Atheist soldier in Iraq claims harrassment:

http://www.cnn.com/2008/US/04/26/atheist.soldier.ap/index.html

Seems a bit strange that his superiors would care whether the guy believes or not.

4/26/2008 2:34:49 PM

yeah, that kinda blows my mind

something doesn't quite seem to add up there

i also don't get why he upped the ante to lawsuit level for an issue that should have and likely could/would have been resolved at a much lower level.


that's fucked, though, if the reality is exactly what's outlined in that article.

4/26/2008 2:59:04 PM

*phew*

One less thing...

4/26/2008 3:23:40 PM

I found these 2 sentences in the same article amusing

Quote :

"It eventually came out in Iraq in 2007, when he was in a firefight. Hall was a gunner on a Humvee, which took several bullets in its protective shield. Afterward, his commander asked whether he believed in God, Hall said."

Quote :

""When you're in Afghanistan and an IED blows up a Humvee, they aren't asking about a wounded soldier's faith," Shurtleff said."

It looks a little bit like they are saying in combat/as a result of combat soldiers aren't asking about another soldier's faith when it is exactly that sort of situation that "outed" him as not believing in any god(s).

[Edited on April 26, 2008 at 5:20 PM. Reason : .]

4/26/2008 5:20:24 PM

The Army has a large proportion of Evangelicals, the officer corp is especially bad about this. While I don't know about direct harassment, I can see this guy being shunned/ostracized pretty bad. I can also see him getting talk down to by an officer for wanting to have a meeting of Atheist/Agnostics. The story isn't unbelievable at all.

4/26/2008 8:40:31 PM

so this guy accuses his superior of -attempting- to hold a meeting for atheists?

what a waste of taxes were going to spend on investigating this.

man up soldier and just stick to your guns. if you get any -real- persecution then complain. if you want offense comments in the other direction against the religious, just turn on 95% of the internet

4/26/2008 10:58:39 PM

here's the NY Times article on Hall - http://www.nytimes.com/2008/04/26/us/26atheist.html?_r=1&oref=slogin

his case has been going on for a while. He says he's been denied promotions because of it.
http://friendlyatheist.com/2008/03/06/atheist-files-lawsuit-against-department-of-defense/

and of course, ironically because he isn't Christian, other Christian soldiers feel it's ok to threaten him....
http://friendlyatheist.com/2008/04/05/sargeants-want-to-attack-atheist-soldier/

looks like he's getting a little support though from other atheist soldiers who are willing to speak up
http://friendlyatheist.com/2007/09/26/heroes/
http://www.maaf.info/
http://www.militaryreligiousfreedom.org/

4/27/2008 12:28:11 AM

why didnt he just hide that he was an athiest like queers hide that they are gay?

4/27/2008 1:25:53 AM

idk but he sure won't get any promotions by suing

4/27/2008 2:20:47 AM

My deepest fear is that drunknloaded gives us a closer look into the average American's psyche than anyone else on this board.

Also, there was something about some pretty widespread religious persecution at the Air Force Academy over the course of a few years (at least) that I read a while back. Here's something along those lines:
http://travel2.nytimes.com/2005/05/12/education/12academy.html?fta=y

4/27/2008 10:12:19 AM

they're trying to make sure he's taken care of after his tour of duty is over. I'm sure Blackwater won't higher him if he's atheist.

4/27/2008 2:14:58 PM

Quote :

"My deepest fear is that drunknloaded gives us a closer look into the average American's psyche than anyone else on this board."

what are you blabbing about?

what drunknloaded crassly said is exactly what most smart people do

when your personal life doesn't jibe with society's expectations it often times just best to shut the fuck up

most people are not Socrates nor do they wish to be

[Edited on April 27, 2008 at 2:38 PM. Reason : .]

4/27/2008 2:38:27 PM

did he not take the oath of enlistment?

4/27/2008 6:42:20 PM

^ I'm sure he did.

The God part of it is now optional.

[Edited on April 27, 2008 at 6:53 PM. Reason : .]

4/27/2008 6:53:35 PM

^ where is the federal law with this info? I am pretty sure that nothing in the oath is optional except you can say swear or affirm

[Edited on April 27, 2008 at 7:00 PM. Reason : http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/10/502.html]

4/27/2008 6:59:09 PM

If it's common enough that people have left it out without penalty, I don't see how the enforcement of that federal law matters.

4/27/2008 7:01:02 PM

just because it may be common practice to leave this out (i've never seen it happen in 10 years of the AF) doesn't mean it isn't still part of the oath

4/27/2008 7:02:37 PM

My point was that the officer probably didn't say that part.

