Yes, this is my second blog today in reaction to something from CNN.com. One good blog deserves another.
Apparently, there is an atheist soldier suing the army for religious discrimination, harassment, and proselytization by the army towards evangelicalism. Now all this criticism may be fair, though it should be noted that the military is having religious issues all over on different sides. For example in that many military chaplains have felt pressure by senior officers to pray in a certain way (without mentioning Jesus). It is important to respect the religious freedom of anyone of any faith, and that includes respecting the necessarily public nature of Christian faith as well as the atheists right to abstain from religiosity at an individual level (meaning, it's not his place to demand for example that chaplains can't pray at formal events... he doesn't have to pray along).
There was a dead end suggested in the article by Michael Weinstein who is the founder of the Military Religious Freedom Foundation towards the end of military freedom.
According to Weinstein "...when you put the uniform on, there's only one religious faith: patriotism,"
If this understanding ever prevails (and that's a big if), then it's time for every God fearing Christian to put off the uniform or avoid it all together. It's one of the big 10, that we are to have no gods before Yahweh, and that restriction isn't restricted to Zeus or Baal but can include democracy, liberty, patriotism, free market and so many other values and ideals that our nation supports with force which very well could become gods if we are not careful and critical of their limits and pitfalls. Many of us American Christians no doubt give more thought to our status as American citizens than we do as citizens of the Kingdom of Heaven. Perhaps this is a major reason why our salt isn't so salty.
There was another item of interest in the article regarding the atheist soldier himself. After two tours of duty in Iraq, he says he lost his faith after he was challenged on his faith in scripture by atheists. He had too many questions without answers and thus became an atheist with nor reservations for the supernatural.
Is this really the thinking man's journey? It seems to me, if you have questions, you go and seek the answers. Perhaps he did, but between two tours of duty, how much time does one have to give these issues serious thought and seek the the help of the learned scholars upon on them.
Here's the original article
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
25 comments:
A snake-hunter sez,
======================================
rob-r,
You accuse, 'how I dictate' on my
weblog; that's simply untrue! We do our best to Inform, in a time of
Great National Peril.
It was Valerie that took you down a peg when you were out of line, and got pushy.
Your mom goes in a different direction, constantly hammering away on heterosexuals, abortion, etc 44 comments when I made a simple comment that chided her for her singular approach to complex world problems.
Over sixty years ago, my Mother was
the victim of a Radio Evangelist, that scammed his listeners & my Mom into donating her few dollars to send "Bibles To Prisons". He had Real Estate all over So Calif and Las Vegas, a real Con Artist, and this scum-bag was caught by a Marine Sargeant messing with his wife, and shot dead w/ a service .45 automatic! That was a big front-page scandle in Los Angeles long ago.
So I've watches Televangelists begging for $1000 "Seeds of Faith" all my adult life!
Now I Do Not Suggest that your Mom
Barb is like that at all, I'm sure that she is, like so many others, trying hard to convert the world, and save them from their "Sin" and Hell-fire, Ah yes!
All churches push to convert, and who is to say which of them is closer to Jesus? They all make that claim, don't they?
By the way, "Valerie from Paris" is
no friend of mine; I suspect she is an athiest, or even worse, a Hard-core Communist, and they team up to slander the U.S. and our precious First Amendment freedoms!
Are you with MAF? A fine christian group that puts their life on the line, and some even risk family members over there. That's crazy, jeopardizing innocent kids...Whew!
I'm too old to do that now, but I support the troopers. My 10th Mtn Division was the first deployed to Afganistan in this one.
>>
You See, 'Judge not, that ye be not judged', my friend.
Good luck, fellow. reb
======================================
www.lazyonebenn.blogspot.com
This is in actuality a case of an athiest forcing his religious beliefs on others. By demanding that Christians stop public practice of their religion he is actually forcing them into public practice of his.
If he has been discriminated against by individual members of the military they are clearly in violation of Army regs. Thus his case would be against the individual offenders and not the army as a whole.
A large bit of blame for this does however belong to the Church.
1. It sounds like there were christians involved who were not bearing the proper fruit.
2. Clearly though he grew up in the Church his faith was not grounded in a good examination of his faith.
3. A failure on the christians around him to answer his questions about the bible.
Snake Hunter
I'm sorry your mother had so many bad experiences with religious leaders. That is why it is important for people to be thoughtful, critical and public about issues of faith. Bad thinking should be met with good thinking. Not calls to public silence. Privitization of religion, or isolation of it to individuals does not help. It is better to think together than to ponder it on your own because we are all finite and limited in thought and can all benefit from dialogue.
As for Valerie's assesment, it's not completely wrong. I am no independent thinker. You see, I depend upon reasons for my views.
