Watch Live: Congressional Hearing on IRS Scandal

Live BlazeCast at 2pm ET: All the fireworks from the IRS Hearing!

Faith

Military Base Refuses to Host Atheists’ ‘Rock Beyond Belief’ Concert — But Activists ‘Demand Equal Treatment’

Jan. 15, 2013 6:15pm Billy Hallowell

Atheist activists held a number of noteworthy events in 2012. Among them was “Rock Beyond Belief,” a concert celebrating secularism at Fort Bragg in North Carolina. The event marked the atheist movement’s first major coming together of non-believing military members and their families. Seeking to hold a second event — this time on the Camp Pendleton base in California — atheists have hit some major roadblocks along the way.

Officials on the military base have refused a request to hold a follow-up music festival on the premises. The decision, according to a letter, is based on the monies and support that would needed to ensure that such an event is possible, KPBS reports.

Camp Pendleton Refuses to Host Rock Beyond Belief 2 | American Atheists, Military Atheists

Photo Credit: Rock Beyond Belief

American Atheists (AA), the group that is helping organize the event, is not taking Camp Pendelton’s decision lightly. In fact, using a similar argument to the one that inevitably helped activists secure a date and location at Ford Bragg last year, the organization and its supporters are claiming that the base has supported Christian events in the past (here’s information on an event held in 2011). As a result, non-theists believe that they, too, deserve to have their event — called “Rock Beyond Belief 2” — hosted on the base.

Justin Griffith, an activist and military member who is the military director for American Atheists, blogged about the situation last week, claiming that atheist activists have now alleviated the problems that Camp Pendelton officials originally mentioned in their letter. Griffith writes:

We were extremely disappointed that the second ever atheist festival on a military base was recently rejected by Camp Pendleton. They continue to provide massive support to a single religious sect, the controversial Calvary Chapel and its military arm, ‘Armor of Light’ (AoL). Camp Pendleton is a large Marine Corps base near San Diego, California. The area is also home to the 1000+ churches-strong Calvary Chapel headquarters.

The Marine Corps mailed the rejection letter to American Atheists headquarters in New Jersey. Perhaps fittingly, the letter seemed so nonsensical that it had to be rescued from the garbage.

We are pleased to announce that we have now mitigated all of the concerns that Camp Pendleton cited in their rejection letter.

A copy of the letter sent from officials to American Atheists showcases the issues that apparently led military leaders to decline the event’s presence:

Photo Credit: American Atheists

Despite the response, Griffith and his fellow atheists do not plan to back down. A new plan addressing concerns has been submitted and an official response is awaited from military personnel at the base.

“We’re not going anywhere,” he wrote on his blog. “We demand equal treatment, and we’re confident that Camp Pendleton will make the right call.”

(H/T: KPBS)

–

Related:

In CONTROL, Glenn Beck presents a passionate, fact-based case for guns that reveals why gun control isn’t really about controlling guns at all; it’s about controlling us. Find out more HERE.

Back to The Blaze »

Comments (75)

Dankabertal
Posted on January 18, 2013 at 4:47pm
This is going to go on forever. Where ever Christians are the AA will go to cause trouble and flex there muscle. In the original post (The area is also home to the 1000+ churches-strong Calvary Chapel headquarters) that is why they are stirring this. If they held a concert to raise awareness on gun control guess what? Yes the NRA would want to do the same. So I don’rt put it past the non believers to want to do this. I say let them cuz not as many people will show up as you would think, unless you let outsiders (non-Military personals and their families) in on the base.

Report this comment
Log in to Reply Reply
thetrooper
Posted on January 16, 2013 at 4:16pm
i am a christian and in no way am i confused about my belief. i am full of sin. i fall short of the glory of God. i try to be kind. i dont steal. i try not to lie. i try to love everyone, not easy. i pray every day for God to remove defects in my character. i pray every day for other people. i am far from holy. but my beliefs are not up for debate. God gave man free will. you can believe anything you want. but every single one of us will stand in judgement before the throne of God one day, whether you believe it or not. humans are too wonderful to have accidentally happened. please do not try to use flawed logic to try to explain the unexplainable.

Report this comment
Log in to Reply Reply
txswalker
Posted on January 16, 2013 at 9:35am
less than 1% of the military are athiest and Brags concert only drew a few hundred, not the 10k they said would attend. In fact more people showed up to protest the christian event than those who showed for the athiest concert. The military can fund whoever it wants to and if its not to the best intrest of moral they can deny funds to the logistics and security of the event.

