Very troubling, if accurate; the New York Times covers the story, but here are excerpts from the Complaint:
11. On July 31, 2007, plaintiff Hall attempted to conduct and participate in a meeting of individuals who consider themselves atheists, freethinkers, or adherents to non-Christian religions. With permission from an army chaplain, plaintiff Hall posted flyers around COB Speicher announcing the meeting. The meeting attendees included plaintiff Hall, other military personnel and nonmilitary personnel.
12. During the course of the meeting, defendant Welborn confronted the attendees, disrupted the meeting and interfered with the plaintiff Hall's and the other attendees' rights to discuss topics of their interests. During the confrontation, and because of plaintiff's actions in organizing the meeting, defendant Welborn threatened plaintiff Hall with an action under the Uniform Code of Military Justice and further threatened to prevent plaintiff Hall's reenlistment in the United States Army....
21. When plaintiff Hall learned that he would be denied an appearance before the promotions board, he sought counseling from Sergeant Van Hise, who informed plaintiff Hall that since he was "under investigation," he was not eligible for an appearance before the promotions board. Sergeant Van Hise stated that plaintiff Hall was unable to put aside his personal convictions and pray with his troops. Sergeant Van Hise believed this to be a constraint on Army morale and would limit plaintiff Hall's ability to bond with his troops. Plaintiff Hall responded that religion is not a requirement of leadership. At this, Sergeant Van Hise questioned how plaintiff Hall could ask for religious freedom when in fact, as an atheist, he has no religion. Plaintiff Hall replied that the United States Army Chaplain's manual protects atheism.
By the way, I do agree that differences in religious belief — or for that matter, racial differences — may indeed impair morale in some measure. But it seems to me that both current military rules and broader American legal principles of racial and religious equality and tolerance should lead the military to try to deal with these morale problems by means other than racial and religious discrimination. So, as I said, if the allegations are accurate, this strikes me as very troubling. Here, by the way, is what the Times story says about the factual dispute:
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 [atheist] meeting, said in an e-mail message: “Jeremy [the plaintiff] is telling the truth. I was there and witnessed everything.”
I should note that it's not clear that some of the other conduct the lawsuit complains of (see paragraph 26) is unconstitutional (even if the factual account is accurate). For instance, "use of official military e-mail accounts to send e-mails containing religious rhetoric" might, depending on the circumstances, be permissible (for instance, if the message is the sender's own personal views, much as a President or other government official may often properly give a speech including religious rhetoric). But job discrimination against atheist military members, or attempts to break up atheist meetings, should be as improper as job discrimination against Jewish or Christian military members, or attempts to break up Jewish or Christian meetings.
Thanks to Adam Kaplan for the pointer.
And Sergeant Van Hise was absolutely right. See below.
But military service is not just a 'job'. Most 'jobs' don't require you to routinely risk your life, and, if necessary, give up your life for your bosses and your co-workers. Seriously, who in your department would you take a bullet for? :)
Some time ago (I'm too lazy to look up the link) we here at Volokh had a long series of discussions about women serving in the military, in which the consensus was, I believe, that even if a few - a very few - female soldiers were physically and emotionally capable of meeting the same requirements as male soldiers, the impact of women on unit cohesion and camaraderie was dangerous enough, given the prevailing expectation that women could not meet those requirements, and given the unique and essential role played by our military, that even those women who could meet the entry requirements should be barred. The military, that is, is a place where any reduction in unit quality literally costs lives; it is not a place for 'equal opportunity' or social engineering.
I would argue that the presence of atheists in the military is vulnerable to that very same argument. Never mind the question of whether an atheist can feel any genuine loyalty to a Christian nation, given that he rejects the core principles on which our nation was built; never mind the unlikelihood that someone who denies an afterlife would sacrifice his own life for any reason, instead of cutting and running like John Kerry; never mind the fact that atheism correlates with all manner of other moral degeneracies - "[Those w]ho changed the truth of God into a lie, and worshipped and served the creature more than the Creator, who is blessed for ever. Amen. For this cause God gave them up unto vile affections [...] Being filled with all unrighteousness, fornication, wickedness, covetousness, maliciousness; full of envy, murder, debate, deceit, malignity; whisperers, backbiters, haters of God, despiteful, proud, boasters, inventors of evil things, disobedient to parents, without understanding, covenantbreakers, without natural affection, implacable, unmerciful..." (Romans 1:25-31) - and so speaks to the moral character of the soldier; the simple fact is that we are a Christian nation with a Christian army, and our soldiers' strength and willingness to sacrifice their lives for the good of the United States and their fellow soldiers comes, in large part, from their Christian faith. An atheist cannot, by definition, share in that faith or that culture; he cannot pray with his troops or empathize with their worries and inmost beliefs; and how can a Christian soldier trust his life to someone who, the Bible makes clear, is hated by God and condemned to Hell? How can a Christian trust the leadership of someone who refuses to be led by God?
I'm sure (some) atheists would be able to serve with distinction in the military, just like some women could. But, again, the army is not a place for social engineering; the answer to prejudice in the military is not to forcibly integrate - with the attendant costs to unit cohesion and morale - and expect them to 'get over it' in situations when their 'getting over it' will cost lives. If (God forbid!) atheism becomes acceptable to the vast majority of the United States' civilian population, then it will be time to permit atheists to serve. Until then, our army is - and should remain - Christian.