My comment on the private and public nature of religion really struck a nerve with her and the issue is that I was challenging something that people take for granted, and there are people who like Valerie become very insecure on account of that and respond in a way that is beneath them.
So someone brings up a a religious topic and another exclaims with shock "what business is it of yours!?!" as if it was obvious that religion was only a private matter. Well, it's not obvious and I kind of expect an explanation. Not only is it not obvious, it flys in the face of the example given by the vast majority if not all religious leaders. Jesus was in no way shape or form private about religion sticking it behind closed doors with family or only amongst people who agreed with him. He was public about it, he offended quite a few people about it. He was crucified naked in public and this is an event at the heart of Christianity. It's not always pretty and it most certainly isn't shut behind closed doors in embarrasment.
My accusation of of your dictatation wasn't primarily about what was said on your blog as it was here. You insisted here at the Barb Wire that the topic we raised wasn't important enough for extensive thought and you didn't really engage our challenges and concerns contrary to that notion. We don't believe that the only wars that count are the ones that are fought physically. The culture wars and wars of ideology are no less important. And as Christian Apologist and I pointed out, the culture wars are not irrelevent to the war on terror and the Muslim hatred for America and the attitude that gets us the designation is not just about our political and economic policies and practices but also about the legitimate cultural garbage that spews out of the U.S. and the west in general.
I respect your insistence of staying on topic and I thought mom did go on too much off topic in her first post. But of course I don't see any crime in throwing out a short "hey" and drawing attention to something of interest at another blog or another post, especially aimed at the one who authored the original post.
But your call to stay on topic came too late after you had welcomed an implicit attack on mom that was also off topic and after you had made some prejudicial remarks about religious people aimed at mom herself. Of course you had legitimately bad experiences, but prejudices are often rooted in such bad experiences. You say that your experience with religious leaders has been bad, but scripture itself attests to the fact that there would be wolves amongst the sheep and they would have a destructive influence. And so as Jesus has put it, it's not enough to to be innocent as doves, but we must also be shrewd as snakes.
Christian Apologists,
I agree, it's not a simple situation but their's blame and bad practices all the way around.
snake hunter wrote: 44 comments when I made a simple comment that chided her for her singular approach to complex world problems.
What 44 comments? --not on your blog. 44 comments by me about you or something you said on my blog? I don't think so.
I don't try to address all the complex world problems. However, Dr. herrin's column was not MY "singular approach" but a view of homosexuality held by many.
I doubt I'm any more "simplistic" than the next blogger --from what I've read.
CA --you speak with a right to do so --having come through the military yourself.
Michael Weinstein identifies salient issues w/ Evangelical Christians in the military.
Regards.
The Loop Garoo Kis
That very well may be true, but he's still exactly wrong on the point which I criticized.
I still find this article a little hard to believe. The idea that the military has a strong evangelical presence runs completely contrary to my own experiences.
CA,
What and when was your experience?
The Loop Garoo Kid
===========================================
barb,
Thank you for retaining The S/H Link to our "History, WWII" Post.
It's one of my favorites; it gives
an accurate summary of that event that took the lives of at least 40+
million people in a dozen countries. Many "baby-boomers" and their kids are sadly (vaguely) unaware of that important time.
>>
The lady from Europe misunderstood my intention, and coaxed a negative
person to harrass my blog with foul language, so I was forced to take counter-measures. It's all a part of a concientous effort to
create a readable, informative weblog, and so, we move along. reb
>>
rob-r & CA,
Misunderstandings are an unfortunate part of blogging, but
accepting these minor bumps, rather than whining about them, is what we must all do!
When negative people intrude, (like a person w/ a Muddy rake, or with a S--- Stirring handle), you block/delete, without much trouble, then continue on...
"Accentuate the Positive, Eliminate the Negative" and hope for their sake, that they will eventually mature. reb
===========================================
I don't see that what I wrote constitutes whining but rather involves serious engagement and analysis. If you disagree, then you may offer your analysis.
CA in his responses to you has also made some good points, for example the immorality of the west for which we are hated by many in the developing world, especially muslims (hence pointing out the relevence of moral issues like homosexuality and abortion to the kind of hatred of the west that feeds terrorists).
But thank you anyhow for the largely curteous nature of you recent post.
rob r an CA,
I think that the conclusion that many in the developing world hate us for our immorality is just the southern product of a north walking horse. We could be and frequently are as moral as the day is long. The people who hate us would hate us regardless.
Your conclusion in this regard speaks more volumes about yourselves that it does about anything else.
Regars.
The Loop Garoo Kid
loop garoo said..
I think that the conclusion that many in the developing world hate us for our immorality is just the southern product of a north walking horse. We could be and frequently are as moral as the day is long. The people who hate us would hate us regardless.