Report this comment
Log in to Reply Reply
dustbunnieskill
Posted on January 16, 2013 at 9:23am
Do as i say,Not as I do…Heil Obama

Report this comment
Log in to Reply Reply
U4eeeahhh
Posted on January 16, 2013 at 8:10am
If you let the religious hold a festival on the base then you need to give equal time and support to the irreligious too. The majority of the people on the base are likely to be under 30 and people under 30 are likely to be 35% non-believers, unaffiliated with any philosophy’s camp yet, The Christians court these bodies and minds with events like Christian concerts and on-base representatives, the Atheists just want equal access to these people too.

A poster above says Satanism is banned by the US Army. I can find to information to support that statement and I suspect it is not true.

Report this comment
Log in to ReplyReply
- txswalker
  Posted on January 16, 2013 at 9:32am
  They can support whoever they want to support./ Thier decisions are usally based on if its for the good of the moral and unity of the troops. If it is decisive or not in the budget they can do whatever they want.Also athiest count for less than 1% of the population and the estimated 10 thousand were actually only a couple hundred which of less than 10% of those entered on a military Id. In contrast more people actually showed up to protest the christian concert than showed at the athiest concert.
  
  Report this comment
betterpart
Posted on January 16, 2013 at 4:08am
Atheists’ religion shoul not be permitted anywhere except in their own spaces—just as they demand from Christians, Jews, Islamists, Buddhists, et al.

Report this comment
Log in to ReplyReply
- Thornyrose13
  Posted on January 16, 2013 at 7:06am
  The issue is, do military bases allow specifically religious-based groups to hold such concerts or events on their property? If so, are they subject to the same rules? If the answer is yes, there is no reason not to allow an atheist group to enjoy the same rights. If the answer is no, then AA has no grounds for complaint. Given the cuts that are pending for the military, I can see a legitimate reason for the Marine Corps to wish to avoid hosting such an event, which might cost them money. much like having the president visit…
  And really, can we get over all this hostility? most atheists do not equate all christians to Westboro Baptist. Most religious people should not equate all atheists to the extreme activists in the American Atheists whose activities exceed that of merely seeking equity in treatment.
  
  Report this comment
- G-WHIZ
  Posted on January 16, 2013 at 11:55am
  Y’all can hav y’o concert but no-one will be forced to attend…that’s why only less-than 100 attended!!
  
  Report this comment
The Third Archon
Posted on January 15, 2013 at 10:04pm
“Archon, our courts use statements…religious portion of the First Amendment.”
Keyword–COURTS use statements, because it is the COURTS, and not the SENATORIAL COMMITTEES whose opinions on “what the law is” matter legally speaking. Or to be more precise the last court of the the highest authority to speak on the matter that matters (LOL).
“As for the slavery comment…be honest now.”
The point is that it isn’t “their” Constitution–it’s OURS. They don’t have any special LEGAL authority SIMPLY by virtue of having been “the Founders,” and more to MY point they CERTAINLY don’t have any special MORAL authority SIMPLY by virtue of having been “the Founders.”
“No one ever claimed that the founders were perfect.”
My point wasn’t that they weren’t perfect (though true), my point was that they aren’t AUTHORITATIVE.
“And it was done on the backs of Christians.”
Correction–MOST (not ALL) was done on the backs of Christians.
“Some of those Christians believed in slavery,”
Correction–MOST (not some) Christians believed in slavery at the time.
“You and…immoral.”
Ever stop and think that there might be a PROBLEM with your religious and moral theories when you have to engage in apologetics for slavery? And no, your wrong–while there was indentured servitude (which arguably actually is ALSO immoral) in the bible there was ALSO quite clearly CHATTEL SLAVERY (i.e. what you mean by calling it “American slavery”)
“chaplains belong on military bas

Report this comment
Log in to ReplyReply
- TeresaJ
  Posted on January 15, 2013 at 10:38pm
  “The point is that it isn’t “their” Constitution–it’s OURS. They don’t have any special LEGAL authority SIMPLY by virtue of having been “the Founders,”
  
  Ah but they do, or what we have is anarchy, not a government. If we are not sworn to uphold the Constitution, it isn’t a country or a governmental body. There is give and take in it for sure, so as to allow for the greatest freedom possible while still maintaining order, which is why John Adams said:
  
  “…we have no government, armed with power, capable of contending with human passions, unbridled by morality and religion. Avarice, ambition, revenge and licentiousness would break the strongest cords of our Constitution, as a whale goes through a net. Our Constitution was made only for a moral and religious people. It is wholly inadequate to the government of any other.”
  
  “and more to MY point they CERTAINLY don’t have any special MORAL authority SIMPLY by virtue of having been “the Founders.”
  