I don't know if it's legally permissible or not, but the analogy is a poor one. When the President expresses religious views I can freely ignore or even mock them without fear of repercussions. But a soldier who gets a religious email from superiors is not in the same position.
Hate to break it to you Ithaqua, but our army is not Christian. In fact the Chaplain has Christian, Jewish, Muslim, and I believe Bhuddist Chaplains.
Also works if you substitute "Jew" for "atheist", or "Catholic" for "atheist" and "Protestant" for "Christian.
Git.
Do soldiers in the US Army have a 'right' to, oh, plot treason? Would a gathering of Muslim soldiers have the 'right' to discuss whether or not the Koran demands they betray America to aid their fellow Muslims, ie, al-Quaeda in Iraq? You give up a certain amount of freedom of speech when you join the Army.
"How can our nation be a Christian nation when the highest law of the nation explicitly prohibits the establishment of a national religion?"
The United States was founded by Christians in accordance with Christian principles. See here. The First Amendment forbids the government from setting up a state religion, or - and liberals tend to ignore this part - 'prohibiting the free exercise' of religion by anyone, including government officials. The free exercise of religion in a Christian supermajority is going to lead to a Christian government, a Christian military, and so on. I'm not saying that atheists should be forced to accept Jesus as their savior, but they are not part of mainstream American society, and this has consequences for their assimilation into our Christian military.
"Hate to break it to you Ithaqua, but our army is not Christian. In fact the Chaplain has Christian, Jewish, Muslim, and I believe Bhuddist Chaplains."
And how about atheist chaplains? :)
In fact, there is almost nothing you have said that is true.
In one sense one may say the religious person is better suited to serve in the military. This argument sort of follows the old tale about Stonewall Jackson when he was asked by a soldier if he had fear, and his response was that his death was ordained by god and there was no sense worrying about it. One could possibly argue that makes one a better soldier, if they truly don't fear the possibility of death they would be better suited to fight. It could be argued that the atheist, believing life is all you get, would fear the possibility of death and therefore may not be as suited for military battle.
Of course the opposite could be true: the atheist makes a better soldier because they have more to live for. If they die that's all they get, therefore they'd be more likely to fight for their life. And, they may be in a better position to keep others safe because they would be less likely to lead their men to be slaughtered.
Ultimately I really don't think it matters: personally if I were on the battle field I think I'd care more about whether the man/woman/transsexual/animal/robot/anything else next to me could shoot than whether they believed in the right god, or any god for that matter.
You claimed that the military is Christian, it is not. It has a Chaplain corps that serves the spritual needs of all its members, regardless of their religious affiliation or lack thereof. There is no oath to any deity required of military members--only to defend the Constitution of the United States.
It is simply wrong to say that the military is Christian.
In modern America, where racism is dead - except among the Klan, the Nazis and their black counterparts, such as Al Sharpton and Jeremiah Wright - we look at a fully integrated military and hail Truman's wisdom. But that's because - no matter how liberals like to cheer on Truman's social engineering - society as a whole is no longer racist, not because racism magically disappeared from the Army at Truman's order.
I'd be willing to offer a compromise; perhaps a 'Don't Ask, Don't Tell' for atheists? As long as an atheist gives lip service to the devoutly held beliefs of his fellow soldiers, he can serve alongside them without harming morale. How does that sound? :)
Happyshooter: I'm not sure, but the way I read the article implies that the Major placed him under investigation, and the promotion board rules made them unable to consider anyone under investigation for anything. As I said, I was Navy, not Army, so I don't know how accurate that is.
JF Thomas, There are even Wiccan and Jainite chaplains, when the base population of those religions warrant them. Where not, all soldiers and sailors have the right under the UCMJ to form their own group with what is called a lay chaplain (which is what I did above) under supervision of the chaplains office. these lay groups are supposed to be free of interference from the command.
Respectfully,
Pol
Oh, and brilliant solution. Make the atheists lie with their acts. I'm pretty sure there's something in the Bible about that, but I can't quite remember what it was . . . Of course, you'd only use there forced dishonesty as further proof of their dishonor.
Fortunately, even the U.S. military realizes you're wrong, since the allegations, if true, violate the military's own rules.
I stand by my original judgment of you.
I don't think this assertion is true. The officer corps is less culturally conservative than portrayed in the media. Although they do tend to be drawn from more conservative parts of the country, I don't think they are necessarily more conservative than the urban populations of large midwestern or southern cities (say Dallas, Kansas City or Atlanta).
You should read the Kagans more often.
Erm, maybe keeping atheists out of the military would more likely lead to an ever so slight decline in combat capacity, given that you're a little undermanned as things stand?
Has it occured to you that someone can adhere to the principles underpinning America's founding, without having to believe in the nomadic accounts/myths from which they were derived?
Yeah, go ahead and slander a substantial minority of your serving troops (kind of like John Kerry did, eh?).
From my knowledge of the Catholic clergy, the correlation must be inverse.
Your ignorance of the Constitution appears to be equalled by your ignorance of your own scriptures.
Only in the narrow sense that the majority of soldiers are Christians. Which is about as meaningful as pointing out that it is an army of men with two eyebrows.
Because that's what they were doing. Really.
It may not be a racist society, but racism isn't dead. You really should get out more.
