Ed Brayton is a freelance writer and speaker. He is the co-founder and president of 
No, not by radical Muslims but by our own military. This email was forwarded to me from a soldier in Iraq whose friend is being harassed at another base for organizing a meeting of atheists on the base. The email was originally sent to Kathleen Johnson, the military director for American Atheists, who is currently serving in Iraq herself. The full email is below the fold:
Kathleen Johnson:Thought you'd be interested in this report of the first-ever meeting of Atheist service-members in Iraq under the umbrella of the MAAF-Iraq chapter of the Military Association of Atheists and Freethinkers. This meeting was put together by the same young MAAF member who recently had his second letter published in the Stars and Stripes.
One of our members, a young Atheist enlisted soldier, thought he would like to see if he could generate some interest in MAAF meetings at his Forward Operating Base (FOB) here in Iraq (not the base I'm at, by the way). He got things coordinated and started hanging flyers, and after weeks of having to re-hang his flyers almost daily because some vandal kept tearing them down, he finally succeeded in having a small MAAF meeting. I wasn't there because the meeting wasn't on my FOB, but I knew he was holding it and was expecting to hear from him after the meeting. Keep in mind that this young soldier did everything right - he went through the Chaplain's office and jumped through all the hoops it takes to legally hold meetings that are religiously or philosophically based. Four soldiers attended this meeting - all of them very junior enlisted soldiers with the exception of one Major (an O-4), who claimed to be a "freethinker".
Well, to make a very long story a little shorter, the Major turned out to be a fundamentalist Christian who verbally berated the other attendees, accused them of plotting against Christians and disrespecting soldiers who have died protecting the Constitution, and threatened them with punishment under the UCMJ for their activities (said they were "going down") and said he would do whatever it took to shut the meetings down. Keep in mind that by this point, he had two of the attendees (one soldier fled when the shouting started) standing at the position of attention so that he could yell at them, berate them, and humiliate them. This apparently went on for several minutes at which time the Major shut down the meeting by saying he wasn't some "push-over Chaplain" and that he would not tolerate the meetings to continue.
The young MAAF member who hosted the meeting is absolutely freaked out about what happened, but he said he's going to continue with the meetings and isn't going to be bullied by the prayer warriors. I've advised him to immediately notify the Chaplain sponsor of what happened to get guidance while I try to figure out what to do next. I should hear something back from him tonight sometime and there's even a small possibility I might be able to score a mission to his FOB and attend one of his meetings in the next few weeks (if I do, I'll meet with the Chaplain in person).
As for immediate action, he's going to get me the names of his Chaplain sponsor and the name of the officer who disrupted the meeting. My intent right now is to make a formal report to the most senior Chaplain I can find along with possibly an Equal Opportunity complaint against the officer if we can get him fully identified. I may not be eligible to make that complaint because I wasn't there, but I can at least smooth the way for this young troop to make one if he elects to. At the very least, I can make the EO office formally aware of what happened there.
More info will follow when I get it, but right now, feel free to disseminate this information since I've intentionally sanitized it for names and locations. I will be happy to forward any words of support to him if they get mailed to my (redacted email) address - he could really use some encouragement right now, I think.
I've forwarded it along with the contact information for this soldier to Mikey Weinstein and the Military Religious Freedom Foundation. They may have already been aware of it; if not, they are now. He'll raise an appropriate stink about it, I'm sure.
Comments
I love that atheists have to go to government chaplains to get permission to meet. God bless America, right?
Posted by: Chuck | August 7, 2007 9:48 AM
I don't know anything about the UCMJ, but is there any way to charge this major, assuming he can be identified, with disrupting the meeting? My uninformed opinion is that he should be immediately given a dishonorable discharge and booted out. His authority was given him to be used in a military capacity, not to proselytize for his beliefs. If anybody "goes down" for this, it ought to be this guy. He is an embarrassment to the military.
Posted by: sbh | August 7, 2007 9:54 AM
What would be the best way to send an email or letter of encouragement to this young soldier as the contact information was redacted? I for one would like to send him a message of support.
Posted by: John P. DuLong | August 7, 2007 10:18 AM
What would be the best way to send an email or letter of encouragement to this young soldier as the contact information was redacted? I for one would like to send him a message of support.
Posted by: John P. DuLong | August 7, 2007 10:19 AM
Sickening. I second John DeLong's sentiment. I can understand if they do not wish to publish his information, I'm sure he'd get a ton of hate mail if his name became public.
Posted by: Bourgeois_Rage | August 7, 2007 10:25 AM
If this sort of thing is common, it might one day be true that there are "no atheists in fox-holes" -- not for fear of getting killed by enemy action, but for fear of harrassment by their own side.
Posted by: Eamon Knight | August 7, 2007 10:34 AM
And the joke is christians claim THEY are are the ones being persecuted.
Posted by: RAM | August 7, 2007 11:18 AM
And of course, now we truly see how the love of Jesus makes them better people.
Posted by: Shawn Smith | August 7, 2007 11:42 AM
Anyone looking for contact information, and the info on the pertinent UCMJ sections, see the discussion at:
http://www.iidb.org/vbb/showthread.php?t=216171
Cheers.
Posted by: Fastlane | August 7, 2007 11:50 AM
And we'll know they are Christians by their love!
Posted by: twincats | August 7, 2007 12:07 PM
Chuck:
You should not comment on what you don't know. The duties of an Army chaplain are spelled out in Army Regulations. If he or she doesn't follow those regs, they are subject to disciplinary procedures.
Whatever religious affiliation a chaplain may have, his (or her) responsibility is to see to the morale, and ethical and/or spiritual an/or religious needs, of any and all the soldiers in the unit, on a non-denominational basis. The vast majority of chaplains perform their duties very well.
