was required that invocations of all the religions that were representative of the audience whom were present be required, I think the prayer business would dry up quickly at military functions.

Edited for clarity.

Blarg the Destroyer on April 26, 2008 at 11:40 PM

The military is just like the rest of the U.S. Filled with people who have their own ideas and if in a position of authority try to bend other’s to their will with threats that are non-existent other than in their own minds.

Once in my career as a Marine I was threatened with adverse comments in my Service Record Book, and I told the person issuing the threat “please do”. It didn’t happen because under the Uniformed Code of Military Justice, that guy didn’t stand a chance. If I was ignorant or ill informed, he would have gotten his way.

I also one tried to force an officer to write me a adverse fitness report before he replaced me. He wanted me gone, but I was doing my job, so I forced him to fire me and write an adverse fitness report which I had the right to rebuttal. He promoted to a Platoon Commander position in another platoon instead and later had to write a fitness report about how well I performed in a billet above my pay grade.

The U.S. Military requires the use of a spine and an awareness of the rules. Not an attempt to insult those phenomenal women who serve, but being an “Alpha” is better than being something else.

Hog Wild on April 26, 2008 at 11:41 PM

29victor: 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.

Quantum dynamics makes old newtonian determinism impossible.

You cannot predict accurately a single future action of a system based on knowing the position of, say, all atoms in the far past.

You can only make purely stochastic predictions about what the system in question will probably do.

There is plenty of wriggle-room for free will in a Quantum dynamic Cosmos.

Kristopher on April 27, 2008 at 12:37 AM

Killgore Trout on April 26, 2008 at 6:51 PM

Are you sure you’re an atheist? I thought you prayed to your Lord and Saviour Charles Johnson. The most high one who decreed that Europeans are the new Canaanites.

aengus on April 27, 2008 at 12:44 AM

Is there anything to consider other than Christianity?

richardcamera on April 26, 2008 at 6:21 PM

Yes, reality.

OldEnglish on April 27, 2008 at 12:46 AM

OldEnglish on April 27, 2008 at 12:46 AM

OldEnglish,

You lament the creation of the British welfare state at the behest of Clement Attlee and the Labour Party in 1945 but has it ever occurred to you why this happened?

The ‘reality’ you champion has destroyed Britain and could yet destroy the U.S.

Second look at Christianity?

aengus on April 27, 2008 at 1:01 AM

Get ready Christians. They’re coming after us. They’ve already taken over our Colleges and Universities after they kicked God out of school. Now they’re going after Christians in the Military. They don’t learn. Look at how their Universities have turned out. They kick all the godly teachers out and now they have an infestation of liberal nut cases in charge who favor America’s enemies over America itself! (ie, Iran’s president AhmaGenocide invitation at Columbia University to speak – they clapped and cheered him on!!). Now they are going after Christians in the Military. Yep, it’s almost over for America. I’m not just saying this for effect. They’ve destroyed American schools and now they’re destroying the nations security. Without a vibrant and vital Christianity, America is doomed. Watch, you’ll see.

My Tribute to the American Founding Fathers.

apacalyps on April 27, 2008 at 1:05 AM

Designer : Designed, that’s cause-and-effect, not circular logic.

Wow, this thread is out of hand.

I don’t know why you used a colon there, as what follows “Designer” isn’t a definition of the word.

Our understanding of design is predicated on our knowledge that people construct things. If it isn’t the kind of thing that our past experiences of the physical world tell us that people (or in some cases animals, as with wasp nests or beaver dams) construct, there’s no basis for believing the thing in question is designed at all. Knowledge of the designer (or at least of what kinds of entities produce designs) necessarily precedes the conclusion that the thing in question was in fact designed.

Your problem is that people (and animals) are physical, so it’s easy to find evidence that physical people (and sometimes animals) construct a variety of physical artifacts. “God” (whatever that may be) is, if nothing else, by stipulation not physical (whatever that means). Hence nothing you see, feel, smell, hear, or taste can possibly serve as support for your argument (as any such thing would be by stipulation physical).

There is no such thing as evidence for (or against) that which is, by stipulation, divorced from all standards of evidence.