Can't be helped. You liberals love to play the race card.
For what it's worth, I reject racial discrimination of all kinds (although I also reject the government's attempts to limit freedom of association in the name of racial equality); but if you can't see the difference between judging someone for their skin color and judging someone for their beliefs (or lack thereof), that's your problem.
And if you can't see the difference between judging someone on the basis of their religious beliefs, and judging someone on the basis of their behaviour, then that's your problem.
Don't forget gays and women.
Seriously, this should remind a lot of people that a lot of these debates about whether the military should insist on unit cohesion uber alles or should work to integrate diverse personnel turn on whose ox is being gored.
To put another way, I am sure that if a particular unit, say in the special forces, had a critical mass of atheists and agnostics who complained about a couple of evangelical Christians in their mix and how the evangelizing was harming unit cohesion, that suddenly the same people who have no problem coming down on atheists would talk about the military's anti-Christian bias.
If you can't see how all these are the same, that is not only your problem, but it proves that you are, in fact, a git.
Major Welborn interfered with and disrupted an atheist meeting Specialist Hall organized in Iraq. Subsequently, at Ft. Riley, Kansas, Hall took pictures of an Ann Coulter poster with an anti-Islamist message on it and sent it various news organizations(the relevancy of this to the complaint escapes me). Hall was denied the opportunity to appear before a promotion board.
The only remedy he seeks is an opportunity to go before a promotions board.
I find several things interesting:
1) The military chaplain did exactly what he was supposed to do--and there are no allegations to the contrary. Hall asked for a room to use for an atheist service (whatever that might entail) and he was provided it. Additionally, Hall makes no allegation that his ability to promote his meeting was in any way interfered with by military officials in Iraq.
2) His lawsuit provides two other examples of what he claims were discriminatory acts in Iraq, a Thanksgiving dinner where some NCO was upset and a prayer right before a military operation. However, Hall makes no allegation that there were any repurcussions as a result of either purported discriminatory acts.
3) There is a certain "cut and paste" element to this lawsuit. Could there be an airman with a similar complaint? I ask because paragraphs 26(g), 26(h), and 27 all have a distinct Air Force ring and Hall is a member of the United States Army.
I can only guess that paragraph 26 is included to provide evidence of a pattern--though none of it is evidence of a pattern to discriminate against atheists at the time of promotion board.
4) Given the remedy sought, is Major Welborn truly a necessary party--and is there any nexus between Major Welborn's conduct and the denial of promotion?
5) Without knowing more, could the Coulter incident, particularly if it resulted in a memo from the base commander (the contents of which were not provided), be the reason Hall's promotion board was cancelled?
By the way, were I judge, I would probably dismiss this case at whatever stage such a motion is brought unless a nexus between Major Welborn's conduct and the denial of a promotion opportunity is at least alleged.
This seems like a great "lawsuit" to try in the New York Times. A court of law, not so much.
And everyone knows that men who have sex with men make terrible soldiers. Look at the Spartans.
FDR told him to go ahead and integrate, that the price was one that had to be paid for the greater good of the country.
So he did integrate the Corps., African-American Marines were killed by their fellow soldiers, and eventually the Corps learned to live with it. Holcomb also integrated the Marine Corps by opening it up to women. Upon retirement, Holcomb received his fourth star, the first for a Marine. I guess he was forgiven for his hesitation.
His papers, discussing integration and other matters, are available at the USMC Museum at Quantico, if anyone's interested.
[Disclosure: Gen. Holcomb was my wife's grandfather]
Bravery is the mastery of fear, not the absence of it. Fear is a necessary survival trait, and soldiers who don't feel it are likely to take unwarranted risks that get people killed. I'd rather have the military full of people who value their lives and look for ways to kill the enemy while minimizing the risk to themselves.
Within the last 10-15 years, there has been an increasing tendency of some minorities* to use the distorting effect of modern media to create an impression of influence or concern all out of proportion to their actual size. Bluntly, this is dishonest, and leads one to question the veracity of everything they say.
To the point, common sense would suggest that an Army Major with probably more than 10 years of service, who is confronting a junior enlisted man still on his first enlistment, would not be so misinformed or stupid as to mishandle a religious issue such as this one. It's more likely that Hall will turn out like a new Scott Beauchamp.
Further, in military terms, there is a real discipline and order concern when you have junior enlisted men holding any type of meeting without either an NCO or an officer being present, AND IN CHARGE. These types of meetings could lead to mutinous situations or discipline problems, and can be a real morale (eg. fighting effectiveness) concern. This is especially true in areas where the military is either facing combat or has an imminent possibility of combat.
This is a classic red-herring, and I think this complaint was designed primarily for consumption here in the States for political reasons. The Army is not really concerned with the religiousness of its soldiers, but it is highly concerned with their military effectiveness. The military in general is one giant don't-ask-don't-tell organization, and unless the Army perceived some discipline and order problem, it is doubtful anyone would have worried about this meeting or even noticied it.
John
Exactly my point. Forced integration, before society is ready for it, costs lives.
Dave N: so this "soldier" tried to smear his fellow soldiers as anti-Muslim fanatics in the press, giving aid and comfort to our Muslim enemies, and now wants to blame his atheism for his lack of promotion? Heh. If military regs allow it, I expect an amicus curiae brief from the ACLU in this guy's favor any day now.