In seeing to the atheists in his or her unit, what was done here - setting up a meeting space for them and arranging for publicity for the meeting - seems to me to be quite reasonable.
It would have been better had the chaplain involved inquired if the meeting leader had the training or background to do what he proposed. It seems likely that wasn't done here, because the leader let the meeting get out of control.
----------------------------------------------------------
sbh asks:
I'm wondering if the publicity for the meeting made it clear that it was being conducted under the authority of the unit Chaplain?
If so - and if the other facts are as stated - I would say the officer who disrupted the meeting would be subject to some sort of administrative action.
Posted by: Poly | August 7, 2007 12:23 PM
Um, Chuck was commenting on the irony of the situation. Chuck obviously KNOWS irony when he sees it, and can comment on it all he likes. It IS ironic that athiests have to get permission from a chaplain to have a meeting. The source of that requirement and/or how well chaplains perform their duties doesn't change that.
Posted by: empirecookie | August 7, 2007 12:59 PM
Am I the only one into whose head popped the image of Major Frank Burns?
Posted by: Bill Poser | August 7, 2007 1:27 PM
Posted by: Rieux | August 7, 2007 1:42 PM
As an atheist, I dislike AA: they are often very much the exact stereotype of the arrogant, extremist atheist: they purport to define what atheism is as a credo, rather than simply as the lack of god belief, they are explicitly anti-religious, and worse, they assume that all atheists are simply by fact of not believing in god.
And, even more unfortunately, Ellen Johnson seems ignorant even of atheism in general: I've had correspondence with her in which she basically admitted that she had never heard of the distinction between weak and strong atheism, and she basically assumed that you either believe in god, or you believe there is no god: a binary that is not logical, and laughably misinformed to boot.
In short, there are a lot better organizations out there for non-believers in general.
Posted by: plunge | August 7, 2007 1:45 PM
Poly wrote:
According to the story, the officer seems to have been aware that the meeting had Chaplain approval. Whoever reported what went on at the meeting stated
The Major seems to think that the chaplain wasn't doing his REAL job (promoting faith in God), and this lack of attention to primary duty means someone has to take over. Uh oh.
Posted by: Sastra | August 7, 2007 2:15 PM
...because the leader let the meeting get out of control.
Poly, I don't understand this judgment. The meeting leader was an enlisted man. The disrupter was a Major. What would you expect the meeting leader to be able to do in such a situation?
Posted by: T. Bruce McNeely | August 7, 2007 2:29 PM
"It would have been better had the chaplain involved inquired if the meeting leader had the training or background to do what he proposed. It seems likely that wasn't done here, because the leader let the meeting get out of control."
I don't get this point. The meeting got "out of control" because a superior officer pulled rank. What was the meeting leader supposed to do?
Posted by: Ginger Yellow | August 7, 2007 2:33 PM
I've had correspondence with her in which she basically admitted that she had never heard of the distinction between weak and strong atheism, and she basically assumed that you either believe in god, or you believe there is no god: a binary that is not logical, and laughably misinformed to boot.
just for the record: i hereby reserve the right to believe what i want to believe about the non-existence of god, regardless of where my beliefs fall in the approved framework of "weak and strong atheism". feel free to laugh at me if you like.
Posted by: cleek | August 7, 2007 2:50 PM
Cleek, of course you're allowed to believe whatever you believe, but strong and weak atheism exist whether they're "approved" or not. It's like insisting that your shirt is "blue" when in fact it's turquoise. One may choose to be less precise or more. ;-)
Like everyone else, I'm baffled by this:
Exactly what training and background does it require for an atheist to get some other atheists together and talk about atheism, and why should a military chaplain be considered an appropriate authority for judging such?
Posted by: Gretchen | August 7, 2007 3:17 PM
I agree with plunge. I've never cared for American Atheists as an organization, especially when they were headed by the vile Madilyn Murray O'Hair and her virtually braindead son Jon. But that has nothing to do with this story. The person who sent the email sent it to someone from AA so that is entirely incidental to the issue at hand.
Posted by: Ed Brayton | August 7, 2007 3:30 PM
"I've had correspondence with her in which she basically admitted that she had never heard of the distinction between weak and strong atheism, and she basically assumed that you either believe in god, or you believe there is no god: a binary that is not logical, and laughably misinformed to boot."
Who said???
By what standard???
I simply do not believe in god, so by definition, I am an Atheist. I happen to proscribe to the philosophy of Secular Humanism, which actually has little to do with Atheism. All the other "weak and/or strong" crapola you postulate is a label to shoehorn people into your definitions.
Posted by: RAM | August 7, 2007 3:30 PM
I'd disagree with sbh's position slightly. Don't discharge the Major Idiot; do give him a formal reprimand, bust him a rank or two (since he abused its authority), then transfer him to the highest risk front line duty slot he can be stuffed into, and kept there until Iraq starts to clear up more. Religious fanaticism is useful in foot soldiers for a war; he'll be more useful to the US over there providing another target for (and perhaps shooting back at) the Islamic fanatics than he will coming back over here to the relative safety of the US.
Posted by: abb3w | August 7, 2007 3:50 PM
Does anyone think that there is a connection between this and what happened to Pat Tillman?
From http://www.truthdig.com/report/page2/20060728_worm_dirt/
But in the meantime, a recent ESPN.com exposé by Mike Fish aired an interview with Kauzlarich, who was the "cross commander" of the Rangers in Khoust, Afghanistan, in April 2004. Kauzlarich, in a stunning display of Christian empathy, blamed the family for continuing to ask questions about the circumstances of Pat's death, and suggested that the reason they'd found no closure was that infidels such as themselves (the Tillmans did not belong to a church), when they die, are only "worm dirt."