Blacklake on April 27, 2008 at 1:08 AM

I guess this officer has never heard of Thomas Jefferson. He was a hell of a lot more important to this country than him and he detested the cult of Jesus.

revolution on April 27, 2008 at 1:08 AM

Darwin!

revolution on April 27, 2008 at 1:09 AM

Michael L. “Mikey” Weinstein (Founder and President of the Military Religious Freedom Foundation) is bad medicine. He compared American soldiers to the Taliban, saying the Christian Embassy had it’s tentacles all throughout the Pentagon, all over the Dept. of Defense.

apacalyps on April 27, 2008 at 1:11 AM

apacalyps on April 27, 2008 at 1:05 AM

So, basically what you are saying is that if your aren’t Christian, you aren’t a true American, and therefore not worthy of wearing the uniform.

What part of freedom do you not understand?

Blarg the Destroyer on April 27, 2008 at 1:16 AM

aengus on April 27, 2008 at 1:01 AM

Socialism/Communism does not deny the existence of a God via logic, they do so as a result of their firm belief in their superiority over all else. To do otherwise would be to accept a subordinate position. They actually reject prior gods, in favour of a new one that would actually pander to their greed, envy, hatred, sloth, and fear of the future. They are moral cowards.

OldEnglish on April 27, 2008 at 1:27 AM

This video is unreal. Look at how the website Military Religious Freedom portrays Christians serving in the military. And what’s even more bizarre is there are some Govt. Officials and Hollywood actor at the end of this video offering their endorsement.

Check out there press release. The Military Religious Freedom Foundation (MRFF) files new federal lawsuit against the Defense Department. Here’s a snippet:

The United States military is actively engaged in a pernicious and pervasive pattern and practice of unconstitutional rape of the precious religious freedoms of our honorable and noble sailors, soldiers, airmen, marines, national guard, reservists and veterans. This evil is a noxious, institutional force-feeding of fundamentalist Christianity by our nation’s military command structure in complete defiance of the United States Constitution.”

Wow.

apacalyps on April 27, 2008 at 1:28 AM

So, basically what you are saying is that if your aren’t Christian, you aren’t a true American, and therefore not worthy of wearing the uniform.

Blarg the Destroyer on April 27, 2008 at 1:16 AM

Where did I say that if you are not a Christian you are not a patriotic American?

apacalyps on April 27, 2008 at 1:35 AM

Quantum dynamics makes old newtonian determinism impossible.

You cannot predict accurately a single future action of a system based on knowing the position of, say, all atoms in the far past.

You can only make purely stochastic predictions about what the system in question will probably do.

There is plenty of wriggle-room for free will in a Quantum dynamic Cosmos.

Kristopher on April 27, 2008 at 12:37 AM

1) Just because you can’t “predict accurately a single future action” doesn’t necessarally mean that it’s random, just that it’s unpredictable.

2) “Free will” determined by indeterminism is still not free will. “Free will” determined by uncontrollable randomness could not, in fact, by the defintion of “uncontrollable randomness” be controlled by a person who thought that they posessed free will.

Either way, purely physical systems do not make decisions about their quantum state, or about anything else for that matter.

29Victor on April 27, 2008 at 1:36 AM

I think it’s time Christians started using the legal system to their advantage the same way those who hate them are doing.

apacalyps on April 27, 2008 at 1:40 AM

Socialism/Communism does not deny the existence of a God via logic, they do so as a result of their firm belief in their superiority over all else. To do otherwise would be to accept a subordinate position. They actually reject prior gods, in favour of a new one that would actually pander to their greed, envy, hatred, sloth, and fear of the future. They are moral cowards.

OldEnglish on April 27, 2008 at 1:27 AM

I had a professor who put it this way: “In a socialist/communist state the State is god and cannot abide competition.”

The longer I live, the more I agree with that statement.

29Victor on April 27, 2008 at 1:44 AM

Socialism/Communism does not deny the existence of a God via logic

No, they deny God because they think his existence makes equality between the classes unattainable.

They do so as a result of their firm belief in their superiority over all else.

That may be their unconscious motive but it is not their stated ideal.

They actually reject prior gods, in favour of a new one that would actually pander to their greed, envy, hatred, sloth, and fear of the future. They are moral cowards.

They neither acknowledge nor reject prior gods. Nor do they create a god that would license all their desires. They simply assert, as you do, that there is no God or gods and so everything is fair game.

The concept of moral cowardice doesn’t enter in to it. If there’s just reality as you claim then terms like “moral” and “coward” are subjective terms with no empirical meaning.

aengus on April 27, 2008 at 1:50 AM

29Victor on April 27, 2008 at 1:36 AM

Free will, as mentioned in the Bible, refers to each individual’s right to choose the right or wrong path of life, and bear the consequences.

