Learn it! Speak it! Live it!
Special Student Discount for WORLD!
Bart Stupak's amendment barring federal funding for abortions did pass but could be removed from the final bill.
Click to Print
Include Comments
Atheist soldier alleges rights violation
A soldier who sued the Army for allegedly violating his right to be an atheist has refiled the suit, saying his promotion was blocked because of the first lawsuit. In the original lawsuit, Spc. Jeremy Hall says he was prevented from holding a meeting to discuss atheism and was then threatened with military charges.
According to the lawsuit, Hall was counseled by his platoon sergeant after being informed that his promotion was blocked. He says the sergeant explained that Hall would be “unable to put aside his personal convictions and pray with his troops” and would have trouble bonding with them if promoted to a leadership position.
Hall responded that religion is not a requirement of leadership, even though the sergeant wondered how he had rights if atheism wasn’t a religion. Hall said atheism is protected under the Army’s chaplain’s manual.
“It shouldn’t matter if one is Christian, Jewish, Muslim, Buddhist or atheist,” said Pedro Irigonegaray, an attorney whose firm filed the lawsuit. “In the military, all are equal and to be considered equal.”
According to the article, “The Pentagon has said that the military values and respects religious freedoms, but that accommodating religious practices should not interfere with unit cohesion, readiness, standards or discipline.” What are your thoughts on the case?
back to top34 Comments to “Atheist soldier alleges rights violation”
The atheists arent as big a presence in the military as the Wiccans are. Praying for someone is an outward evidence of the love and concern you have for them. An atheist can no doubt have love and concern for his squad members, he’ll just have to find a different way to demonstrate it.
I dont think that would be too difficult. Anytime anyone is denied a promotion they receieve a written counseling detailing why the promotion was denied. I hope this young man retained his.
Report comment to moderator
I’ll generally defer to Sawgunner and others on military matters since they’ve got the firsthand experience. In this case, SG seems to have said most of what I was planning to say anyway.
The only thing I’d add is that this specialist is going to have to make it darn clear that the atheism was the ONLY thing that kept him from the promotion. I daresay if he was what I’ll gently call a “cranky atheist”, that his religious affilication was probably just one of the factors. As a result of lawsuits against the military following the (sometimes inappropriate) behavior of Christians, the Army frowns on prosyletizing.
Report comment to moderator
#2: I daresay if he was what I’ll gently call a “cranky atheist”, that his religious affilication was probably just one of the factors
Or not. The Military has had a lot of problems lately with evangelizing Christians. They just can’t seem to stop. Look at the Officer that told Pat Tillman’s family they wouldn’t be so upset if they believed in the supernatural. Presumably because their son is now living happily ever after in the land of milk and cookies. To an atheist, he’s dead. That is the reality of atheism, you don’t believe in the arcane or the “afterlife”.
You life is what you make it here and he thought he could make a difference in Afghanistan. He was killed by “friendly fire” and was known to be an atheist.
If you are smart, you’ll stay in the closet, whether it’s the sex closet or the religious closet. The religious simply don’t have much tolorance.
Report comment to moderator
Lets see… there are three previous posts here, two by Christians who upholds the atheist’s right to believe and practice whatever he likes. The third one is by an atheist who constantly denigrates Christians and decries their intolerance. What’s wrong with this picture?
Report comment to moderator
Despite the fact that there are no atheists in foxholes, It still comes as news to me that praying with your squad in Iraq is de rigueur.
Do any other posters know this to be true?
The article said little about the commad dynamics, which must be fascinating. The division commander sent out an e-mail informing everybody in the post of the soldier’s lawsuit, yet the platoon sergeant informed the soldier that his promotion was denied on account of atheism. Shouldn’t that kind of policy or counseling be delivered by the soldier’s lieutenant or other commissioned officer? They look like they are afraid to take the heat.
Report comment to moderator
The atheist is correct.
#1: An atheist can no doubt have love and concern for his squad members, he’ll just have to find a different way to demonstrate it.