"And everyone knows that men who have sex with men make terrible soldiers. Look at the Spartans."
Be serious. There wasn't the slightest implication of homoeroticism in "300" :)
"It's comforting to know that Ithaqua would consider Jefferon a moral degenerate and unfit to serve in the army (much less be President!)."
There are many Presidents I consider unfit to have been President. But yes, someone who took a razor to the Bible and excised the Resurrection goes pretty high on that list.
I think this is explainable in his counsel/supporting group.
From the Article.
"Last month, Specialist Hall and the Military Religious Freedom Foundation, an advocacy group...."
"But Mikey Weinstein, a retired Air Force judge advocate general and founder of the Military Religious Freedom Foundation, said the official statistics masked the great number of those who do not report violations for fear of retribution. Since the Air Force Academy scandal began in 2004,"
If Weinstein wrote or at least influenced the writing of the complaint it would account for an "air force ring" to it.
I'll go on record saying that as a Marine, I have no intention of sacrificing my life at any time for anyone. My intention is to accomplish the mission, which might entail killing others and might entail some risk to myself, but I am not going to intend to sacrifice myself at any time. Even if the risks are virtually certain that I die, I will still not intentionally die while accomplishing the mission. Suicide sucks. I'll hang on to that last 0.1% chance of living as long as I can and continue the fight.
As a Marine who has been in combat operations in Al Anbar, I can assure you that there are plenty of people who are of all types of religious, unreligious, atheist, or uninterested ideologies. The religious ones tend to talk about their beliefs more, and thus assume others agree with them (out of politeness) but there is certainly NOT a requirement to be religious, let alone christian.
As an atheist, I do not object to expressions of religious belief from my Marines or from my commanders. The majority share these beliefs to some degree, and I'm not about to deny them whatever it takes to make them more effective killers. On the other hand, while I don't break ranks in formations that offer generic prayers, I do not bow my head or in any other way indicate agreement with such silliness.
Finally, atheists do not need to have meetings. Atheists do not have doctrine or teachings to discuss.
It seems to me that this young soldier was trying to be a rabble rouser for some reason. You can always find an excuse to pick a fight in court. You can also just live and let live.
But all that being said, it's quite possible that some overly zealous officer of the fanatical religious type honestly believed that he had a right to stop an "atheist meeting." He might have tried to use other excuses to disrupt the meeting, at least ex post facto. There are all types in the military, even people like Ithaqua who think that others are required to share their own beliefs.
This lawsuit is uninteresting because if it has merit the results are obvious. Whether it has merit is too petty an issue to be interesting as law.
So there's no purpose for any religious meeting besides "discussing doctrine" or "teaching?"
Funny, I always thought "fellowship" counted for something.
But, in any case, I do see your point. The newspaper article is unclear on that point, but if he was actually doing something that might be considered disruptive by an objective observer, that should be taken into account when evaluating the officer's actions.
If Major Welborn did as Specialist Hall alleges, then Major Welborn should be subject to discipline of some kind for his conduct.
From my study of GW and the chaplaincy, he was very accomodating of the people's religion and took notice of "Christian" soldiers (if all of his soldiers happened to identify as Christian); but nonetheless believed respecting the rights of all regardless of religion, and wanted to make sure soldiers had chaplains of their denomination.
But the bottom line is America's Founders didn't believe they were Founding the nation or the Army for "Christians" and not others. If they believe this, you'd have to define Christianity. And if such defines according to its Trinitarian orthodoxy (a good case can be made, that's the proper way to understand the Christian religion), then not just Jefferson, but Washington, Adams, Madison, Franklin, and others would NOT qualify as Christians. They didn't want government having to decide such issues of heresy which inevitably occurs when you say such things as the nation/government/military is for Christians and not others.
Strictly speaking, you're correct. But let's be realistic. When do atheists have meetings? Who has time to be organizing meetings like this? It seems to me much more likely that the young man was reacting to overt religious statements made by his officer and wanted to be rebellious. He's probably just immature and he's made a big thing out of a little thing and got bit, wrongly or justly.
But we don't know. I've seen all sorts of things in the Marines, and you can expect the best of people or the worst of people and you've got a chance of getting what you expect. Thankfully, there's a lot more good than bad people, but in any organization of that size you will always have some bad.
This is fodder for talk radio, and that's about it. It won't amount to much of anything.
I'm not sure why atheists would need to meet as such, or couldn't simply frame it as a secular philosophy and morality discussion. For those who think that non-religion should be given equivalent protection and the chaplain corps should include atheists, I suggest a constitutional amendment. Equating atheism with religion is part of the reason I'm hesitant to call myself atheist. It is sometimes annoying to hear people discuss god(s) as fact, but most of us atheists don't have a great problem with the faith of others. Yes we have to endure the frequent social references, but there are lots of other unsavory cultural references. We simply don't need or can't share that same faith.
The USMC was not integrated until the Korean war, by which time Holcomb had retired and FDR was dead. The process was begun by Clifton B. Cates, who had defended segregation in the corps when he began his term, but changed course when the Marine combat units faced serious manpower shortages during the Korean War. Both Cates and his successor (Shepard) repeatedly claimed that integration of combat units took place without incident.
If you actually know of a specific case where a marine was murdered by his comrades because of his skin color, you should report it to the Navy JAG.