  Certainly not. That distinction belongs to God, something they readily recognized, which was why they stated repeatedly that religion and morality were vital to our government’s foundation.
  
  So, as I said, be honest now. You are not an American, by heart. What you want is something different than America was meant to offer. What early Americans recognized, though never specifically named, was that God was their King.
  
  Report this comment
- TeresaJ
  Posted on January 15, 2013 at 10:46pm
  I feel I should clarify “give and take.” I’m refering to the fact that the government belongs to the people, as you are touching on. However, there must still be a foundation, and that is the Constitution. Break that, and you break our government.
  
  Report this comment
JB4JS
Posted on January 15, 2013 at 8:28pm
I suggest the atheists be a part of one of those Wednesday night gigs that the White House regularly hosts.

Report this comment
Log in to ReplyReply
- taintso
  Posted on January 15, 2013 at 9:15pm
  Yes, and have Obummer waste more money to make everyone happy. How about grants for companies wanting to make circular crucifixes for the non believers? And funding for a McMuslim Burkaburger?
  
  Report this comment
Joyzee
Posted on January 15, 2013 at 8:00pm
The Generation of NOT..!! Not Christian Not Responsible Not Committed Not Goal Oriented Not Focused Not my Fault Not Working Not Smart Not Married Not in the Military Not in charge Not Loved Not Worth Not Much..!!

Report this comment
Log in to ReplyReply
- DeavonReye
  Posted on January 16, 2013 at 9:07am
  Do you come on here to post hateful [and entirely WRONG] information? How about posting something of value instead of strawman-ing people who you are SUPPOSED to be “showing the love of christ” to.
  
  Report this comment
The Third Archon
Posted on January 15, 2013 at 7:35pm
“MILITARY BASE REFUSES TO HOST ATHEISTS’ ‘ROCK BEYOND BELIEF’ CONCERT — BUT ACTIVISTS ‘DEMAND EQUAL TREATMENT’”
Well then there should be no prayer or churches hosted on military property, and all the military chaplains should be replaced with secular counselors (actually, that should probably be done ANYWAY, just because otherwise it puts the government in the position of an infinite regress of trying to fulfill every possible religious claim, or else legitimizing some over others by deciding which are “valid” religions–precisely what the Constitution is SUPPOSED to prohibit) if that’s the way they want to set their policy.

Report this comment
Log in to ReplyReply
- TeresaJ
  Posted on January 15, 2013 at 8:21pm
  Actually, no.
  
  “The whole view of the petitioners seems founded upon mistaken conceptions of the meaning of the Constitution. . . . If [the use of legislative chaplains] had been a violation of the Constitution, why was not its character seen by the great and good men who were coeval with the government, who were in Congress and in the Presidency when this constitutional amendment was adopted? They, if any one did, understood the true purport of the amendment, and were bound, by their duty and their oath, to resist the introduction or continuance of chaplains, if the views of the petitioners were correct. But they did no such thing; and therefore we have the strongest reason to suppose the notion of the petitioner to be unfounded. . . . They had no fear or jealousy of religion itself, nor did they wish to see us an irreligious people; they did not intend to prohibit a just expression of religious devotion by the legislators of the nation, even in their public character as legislators; they did not intend to spread over all the public authorities and the whole public action of the nation the dead and revolting spectacle of atheistical apathy.” – Senate Judiciary Committee 1853
  
  Report this comment
- The Third Archon
  Posted on January 15, 2013 at 8:59pm
  Well you were at least TOPICAL to one of my three points.
  
  The problem is, your “authority” is an antebellum pre-17th Amendment Senate committee. Such a body is (1) Not a federal court, and therefore its opinion on what the law (constitutional or otherwise) is or should be is just that–an opinion and not law; (2) Was not, at the time of rendering said opinion, democratically elected, and yet purported to legitimately deserve legislative authority, let ALONE judicial authority (i.e. authority to determine what is, and is not, required with respect to military chaplains specifically in this context by the Constitution) which has NEVER, de jure, had; (3) Is the Senate, so even TODAY is of questionable legitimacy to have ANY political authority AT BEST since its undemocratic institutional character denies equitable representation to the interests it purports to represent and subject to the jurisdiction of its laws; and (4) ignoring all else, supports its questionable, at best, opinion with an appeal to an even OLDER authority of (some) people (a collection containing both unelected private citizens and those who had or would hold public office), and on the basis of their INACTION with respect to military chaplains find a tacit endorsement–the very SAME people who were INACTIVE when it came to the legal authorization of SLAVERY (among other things), and who ALSO weren’t federal judges. And THIS is your moral and legal authority for your claims? HA!
  