"But there [have] been numerous unfortunate cases of fratricide," Kauzlarich told ESPN, "and the parents have basically said, 'OK, it was an unfortunate accident.' And they let it go. So this is--I don't know, these people have a hard time letting it go. It may be because of their religious beliefs."
"So for their son to die for nothing, and now he is no more," continued Kauzlarich, "that is pretty hard to get your head around that. So I don't know how an atheist thinks....
That investigation determined two things: (1) The fellow Rangers who shot Tillman (and an Afghan that the military has never credited with a human being's name) violated their own rules of engagement and were possibly criminally negligent and (2) that the order that led to splitting the platoon--one vigorously and rightly opposed by the platoon leader on the ground--was responsible for setting up the communications breakdown that resulted in the incident.
Pat himself, after seeing the Iraq war firsthand and declaring it to be "so fucking illegal,"
Any comment?
Posted by: Karl | August 7, 2007 4:00 PM
Thank you, empirecookie. I figured most people would tell I was commenting on the sheer stupidity of the situation, but of course a tone of irony isn't always easily conveyed in a comment.
Posted by: Chuck | August 7, 2007 4:26 PM
Your tone was quite evident. Judging by responses you are batting six out of seven. Me thinks the problem is with the reading comprehension of number seven.
Now to find a senior chaplain who takes seriously the responsibility to cater to the needs of all their flock and not just those of spiritual faith. My personal experience says this is going to be a long shot. Second hand information says they exist, but I went 0 for 3 in firsthand encounters.
Posted by: Sean | August 7, 2007 6:53 PM
Ed: "But that has nothing to do with this story. The person who sent the email sent it to someone from AA so that is entirely incidental to the issue at hand."
Hey, you reserve the right to post about basketball and poker, and I reserve the right to be a little discursive and bitchy about side subjects. :)
RAM: "Who said??? By what standard??? I simply do not believe in god, so by definition, I am an Atheist. I happen to proscribe to the philosophy of Secular Humanism, which actually has little to do with Atheism. All the other "weak and/or strong" crapola you postulate is a label to shoehorn people into your definitions."
That's your opinion, certainly, but I would hope that someone who sets themselves up as president of all atheists would at least have HEARD of the distinction and maybe even understand it and why so many atheists make it.
Posted by: plunge | August 7, 2007 7:43 PM
Don't be silly. Ellen Johnson is not president of all atheists.
Margaret Downey is president of all atheists. ;)
Posted by: Sastra | August 7, 2007 8:35 PM
If these soldiers are going attacked for the sin of free inquiry, may I suggest fighting fire with fire. The enviroment in Iraq would seem ideal for a revival of the cult of Mithras, or perhaps Odin, many is the time I have heartened myself calling Oden and Thor when thowing myself into battle. Or most sublime of all, seek the mysteries of the lost faith, Norse Brahminism.
Posted by: The Pale Scott | August 8, 2007 1:29 AM
I wonder what would have happened if an equal or higher ranking officer would have been present? Or even worse, what if the higher ranking officer showed up a little late to the meeting and entered in on all the fussing and carrying on? Sounds like a small script for a military-based comedy sitcom.
It sucks for those enlisted men. I hope discipline comes to the Major involved.
Posted by: Shawn Wilkinson | August 8, 2007 6:48 AM
"no atheists in fox-holes"
I think this says a great deal about the undesirability of foxholes.
Posted by: Graculus | August 8, 2007 3:00 PM
I don't believe in God. I am Buddhist. Am I a weak or strong atheist?
Posted by: Onera | August 9, 2007 12:56 AM
Its to be expected that Atheists are treated badly.
The older George Bush is quoted as saying "No, I don't know that atheists should be considered as citizens, nor should they be considered patriots. This is one nation under God."
The younger George Bush reported to be driven by god.
The BBC reported:
Nabil Shaath says: "President Bush said to all of us: 'I'm driven with a mission from God. God would tell me, "George, go and fight those terrorists in Afghanistan." And I did, and then God would tell me, "George, go and end the tyranny in Iraq ..." And I did. And now, again, I feel God's words coming to me, "Go get the Palestinians their state and get the Israelis their security, and get peace in the Middle East." And by God I'm gonna do it.'"
Posted by: Mike Thomas | August 9, 2007 1:09 AM
whatever happened to God not being involved in politics?
Posted by: Dude | August 9, 2007 1:12 AM
A chaplain major has no authority to scream at anyone. He is not a line officer. They have no UCMJ authority to punish anyone. You have to be curtious to the rank they wear but unless they are your direct supervisor (i.e. you work in the chapel) they can't tell you to do anything. Even if he was a line officer he would have been way out of line, chances are likely that if he tried to formally do anything that he would be the one getting in trouble.
Posted by: Randy | August 9, 2007 1:13 AM
Good luck to the poor military atheists. Christian fundamentalism in the highest ranks of the US military is well documented (google "General Jerry Boykin," for instance).
Posted by: Mona Bee | August 9, 2007 1:14 AM
Weak atheist here
"I do not believe God exists" and "I believe God doesn't exist" are two fundamentally different statements. If you don't understand the difference, you will not understand the difference between strong and weak atheism. Perhaps a philosophy course or two are in order for those who don't.
Posted by: warpus | August 9, 2007 1:20 AM
Weak-minded people and authority is a dangerous combination, although it's often the case.