This seems to imply that one must be a good Christian to be a good President. I know many conservative Christians who don't believe this. Out of curiousity I might want to know why. I've read Adams' writings on religion in detail and know he was just as bad as Jefferson in denying the fundamentals of Christianity (his Federalist clergy supporters who railed against Jefferson's "infidelity" were apparently clueless on this). Right there you've got the 2nd &3rd Presidents -- 12 key years of American Founding era -- lead by heretics.
I also believe GW and JM were, like TJ and JA, not orthodox Trinitarian Christians (thus arguably not real Christians at all), but their writings lack the smoking gun quotations like the following from John Adams:
"An incarnate God!!! An eternal, self-existent, omnipresent omniscient Author of this stupendous Universe, suffering on a Cross!!! My Soul starts with horror, at the Idea, and it has stupified the Christian World. It has been the Source of almost all of the Corruptions of Christianity."
-- John Adams to John Quincy Adams, March 28, 1816
"If I understand the Doctrine, it is, that if God the first second or third or all three together are united with or in a Man, the whole Animal becomes a God and his Mother is the Mother of God.
"It grieves me: it shocks me to write in this stile upon a subject the most adorable that any finite Intelligence can contemplate or embrace: but if ever Mankind are to be superior to the Brutes, sacerdotal Impostures must be exposed."
-- John Adams to Francis van der Kemp, October 23, 1816.
In an environment of harassment and discrimination, where the pressure to believe in God was so strong that that Hall was ashamed to say he was an atheiest and only 'came out' about it when questioned, it is not too surprising that he tried to hold a meeting with like-minded people. Nothing suggests there was any element of rebellion in that meeting.
Such quotes excepted, If you look at the picture as a whole, I think you generally can come to the conclusion that the practice of religion in the 1780's wasn't terribly different from religion today. A lot of people are what you might call "socially religious." They may or may not have had any deep commitments to religion, but they were members of a church because it was the expected thing, and it's easier to go along with it rather than speak out against it.
An individual who was as outspoken as Jefferson or Adams was the exception, but that doesn't mean there were only the outspoken deists and everyone else was "deeply religious."
(Source: NY Times)
From most of the reports, it seems Hall did nothing more than 'live and let live' that someone advocated he should have. As mentioned, he 'came out' only when he was explicitly asked if he believed in God. If the reports are true, Major Welborn is just as offensive and ignorant as ithaqua above. I would trust neither of them in any position of authority.
Like I said, you get all kinds of good people and bad people in the military. If this guy ran into some bad officers and a bad outfit, he'll win. Or should win, there are bad courts, too.
But the legal issue is too simple to be interesting. No one with an ounce of objectivity in the matter would side with a command that condones punishing someone for his religious, or lack of religious beliefs. That it has gotten as far as it has can only be because something else is alleged that we're not hearing about.
There are certainly bad commands out there, I've seen them (on other issues) and they can be horrible to be in. But in the end, they get dealt with, and the military marches on. They may prevail or not, but they certainly do not set precedent or the standard. Even if all this soldier's allegations are true, this is the type of thing that will likely be swept under a rug. The major and others involved would be quietly punished, the soldier quietly pushed out someplace, without a promotion, and that's that.
When you have people getting killed and maimed, some sad sack's career seems petty. Even if he was wronged, he handled the whole thing poorly and this alone should reflect on his potential as a leader and his prospects for promotion.
Unit cohesiveness is all important. Sometimes the individual has to learn to keep his stupid mouth shut and not draw attention to himself. Not that his treatment was deserved, or that the commanders shouldn't be also punished, but I have little pity for his plight.
It always amazes me how defensive aethists/theists can get about these things, seeing apparent threats of religious coercion around every corner and in every situation. Maybe it is a product of perceiving themselves as an endangered minority, or maybe it is that they seeking outwardly something that they know can only be answered inwardly, i.e. within themselves.
From the German mystical poet Angelus Silesius: "The abyss in me calls out to the abyss in God. Tell me, which is deeper?"
John
Wikipedia on the fictional Ithaqua:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ithaqua
"Ithaqua is one of the Great Old Ones and appears as a horrifying giant with a roughly human shape and glowing red eyes. He has been reported from as far north as the Arctic to the Sub-Arctic, where Native Americans first encountered him. He is believed to prowl the Arctic waste, hunting down unwary travelers and slaying them gruesomely."
I seriously doubt someone who was truly such a devout Christian would be posting under such a name.
People who join the military are entitled to strong religious beliefs, but any serviceman who can't work and fight with atheists is unworthy of the uniform.
Does this include the base model airplane club or the enlisted club? While it is likely that the first will have an NCO present, when I was in the service these organizations did not mandate the presence of an NCO or Officer. We were in the midst of a war at that time too.
ARTICLE 11
As the government of the United States of America is not in any sense founded on the Christian Religion,4 - as it has in itself no character of enmity against the laws, religion or tranquility of Musselmen, - and as the said States never have entered into any war or act of hostility against any Mehomitan nation, it is declared by the parties that no pretext arising from religious opinions shall ever produce an interruption of the harmony existing between the two countries.
Our nation was not founded by Christians. Many FF's were Christians. Some, like Paine, Franklin and Jefferson, were not. If America were a Christian nation, our constitution would reflect that in law. It does not, so, as a matter of law, Ithaqua is wrong.