  Report this comment
- TeresaJ
  Posted on January 15, 2013 at 9:38pm
  Archon, our courts use statements such as these with less legislative relevence (a letter by Thomas Jefferson, for example) to justify rulings and opinions of the Constitution all the time. Therefore, the statement is very relevent, along with numerous others on the issue of the religious portion of the First Amendment.
  
  As for the slavery comment, what, did you learn that in “diversity” class? Here is the thing. To be an American, you must swear yourself to the Constitution they wrote. You know, the “slave owners.” If you do not abide by the Constitution, you are not an American, so please, you and anyone else with this line be honest now.
  
  No one ever claimed that the founders were perfect. But they did set up the government we are a part of, one that has prospered and changed the world. And it was done on the backs of Christians. Some of those Christians believed in slavery, and some believed a land called the “land of the free” couldn’t have slavery without being hypocritical. I agree with the latter. You and most of the rest of America, however, have no understanding of the type of slavery mentioned in the Bible (which was not the same as the slavery in America’s history), and it is by no means immoral.
  
  This is all however, off topic. The fact remains that chaplains belong on military bases, which was my point. I personally have no issue with atheists having a concert; I simply take issue with the “equality” argument, which grows tiresome.
  
  Report this comment
- TeresaJ
  Posted on January 15, 2013 at 9:49pm
  However, I do note that the military authorities allowed this concert last year, and have now rescinded. This leads me to believe they know something we don’t.
  
  Report this comment
- USMarine3594
  Posted on January 15, 2013 at 10:27pm
  For the millionth and one time:The First Amendment prohibits the federal government from making a law “respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof” This provision was later expanded to state and local governments, through the Incorporation of the Fourteenth Amendment. Freedom of religion, not freedom from religion! The constitution says nothing about the separation of church and state. That was a concept of Thomas Jefferson.If you don’t believe in Jesus, fine, don’t be mad because we do. Why are atheist so angry about our belief? If you don’t believe in God, just go away and leave us alone! Oh yeah, and pray that you are right.
  
  Report this comment
- spirited
  Posted on January 15, 2013 at 10:57pm
  Excellent explaination MARINE !
  
  Report this comment
- Locked
  Posted on January 16, 2013 at 8:44am
  @The Third Archon
  
  “Well then there should be no prayer or churches hosted on military property.”
  
  Why? Atheism isn’t a religion, nor does it have its own buildings, and a concert is not a prayer service.
  
  “and all the military chaplains should be replaced with secular counselors”
  
  There already are secular “counselors”: they’re called therapists.
  
  “actually, that should probably be done ANYWAY, just because otherwise it puts the government in the position of an infinite regress of trying to fulfill every possible religious claim”
  
  Not true. If a single person demands a chaplin for their worship of Zeus, then it’s on them to find one or to apply for a time slot in the common use chapels that most religious chaplins use to hold services. The military isn’t barring them from their faith.
  
  Report this comment
PeteOH
Posted on January 15, 2013 at 7:35pm
To hell with them…. Wait, God beat me to it!

Report this comment
Log in to ReplyReply
- Mil Mom
  Posted on January 15, 2013 at 8:42pm
  @PeteOH
  Posted on January 15, 2013 at 7:35pm
  
  To hell with them…. Wait, God beat me to it!
  ***
  Ever so Right ON! My friend.
  
  Report this comment
- DeavonReye
  Posted on January 16, 2013 at 8:59am
  Yes, because “he” apparently finds it JUST to burn people for all eternity for being honest on a topic where all evidence supports NON-supernatural occurances, and where there is no relevant/credible/compelling evidence FOR “him” even being real.
  
  Report this comment
barber2
Posted on January 15, 2013 at 7:20pm
Joy to the world. The atheists are just supporting the Obama Chicago radicals : screw the taxpayer and blow up the deficit . Full speed ahead ! Thanks, Barack and Democrats for DIVIDING our military and screwing us taxpayers once again. You do that so often and so cleverly. The American taxpayers do not appreciate all of this “punishment , ” or change, as you radicals call it.

Report this comment
Log in to Reply Reply
Metallicat
Posted on January 15, 2013 at 7:11pm
They can hold their religious festivals on government property,but Christians cant?

Report this comment
Log in to ReplyReply
- Pnis
  Posted on January 16, 2013 at 5:56am
  That’s the problem. They DO allow Christians to have festivals, yet are denying the atheists the same right. Atheists only want equality. What is so bad about that.
  
  Report this comment
OldSurfRat
Posted on January 15, 2013 at 7:10pm
They can got to he11
Oh wait they dont beleive in that.

Well god damn them.
No that wont work either.