Different way? There is more than one way to show love and concern? We know the magical way, what is the “other” way? Oh brother.
#2: his religious affilication was probably just one of the factors
Suggesting that there is more wrong with him than just being an “atheist”?
Yea MIM, the Christians are certainly supportive. This type of “support” is scary.
Report comment to moderator
This action probably won’t pass constitutional muster, as it is a religious test.
Personally, I would be loathe to serve under or share a foxhole with an atheist, though this feller could just get some religion in one.
Report comment to moderator
“There is more than one way to show love and concern?”
Yes, RDean, there are many ways to show love and concern. I’m surprised that you would protest that fact.
Report comment to moderator
I’m not sure why military officers are leading their troops in public prayer at all. Given that, how exactly could the promotion of an atheist “affect unit cohesion”?
Report comment to moderator
TO #8 from #1: An atheist can no doubt have love and concern for his squad members, he’ll just have to find a different way to demonstrate it.
Reason it out.
Report comment to moderator
Post seven
Why Peter?
Report comment to moderator
Because they are probably gay, black or anti American, obviously.
Report comment to moderator
Clearly, blocking a military promotion for atheism is unlawful and reprehensible.
However, I find the description of the “counseling session” highly improbable and almost certainly grossly distorted. Let’s wait for the facts to emerge.
I knew a few characters during my military stint that were quick to threaten or actually initiate congressional investigations. They saw themselves as crusaders for justice. They were in fact delusional and their overall attitude was posionous to unit cohesion. Their complaints invariable evaporated under investigation.
Report comment to moderator
Coyote Blue: As far as not wanting to have an atheist as a partner in a foxhole (Peter’s comment, I think). Maybe because if a person was REALLY an atheist (actually there is no such person), you could not count on them to the death, so to speak.
If an atheist REALLY were an atheist, the only game in town for them would be to either 1) get as much out of things as possible while they are alive and/or 2) extend the time to live as much as possible, or some optimal combination of the two things. A true atheist would have, by definition, no external reference or anchor-point. It would all be just random movements of particles and electrons, anyway, so what is the point of any act of altruism or selflessness?
The fact is, though, that self-proclaimed atheists DON’T always (maybe not even most of the time) act that way – in other words there is some other absolute law or principle working in the warp and woof of their being. Just because they deny it exists does not make it less so.
And because there is this presence, this calling from beyond, so-called atheists sometimes perform heroic and noble and selfless deeds, to the point of death, and beyond. And hence are as worthy of honor as the next man (or woman).
But as I said, there is really no such thing as a true atheist. (Even if it WERE true – it is not – but if it WERE true that there is nothing beyond what we call matter and its various transient manifestations, I do not think there would be such a thing as a ‘true atheist’. That is given the human capacity for self-deception, especially as regards the inate and unavoidable belief that ones ego, ones consciousness, is immortal.)
I cannot remember who said it, but I remember reading (when I was agnostic myself – but never so certain as to be an ‘atheist’) that each of us is the fulcrum of existence.
“I am the universe. When I was born, the universe was born. When I die, the universe dies.”
I reject that now, but it always seemed to me to be a logical exposition of what a TRUE atheist would believe.
Well, anyway. I would not want a TRUE atheist as my buddy in my foxhole. But then again I would not want Pat Robertson as my buddy there EITHER.
Report comment to moderator
The whole thing sounds fishy to me.
Why would one ever have to sue for the right to be an atheist? Just don’t believe in God.
My guess is that he’s just a trouble maker and/or attention seeker.
Report comment to moderator
Drill
just because you routinely conflate atheism with eliminative materialism or mereological nihilism doesn’t make your argument any less wrong. no free pass for consistently flunking.