In the final showdown, it is written that those living at that time will have to make a permanent decision – one way or the other, and be accepted or denied, based upon their decision. This merely means that, at some point in the future, the world will permanently reject the Left, leaving those who still insist upon believing in it without a voice in the halls of power.

Now, whether this becomes a fact or not is not for me to say, but free will shall always be subject to the laws of nature – no matter what philosophy is followed.

OldEnglish on April 27, 2008 at 1:52 AM

The concept of moral cowardice doesn’t enter in to it. If there’s just reality as you claim then terms like “moral” and “coward” are subjective terms with no empirical meaning.

aengus on April 27, 2008 at 1:50 AM

Both terms existed long before the Scriptures were written. Lack of a creator does not disallow our ability to distinguish between right and wrong.

As for having no gods, Socialism is their god, and it panders to their every wish – as the money from others allows.

OldEnglish on April 27, 2008 at 2:13 AM

For the record it’s a free country. You can believe whatever you want. For example, I am a fundamental Christian, but most of my friends aren’t Christians. One even identifies themselves as an athiest! I keep reminding them that God doesn’t believe in athiests, but hey, that’s their choice. I very much disagree, but I’m still friends with them. As I said, I believe in free speech. Creation versus evolution. Religion and politics. We discuss it all! I’m very easy going and it’s no problem.

Now this atheist who is suing the Defense Department for violating his civil rights… This is wrong…. very wrong. This reminds me of Rosie O’Donnell who said “radical” Christians in America are just as much of a threat as the followers of radical Islam who piloted hijacked jetliners into New York’s Twin Towers and the Pentagon on Sept. 11, 2001. I think Rosie and this athiest would get along quite nicely. No joke intended here.

apacalyps on April 27, 2008 at 2:17 AM

Allah, I would love to debate you on the existence of G-d. I can prove He does exist, even to the satisfaction of an atheist. Do you think you can prove He does not?

stonemeister on April 26, 2008 at 6:23 PM

Yes sir, there is plenty of proof for creation. Polonium halos are only one example. Look them up. This is solid scientific proof of the instantaneous creation spoken of in the Bible. Scientist Robert Gentry discovered them. His research was published in leading science journals.

Fingerprints of Creation is a 28 minute video detailing the evidence polonium halos offer that the Earth was rapidly formed and did not cool over millions of years. This is a must-see for both the creationist and evil… I mean, evolutionist. Thank you.

apacalyps on April 27, 2008 at 2:52 AM

Get ready for the endless amount of scripture that will be quoted whenever you post now that you have admitted to being godless, like me.

muyoso on April 26, 2008 at 6:46 PM

Turn that logic around for a moment. Has it ever occured to you that believers must endure endless amounts of secular mentation day in and day out? It works both ways, bro. Have a nice day.

apacalyps on April 27, 2008 at 3:11 AM

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.”…

Really no surprise here. Twas expected atheist #2 would back up atheist #1. OK, next problem.

apacalyps on April 27, 2008 at 3:24 AM

Evolution is between a theory and proven.

muyoso on April 26, 2008 at 6:52 PM

Uh, oh. Have you been drinking Darwin’s Magic Potion again? I hate to say I told you this could happen. Quietly go home and sleep it off; you’ll be fine in the morning.

apacalyps on April 27, 2008 at 3:37 AM

Time for activist judges to balance the scale of justice and throw this effort into the trash. No Go.

Courts are so damn over loaded with tripe.

When the government really screws the pooch, THAT’S when to take note, write the letters and make the calls for justice. Somehow the 413 number of children removed from Eldorado by force without substantiation or evidence is rising now closer to 500 than 400 children/babies denied access to their parents even by telephone. What a sorry state of events THAT is. The state has detained these FLDS boys, innocent themselves and not molested by their parents, in a juvenile delinquent prison alongside criminal gang members and sexual deviants. Release these FLDS children and return them to their mothers now. Citizens and tax payers must protect the State of Texas from the demise that justice will ultimately require by holding those employees who forced the wheels into motion responsible for their actions. The State needs to sue those employees who lied and fabricated this case and wash hands of THEM, hold CPS accountable for purposely misguiding the law enforcement and judicial process.

Arrest the men guilty of a crime, but not their children who were innocent. Only weenie liberal fascists would persecute babies instead of picking on someone their own size in a fight. I had hoped that the Texas Civil Liberties Project would bring the judge to her senses. But we’re all stuck in the Twilight Zone still.

maverick muse on April 27, 2008 at 4:03 AM

Wow, there really are atheists in foxholes

Dollayo on April 27, 2008 at 4:57 AM

I smell a rat.