Posted by: fred | August 9, 2007 1:26 AM
One of the many problems with the military is that there is freedom of religion but only if that religion is some variation of christianity. It's simply unjust the way other thoughts on what happens when we die are looked upon. I mean how fair is it that before certain MANDATORY formations we are asked to bow our heads for a prayer? They say these prayers are non-denominational but that is only true if you say non-denominational-christian. It is undeniable when words like 'father' and 'lord' are used to describe the god in question. Can you imagine if these "preformation prayers" or this meeting was for a satanic sect? There would be riots. All I prupose is to leave the religion completely out of mandatory military functions. Do that on your own personal time with whoever you want as long as I'm not legally mandated to listen to it as well. Freedom of religion in the military is a big joke!
Posted by: Matt | August 9, 2007 1:29 AM
I am an atheist and i think that this is so bad i am a strong atheist wich means that i have a thing agianst religion. It only causes problems and hate and i think that "belivers" are weak minded and i dont know why modern society cant see that. This man seemed to be a weak atheist and by weak I mean not as agressive so to speak all he was trying to do was make people think on an open scale he did not do anything wrong he was just haveing a meeting about his belifs just like the christians have sunday worship, nothing will happen to this man and if i does then we will see how big a grip religion has on this nation.
Posted by: kyle | August 9, 2007 2:26 AM
Warpus is quite right in his distinction. I myself am an Athiest, but I refuse to define myself as weak or strong. I do not believe there is a god because I do not need "god" to tell me to do good deeds and I would sure never commit evil deeds in the name of a god. I firmly believe that I am responsible for my actions and their reprocussions, not some corpreal being up in the sky nor even the very idea of one. With that said, I firmly respect the beliefs of others and will defend their right to believe in them, even if that belief is that all athiests are godless sinners.
Posted by: Pinhedd | August 9, 2007 2:44 AM
The problem with this article is that it is hearsay. Nothing more and nothing less. We don't know what really happened because we didn't hear the two sides; instead we heard from a third party who wasn't even there. Young enlisted soldiers can easily misinterpret their own stories and have a habit of gearing them into their favor. Don't get me wrong, older soldiers can do it to; however it isn't as common.
The problem really lies within the media and how it has misrepresented this data ("Atheist Mistreatment in Iraq"). They put some spin on the situation to create a stir, when they in fact don't even know the real story. Before we start calling it "mistreatment" how about we get the facts first and then title it appropriately. When the EO report is final, it will be thorough and those that were in the wrong will be corrected. Then and only should it make the waves of news articles, and by that time my guess is that it wouldn't even be newsworthy.
I don't feel a Major in the U.S. Army should be dishonorably discharged over that, nor should a junior soldier. In any case whoever's at fault, may just simply need some sensitivity and awareness training. Again, NONE OF US REALLY KNOW WHAT HAPPENED during that meeting.
Based on the hearsay given, my assumption would be something that is relatively common in the military and that's the line of professional vs. personal being crossed. The junior soldier(s) probably got "too" comfortable and crossed the line and disrespected the Major in some way and he quickly took control of the situation. Maybe his statements were accurate and in that he was trying to educate them about being respectful of other religions. After all regardless of your religious beliefs aren't you supposed to respect others; especially if you expect them to respect yours? Maybe what they were discussing was offensive and disrespectful to his religion or others for that matter. His job as a Chaplain includes education and awareness, and if they got into heated debate which probably turned into an argument and that you do not do with seniors as that is disrespect. In the end he quickly took control of the situation and "canned" it. Just because they were having a religious geared meeting does not give them the liberty to disrespect a senior, a commissioned officer at that.
I'm not taking anything away from being a civilian but it is easy for a civilian to misinterpret things that happen in the military because they don't know the rules and regulations of the military, hell I don't even know them all. We sign up for "knowing" that we are to follow the rules and adhere to the regulations. It's not easy, nor do we always agree with them, but we do have to obey; for a military will not function without discipline and structure. The rules vary from slight to great difference from the civilian sector. It's just the way it is.
I'm a former Sergeant First Class (E-7 Enlisted) and now I'm a Lieutenant (O-1 Officer). Does this really matter? Yes and no. Many of you won't care and many will not know what the either of the two are. I have walked both sides of the fence, one as enlisted and the other as an officer. They both are two entirely different worlds and they are that way for a reason. My point is that I can see the enlisted soldier's side and I can see the officer's side, but having served 12 years I have become seasoned to the things that happen in the military and how easily things can get misinterpreted. I've had my share ass chewing's and I have given my share as well. When I was a young junior enlisted soldier and I got chewed I used to think of how I could get the "jerk" into trouble because I was mad that I got my ass chewed, now as a former senior enlisted soldier and a junior officer when I get my ass chewed I reflect and learn from it, as I'm sure there was a message in there that I obviously didn't get during the heat of the moment. Most of the time I get the message after I have replayed the whole scenario in my head and used rational thought. "Oh I see what he "really" meant, why I didn't catch that the first time as I could have saved myself and ass chewing. The truth is a young soldier, many of them do not rationalize, and instead they act out of haste and a lack of self regulation, leaving them vulnerable to easily disrespect a senior.
The bottom line is you have to get the Majors story and the soldier's story and then dissect it, analyze them both and then make a decision. You cannot go off of what a third party presents as it is only hearsay.
On one last note and in regards to having to get the Chaplains permission in the first place, I must first state that I do not know the regulation that would cover this although with some inquiring I could find out. In any case an educated-military guess would be that on a military reservation one must get permission to organize or solicit. Being that this was religion related, it quite possibly could be the Chaplains responsibility to approve this meeting or a more common idea is that a leader in that soldiers chain of command did not know if this was permissible and sent him to the Chaplain for further guidance as it was religious related. I don't know just a guess.