That is given the human capacity for self-deception
so much of your argument depends on that premise, but not in the way that you believe (indeed, so much of all your arguments). you have chosen to deceive yourself that your solution is any different from the other solutions. it is not.
you’ll define ‘true atheist’ in such a way that your deductions follow, just like every other ontological proposition that holds no water. the fact is, just like the case of Michael Martin in the ‘Was Moses Stoned’ thread, when you assert you know that ‘there are no true atheists’, you are simply lying about something that you have absolutely no idea about. you can’t possibly know. and just one black swan and you are back to the drawing board my friend.
is your god an atheist? it would appear so, since by your own assertion definition there are no other gods above her.
Kyle, perhaps he is not even a good citizen as Herr Bush The First once said about atheists. Surely all atheists are troublemakers and attention seekers. If they are really atheists, as drill says, they aren’t even human they are just bags of molecules and so they don’t deserve our respect. A true atheist would not even recognize your speech, since it is just electrons bouncing around and a bunch of matter. Atheists don’t have the right to complain about being treated shoddily by bible thumping megalomaniacs in the military or anywhere else, since they can’t be moral or believe in right or wrong.
You guys don’t seem to catch on to the problem with the reasoning behind this argument. It makes you look dumb. And you two I know for sure are not that dumb.
Report comment to moderator
Hello Erasmus: Those are my views on what would constitute a ‘true atheist’. You may have other(s).
Based on your previous statements (or at least some of them) I don’t think you would even necessarily categorize yourself as an atheist, anyway. (You would say, I think, “what I don’t experience with my five senses – or with instruments that respond to my five senses – cannot be known therefore is unworthy of consideration”, or something equivalent to that. That sort of sentiment, to me, is not ‘atheism’. It is just a kind of relentless ego-centric empiricalism.)
You are right that I cannot “know” that there are no ‘true atheists’, however, I suspect there are none. The problem is that you and I have completely different views we ‘inhabit’ to begin with.
So you accept nothing other than physical (and possibly mental) processes – but mental processes are simply weird manifestations of physical processes anyway, so really it is all physical.
Well, I accept the material – but much more than that besides.
So, to me, a person can intellectually be quite satisfied with (sure of) their atheism, but still not be a ‘true’ atheist, since their spirit (or soul) ‘knows’ the truth.
Since you do not accept the existence of the spirit or soul – my thesis is necessarily wrong – absurd to you, right from the start.
You confuse me on the ‘human capacity for self-deception’ comment. I was making the argument from the standpoint of ‘if atheistic view was correct’, actually. My point is simply that if you logically and rigorously hold that view, than “universe would begin and end with your existence, period.” That follows logically, or so it seems to me, since you have limited yourself solely to the empirical – what you can detect by your five senses (or whatever the mechanisms are that you want to call what consciousness/awareness is composed of. Since death is the cessation of awareness in that view, the universe ends. Or maybe not, if time is nothing but a construct of consciousness, anyway. But that last is not relevant, I guess, here.)
Not sure of your comment about God being an atheist, either. God is self-defining, I would think. I seriously doubt that God ponders whether He really is, or not. Or maybe He does. Who knows.
Report comment to moderator
If I may speak from 22years as an Army Chaplain and with some experience in EEO, I would say that SPC Hall “probably” has a case.
I am Reformed & Presbyterian, probably a fightin’ fundie’ to some. I often briefed incoming soldiers that they had the freedom to be religious or not to be religious and that I as their Chaplain was there to guarantee their free exercise rights.
Are there Chaplains as well as Officers and Enlisted who are improperly zealous – you bet.
Regarding Scroop Moth’s question is “praying with your squad in Iraq is de rigueur?” No, but there are always exceptions.
Regarding RDEAN’s allegation that Pat Tillman was killed by friendly fire – BOGUS and insulting to the military.
Report comment to moderator
Erasmus: You guys don’t seem to catch on to the problem with the reasoning behind this argument. It makes you look dumb. And you two I know for sure are not that dumb.
Not really Erasmus, we well understand that your argument from naturalism/materialism is, shall we say, lacking broad dimension. We wouldn’t want to be in a foxhole with a mere fanatical Darwinist.