This is not the policy of the Department of Defense. It was simply some dumb officer who was offended on a personal level. They probably evacuated the guy because they couldn’t cut out the constant threats and they don’t want a murder scandal in the vein of “A Few Good Men”.

This guy could have simply walked over to a chaplain (yes, a military chaplain) for assistance. Irony? Yes, but that is what the chaplains are there for. Chaplains want you to be religious, but they protect your right to be an atheist, too.

Black Adam on April 27, 2008 at 5:17 AM

You believe in the Bible over all of modern science?

muyoso on April 26, 2008 at 7:16 PM

Creation and Science are not separate things. Heh, I like how you substitute the word science for evolution. Dude, evolution is NOT science. You believe an amoeba over billions of years, it slowly turns to a frog. And over a few more million years it turns into a prince. That’s a fairytale. You cannot test this, demonstrate it, prove it; you can only believe it. That is a religion man, it’s not part of a science.

And you claim that is tangible?

Read above (ie, frog to prince).

The book that says that the world is only 6000 years old, when we know for a fact its older than that?

Around the year 1795, evolutionists thought that the earth was about 80,000 years old. By 1900 they were saying the earth is 2 billion years old. Now they’re up to 4.6 billion years old. Looks to me like the earth is aging at the rate of about 65 million years per-year. They keep adding this magic ingredient called millions and millions of years. Watch. They’ll change 4.6 billion too pretty soon.

Keep in mind, prior to the late 1700’s most people believed the Bible and most people thought the earth was about 6,000 years old.

Oh, here’s an evidence of a young earth: Around the time of Christ there were only 250 million people on earth. In 1800, there was only one billion. All the textbooks and population statistics indicate about 1800 there was one billion people in the world. The Bible says there was a flood 4400 years ago. The current population of earth (6.5 billion souls) could easily be generated from eight people (survivors of the Flood) in less than 4,000 years. Today’s world population fits perfectly with the flood and young earth creation account. It doesn’t match evolution.

wow.

I agree.

The problem with a lot of creationists, is that they seriously believe that there is “darwinism” and argue against the science that was available during Darwin’s life.

What science during Darwin’s life are you referring too?

They totally ignore ALL modern evidence that backs up Darwin’s theory.

If there’s evidence I want to see it. I’m open minded. show me some. Hey, answer me this. If you believe the earth formed 4.6 billions years ago, to simplify in a nutshell, you believe everything alive today came from a rock. Is that correct?

apacalyps on April 27, 2008 at 5:50 AM

I question the reason for an atheist to debate the existence of God. I just don’t really see a point in a debate on the existence of God. God either exists or God doesn’t exist. A belief in God can give people hope, peace, security, and often times can help them deal with loss. A placebo effect can be proven, it is a fact. Would you tell a dying man that the doctors can’t do anything for them, gave them a sugar pill and told them it is a cure in the hopes that the mind alone might hold an unknown power to cure? There is power in pure belief alone whether what you believe in is true or not. What does one get out of taking away another’s faith and what are the consequences of doing so? What benefit do you get out of convincing another that God doesn’t exist? Many people can’t even define God. You certainly can’t debate the existence of something that is not clearly defined and agreed upon.

Dollayo on April 27, 2008 at 6:10 AM

I see that yet another thread has deteriorated into a religious cat fight. I’ll stay out of this one since my favorite Nordic gods are busy rebuilding Valhalla benefiting from Jimmuh Carter’s Habitat for the gods program and have no time to waste on trivial human pursuits.

Odinu Akhbar!

Annar on April 27, 2008 at 8:52 AM

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

If you can believe that the world existed before you were born, why is it so hard to believe that it will continue to exist after you die?

thisaintnopicnic on April 27, 2008 at 10:05 AM

Oh great, now athiests are a victim group?