And to the fellow ranting about "line officers" and this Major not having the right to hand out some ass chewins; my friend you have been sorely misled or aren't conveying your information correctly. In the U.S. Army a Major that is a Chaplain has the same commission as a Major that is in the Infantry, Ordnance, etc. He might not be a line officer but it does not take away from the general military authority that he has been granted to him by the President of the United States. A line officer can go from an Infantry unit to an Artillery unit, etc and give "operational" orders in combat. Keyword=Combat.
Just my two cents. It's late and I'm tired, but I hope I conveyed my point enough to give you a different perspective and a way of analyzing this situation.
Don't be so judgemental, ecspecially when you don't know all of the facts.
Goodnight!
~J Wagz
Posted by: J Wagz | August 9, 2007 2:46 AM
I don't care if god exists, or not.
I guess that makes me an ambivalent athiest.
Does the fact that I don't believe in god affect his belief in me?
This whole situation would not exist if a certain hereditary ruler (despot?) didn't use his religous influence to convince a country to wage an unnecessary war.
(i'm Canadian, so don't shoot me)
Posted by: dar7yl | August 9, 2007 2:56 AM
I served in SOCOM under Clinton and received pretty much the same treatment. Being a non Christian / Muslim in any part of the world will always get you in trouble if you insist on waring you faith on your sleeve. I highly suggest that this soldier grow a set and explain that this function is under chaplain preview. If the major would like to continue in the conversation he should calm himself and behave accordingly or that the host would have the MP's remove him. Also if it was under the chaplains preview he should have peen present.
And in c;losing if this happened on a FOB and he had enlisted ranks standing at attention in front of him he will soon be dead no you wont have to worry about that.
Posted by: swdragoon | August 9, 2007 3:05 AM
This story, if true, paints a terrible picture of Christians.
Not that it helps at all, but as a Christian I would like to apologise to all atheists affected on behalf of this Major. If there is a way for me to get in touch with the meeting organiser I would be happy to apologise and wish him well in writing, too.
Unfortunately, as with any religion, Christianity has its extremists. Just as with the Taliban and their interpretation on Islam, any extremist form of religion because very dangerous and unacceptable when the practioners are using their beliefs to abuse a position of power (Islam is another peace-loving religion at heart if you do read the Koran by the way.)
As a Christian, I believe in God as a three-fold deity, the Father, the Son and the Holy Spirit. Whilst I really want as many people as possible to know God's Love, I am of the school of thought that does not see any reason for coverting people by force. This is for the simple reason that you are only a true Christian in your heart, and as a true Christian the force of the Holy Spirit helps to guide you towards Love for your neighbour. That is the opposite of what this man was doing.
I've been an athiest, wiccan, buddhist and now am Christian. The above is not meant to offend anyone, I just thought it prudent to explain what a true Christian would believe and do according the the Bible in that situation.
I wish everyone here the best with all of their endeavours and please, if you do have any questions on Christianity of if certain behaviours would be deemed Christian I would be happy to help.
Take care,
Enola
Posted by: Enola | August 9, 2007 3:15 AM
Folks, Google Christian Embassy and see just how far up the chain of command goes the agenda of the Xtian Right. There's a Brig. Gen who describes members of CE as "the aroma of Christ". I can't get my head, much less my nose, around *that* .
Posted by: Xtian Borg Watcher | August 9, 2007 3:18 AM
This apparently went on for several minutes at which time the Major shut down the meeting by saying he wasn't some "push-over Chaplain" and that he would not tolerate the meetings to continue.
Don't be confused by this. The Major was not the Chaplain.
Posted by: DrClown | August 9, 2007 3:25 AM
To the serfs, religion is true.
To the intelligent, religion is false.
The the rulers, religion is useful.
Posted by: Plagerizer | August 9, 2007 3:27 AM
The argument for weak atheism is that some say strong atheism takes an illogical amount of faith. Like the old adage, "it takes just as much faith to not believe god exists as it does to believe god does exist."
But to me, weak atheism is pretty much agnosticism: "I don't know if gods exist or not, I have no idea" - or - "I believe the existence of gods is unknowable." Whereas weak atheists claim disbelief, like "I don't believe gods exist." The unspoken qualifier is, 'even if gods exist, I don't care, I choose not to believe in them.' meaning, like agnostics, they don't know if gods exist or not [at least, this is how i see it].
Strong atheists know God does not exist. First of all, the idea of an omnipotent, omniscient, omnipresent being is just absurd. The logical holes in the existence of such a being are myriad. How can a being that transcends all of space and time chose a place for time to begin? Such a being would have no need of a temporal reality. Can an all-powerful creator create a being more powerful that itself? If not it isn't all-powerful. So on and so forth, ad infinitum.
It doesn't take faith to know God does not exist. What is certain is that humanity is a conniving, selfish animal that will lie and manipulate the fears of others in order to further itself. What depraved depths only human creativity could contrive, the unsolvable puzzle that is a god. Gods are nothing but political inventions, as far back as the first society. If you see religion for what it is--an aeons-old doctrine designed to control people's actions--then the argument for the existence of God is moot; it is nothing but a man-made tool. Religion is like making a cat chase a laser-pointer: Making slightly dumber animals believe that something exists for you own benefit.
If you understand that gods were just primitives trying to make sense of the world, of unlucky and lucky. And belief in the possibility of abstract beings was a good survival mechanism in evolution; the primates that wandered the wilds // the ones that reacted to every sound as if there was something harmful there had a higher survival rate than more complacent wanderers.
They're all Sun-Worshipers anyway.