And the enforcement of it seems lax enough to support that idea.

I'm not surprised you haven't seen it: atheists in the military still aren't very common.

[Edited on April 27, 2008 at 7:06 PM. Reason : I am a little surprised that you think that phrase is necessary, however.]

4/27/2008 7:03:38 PM

Quote :

"I, (name), do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will support and defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies, foreign and domestic; that I will bear true faith and allegiance to the same; and that I will obey the orders of the President of the United States and the orders of the officers appointed over me, according to regulations and the Uniform Code of Military Justice. (So help me God.)"

According to wiki, it's optional (it isn't sourced, but if it were both 1)required and 2)meant to affirm a literal belief in a god or deity, it would be directly to the very first statement of the oath, thereby makign the whole damn thing logically meaningless).

4/27/2008 7:09:13 PM

i believe it to be necessary only to the extent of it being the law

regardless, I am highly doubtful anyone could get through their first enlistment/basic training without hearing this oath (and besides, you have to sign your name to the written oath when you join)

the only time they may be able to get an oath with parts missing is on reenlistment when you can choose random officers to do it

i myself don't care what religion you are, but if you are going to join something that has strong ties to a specific idea you should expect to be around those ideas...

i mean do atheists go to the vatican to listen to the pope, then complain when he talks about god?

[Edited on April 27, 2008 at 7:12 PM. Reason : ^ please dont use wiki as a source ]

4/27/2008 7:12:16 PM

The fact of the matter is that requiring a person to be of a certain religion is fundamentally unconstitutional. Furthermore, your analogy is ridiculous because the job and the job environment have nothing to do with religion by themselves. Finally, if you were to make the laughable assertion that only Christians belong in the service, you would lose a huge number of fine, hard working soldiers.

For what it's worth, I used wiki as a quick reference and even mentioned that it wasn't sourced.

4/27/2008 7:17:40 PM

Quote :

"i mean do atheists go to the vatican to listen to the pope, then complain when he talks about god?"

You know that's a bad parallel, so I'll ignore it.

I don't see why a man who wants to die defending this great nation has to have a religion at all. Hell, that's one of the luxuries you guys are trying to defend, right? It's therefore absolutely unfair to persecute him for being in with a crowd of mostly religious men.

4/27/2008 7:18:59 PM

According to http://www.maaf.info/faq.html (biased, of course, but sourced with the necessary statutes)

Quote :

"Do I have to say "So Help Me God" during my enlistment oath? No. It's a common question, although between the officer giving the oath, the reenlistment NCO, and the EO Rep, someone will recognize that it's illegal and unethical to force someone to swear to god if they don't want to. If necessary, point them at AR 601-280 "The Army Retention Program," Appendix D Paragraph 2k, which states specifically that the reenlisting soldier need not swear to god. Or to USC 512 Title 28 (Revision June 25, 1948 ch. 646, 62 Stat. 925) which clarifies that an oath of affirmation excludes the 'so help me god' portion. Air Force should refer to AFI 36-2606 (Ch.3, 2. "Detailed Instructions for Completing the DD Forms 4/1 and 4/2", Table 3.9, Item Number 15 - Confirmation of (Re)enlistment Oath). "

Quote :

" The last sentence of section 512 of title 28, U.S.C., 1940 ed., reading "The words 'So help me God.' shall be omitted in all cases where an affirmation is admitted instead of an oath," was omitted as unnecessary because on affirmation such words would not be included."

USC 512 Title 28
Federal statute stating that any affirmation given, as opposed to an oath, is implicitly meant to be given without stating "So help me God."

Quote :

"Airmen who elect to affirm rather than swear may omit the words "so help me God""

http://www.e-publishing.af.mil/shared/media/epubs/AFI36-2606.pdf
THIS IS FROM THE USAF'S OWN DOCUMENTATION REGARD THE OATH OF ENLISTMENT.


God, why do I spend my time defending stupid points against retarded attacks that no reasonable person would put forward?

k, i'm gonna go back to that young earth creationism thread.

4/27/2008 7:24:18 PM

Quote :

"i myself don't care what religion you are, but if you are going to join something that has strong ties to a specific idea you should expect to be around those ideas..."

You are reinforcing the idea that the United States Military has "strong ties" to defending Christianity. This is a very, very scary thought. Judging from the quotes in the articles, it is apparently not an uncommon sentiment. But to have an active military where are large portion of the soldiers believe they are somehow doing God's work or that they are first serving Christianity and then serving the US is a very bad situation. I'm sure you find it repulsive when middle eastern armies rally around Allah, so I don't see how you cannot feel the same way about fighting for God while in a supposedly secular institution.