Ok let them go fk themselfs. No wait sound like they already did that.

Hum kinda stuck here. Oh well bless their little hearts ;)

Report this comment
Log in to Reply Reply
The-Monk
Posted on January 15, 2013 at 6:48pm
Sure would be nice if that letter (emphasize that it’s a military letter) had a date on it.

If I could see a date on that letter I’d have more info to judge what happened.

The venue was asking to be scheduled for the Summer of 2012 and then changed to the Fall of 2012. How much advanced notice was given? It could be that so little advanced notice for the change was given that it was done “in order to be turned down” on purpose.

Don’t remember seeing any genuine military letter without a date (correctly laid out in the military standard; Day Month Year) on it.

Report this comment
Log in to ReplyReply
- The-Monk
  Posted on January 15, 2013 at 6:49pm
  Edit;
  Summer of 2013 not 2012.
  
  Report this comment
- Exrepublisheep
  Posted on January 15, 2013 at 7:04pm
  Good point.
  
  Report this comment
- Grubmeister
  Posted on January 15, 2013 at 7:26pm
  That is a good point. The MC can’t be expected to host an event with no lead time. Not that this ends the issue but if they needed more lead time, perhaps the Marines should have addressed that point in the letter. As it stands, it looks as if they turned it down for no reason other than that they couldn’t afford the money or manpower. I’ll give them the benefit of a doubt at this time but if the MC is just stringing them along it will become obvious as time goes by. In that case, it will put an end to any events on the base. I know there are plenty of Atheists that want exactly that. I don’t think that’s in the best interest of anyone to be so stubborn they force it that direction but if they can’t play nice they won’t be allowed to play at all.
  
  Report this comment
- The-Monk
  Posted on January 15, 2013 at 8:00pm
  Hi Grubmeister,
  
  Military letters with no date are suspicious to me.
  
  I’m used to seeing the “Re: ” and a date ‘Day month year.
  
  It might be a fake letter… who authenticated it?
  
  Report this comment
- Grubmeister
  Posted on January 15, 2013 at 9:06pm
  @The Monk,
  I suppose I can understand that. No doubt that will come out soon so we’ll see. I’ve read the Atheist group is going to see how the Marines respond before going to court. At that point, it will be revealed.
  BTW, this is the same group that pushed through the event back east. They have publicly stated they know every move the Marines might take to make things difficult and are more than willing to go to court. As I understand it, they’ve said they will pay for related expenses so there is no reason for the Marines to act put upon.
  
  Report this comment
- The-Monk
  Posted on January 15, 2013 at 9:13pm
  Hi Grubmeister,
  
  What kind of court do you think something like this belongs in?
  
  Military or civilian? Can civilians even bring the Military to a civilian court?
  
  I don’t know these things.
  
  Report this comment
- Grubmeister
  Posted on January 16, 2013 at 12:22pm
  @The Monk,
  I’m not a lawyer so I don’t know much more than you about the legal aspects. I’m not sure who would handle a constitutional challenge to the military. I did a little snooping but I didn’t find anything that I would want to consider an authoritative answer on the subject.
  My guess is that it would first have to go through military court, then an appeal goes through the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Armed Forces (CAAF). I may be way off base on this.
  I guess we’ll both find out as this works it way to a conclusion.
  
  Report this comment
Grubmeister
Posted on January 15, 2013 at 6:45pm
Get yer popcorn and sodas now. Sit back and watch the fireworks. This one guarantees a good time will be had by all (unless you’re rooting for the losing side).
I don’t see any way the marines are going to win this one. Their opponent, though lightly armed, are experienced and determined. It’ll be fun to see publicized the names of those who will fight against equal treatment. I wouldn’t be surprised to see some reassignments, demotions or retirements by the time this is over.

Report this comment
Log in to Reply Reply
kickagrandma
Posted on January 15, 2013 at 6:45pm
HOORAY!!!

So proud of you all and praying for you, for GOD’S PROTECTION OVER, AROUND, ABOVE, BENEATH, OUTSIDE, INSIDE of each one of you.

STAND IN HIS MIGHTY NAME!

Thank you, from a grateful citizen.

Report this comment
Log in to ReplyReply
- ModerationIsBest
  Posted on January 15, 2013 at 10:12pm
  Proof positive that the majority of Christians are fine with the Government forcing Christianity on people, but not other viewpoints.
  
  Report this comment
TeresaJ
Posted on January 15, 2013 at 6:45pm
They can only demand “equal treatment” on the basis of religion if they declare themselves to be a religion.