But there is a deeper aspect to his argument. His obvious hatred and bigotry against atheists (calling atheism 'immoral' and 'degenerate'), proves that his philosophy is plainly at odds with traditional American values as stated in the constitution.
Pat Tillman was an atheist. That alone is enough to render his argument ridiculous. But his position, apart from being insanely bigoted and hate filled, is wrong on its face.
His attitude is exactly what I've learned to expect from so many Christianists who, like their Islamist co-believers, think that religion is a license to oppress anyone who disagrees with them. We don't need Saudi Arabia in America.
Not a single allegation in the CNN report (at least the part you quote) made it into his complaint, even though he did have a section where he made allegations of other activity that he found objectionable.
You took the post too literally. Both of the activities you mentioned had command sponsorship. The post referred to activities that give the commanders a reason for concern, which is obviously, highly subjective. In the case of this complaint, it is unknown what the background circumstances were, but, the military being what it is, you have to give deferrence to the senior member first. As someone mentioned, the Major may well have been wrong, but that's not the smart bet in this case.
John
If Christians won't treat atheists like fellow soldiers should be treated (especially when ordered to do so) then it is the Christians that should be thrown in the brig and out of the army. Period.
That sounds to me like the typical, plaintiff-slanted description of a First Amendment exercise by the Major. The words "confronted," disrupted," interfered," and "threatened," all have sinister connotations, but they don't necessarily convey an objective image. It sounds like there was an advertised, open meeting, the Major accepted the invite, and he said some things that the plaintiff and maybe some others did not like. The paragraph pointedly omits the slightest mention of any reaction or lack thereof by others in attendance. I don't have any difficulty presuming that there was a reaction that could provoke a caution that certain anticipated misbehavior could lead to a grant of due process under the UCMJ. I note also that there is nothing in the complaint to show that the Major followed through in any way with the supposed "threats."
Unfortunately, I've tried a couple of such cases, and getting a judge to recognize that anyone other than the plaintiff has First Amendment rights is virtually impossible. The rule seems to be that "First Amendment" refers to the first to file suit.
Using a term like "Christianist" (boy aren't you clever that you can pirate a phrase from Andrew Sullivan!) certainly detracts from your argument. It is much like Republicans who sound like morons every time they refer to the "Democrat Party."
-The complaint says Bivens. Isn't Chappell v. Wallace going to be a problem? My recollection is that a suit by a subordinate against a superior based on conduct in a combat zone exactly the kind of thing that the Chappell court was trying to keep out of the courts...
-Also, isn't Goldman v. Weinberger problematic here? I mean, that Court basically said that any restriction by the military on religious activity was permissible as long as a weak and generalized justification was available (uniformity, etc). Of course, that was a regulation and this was apparently the individual discretion of the Major, but it seems similar all the same...
This it seems to me is NOT a genuine "Christian principle," and could lead to all sorts of prostituting of the Christian religion. A number of notable orthodox theologians well-understand just how un-Christian America's origins were in this respect.
For instance, John MacArthur, one of the most distinguished, well respected biblical scholars of the "fundamentalist/evangelical" school, and like ithaqua, pulls no punches. However, he better understands America's political-theological problem. Here he is on Romans 13 and the War for America's Independence<:
America's Declaration of Independence, though theistic, is not at all a Christian document and doesn't even purport to be.
Perhaps not, but that the statement cited upthread (later removed once it was recognized not to have been a part of the actual negotiated treaty wording) was unanimously assented to by the Senate during its ratification of the treaty rebukes ithaqua's ignorance of American history in the loudest terms I can think of. To assert the country was founded as a Christian country is simply to lie.
Those are the facts.
There is an enormous difference between a country of mostly Christians and a Christian country. That ithaqua and his/her ilk don't grasp this is as large a threat to our country's future as I can imagine. Such ignorance in the hands of those skilled in the manipulation of the ignorant is the ignorance that leads to tyranny.
It's tough but fair.
Carl Henderson calls ithaqua a fake. There's a lot of effort on the line. Is it true?
Dave N, Bpuharic is using a term coined by someone other than himself. Glad you caught him for plagiarizing a word! He didn't use the word "Christian" because he meant something different. Gracious sakes, he's not just a plagiarist, but a word-discriminator!
The Al Qaida Daily, where the motto remains: All Government According to Deity.
What's really the difference between ithaqua, the strictest Wahabi Sunni Muslim, and anyone in the Settler Movement? All believe in extremist Conservative government according to deity.
The difference is that Wahabi's and Settlers really believe something, for better or worse, while ithaqua is most likely a troll yanking your chain.
My criticism of the word "Christianist" has less to do with its origin than its deliberate offensiveness--thus my comparison with the use of the term "Democrat Party."
There's been quite a bit of stink about it, since they haven't been limiting themselves to atheists in their fervent desire to insure the USAF's next generation of officers are born-again believing Christians, and not -- say -- Jews.
IIRC, the Academy's chaplain office was part of the problem.