Posted by: james | August 9, 2007 3:59 AM
As a former *ist and current Christian you should be ahamed of your willingness to desecrate the memories of the dead, especially since it seems to be based on whatever the religion of the day is.
Posted by: bago | August 9, 2007 5:27 AM
Whatever happened to Don't Ask, Don't Tell to deal with situations like this?
Posted by: kehrsam | August 9, 2007 7:25 AM
what a shame! everybody should be allowed to express their religion even when they call themselves atheists, especially in the land of the free.
Posted by: charon | August 9, 2007 7:40 AM
"you either believe in god, or you believe there is no god: a binary that is not logical, and laughably misinformed to boot."
No, not laughable at all. One either 'believes' in (a) God or one does not. A binary/boolean. (Weak Atheist).
If, however, one wishes to take that belief one step further and state that one knows/can prove the non-existence of (a) God, you may claim to be a 'Strong Atheist'. But, by definition, one also qualifies as a 'weak atheist'.
Anyway. the major should go and practice some "Love your neighbor as yourself" stuff with Frank Burns.
Posted by: Another Atheist | August 9, 2007 8:39 AM
-The problem with this article is that it is hearsay.
You are correct this is hearsay, BUT as an officer, especially a prior SNCO, you should know that this requires further investigation by leadership.
- The problem really lies within the media and how it has misrepresented this data ("Atheist Mistreatment in Iraq"). They put some spin on the situation to create a stir, when they in fact don't even know the real story. Before we start calling it "mistreatment" how about we get the facts first and then title it appropriately. When the EO report is final, it will be thorough and those that were in the wrong will be corrected. Then and only should it make the waves of news articles, and by that time my guess is that it wouldn't even be newsworthy.
As an EO person myself (DEOMI class 96-2), whiel the meida may spin things, the issue is whether an officer violated DoD Directive 1350.2 (among others).
- I don't feel a Major in the U.S. Army should be dishonorably discharged over that, nor should a junior soldier. In any case whoever's at fault, may just simply need some sensitivity and awareness training. Again, NONE OF US REALLY KNOW WHAT HAPPENED during that meeting.
You are being pretty defensive here. As to whether a Major should be discharged over this...well we differ in opinion here. A Major (O-4) has been in long enough to know the rules and policies. He PURPOSEFULLY violated them according to this letter. If this turns to be the case, then sensitivity and awareness training will do nothing to change this person's viewpoint, but only force them "underground" and perhaps have good soldiers' careers harmed becuase a bigot is in their chain of command. I would give a junior CGO a break, but NOT a filed grader.
- Based on the hearsay given, my assumption would be something that is relatively common in the military and that's the line of professional vs. personal being crossed. The junior soldier(s) probably got "too" comfortable and crossed the line and disrespected the Major in some way and he quickly took control of the situation. Maybe his statements were accurate and in that he was trying to educate them about being respectful of other religions. After all regardless of your religious beliefs aren't you supposed to respect others; especially if you expect them to respect yours? Maybe what they were discussing was offensive and disrespectful to his religion or others for that matter. His job as a Chaplain includes education and awareness, and if they got into heated debate which probably turned into an argument and that you do not do with seniors as that is disrespect. In the end he quickly took control of the situation and "canned" it. Just because they were having a religious geared meeting does not give them the liberty to disrespect a senior, a commissioned officer at that.
The Major was NOT a chaplain per the hearsay given (he stated he was not a pushover chaplain...). The major should have approached the chaplains and complained NOT berated the soldiers. Apparently HE was the unprofessional one. Usually, chaplains do not attend the functions and meetings of groups like these, but can eb found nearby.
-I'm not taking anything away from being a civilian but it is easy for a civilian to misinterpret things that happen in the military because they don't know the rules and regulations of the military, hell I don't even know them all. We sign up for "knowing" that we are to follow the rules and adhere to the regulations. It's not easy, nor do we always agree with them, but we do have to obey; for a military will not function without discipline and structure. The rules vary from slight to great difference from the civilian sector. It's just the way it is.
You apparently have little clue yourself. I could have understood it from an Ell-Tee, but you aknowledged your prior time as a SNCO. I believe you may want to rethink your ideas on what you know. Based on your post, you appear to be more ignorant that a 22 year old newbie Lt.
- The bottom line is you have to get the Majors story and the soldier's story and then dissect it, analyze them both and then make a decision. You cannot go off of what a third party presents as it is only hearsay.
This is correct, but you also miss the TWO other soldiers present. Their statements will also need to be gathered. And perhaps, some of the major's coworkers and subordinates. Afterall, if he is as religious as appears in this hearsay, then he may have pushed it in other settings as well ("encouraged" his troops to attend the prayer breakfast, oor insists on invocations at staff meetings, etc).
- On one last note and in regards to having to get the Chaplains permission in the first place, I must first state that I do not know the regulation that would cover this although with some inquiring I could find out. In any case an educated-military guess would be that on a military reservation one must get permission to organize or solicit. Being that this was religion related, it quite possibly could be the Chaplains responsibility to approve this meeting or a more common idea is that a leader in that soldiers chain of command did not know if this was permissible and sent him to the Chaplain for further guidance as it was religious related. I don't know just a guess.
Again, as a former SFC, you should know this. Any religious or philisophical group wishing to meet on a base/post/military installation must be sponsored by the chapel if they wish to advertise the meeting. This is part of the chaplains' duties.
- And to the fellow ranting about "line officers" and this Major not having the right to hand out some ass chewins; my friend you have been sorely misled or aren't conveying your information correctly. In the U.S. Army a Major that is a Chaplain has the same commission as a Major that is in the Infantry, Ordnance, etc. He might not be a line officer but it does not take away from the general military authority that he has been granted to him by the President of the United States. A line officer can go from an Infantry unit to an Artillery unit, etc and give "operational" orders in combat. Keyword=Combat.