Its true that there are many moral people in America. What is also true is that people in most foreign countries dont see that. What they see about America is what hollywood pumps out and portrays as the american lifestyle and what stories about us pop up in the international news services.
My experience was in the Air Force a few years ago. I've found that most people in the military are highly secular, and that evangelical christians were a strong minority and rarely talked about their beliefs.
The people who hate us would hate us regardless.
I'm sure that's true for many but false for those swayed by the propoganda. It's nevertheless gas on the fire.
Give me old fashioned western morality any day.
Granted, Muslims condemn us for our Hollywood temptations --and our defense of Israel --for which we are "the Great Satan."
But their idea of morality leaves a lot to be desired with their honor killings, blame and cruelty toward rape victims, easy divorce and multiple wives, beheadings and removing hands, terrorism that spares no children or innocent bystanders, promise of virgins as heavenly reward for terrorist acts and murders -- I don't think they travel a moral high road.
All,
Are we agreed? If they are going to hate us, they are going to hate us even if all our movies are G rated.
CA,
Your experience in the AF is certainly not consistant w/ Michael Weinstein's. Given the situation w/ the "canning" of the USAFA chaplin a few years ago, I think your expeience may have been the anonmaly.
The Loop Garoo Kid
Are we agreed? If they are going to hate us, they are going to hate us even if all our movies are G rated.
"They" meaning an undefined group of people who are not us. sure. "They" meaning every specific individual who hates us? I highly doubt it. You may not care much about these issues, but to some people, they are very important in and out of the united states.
Even if the difference our liberal morals may make in terms of whether a specific quantity of people will hate us is very small, it is nevertheless an important additional justifier for the many who would hate us anyway.
Barb said...
Give me old fashioned western morality any day.
Granted, Muslims condemn us for our Hollywood temptations --and our defense of Israel --for which we are "the Great Satan."
But their idea of morality leaves a lot to be desired with their honor killings, blame and cruelty toward rape victims, easy divorce and multiple wives, beheadings and removing hands, terrorism that spares no children or innocent bystanders, promise of virgins as heavenly reward for terrorist acts and murders -- I don't think they travel a moral high road.
You see Barb in the same way that you see all muslims through the light of the minority terrorists actions. The muslim world sees America throught the minority opinions of our actors and politicians.
ror r.
That's BS.
CA
Good point
TLGK
why is it BS?
So here's a link I found to a web site thrown up by an ex-Muslim by the pseudoname "Ali Sina" (generally, an aggressive critic of Islam would be smart to conceal his identity, and for whatever it's worth for the credibility of the website, Richard Dawkins plugs the website in his book "The God Delusion".)
He heavily subscribes to this idea of Muslim hatred on the basis of American immorality with many choice quotes from several Muslims including Osama himself.
This is particularly indicting:
On April 8, 2003, right after the fall of Saddam, an Iranian cleric, Kazem al-Husseini al-Haeri, issued a religious edict for the to Shiite mullahs in Iraq, calling on them "to seize the first possible opportunity to fill the power vacuum in the administration of Iraqi cities."
The edict said, "People have to be taught not to collapse morally before the means used by the Great Satan if it stays in Iraq, …It will try to spread moral decay, incite lust by allowing easy access to stimulating satellite channels and spread debauchery to weaken people's faith."
So again... why is it BS to suggest that western immorality is a reason for islamic hate of America?
It surely is not BS, Rob. However, it's probably true that the radical Wahabi Islamists would hate us just because women wear trousers and don't wear burkas and cover arms down to the wrist (as required in Iran) They would hate us for our defense of Israel alone.
they don't need the world's pornography or Hollywood's products for a reason to hate, BUT those extremely immoral cultural features of the West just make them feel all the more justified and self-righteous in their repressive legalism.
Yes, the reason we got on this tangent is not to suggest that western immorality is the primary reason for third world and/or islamic hatred nor that if we were moral, this hatred wouldn't exist. I'm not suggesting that people of muslim nations are fit judges of our morality nor that they do so without hypocracy. We got on this tangent because Snake Hunter said our moral issues were irrelevent to (in his estimation) the greater threat of terrorism. So Christian Apologist made a good point that our morality is in fact relevent to our enemies and their objections are not all invalid. The reason this was carried over here is that Snake Hunter suggested that CA and I were whining and I brought up the moral criticisms of the west by our enemies as an example of something that is a valid means of engaging Snake Hunters specific criticisms and should not be considered whining. Of course everything I said to him was a valid means of engaging him and should not be dismissed so lightly. And so loop garoo decided to take odds against the claims within my example, and that's how we got here.
And it's a worthy tangent for discussion!
Post a Comment