The_Doge, whoever that gentleman might be, misunderstands or misrepresents the meaning of "Christian nation". The Founders (who, yes, were Christians, believing in one God and His Son, no matter how much liberal revisionists want to quote-mine them) had always before their eyes the great and terrible example of post-Reformation Europe, with its constant religious warfare, its oppression of believers whose beliefs were repugnant to their governments (many of which believers, fleeing oppression, became Americans) its doctrine of 'as goes the king, so goes the nation' and so on. They realized that the best way - indeed, the only way - to protect the rights of Christians to worship Christ in peace was to set up a government by the people, for the people, accountable to the people, one wherein the government of each state reflected the heartfelt religious beliefs of that state (states could even set up state religions!) but that no individual could be compelled to worship the religion of the state and could, if he wished, move to a community where his religious beliefs, and not some other groups', were laws. And so they created, *partially* from secular sources, while remembering always what Europe had forgotten, that all men were endowed by their creator with certain inalienable rights, the first government in history where Christians were truly free to worship Christ as they pleased. For example: the government 'elected by the governed' has its roots in early Christian church government, which in its turn looks back to the old Greek democracies, but the source isn't really the point: the Founders arranged for citizens to choose their government to protect them from religious discrimination, so that they could elect from among themselves a government that shared their view on Christ and His worship, one that had the power to punish amoral behavior but not religious belief. That's what a 'Christian nation' is, not some Biblical analogue of Iran.
Carl Henderson: Isn't that Santa Claus?
"What's really the difference between ithaqua, the strictest Wahabi Sunni Muslim, and anyone in the Settler Movement? All believe in extremist Conservative government according to deity."
To answer your question with another question: what's really the difference between a US Marine, a drunk driver, and Ted Bundy? All of them kill people, after all :P
"America's Declaration of Independence, though theistic, is not at all a Christian document and doesn't even purport to be."
Rubbish. It was written by Christians and ratified by Christians for the government of a Christian nation. Original intent matters; for example, the 'no establishment of religion' clause originally required Congress only to remain neutral with regard to the promotion of different Christian sects.
"Unit cohesiveness is all important. Sometimes the individual has to learn to keep his stupid mouth shut and not draw attention to himself."
DADT for atheists. Again, I'd be in favor of that :) Atheists in general need to learn to either respect the beliefs of others or accept the consequences for their attacks on others' beliefs. If they can't learn to do that, and can't accept that the US Army is composed mainly of Christians who don't want to put up with their blasphemy, they need to find a career where getting along with their fellow workers doesn't matter. Maybe they could be anchorites.
I have been in combat. When it came time for the Chaplain to lead a prayer, about 10% of the unit left. I know that many, myself included, were atheists.
So, Ithaqua, you are dead wrong on that.
But then, unlike you, I have only first hand information to go on.
Later, when I was a commander, I refused to allow posting any notices of atheist meetings in any space subject to my command.
The same with Bible meetings. And Wiccans, Muslims, et al.
The rules required me to permit all if I permitted any.
But the rules didn't require me to permit any.
I never hid my atheism. The dog tags issued to me at the Duke University NROTC unit said, "Religion: Agnostic" [it was an easier position to defend in arguments]. I served honorably, having been awarded two Bronze Star Medals with Combat "V". The clearest account of my service is given by a devoutly Christian sailor who served under me there. The third message down at http://www.ussmortondd948.org/Message_Board.html and in his account of one of our battles at: http://www.riverinesailor.com/McIver.htm.
My own accounts of my experiences in leadership roles are contained in: http://journals.aol.com/corwinabell/SeaStory/ One of the comments on that site is by the most devoutly christian officer that I have ever known, judging by his failed attempts that continue to this date to convert me to his medieval beliefs in an imaginary friend in the sky.
He wrote regarding my rescue, against orders, of 70 Vietnamese when I was captain of a destroyer: "Once again, our beloved skipper, CDR Al Bell, has taken the lead by initiating a well-written website containing a most miraculous story of human kindness in the wake of devastating war. As his Chief Engineer (prior to deployment), I never knew a time when he wasn't a CLINIC on how to lead; he was the consummate compassionate leader! I consider myself fortunate, indeed, to have had the privilege of serving this great country of ours under his command. Bill Sperberg."
I deeply resent those people who denigrate the service to our country of atheists. I love my country, which protects me against both Christian and Moslem mullahs.
Maybe the facts aren't what the NYT reported. It's certainly fair to argue that there are facts that change the question about how to deal with this specific situation.
But it's not worth arguing with anyone so batty that he thinks that atheists shouldn't serve in the military. Yeah, I know, I made the mistake earlier in this comment thread. That was my mistake. Sorry.
Jesus H. Christ on a crutch! (A commonplace expression of disbelief when I was in the Marine Corps.)
One possible choice would be dominionist which I believe is mostly synonymous with christionist. I myself would have preferred the latter as it is clearer in meaning to someone who just encountered the word. But, as this discussion illustrates people may just interpret it as a sneer like "democrat party" so that may not hold IRL.
I don't know the facts of this case, but the idea that a Major might be a dolt won't shock too many veterans, even former members of the officer corps.
Complaints like this are either a scam to get reconsideration, or a personal excuse, or true.
It would be silly to ignore the first and second.
http://www.myspace.com/freddywelborn
Yikes.
Yes, and about the time that that fact came out and his brother started asking questions, the RW noise-machine went from praising Pat Tillman to slandering him.
Ithaqua may be a troll but there are those who really do believe that the only way to love America is in exactly the same way that they (supposedly) do.