A chaplain can NEVER command. They are NOT the same type of commission. Hence the distinction between line and non-line. The PFC would be in command if the only higher ranking people were chaplains. Chaplains are advisors only, and they are allowed to remain in uniform as long as their endorsing agency (church, religious group) allows them to be. Name another officer who can have an outside agency pull them from the military? Agreed that if they see a violation of regs, they can address it. However, a chaplain who gives an ass-chewing will not be effective in their job for long as few would go see them for counselling.
-Don't be so judgemental, ecspecially when you don't know all of the facts.
Good advice, too bad you failed to follow it yourself.
And....allow me to give my military background: Active duty AF. Former AFSOC, currently Chief of Military Equal Opportunity. Crusty old NCO. Not an Atheist though!
Posted by: Gonzo | August 9, 2007 8:45 AM
There has been a change in the level of civility between different people in the last several years. In general, people in the United States do not know or care to know anyone outside of their family or close circle of friends.
For a very long time the people who mattered in the United States were white, Protestant males. Today there are many more people with opinions and beliefs which are divergent to the older sets of beliefs. Add to the mix age, sex, social status, race, ethnicity, sexual orientation, political affiliation, etc., and without respect for others and basic civilityand good manners, any meeting can become noisy and possibly violent!
Posted by: John Hoffman | August 9, 2007 9:52 AM
The majors' actions were inexcusable. He should be disciplined.
However, anyone that thinks we came into existence from nothing hasn't done much research on the subject. Anything that begins to exist has a cause. Scientists pretty much now agree that the universe had a beginning. Therefore the universe has a cause, which means something or someone caused it to begin.
Think about how a mousetrap works. If you put all the pieces of a mouse trap on a table, how long would it take them to "evolve" into a working mousetrap? Never! And yet if you believe we came from a fish, you think that the mousetrap would somehow build itself over millions of years. Who looks ridiculous now?
What happened to the first "animal" that got a cut and it's blood didn't clot because blood clotting hadn't been evolved yet? It died. The next? It died. No darwinism, just death.
I don't think anyone could argue against evolution, certainly things evolve over time. But did we come from monkeys? No, and there is no fossil evidence to prove it.
Ever heard of the Cambrian explosion? Look it up.
The more scientists discover about us and our universe, the more apparent it becomes that there was a plan.
I really believe that the only way you can not believe in some kind of creator, is to not have done any research on the subject.
I will leave you with one last thought. As long as the Bible has been in existence people have been trying to prove it wrong. They never have.
Don't sit there and tell me how wrong I am, do the research, I think you will be surprised.
Posted by: Christian Fundamentalist | August 9, 2007 10:53 AM
Ever heard of the Cambrian explosion? Look it up.
We did, and we notice that the period once laballed the "Cambrian explosion" actually covered tens of millions of years, if not more. Don't let old labels fool you -- it really was nowhere near as instantaneous as an "explosion."
The more scientists discover about us and our universe, the more apparent it becomes that there was a plan.
If it's that apparent, then why have there been no peer-reviewed papers, or any other actual scientific work, proving this?
I can see you're new to this "debate:" you're using the easiest talking-point, the assumption that we haven't done any study or research ourselves; and you seem oblivious to the fact that manyh of the people who read this blog -- and the other blogs to which Ed contributes -- actually HAVE done the research.
This is a blog, not a redneck bar -- verbal bullying doesn't work here.
Posted by: Raging Bee | August 9, 2007 11:05 AM
Well, what the hell, I haven't got anything better to do.
Wrong. Acausal events are a fundamental part of quantum mechanics.
Wrong. It's known that our corner of the Universe emerged from a hot, dense state some 13.7 billion years ago. Whether there was something before that remains an open question.
Mousetraps are made of wood and metal, typically. Those are largely inert materials; throw them together in a pot and they'll do little but rot and rust.
This is manifestly not true of many chemicals. Chemicals have a tendency to react. Your example is simply way off base.
That would be you, since you're arguing against a position no one actually takes. Who has ever argued that inanimate objects which don't breed ought to evolve?
No, you're assuming that the first animal with blood had a high-pressure circulatory system which required a sophisticated clotting process. That wouldn't be the case.
Ah. So what is Lucy, then?
Yes. Ever heard of pre-Cambrian fossils?
The problem is that you haven't really done research at all. What you've done is studied the arguments for one side in detail, and largely ignored the rest. Had you done your research properly, you wouldn't have raised the points you did, since you'd already be aware of the refutations.
Posted by: MartinM | August 9, 2007 11:18 AM
On a related note, when I was in Marine Boot Camp, Sunday was one of the few days you had to yourself without Drill Instructors breathing down your neck... but of course you had to go to church unless you wanted to explain to the very hard corps First Sargeant why you didn't need to spend your free Sunday morning praying to god. In case it is not apparent, I am an atheist.
And "Christian Fundamentalist"... has anyone proved the bible to be right either? I will admit that there probably was a Jesus and that a lot of the events referenced in the bible really happened to one degree or another but you must remember that it is a book created and passed along for centuries by men, with all of their failings, ignorances and motives. It's a flawed and opinionated history of the human world and its a shame that we all cant take more time to dig into the reality behind it and stop trying to find the magic in it.
Science is reproducable... religion is based on events that nobody can reproduce. I can run the experiment to convert water into hydrogen and oxygen, but I have never seen anyone walk across the water or part a sea.