Report this comment
Log in to ReplyReply
- The Third Archon
  Posted on January 15, 2013 at 9:07pm
  Well, actually the federal courts (institutions whose opinion on what the law is actually DOES legally matter) have ruled that irreligion is as much protected and effected by the provisions governing religion and religious liberty as religion is. Thus, the laws the prohibit discrimination “on the basis of religion” also prohibit discrimination against atheists. Likewise, the 1st Amendment applies every bit as much to atheists as to theists.
  
  Moreover, the Equal Protection clause never had anything to do specifically with religion and was, intended at least, to always apply to ALL citizens, irrespective of religious persuasion. All the the Equal Protection clause says is that “no state shall … deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.”
  
  Report this comment
- supermansdad
  Posted on January 15, 2013 at 9:23pm
  Then there should be no government statues or any form of government sponsored art either as that too is free speech and first amendment.
  
  Here’s what most anarchist and athiests, one in the same really, don’t get about the military. It’s not a free society. As such, commanders have much more discression to say if something is not good for the moral and well being of a group or organiztion to participate with their unit/installation.
  
  This is why nearly every religion is allowed into the military but it is against policy to be a Satanist. It’s not a religion that breeds good order and discipline into the military, even if for no other reason than it has the possibility to detract the order and discipline from others.
  
  Anarchists/athiests don’t have to like it to be true, and it doesn’t change the fact that it is still true. Get over it!
  
  Report this comment
- The Third Archon
  Posted on January 15, 2013 at 9:50pm
  “Then there should be no government statues or any form of government sponsored art either as that too is free speech and first amendment.”
  Maybe that’s your opinion, but the Constitution doesn’t have an “Establishment Clause” for art or free speech, or anything else in the 1st Amendment for that matter–JUST religion.
  
  “Here’s what most anarchist and athiests, one in the same really, don’t get about the military. It’s not a free society. As such, commanders have much more discression to say if something is not good for the moral and well being of a group or organiztion to participate with their unit/installation.”
  No I UNDERSTAND the UCMJ and the fact that the military feels it has the prerogative to strip members of civil liberties at will–I just think that’s (1) ********; and (2) Not supported by any power delegated to them in the Constitution, nor such a delegation by Congress to them supported by any
  part of the Constitution either.
  
  “This is why nearly every religion is allowed into the military but it is against policy to be a Satanist.”
  Well no, that’s just because of ignorance and stupidity–and is of questionable constitutionality to boot. Arguably it runs afoul of the religious qualification clause and CERTAINLY it runs afoul of anti-discrimination statutes.
  “It’s not a religion that breeds good order and discipline…”
  And your basis for this is…? Do you know what various self-identified “Satanists” ACTUALLY believe?
  
  Report this comment
- supermansdad
  Posted on January 15, 2013 at 10:22pm
  No, this is from my experiance as a MILITARY LAW ENFORCEMENT OFFICER! Not political theory as to what is or is not freedom, I have actual field time enforcing state, federal and UCMJ unlike most anarchists or libertarians. In other words, I’ve lived it not pretended.
  
  This is the same why Communism won’t work. Communism and Socialism are beautiful in a perfect world, the problem is we don’t and never will live there until the return of Christ.
  
  Yes, military commanders have much more leway to say no, you can’t do that. Yes, the military is not a free society, which is why they can impose restrictions on personal freedoms. All that is needed is simple justification, the two most common are needs of the military (i.e. restrictions on movement, clothing/dress, etc.) and any item/action/activity that detracts from good order of conduct.
  
  You may think it’s FUBAR but it also shows you have no idea or experiance with any form of service or what it means to be a service member. You know going in that you are relinquish certain freedoms. There are reasons behind this, chiefly, obeying orders. That leader has to know that orders will be followed, even if it means certain death. And if that leader has to worry about discipline problems because of a miriad of possibilities then it can become a prohibited activity.
  
  Again, you don’t have to like it, it’s still the truth.
  
  Report this comment
- TeresaJ
  Posted on January 15, 2013 at 11:09pm
  Archon, I said on the basis of religion. And I was being a bit tongue-in-cheek.
  
  However, exactly as Supermansdad has said. The twisting of the “equality” clause has also helped get America to the shaky ground it is on. There is no such thing as BEING equal. The only thing the Constitution says is that it will treat people equally in the eyes of the law. That means if you are rich and influential, you still get the same sentence. If one group is allowed to do something, another can as long as they do it in a peaceful and law abiding manner. Anything outside of this is a gross twisting and abuse of the Constitution.
  
  Military is a wake-up call for our youth. At least it better be, because the instant it is not (and by news reports, the “PC” grows daily), our military protection is done. Reality: there are people in authority over you, usually older people. The old are meant to have more “status” (respect) than the young, and the young than the children. You are not born knowing everything, and you nor this world will make it without respect for authority. This is not only Biblical; you can find such a hiarchy in most cultures.
  