Quote :

"[Edited on April 27, 2008 at 7:12 PM. Reason : ^ please dont use wiki as a source ]"

wow, nice. Welcome to 2008. The "don't use wiki as a source" argument was played out about 5 years ago by high school english teachers, but it is generally accepted now that wikipedia is as vetted as regular encylopedias and often cite the original sources

[Edited on April 27, 2008 at 7:36 PM. Reason : .]

4/27/2008 7:34:30 PM

[Edited on April 27, 2008 at 7:39 PM. Reason : nah screw it, we dont have god on the back of our money, the us isn't religiously biased]

[Edited on April 27, 2008 at 7:40 PM. Reason : ^^ thanks for the sources]

4/27/2008 7:37:06 PM

Quote :

"nah screw it, we dont have god on the back of our money, the us isn't religiously biased"

Just because a majority of the country believes one thing, you think we have to believe in it in order to protect the country that gives us the freedom to have religious choice? Are you seriously trying to suggest that?


[Edited on April 27, 2008 at 7:55 PM. Reason : .]

4/27/2008 7:49:22 PM

when did i say i cared what religion anyone is?

i simply was noting that like the US, the military is based on the majority of the people in the country believing in some form of "god"

Quote :

"wow, nice. Welcome to 2008. The "don't use wiki as a source" argument was played out about 5 years ago"

wow.. just... wow, i guess john seigenthaler really did assassinate JFK

[Edited on April 27, 2008 at 9:18 PM. Reason : lol]

4/27/2008 9:07:16 PM

Quote :

"the military is based on the majority of the people in the country believing in some form of "god""

Not at all actually, not even a little bit.

4/27/2008 9:36:08 PM

the military is based on defense of the country

it's not based on any religion, or any person's belief in a religion

[Edited on April 27, 2008 at 9:41 PM. Reason : .]

4/27/2008 9:40:58 PM

Quote :

""nah screw it, we dont have god on the back of our money, the us isn't religiously biased""

are you serious? You're using 4 words added to some of our money during the Civil War and to our paper money only in 1957 as evidence that our country is "religiously based"?

Please, find me anything in the Constitution that indicates the U.S. is supposed to be some kind of theocracy, or even any indication that we are religiously based. The Constitution doesn't once use the word "God" or "Christian" or any derivatives, and the only place it mentions religion is to assert that "no religious Test shall ever be required as a Qualification to any Office or public Trust under the United States". Then of course we all know about the 1st Amendment.

Even so - all this is beside the point. The fact that most people in the US are religious or Christian has nothing to do with how the military should conduct itself. I don't even know what it means that the "military is based on people believing in god". really, wtf is that supposed to mean?

Quote :

"wow.. just... wow, i guess john seigenthaler really did assassinate JFK"

come on man, grow up. He was quoting a widely available piece of text, not quoting wiki as a a source for controversial claims. surely even you can see the difference in those

4/27/2008 10:23:47 PM

sorry I thought this post was in regards to the religion behind the military, not its generic purpose

if the military *aside from its obvious purpose* wasn't created on the basis of the majority of the people in the country believing in god, then why create an enlistment oath with god in it?

even though that has been changed today, you can't tell me when the military was formed it wasn't created on the basis that the majority (if not all) people in this country believed in god at the time, and that there aren't going to be remnants of it left over today

and even though I think the military is a lot better at understanding each others differences than the normal population I am still not making any excuses for anything that happens i still think

Quote :

"that's fucked, though, if the reality is exactly what's outlined in that article."

4/27/2008 10:25:20 PM

Quote :

"if the military *aside from its obvious purpose* wasn't created on the basis of the majority of the people in the country believing in god, then why create an enlistment oath with god in it?"

well, it's probably in there because some uppity Christian legislature or general felt like putting it in there because he thought it sounded good and because he didn't understand the concept of a secular government, and nobody would argue with it for fear of being branded anti-Christian.

according to this - http://www.history.army.mil/faq/oaths.htm - "so help me god" wasn't mentioned in the enlisted soldier's oath during the Revolutionary War (it was in an Officer's oath).
Then the first oath after the Constitution did not include it:

Quote :

"The first oath under the Constitution was approved by Act of Congress 29 September 1789 (Sec. 3, Ch. 25, 1st Congress). It applied to all commissioned officers, noncommissioned officers and privates in the service of the United States. It came in two parts, the first of which read: "I, A.B., do solemnly swear or affirm (as the case may be) that I will support the constitution of the United States." The second part read: "I, A.B., do solemnly swear or affirm (as the case may be) to bear true allegiance to the United States of America, and to serve them honestly and faithfully, against all their enemies or opposers whatsoever, and to observe and obey the orders of the President of the United States of America, and the orders of the officers appointed over me." The next section of that chapter specified that "the said troops shall be governed by the rules and articles of war, which have been established by the United States in Congress assembled, or by such rules and articles of war as may hereafter by law be established.""