Capitalist Infidel on April 26, 2008 at 7:12 PM

What would you expect?
.
Atheism avoids responsibility for any moral failures by its believers and adopts a number of pseudo-intellectual illogical conceits:
.
Claiming to be logical, it offers an explanation of origins that would destroy the possibility of humans being logical.
.
If what they said about origins was true, and they are not having a conversation about what is true – then they are just saying what is predetermined by the chemicals and physics of the type of “weed” they are. Anti-god collections of chemicals that just babble in response to pro-god collections of chemicals that babble.
.
If any meaningful conversation about truth is possible in these matters, atheistic evolutionists are contradicting themselves when they participate.
.
Then there is the false conceit that atheists act as if they logically selected their world view for any other reason than to avoid guilt and responsibility for their moral failures. Yet when they can claim to have been wronged, look at the claims of moral outrage.
Atheists deny the moral nature of man, then make arguments with moral appeals. That is the nature of fools.
.
I had not realized that Allahpundit held such stupid (non) beliefs. I’ll take anything I read from him in the future with huge doses of salt.

Right_of_Attila on April 27, 2008 at 10:57 AM

Blarg

It is trivial. At WORST, the guy was threatened with serious bodily harm. Under military law, that could be prosecuted as assualt, perhaps Art #117, Provoking Speech and Gestures.

Discrimination? From what I’ve read in the article, it seems more like harrassment than discrimination. Plain and simple.

But I also see by your response that you have no interest in debate about the actual story or incident, only with to provoking and attacks.

Let me ask you this? If we were in the same situation, deployed overseas, and I were having a meeting of Christians or any like-minded group, and you had uttered in the meeting exactly what you wrote in your post as a response to me, wouldn’t you be guilty of EXACTLY the same thing the Major did?

Would you feel it were trivial, from your perspective, if I then brought discrimination charges against you and dragged you and a lot of other people through the mud – for no reason other than some personal justice?

Would I feel I had been discriminated against or simply harrassed by an asshat? A superior yes, but an asshat nonetheless?

A lot of people on this thread have lost sight of the actual incident. None of the nebulous stuff, one way or another, will be brought up if this even goes to actual court.

The guy might not even be able to bring the civil suit to court. Active duty military people have restrictions and limitations on this type of thing. Of course he has filed the suit, but that’s different.

If it goes to a military court, the UCMJ will be the source of jurisdcition and law and the MCM will be the guide by which the case is carried out.

The military justice system doesn’t allow for much “grandstanding” as in the civilian world. If there are legitimate issues of offense, they will be dealt with and punishment will be delat out as prescribed by the law, not public opinion.

Perhaps that’s why the guy has opted for this route? His case has very few legs according to military justice, and he’s trying to win in the court of public opinion?

That’s what I meant when I said this type of thing cheapens the military and both systems of justice.

But it seems between the two of us, I’m the only one who can stay focused on the actual event and maintain an unbiased and open mindset when dealing with these things.

Dragging this whole discussion where it has gone is why we need to let the justice system work.

catmman on April 27, 2008 at 11:03 AM

Right_of_Attila on April 27, 2008 at 10:57 AM

You assume that morals were created by religion. The ability to discern between right and wrong has been with us since we gained cognizance.

OldEnglish on April 27, 2008 at 11:04 AM

You assume that morals were created by religion. The ability to discern between right and wrong has been with us since we gained cognizance.

OldEnglish on April 27, 2008 at 11:04 AM

.
So you were there when “we gained cognizance”?
.
And who gives you the right to define right and wrong?

Right_of_Attila on April 27, 2008 at 11:52 AM

If it enhances the survival of theists, there is nothing wrong with killing atheists and eating them.
.
If survival and reproduction are the primary values, it seems that atheists are losing the battle here.
.
Perhaps the rude officer should be condemned for not practicing cannibalism, rather than somehow merely oppressing atheists.
.
Please tell us more about your intellectually bankrupt atheism, since my survival is enhanced by laughing at y’all.

Right_of_Attila on April 27, 2008 at 12:12 PM

Boys and girls, in the end, the burden of proof will always rest with Christians and their belief in talking snakes, no-sex pregnancies and, my all-time favorite, God becomes man to be tortured and killed by his own creation so that he can save his creation…or at least a few of them. So much for all-knowing.

DanKenton on April 27, 2008 at 12:15 PM

And who gives you the right to define right and wrong?

Right_of_Attila on April 27, 2008 at 11:52 AM

The same people who wrote your Scriptures, for a start – and they got them from others before them.

OldEnglish on April 27, 2008 at 12:31 PM

Free will, as mentioned in the Bible, refers to each individual’s right to choose the right or wrong path of life, and bear the consequences.

OldEnglish on April 27, 2008 at 1:52 AM

Excellent point, except that free will is never mentioned in the Bible. In fact, it is never even really even hinted at.

29Victor on April 27, 2008 at 12:36 PM

“The message is, ‘It’s a Christian nation, and you need to recognize that.’”
I think that the better word is : accept. But, if you can’t recognize it, then there will be no acceptance.