I am sure that you will have faith-based responses to everything I have said here... that is the problem with these kinds of discussions, there is no common frame of reference. The entire nature of religion is based on faith and belief, whereas science is fact... they are mutually exclusive.
You believe what you want to believe and what you feel is the truth and there is no problem with that; however, when you start trying to force/impose your beliefs on others... that is wrong. I have never met an atheist who tried to impose their views on a religious person. Just mind your own business and agree to disagree. We dont all have to believe the same things... that used to be one of the nice things about living in the US but unfortunately that seems to be changing.
Posted by: Chris | August 9, 2007 11:30 AM
I've never heard of this whole strong/weak athiest thing before. Seems to be that a "Weak Athiest" is just another name for an Agnostic (http://www.webster.com/dictionary/agnostic).
Fundamentalists and fanatics of ANY religion are dangerous because by definition they prioritise their faith over everything else. A fundamentalist in a position of power s terrifying.
Posted by: Kerrisis | August 9, 2007 11:37 AM
Why are my comments bullying and yours aren't?? I am offering an opinion just like you are.
The proof of a creator is apparent in the beauty of the earth and the incredibly complex systems it is comprised of.
I believe, and you are welcome not to, that the scientists who can plainly see these things and yet deny them, are going to be held especially accountable one day.
I apologize for offending you, but luckily we live in America where we have freedom of religion. (as long as you aren't an atheist in the military apparently)
Posted by: Christian Again | August 9, 2007 11:40 AM
Article 98--Noncompliance with procedural rules of the UCMJ might have been violated, and if not then definitely "Conduct Unbecoming of an Officer."
Posted by: D | August 9, 2007 11:43 AM
Christian Again,
It is not relevant what the people who's rights have been violated believe in this case or any case.
What is relevant is the problem is that the fundamentals of being FREE to believe anything you want to, and to assembly without discrimination were violated and that the trust placed in superior commissioned officers to uphold the CONSTITUTION was entirely violated by this Major. For shame.
Posted by: D | August 9, 2007 11:47 AM
Christian Again,
It is not relevant what the people who's rights have been violated believe in this case or any case.
What is relevant is the problem is that the fundamentals of being FREE to believe anything you want to, and to assembly without discrimination were violated and that the trust placed in superior commissioned officers to uphold the CONSTITUTION was entirely violated by this Major. For shame.
Posted by: D | August 9, 2007 11:47 AM
To: J Wagz - I understand your argument that you need more facts to determine a final outcome, but we have at least one fact that I think says it all... a very religiously oriented Major chose to attend a gathering of athiests. Was he, in your world, perhaps considering a change of faith and was insulted somehow ??? More likely he was there to impose his religion on others, or at least punish the non-believers.
The simple fact that he was there should tell you what you need to know.
To those of you discussing the "Anything that begins to exist has a cause." argument, it's an old argument and has a very serious flaw. It's called a "first mover" argument.
If everything requires a cause, what was that first cause that started it all ? In your world, that first cause is of course, God. The question is then, what caused God to exist ? Hmm, an exception you say - God doesn't require a cause ? If so, then not everything requires a cause, and there's no argument for needing a first cause. The "God as first mover" argument is bunk.
Posted by: DMT | August 9, 2007 12:03 PM
Since UCMJ stands for Universal Code of Military Justice, there must be a procedure in the Army for redress in this issue.
In the USMC and the USN it was called "Request Mast"..."Mast" as in an audience with the Captain/colonel..etc..because it is every soldier or sailor's right to speak to, basically, every officer in their administrative chain of command, until the issue is resolved to the soldier or sailor's satisfaction. It is in this way an Officer (or higher enlisted person)can be held to account (in a situation like this).
Basically, he can go tell his Platoon Sergeant, then his Platoon Commander, then his Company Commander, until someone in the chain can address the problem. Unfortunately, this is a right rarely used.
Posted by: darius | August 9, 2007 12:05 PM
Are ya kidding me here? We're back to mousetraps and blood-clotting? You don't hear these lines, or the cambrian explosion either, dragged out of the creationist closet that much any more.
I recommend reading some of the more recent ID books to update the crap that you spew.
Posted by: doctorgoo | August 9, 2007 12:07 PM
One word for you: fucking.
Posted by: pough | August 9, 2007 12:43 PM
kyle wrote:
You win the award for the Atheist Rant That Looks Most Like a Fundamentalist Rant, full of misspellings and lacking all punctuation. Exactly the sort of thing I'm used to receiving from the bottom of the barrel morons on the other side, written as though it was scrawled on the side of a paper bag in crayon. Bravo.
Posted by: Ed Brayton | August 9, 2007 12:59 PM
J Wagz wrote:
I am operating on the assumption that the report is correct; I recognize that this is not a certainty. But given the widespread problems atheists have long faced in the military and the serious problem of aggressive proselytization in the military (and no, that's not hearsay it's well documented), it's not at all far fetched.
First of all, the media hasn't reported this story at all, only blogs have. Second, there is no "misrepresentation" of the facts of the case. If the facts are as alleged, it is certainly no misrepresentation to call it "atheist mistreatment." When the EO report is final, I'm willing to bet it will confirm the story; whether it does or doesn't, I'll happily report the results. I agree with you that it's not something that warrants discharge, but if the story is true it would certainly warrant a reprimand for the officer and some training on why he has no authority to impose his religious views on others.
Posted by: Ed Brayton | August 9, 2007 1:08 PM
Why are my comments bullying and yours aren't??
Because you're trying to shut down debate by pretending to have some sort of superior authority -- i.e., implying we're ignorant and haven't done any research.
I am offering an opinion just like you are.
No, you're making statements of material fact that are just plain wrong.<