So help me god wasn't added back in until 1862 (about the same time as it was added to coins, during the Civil War), clearly well after the US and the army were founded.

Quote :

" even though that has been changed today, you can't tell me when the military was formed it wasn't created on the basis that the majority (if not all) people in this country believed in god at the time, and that there aren't going to be remnants of it left over today"

This still doesn't make any sense. These are two unrelated topics. You might as well say the IRS was created on the basis that the majority of people believed in god. Or the FDA - "when the FDA was created, the majority of Americans were Catholic. Therefore, the FDA is created on the basis of a majority-Catholic America and should act accordingly"
Really - wtf does the belief in god have to do with creating an Army? The Army was created to defend America. The fact that America was mostly religious or christian was just a by-product of the demographics of the time.

4/27/2008 10:38:08 PM

if i change a wikipedia page to say the opposite will that work?

Quote :

"The fact that America was mostly religious or christian was just a by-product of the demographics of the time."

so this wouldn't in turn create a military that was mostly religious?

[Edited on April 27, 2008 at 10:44 PM. Reason : ok]

4/27/2008 10:41:20 PM

Quote :

"so this wouldn't in turn create a military that was mostly religious?"

of course it would, just like it is today.

but that still is irrelevant to what the mission of the military is, or how they are to conduct themselves, as a federal organization, with respect to federal law.

4/27/2008 10:45:57 PM

so what is it that you are pointing out, since you agree that the military is religious

[Edited on April 27, 2008 at 10:50 PM. Reason : [pad]]

4/27/2008 10:50:42 PM

no, the individuals in the military are religious. "The Military" is a secular institution (just like the entire US Government is supposed to be) and has no religious directives or goals.
once again, the religious beliefs of the individuals that comprise the military are irrelevant with respect to the Military's larger purpose and goals.

Are you seriously not understanding this or are you just fucking around?

4/27/2008 10:52:47 PM

soap box is hillarious

4/27/2008 10:53:33 PM

Quote :

"Please, find me anything in the Constitution that indicates the U.S. is supposed to be some kind of theocracy, or even any indication that we are religiously based. The Constitution doesn't once use the word "God" or "Christian" or any derivatives, and the only place it mentions religion is to assert that "no religious Test shall ever be required as a Qualification to any Office or public Trust under the United States". Then of course we all know about the 1st Amendment. "

While I agree with you, it just strikes me as funny most of the time when people invoke the Constitution to support their position...

like anyone besides libertarians and constitutionalists REALLY give a flying fuck about that document.






and I just haven't really seen that the military is more "Christian" than the general population. You don't find a lot of militant atheists, but you don't find many Bible-beaters, either.

I have to wonder if there is more to this story than we're hearing.

...and I also have to wonder what the hell's going on with filing a lawsuit before anything REALLY happened. I mean, Maj Welborn allegedly THREATENED to bring charges against him--but he never bothered to exhaust several better options than filing a lawsuit.

If everything in the article is true, and represents the whole story, I have to say that both sides are in the wrong (though his superiors to a greater extent than the Specialist).

4/28/2008 12:21:48 AM

I could see the rationale for the terrorist side. If you don't think you are going to visit allah with your 26 virgin slutters waiting then you are less likely to strap on that bomb for the cause.

4/28/2008 12:34:29 AM

^^

not trying to be a dick...

but that's kind of a strange attitude to take for someone who's sworn an oath to support and defend the Constitution

4/28/2008 12:43:22 AM

<--- moderate, right-leaning libertarian

frustrated with how 90% or more of the country all but jumps at the chance to take a huge shit on the Constitution.

4/28/2008 1:06:02 AM

i figured that was the case

well, ok... but I think that your problem is just with the "masses"

and the masses always suck, at everything

the only reason we have democracy is to prevent tyranny, it's not because we trust the wisdom of the people

4/28/2008 1:17:13 AM

Quote :

"While I agree with you, it just strikes me as funny most of the time when people invoke the Constitution to support their position... like anyone besides libertarians and constitutionalists REALLY give a flying fuck about that document."

yeah, but regardless of who "REALLY" gives a fuck about it, The Constitution is still the main document that must be cited when arguing about what this country was founded on.

4/28/2008 7:26:44 AM