Atheists Continue Their Major Push For Non-Believing Military Chaplains
- Posted on November 11, 2011 at 5:35pm by
Billy Hallowell
- Print »
- Email »
Faith, particularly of the Christian nature, has been an inherent part of the United States military experience for decades — if not centuries. As a result, the nation’s military culture is generally regarded as conservative in nature.
But as atheists become a more vocal minority, they are also seeking greater recognition and more support services among military ranks. In fact, some non-believers are even advocating for their installment as officially-recognized chaplains.
Christian military chaplains are plentiful based on soldiers’ demographics. These faith leaders serve soldiers by ministering to them and by providing Biblical principals and advice. Of course, there are Jews, Muslims and others from diverse faith groups who are also a part of the chaplaincy as well. Currently, there are 2,700 individuals serving who represent 130 different religious groups.
According to the New York Times, “Defense Department statistics show that about 9,400 of the nation’s 1.4 million active-duty military personnel identify themselves as atheists or agnostics, making them a larger subpopulation than Jews, Muslims, Hindus or Buddhists in the military.” While still relatively small, the notion that this group makes up a more sizable slice of the overall pie than the others who are already represented by faith leader is intriguing.
Capt. Ryan Jean, based at Fort Meade in Maryland, is one soldier who claims that he’s been berated due to his lack of faith by others in the Army. After going through some negative experiences as a result of his atheism, he has decided to try and become a humanist lay leader — an individual, who similar to Christian, Jewish and Muslim Chaplains, would minister to his fellow non-believers.
And Jean isn’t alone. There are others across the nation who are seeking the same role within the military. These individuals believe that Christians take for granted the support and acceptance that they receive as a result of their faith. While the religious have people there to reinforce their values, atheists, humanists and others who follow similar world beliefs argue that they do not. Thus, they wish to gain official recognition so that they can respond to their fellow non-believing soldiers’ spiritual needs.
So far, though, the military hasn’t given official recognition to any atheists. Jason Torby, the head of the Military Association of Atheists and Freethinkers, says that he hasn’t seen much support for the proposal yet either. ”What I’ve heard is, ‘Well, you guys aren’t like us. You guys don’t believe like we do,’” he said. “What I haven’t heard is, ‘Yes. We accept.’” Torpy, of course, is supportive of the movement toward atheist chaplaincy. The Kansas City Star has more:
In arguing for atheist chaplains, Torpy has stressed what he called the “positive values” of humanism: “community, making meaning in life, scientific naturalism.”
“We‘re not just coming in saying we want someone to wander around talking about how much God doesn’t exist,” he said. “We talk about humanist values, humanist community, how we understand the world.”
In an interview with the Christian Post Paul Vicalvi, the executive director of the National Association of Evangelicals Chaplain Commission, said earlier this year that he was puzzled by atheists’ push to join the chaplaincy. “Traditionally chaplains are seen as a person of a higher power faith,” he said. “It would redefine the chaplaincy if a non-faith person becomes a chaplain,” he said.
Furthermore, Vicalvi claims that the support these individuals are looking for is already in place. With psychologists and counselors already available to military personnel, he maintained that non-believers already have secular resources to fall back on.
Mary Doyle, a spokeswoman from Fort Meade, said that it will be “a high mountain to climb” for atheists seeking this status. ”The group that they want to be a lay leader for would have to be considered a recognized religious organization,” Doyle said. The Star reports about the complications surrounding this situation:
The military does not recognize atheists or humanists as members of an organized religion. (Atheists do not believe in a god. Humanists typically are nonbelievers who find meaning in ideas about community, science and human potential. There is much overlap between the two groups.)
But beyond this, one would wonder how atheists — many of whom vehemently deny the notion that they should be considered “religious” — would be able to rectify such a label. The mere notion that non-believers wish to be chaplains showcases that, in a sense, these individuals consider their system of non-belief structured enough to parallel that of Christian, Jewish and Muslim sects.
Also, as the Christian Post has reported in the past, there’s the issue of education and preparedness. The Army requires that chaplains have an endorsement from their faith group, which is problematic for non-believers for the aforementioned reasons. But beyond this, an individual must also have a graduate degree in theological or religious studies — something that’s simply not possible for atheists.