DanKenton on April 27, 2008 at 12:15 PM…I doubt any Christians here believe in most of that. I’m not a church-goer but I believe in the teachings of Christ without the literal interpretations of Christianity as well as many tenets (truths) of other religions. As long as no one proselytizes me or tries to murder me, (like the Jehovahs and the Islamo-Facists), I’m accepting of other peoples beliefs. There are many paths to God, the Source, the One, etc.

Christine on April 27, 2008 at 12:42 PM

29Victor on April 27, 2008 at 12:36 PM

Try the Book of revelations and the First Book of Enoch. Both stress the need to make a choice – or suffer the punishment of eternal damnation. Also, Genesis mentions that God gave Adam free reign to name the beasts etc, and to do anything he wanted – except for one thing.

OldEnglish on April 27, 2008 at 12:53 PM

There are many paths to God, the Source, the One, etc.

Christine on April 27, 2008 at 12:42 PM

There is no source. The end of the journey is dust.

OldEnglish on April 27, 2008 at 1:00 PM

“The message is, ‘It’s a Christian nation, and you need to recognize that.’”

Really? Can you show me where the word “Christ” or “Christian” is written in our founding documents? And, no, “God” and/or “In God We Trust” doesn’t count.

DanKenton on April 27, 2008 at 1:13 PM

Christne:I doubt any Christians here believe in most of that.

Well, a recent Gallup poll has about 1/3 of Americans believing the bible to be literally true: http://www.gallup.com/poll/27682/OneThird-Americans-Believe-Bible-Literally-True.aspx

Is it not possible that even 1 of these individuals is among us here?

DanKenton on April 27, 2008 at 1:18 PM

Boys and girls, in the end, the burden of proof will always rest with Christians….

DanKenton on April 27, 2008 at 12:15 PM

Now wait a minute here. The burdern doesn’t lie with Christians because we’re not asking tax payers to pay for our religion to be taught in schools. You (if you’re an) evolutionists are. Everybody has to pay for your religion to be taught in schools whether we like it or not. So the burden of proof doesn’t rest with Christians…. as you put it. It lies with you.

apacalyps on April 27, 2008 at 1:43 PM

I believe in the teachings of Christ … There are many paths to God, the Source, the One, etc.

Christine on April 27, 2008 at 12:42 PM

Many paths to God? The Source? This is getting spooky. Sounds like you’ve been drinking Oprah’s Koolade. Look Christine, I’m not against you. I’m trying to help. If, as you say, you believe in the teachings of Christ, you’ve got a bit of a contradiction in what you say…

Jesus said, “I am the way, the truth, and the life: no man cometh unto the Father, but by me.” John 14:6

There are NOT many paths to God. Jesus Himself said, there’s only ONE way to God, and that’s through Him. My prayers are for you that you will one day realize this.

apacalyps on April 27, 2008 at 2:02 PM

Well, a recent Gallup poll has about 1/3 of Americans believing the Bible to be literally true: Is it not possible that even 1 of these individuals is among us here?

DanKenton on April 27, 2008 at 1:18 PM

Sorry I can’t think of an insult stupid enough for you.

apacalyps on April 27, 2008 at 2:13 PM

Now wait a minute here. The burdern doesn’t lie with Christians because we’re not asking tax payers to pay for our religion to be taught in schools. You (if you’re an) evolutionists are. Everybody has to pay for your religion to be taught in schools whether we like it or not. So the burden of proof doesn’t rest with Christians…. as you put it. It lies with you.

apacalyps on April 27, 2008 at 1:43 PM

That’s actually funny. Evolution is NOT a religion. It’s not even a course. It’s a subset of a topic taught in a science class that most kids aren’t awake to hear anyway. And, you conveniently side-stepped what YOU and your Apocolyptic ilk would like taught in public schools and that is Intelligent Design. You and Ben Stein become physically ill at the mere mention of our mitochondrial anscestors. And, as far as taxpayer money goes, the Christian church has encroached on so many facets of public sector life that the IRS continually challenges its 501(c)
status.

Atheists and Deists are not the ones peddling fear via some great rapture or dispensing personal guilt in an effort to keep the pews filled on Sunday. No my delusional friend, “Paradise” after earth is your fantasy. You proove it.

DanKenton on April 27, 2008 at 2:27 PM

Comment pages: 1 2 3 4 5


You must be logged in to post a comment.