Report comment to moderator
RDEAN: Look at the Officer that told Pat Tillman’s family they wouldn’t be so upset if they believed in the supernatural.
The TSAR of all RUSHians: Regarding RDEAN’s allegation that Pat Tillman was killed by friendly fire – BOGUS and insulting to the military.
HUH? Ivan, first of all, Sir, the Inspector General of the Department of Defense states that Tillman’s death was caused by “friendly fire.”
http://www.defenselink.mil/home/pdf/Tillman_Redacted_Web_0307.pdf
Secondly, ESPN has the following interview on its web site:
http://sports.espn.go.com/espn/eticket/story?
page=tillmanpart1
Kauzlarich, now a battalion commanding officer at Fort Riley in Kansas, further suggested the Tillman family’s unhappiness with the findings of past investigations might be because of the absence of a Christian faith in their lives.
In an interview with ESPN.com, Kauzlarich said: “When you die, I mean, there is supposedly a better life, right? Well, if you are an atheist and you don’t believe in anything, if you die, what is there to go to? Nothing. You are worm dirt. So for their son to die for nothing, and now he is no more — that is pretty hard to get your head around that. So I don’t know how an atheist thinks. I can only imagine that that would be pretty tough.”
A commanding general of the Army testified to Congress that Col Kauzlarich’s statements were totally unacceptable.
So Ivan, before you come on this blog and accuse a liberal of making bogus and insulting comments regarding the military, please check the public record, and if you still find yourself in disagreement, by all means say so, but don’t smear a liberal.
Thanks!
Report comment to moderator
Funny…as a Nat’l Guard chaplain candidate in Missouri, I see religious soldiers, and non-religious soldiers, all the time. Some folks come to chapel, and some don’t. This is the first time I’ve heard of an atheist not being promoted because of his faith/lack thereof.
Knowing this is coming from Mikey Weinstein, who has a habit of scraping the barrel for religious issues in the military to bring lawsuits over, I expect the soldier to quickly back down once the media actually investigates this (not the usual press release stuff, that it). If the soldier is squeaky-clean, and there’s a real case here, the military will go into action. Otherwise, the soldier will be seen to be a trouble-maker, willing to use religion as a means of getting promoted.
I’d also be interested in knowing if the soldier saw a chaplain regarding this, since the chaplain’s role would be to ensure even atheists are treated well.
I won’t be surprised if this all vanished sometime soon. There is tremendous freedom to believe…and not believe…in the military, and only ardent, hardened atheists typically miss it.
Report comment to moderator
Peter did not answer but if his is the same as Drills I’d find that unsurprising. It’s a limited view though. I’ve met atheists who are selfless and ones who are selfish. Just as I have met Christians who are selfish and ones who are selfless. And you guys say the libs are judgmental …. speck, say hello to log.
Report comment to moderator
Coyote, he is often grumpy when incontinent. It is of course a liberal materialist evilutionist’s fault.
Drill, in one way you are correct. I don’t run around calling myself an atheist. I doubt very much, possibly in the same manner as you, that there are ‘true believers’. Given this capacity for self deception, I suppose we should resort to reason for the tie breaking vote. Parsimony, at the very least, suggests that I may be correct. Of course parsimony is no kind master.
Dear Solon, sweetie, if you have ever been in a foxhole I’d wager a months salary you were there with an atheist. See above. In your more lucid moments perhaps you might be capable of understanding why this is so. Those moments however are anathema to the rest of your moments so they very likely only occur on sleepless nights or when you find yourself hydroplaning towards the median.
Report comment to moderator
Drill: So, to me, a person can intellectually be quite satisfied with (sure of) their atheism, but still not be a ‘true’ atheist, since their spirit (or soul) ‘knows’ the truth.
So, to me a person can be spiritually quite satisfied with her Christianity but still not be a true Christian since her intellect knows that most of Christianity is totally proposterous.