  A common theme in today’s American youth is disdain for the “old-fashioned.” This is another symptom of America’s spiritual problem.
  
  Report this comment
supermansdad
Posted on January 15, 2013 at 6:42pm
Remember, GOD, Corps, Country.
Something the Corps got right!

Report this comment
Log in to Reply Reply
GuruMeditation
Posted on January 15, 2013 at 6:41pm
I’m convinced they are “beyond belief”, so why bother.

Report this comment
Log in to Reply Reply
jcldwl
Posted on January 15, 2013 at 6:28pm
Good for the Marines.

Report this comment
Log in to ReplyReply
- freedomnetworker
  Posted on January 15, 2013 at 6:32pm
  so do the atheist now think they are a religion or not. If they are then they cant be in govt.. oops..
  
  Report this comment
- hatchetjob
  Posted on January 15, 2013 at 6:38pm
  Right on, JCLDWL.
  
  Report this comment
- Zeus is THE Lord
  Posted on January 15, 2013 at 6:59pm
  Freedom, how can simply not believing traslate as being a religion? You’ve got yourself chasing your tail…
  
  Report this comment
- The-Monk
  Posted on January 15, 2013 at 7:12pm
  Hey Zeus,
  (Pun intended)
  
  The basis of all Religions is Faith. Faith in a belief. You, as an atheist, have Faith in a belief that there is no God(s). And you preach your belief very religiously. This is way people see atheism as a religion.
  
  Report this comment
- Zeus is THE Lord
  Posted on January 15, 2013 at 7:18pm
  Monk, I’m an agnostic. And I don’t preach in the least. Proselytizers are an annoying bunch. I’m allowing that there are mysteries we’ll never comprehend as to why the universe came to be, but I’m very confident the answers do not reside in the myths created by primitive man…
  
  Report this comment
- The-Monk
  Posted on January 15, 2013 at 7:19pm
  Hey Zeus,
  
  Same thing goes for agnostics…
  
  Report this comment
- The-Monk
  Posted on January 15, 2013 at 8:07pm
  Hey Zeus,
  “Monk, I’m an agnostic. And I don’t preach in the least.”
  
  Your moniker itself is a from of preaching. Also, I posted my last comment before your reply posted. I saw on another post your “agnostic” comment.
  
  You see “ZEUS IS LORD”…. you can’t fool a Monk. Change your moniker to something that doesn’t preach who is and who isn’t a Lord and stop preaching agnostic and/or atheist comments and then I’ll give you some credit.
  
  Until then you are just a trash talking hypocrite.
  
  Report this comment
- Zeus is THE Lord
  Posted on January 15, 2013 at 8:58pm
  Monk, my “Zeus” moniker is tweaking the devout. My way of saying all gods are mythic…
  
  Report this comment
- The-Monk
  Posted on January 15, 2013 at 9:14pm
  Hey Zeus,
  
  I read your reply and let me surmise it….
  
  You are also a liar. Why not just tell the truth and get it over with?
  
  Report this comment
- Zeus is THE Lord
  Posted on January 15, 2013 at 10:32pm
  Ohhh kaaaay, Monk. What do you think, that I now worship Greek gods? Haaaaa. You miss the point, my friend. I’m equating the Judeo-Christian god with one from Greek mythology. Get it now? All are fictional. Get it?
  
  Report this comment
- The-Monk
  Posted on January 15, 2013 at 10:46pm
  Hey Zeus,
  
  Your stupidity is amazing…
  
  Report this comment
- ModerationIsBest
  Posted on January 15, 2013 at 11:01pm
  I’m sorry but people like Monk are beyond ignorant to common sense.
  
  Atheists say there is no evidence to think there is a God.
  
  Therefore it’s not based on any type of “belief.” It is a refusal of accepting your claim of your belief.
  
  Atheism isn’t a religion because.
  
  There is no ONE book that all atheists read and use to guide our lives
  The overwhelming majority of atheists don’t meet on a specific day in a specific location. You may have a few atheists meet as a group, but it’s not a place where they go to get “atheist teaching.”
  There are no rituals
  There is no worship of anything
  
  Religion is so eager to turn everything else into a religion and “belief” so it’s not as crazy.
  
  Report this comment
Zeus is THE Lord
Posted on January 15, 2013 at 6:24pm
Typical hypocrisy. Believers get their “Faith ‘n’ Fun” nights at MLB baseball games, but Gawd forbid if there was a non-believer night at ball games. Just thinking of the shrill Christian hysteria hurts my eardrums. Funny how the devout are so threatened by those who simply don’t believe in their god out of the hundreds of gods that man has created….