He clearly doesn't understand the purpose behind the separation of church and state too. I won't hold it against Christianity in general though because I don't think it's a "Christian problem" but just a scum bag bigot problem.
The following week I was no longer the cadet commander.
Since then, I've seen Jews, atheists, and Catholics take substantial abuse in military contexts by military officers who weren't thinking about their obligation as officers of the United States Army, which include an oath both to uphold the Constitution and to obey the orders of their superiors; this behavior does neither.
I've also seen officers threatened with "conduct unbecoming" for violating of these orders to keep their religious practices to themselves.
Ithaqua, I recommend moving to a country which has an established religion.
I think it's time you give up the flame. You are now 180 degrees from where you started. First it was anyone [Jefferson] who takes a razor blade to the Bible is unfit to be president. And now it's that the Declaration of Independence was written, not with a deity in mind, but with the Christian trinity in mind....Well I don't know what your revisionist's compendium on all subjects says about the Declaration of Independence, but last I checked it was written by the same man who you said was unfit to be president because he took a razor blade to the bible...So let's get this straight:Jefferson was unfit to be president because he was not a Christian, but Jefferson did write the Declaration as a Christian?
Further, the committee that reviewed it was made up of a majority of non-Christians: Jefferson, Adams, and Franklin--all of which argued against the Trinity; though I am not sure of the views of Livingston and Sherman on religion. So at best it was 3-2...hardly helps the argument that the Declaration was a Christian document.
And those old Greek democracies were of course pagan, so I guess we shouldn't look too closely at your argument.
Occasionally I like to ride my bike through Arlington cemetary and read random tombstones of those who have died but served our country well. They were all buried with full honors. Some of those tombstones have crosses on them to reflect that they were Christian. Some have the star of David. Some have the symbol of Buddhism. Some have the atom which represents atheism.
That fact alone should show the wrongness of your arguments.
Democrat party is substituting for an obvious term, Democratic party. So it's clearly just a poke in the eye. Though as long as we're winning, it's a poke in the eye that doesn't bother me a bit.
Christianist is intended to be distinct from Christian and was used that way upthread.
Really?
I think "Dominionist" is good because it is so close to the word "domination" and thats what Dominionists are after - to dominate both non-Christians and Christians who differ from them (don't think for a second that they would hesitate to persecute Catholics, Eastern Orthodox, or others).
The Treaty of Tripoli really proves that our country was founded upon Christian principles because a few of the people who voted for it were Christian. The Treaty established peace, and since Jesus preached for peace, the Treaty is supporting his teachings. Futhermore, only God can truly create peace between nations, not men, and therefore any peace that exists would naturally be the result of God's intervention, something that our Christian founders surely understood. Although they may have written the words that deny the obvious, they only did so to fool the Devil, otherwise known as Satan. Otherwise, Satan would surely have brought his full anger down upon such an upstart and strong defender of the Bible.
Therefore, the Treaty of Tripoli establishes clearly and without further argument that we are a Christian nation.
That's nonsense.
Randy,
I'm going to do you one better and say that "government elected by the governed" was simply NOT invented by the Greeks much less the Early Christian churches.
Leaders chosen by popular consent is pretty much a standard feature for many nomadic or "barbarian" peoples who live in relatively small (a few thousand tops) kin groups. They are NOT "democracies" but they do operate on the theory that the final authority is the consent of the group and that no one is obliged to follow someone purely on account of birthright or other non-popularly-bestowed authority.
For example, Germanic tribes did not adopt real Hereditary Kingship until they started moving into the Roman empire and adopting Roman political structures. Even then it took a long struggle before the leading families were able to cement their authority on a hereditary, as opposed to popular, basis. Before then, kingship was a largely ritual office which was determined by popular choice out of a pool of all adult men of royal descent. Warleaders, who tended to be the real leaders, were chosen by popular consent without any hereditary requirement at all.
In fact, much of our own vision of democracy is rooted in English customs and common law which itself owes more to the Germanic tribal customs of the Anglo-Saxons than it does to the Athenian political system.
You've been sold a bill of goods. Jefferson, Franklin, and J. Adams wrote the Declaration, with Jefferson as its author. They rejected original sin, the trinity, incarnation, atonement, eternal damnation, infallibility of the Bible. You can do this and still be a "Christian"?
Further the Bible says nothing about men being endowed with unalienable rights and having the right to revolt against governments that don't secure such; rather Romans 13 intimates the opposite.
That's not what the Constitution says. It uses the term "religion" not "Christianity." You are reading things into the Constitution that aren't there.
Discrimination on the basis of religion is held to about the same standard as discrimination on the basis of race, correct?
One could make a very strong argument that an NCO might not be able to lead soldiers because of racial issues. There is actual social discrimination and bigotry. It's regrettable, but, hey, it's real, and it could lead to bad results on the battlefield. So the military should be able to discriminate on the basis of race, right?
But if courts accept these arguments, then where are we?
So, of course it shouldn't. Indeed, the military is uniquely suited, among our nation's institutions, to root out racial bigotry.
Now, how is religion different?
Frederick the Great
He described Christianity as “an old metaphysical fiction, stuffed with miracles, contradictions and absurdities, which was spawned in the fevered imaginations of the Orientals and then spread to our Europe, where some fanatics espoused it, some intriguers pretended to be convinced by it and some imbeciles actually believed it.”