The plain truth is that there is no intellectual argument for most so-called religions; they are merely variations of a form of (mostly) comfortable, self-reinforcing mass delusion.
I am curious about your views on, for want of a better word, altruistic behavior of believers in other gods. Is it only atheists you believe are incapable of such behaviour, or do you believe the same of Jews, Muslims, Catholics, Buddhists or Wiccans?
Do you believe that all possible paths to such enlightenment have been discovered by mankind, or could it be that the one true religion and path to what you consider to be altruism yet to be discovered?
Report comment to moderator
Coyote Blue and Arcadia: Well, if you read my original comment (I think it was) on this this thread, I made the strong statement that many times ‘atheists’ have done amazing noble, heroic, selfless things, so I absolutely agree – not sure why you think different.
I think this is because we all have the inner awareness of the larger sphere and the absolute measure which lies beyond the material. That also goes for people of other faiths than Christianity. Some of the most noble, most stirring, and great achievements of the human spirit were accomplished in cultures that never heard of Christ – explicitly. However, that is the imprint of God on the warp and woof of who we are – all of us.
I also agree that you can certainly turn around and apply the idea that there are no ‘true atheists’ to Christians (or anybody). It is your right to be wrong. And you ARE wrong, because there WAS one ‘true Christian’ and that was/is Jesus Christ. All others are ‘merely’ imitations, at least until the end. I don’t think there was ever a ‘true atheist’ though.
Again, even if the premise of atheism were true, I don’t think the self-defining ego could really operate (’believe’) in its own demise – i.e. pure materialism or atheism is impossible for a being with consciousness. We are not capable of ‘true atheism’ because we are not WIRED that way. And that ought to give you some serious reflections, I would think.
Erasmus is getting more and more grumpy the older he gets, I have noticed. I bet he is just beginning to realize the error of his ways and the knowledge of it is making him a bit grayer, grimmer, and madder every day.
Like a Miltonesque Lucifer, he broods about things too much. It is the Cross that an ego-centric empiricalist must bear, I think.
Or maybe his fiddle is in the shop and he is just at loose ends.
Report comment to moderator
grumpy huh. maybe i have hung out with solon too much. but indeed then i have not fiddled much in a while, something about work/home repair/2 yr old gets in the way.
again you conflate eliminative materialism with atheism. it is routine with you drill, but i do understand it is a function of what you have chosen to believe and not a function of evidence. for instance, you could never show that consciousness (whatever it is) is not a function of pure material.
but since there is no operational definition of consciousness that allows the parsing of ‘has it’ from ‘doesn’t have it’ then it is a rather useless term to begin with.
Report comment to moderator
Erasmus: I would seem to me that if you eliminate the belief in the divine (i.e. an atheist) you would also by necessity eliminate belief in a soul (i.e. a materialist). The general concepts of the divine and the soul are at least joined at the hip if they are not simply the two sides of the same coin.
I do not know about consciousness, as I have said before. I do not believe it is entirely a function of physically-driven processes. The question is intriguing as we have both agreed at various points in the past.
As far as evidence, you have no more evidence than I regarding these things, at least as you define evidence.
I do, however, have the evidence of my own existence and that I am conscious of that existence. And from that evidence, and that awareness, an entire universe of questions then arises.
Dead matter questioning and grappling with the meaning of existence and consciousness. There seems something hopelessly futile (and actually patently absurd) in that.
Report comment to moderator
I think, and I am winging it here, that there have been a lot of materialists that did have beliefs in such things as a ’soul’ (the lack of an operational definition of ’soul’ will quickly get us into trouble here). Sewall Wright and AR Wallace come to mind, as did some of the greek materialists. it is a simple and logically solid argument to make, if one is willing to adopt a monist stance, to say that every individual entity has it’s own essence. this soul business is sufficiently vague enough that I fail to see how it is exclusive to atheists (of course, I do understand why, and it has to do with your definition being different).