Report this comment
Log in to ReplyReply
- civilwarcometh
  Posted on January 15, 2013 at 6:56pm
  I don’t believe in God and i wouldn’t go to an atheist event of any kind. But i go to christian event’s. Most of the people who believe in God are nice caring and loving people can’t even come close to saying that about most atheist.
  
  Report this comment
- Fubared
  Posted on January 15, 2013 at 7:01pm
  Pray to your rock, tree, president, or turd about it. Whaaaaaaaa.
  
  Report this comment
- Zeus is THE Lord
  Posted on January 15, 2013 at 7:06pm
  I’m not an atheist, I’m agnsotic. But the greater point is you must not know any non-believers. All the ones I know are naturally moral, ethical and compassionate people who are not so because they feel they’ll be promised a reward after they die…
  
  Report this comment
- Zeus is THE Lord
  Posted on January 15, 2013 at 7:07pm
  Fubared, whay pray at all? It’s the salve of the weak-minded…
  
  Report this comment
- barber2
  Posted on January 15, 2013 at 7:25pm
  ZEUS: What name do you go by when you are Trolling the gun issue on the Blaze ? or the war issue ? or the Glenn Beck issue ? Guess Zeus is your ( since Dec. 29 , 2012 ) Troll name for religious topic trolling . Maybe you are an unemployed actor practicing different ” roles ! “
  
  Report this comment
- barber2
  Posted on January 15, 2013 at 7:31pm
  ZEUS: so praying is ” the salve of the weak-minded ?” After listening to your comments, I would say that ” agnosticism is the salve of the arrogant .”
  
  Report this comment
- Grubmeister
  Posted on January 15, 2013 at 7:50pm
  @Barber2,
  I would say that ” agnosticism is the salve of the arrogant ”
  
  Actually, for a person having no direct experiences that prove the existence of god(s), agnosticism is the most intellectually honest position available. Unfortunately, for the theist who hates all who are unlike themselves, it is still generally considered atheistic if you define atheism as lacking a belief in god(s).
  
  Report this comment
- Zeus is THE Lord
  Posted on January 15, 2013 at 9:02pm
  Barber, Zeus works for all the Blaze “stories.” As for joining on 12-29, so what? We all signed up one day, no? There was a time when you were on a for a mere few weeks. I only discovered this ridiculous site when I heard of the story of the crazed parents stalking their daughter at school, and my Google serach brough me to this festering swamp…
  
  Report this comment
- The Third Archon
  Posted on January 15, 2013 at 9:24pm
  @GRUB
  Oh you are just going to confuse the hell out of them trying to explain how atheism and agnosticism aren’t mutually exclusive (atheism meaning “I do not believe this claim of the theists that there is a god” and agnosticism meaning “I do not/cannot (depending upon how you are using the term) know if this claim of the theists that there is a god is true”). In fact, by the strict rules of logic, one HAS to be an atheist if one is an agnostic (in the colloquial sense), since one doesn’t believe something rationally until it is MORE likely than not true–if one has no IDEA if it’s true, or only “knows” (in the colloquial sense again) that it is equally likely true as false, or “knows” (ditto) it is more likely false than true, then one rationally should not believe the positive assertion, which requires a PREPONDERANCE of the available credible evidence at minimum to be a rationally justified belief.
  
  Report this comment
- DeavonReye
  Posted on January 16, 2013 at 8:45am
  That about sums it up, Archon. I consider myself agnostic, but lean towards atheism only because of the complete lack of any relevant/credible/compelling evidence for “a god”. But at the same time, I can’t rule out the possibility, . . . so because I am NOT arrogant on the subject [Barber], I go by agnostic.
  
  Report this comment
- Grubmeister
  Posted on January 16, 2013 at 12:30pm
  @Archon,
  I think all our heads are hurting after reading your post ;-)
  
  I’m especially aware of the confusion presented by the different definitions of agnosticism/atheism. It’s an absolute mess in my opinion. Those definitions really ought to be changed so we can all speak the same language (hopefully not the one your spoke). My favorite nonsensical aspect of one definition of agnosticism? “One cannot know whether or not a deity exists”. How exactly does one know what cannot be known? Good thing science doesn’t work to establish what cannot be known or we’d still be hunting with sticks.
  I hope I didn’t step on any toes. That was not my intention.
  
  Report this comment

It appears that you have Javascript Disabled. Please enable Javascript in your browser preferences for a better user experience on TheBlaze. You can not comment without Javascript enabled.