I have agreed with you, IIRC, in the past, that it has not been demonstrated that consciousness is a simple function of material. Indeed, I am skeptical of the claim that this is possible even in principle (leaving aside the operational issues of how to falsify this claim).
But, and this is crucial, to say that (assuming that it were true) consciousness is mere matter is not a claim I am interested in (this is the eliminative form of materialism that you are routinely confusing as materialism per se). I freely acknowledge that there are emergent properties and features in the universe (even if that emergent is only epistemological). A version of this view is called by some ‘dialectical materialism’.
Whatever you call it if it is true that consciousness is a property of states of matter, then there is no such thing as dead matter “questioning and grappling with the meaning of existence and consciousness”. This is another strawman of your own construction.
Since we don’t know the answer to the consciousness question, it seems to me that your hyperbole should be reserved for matters that may actually be settled by empirical inquiry. Unless of course you wish to eliminate empiricism………………………
Report comment to moderator
DrillDead matter questioning and grappling with the meaning of existence and consciousness. Nice description of Erasmus, our fanatically soulless Darwinian.
Incidentally Erasmus, I’m presently at my winter place near Capetown training to run my 27th Boston Marathon this April. What are you up to other than writing worshipful and obscure effusions regarding the wonders of naturalism and materialism.
Report comment to moderator
congrats solon. that is one heck of a record. i have never ran a marathon and don’t know if my ankles would stand it. i broke my tibia a few years ago playing basketball and it’s not been right since.
incidentally, if I am correct, then you are whipping the same straw man that Drill is flailing at. there is no such thing as ‘dead matter’.
i’m describing a couple of new species of critters and working on some manuscripts. you might like the one where i am examining macroevolution and macroecology vs emergent properties.
Report comment to moderator
Erasmus: So if there are ‘emergent properties’ or ‘tendencies’ in the universe with respect to the ‘development and evolution’ of consciousness, what, then, is (or will be) the ULTIMATE result or ‘end product’ of such ‘emergent’ properties?
Now you REALLY have me curious.
Report comment to moderator
It’s ok Ivan. I accept your apology. You are NOT terrible, only awful.
Report comment to moderator
why do you say emergent properties, whatever they are, are ‘tendencies’. it may be that they are determinative. it may be that they are patterns of self organization that are everywhere in nature. it may be that they are the direct effects of heavenly tinkers, everywhere fiddling with reality in all the other invisible dimensions, with knobs on.
it more or less depends on your definition of ‘emergent’. a key feature here (and I wish musing were around for it) is explanatory reduction.
Report comment to moderator
Erasmus: Ask a question, get a question. I am curious, whatever the character of ”emergent properties’, as to your take on the final development or end result of such ‘properties’ in the universe.
Presumably something that ‘emerges’ from the primeval chaos becomes describly distinct. If a ravening swamp monster emerges from the swamp and eats all the pretty girls in the village, one can surely describe the thing separate from the swamp and then speculate as to how muck became a monster with an appetite. And be suspicious of the eccentric mad scientist who lives on the other side of the lake.
Regards semantics of properties versus tendencies. It is a manner of speaking and entirely a sufficient manner (in my opinion) to say (for instance) instead of ‘light has the property of refracting through a prism’, that ‘light has the tendency to refract through a prism.’ The fact is that it ALWAYS refracts through a prism based on our local observations does not necessarily mean that there are not places in Creation where it does not. Why should it? I would not necessarily muddle the waters with this thought with a class of eager little scholars with fresh-scrubbed faces and rosy cheeks. But it is an extremely valid one for grownups with brains and the capability to use them.
And that says nothing harsh about scientific method or anything else, including evolutionary biology or properly physics-based alchemy.
Science is the summary of useful description of the corporeal world and works very well in the local sense. I am very glad it does because otherwise my life would be shorter, more brutish, and nastier.
Report comment to moderator
back to topJoin The Conversation
You need to be a registered user of WORLDonTheWeb.com to "join the conversation."
If you are not a member yet, what are you waiting for? Register / Login Now!