Watch what Penn Jillette thinks about atheist chaplains:
This move by atheists comes after other issues have arisen surrounding their recognition on military bases. Over the summer, atheists won the right to hold an atheist-friendly music concert (and they also received $50,000 from the military to put it on) at Fort Bragg in North Carolina; the event will be happening this March.
Do you think atheists deserve their own military chaplains as well? Take our poll:
Popular Stories
MSNBC Host Snaps in Heated Segment: ‘What in the World Is Riskier Than Being a Poor Person in America?’ 688 Comments
Does Misstated Marathon Claim Prove Paul Ryan Is Dishonest? (POLL) 658 Comments
‘Jumah at the DNC’ Speaker: ‘Muslims Visited America Prior to Columbus’ & ‘It Was a Muslim’ Who Guided Him to the ‘New World’ 524 Comments
Obama: RNC Like Watching ‘Black-and-White TV’ Because Romney ‘Did Not Offer a Single New Idea’ 361 Comments
Roseanne Barr: Most Billionaires ‘Violent Pedophiles’ & ‘Heartless’ Cocaine Addicts 322 Comments
Faith
This Is the Creationists‘ Response to Scientist Bill Nye’s Viral Pro-Evolution Video Claiming They Harm Children 201 Comments- Pakistani Muslim Cleric Accused of Framing Disabled Christian Girl in Koran-Burning Case Read More
- ‘Made Up Religion’: TV Historian Enrages Muslims, Receives Threats After Producing UK Documentary Questioning Islam’s Beginnings 221 Comments
Meet the Controversial German Imam Accused of Brutally Beating His Wife & Pushing Sharia Law Read More
‘Self-Proclaimed Messiah’ & Unification Church Leader the Rev. Sun Myung Moon Has Died — Here’s His Life Story Read More
Business
- ‘Imperial President’: In Case You Missed it, President Obama Issued This Major Executive Order Last Week Read More
- Germany’s Upcoming Court Ruling Will be Huge for the EU Read More
Ford Looks to Beat Toyota for Best-Selling Car in 2012 With This Model 147 Comments
Bernanke & QE3: Here’s What You Need to Know Read More- ‘Extortion’: Why Did the Labor Department ‘Drop the Hammer’ on Oregon Farmers? 300 Comments
Technology
- This Is the Creationists‘ Response to Scientist Bill Nye’s Viral Pro-Evolution Video Claiming They Harm Children 201 Comments
‘TaserDrone’: Hackers Weaponize Quadcopter With Actual ‘Shocking’ Technology Read More
Ever Heard of the Wild ‘Burning Man’ Festival in the Middle of the Nev. Desert? Here’s Your Primer Read More
Stanford Develops Technology ‘Better Than Steroids’ for Athlete Recovery Read More
Have You Pretended to Know What ‘the Cloud’ Is? You’re Not Alone Read More
Submitting your tip... please wait!
Comments (355)
drphil69
Posted on November 11, 2011 at 6:09pmI guess they need to provide wiccan chaplains too!
rangerp
Posted on November 11, 2011 at 6:18pmwhy don‘t we get cooks that don’t actually cook any food, and how about some mechanics that do not work on vehicles, and perhaps some medics that do not do anything medical. How about some infantry soldiers that do not do any fighting…..
Report Post »Findalis
Posted on November 11, 2011 at 6:20pmThey do already. Wiccans believe in G-d. Actually more than one God and Goddess. They accept a higher being that leads their lives.
Report Post »rangerp
Posted on November 11, 2011 at 6:21pmArmy needing Athiest Chaplains? – wow, what a brilliant idea.
I am sure there will be plenty of room for them, as the decent chaplains are all leaving, now that Obamma turned loose the sodomites on us.
What is next, camo uniforms that do not blend with anything? Oh yea, already got those
Report Post »marion
Posted on November 11, 2011 at 6:30pmTell you what…..
Been there, done that, religious or not, believe in God or not, when you are in battle and mortars are falling around you, bullets wizzing by and that roadside bomb goes off in the truck in front or behind you, you see an RPG fly in front of you, I have had more athiests and non-believers pray, yell out God help me, O God, and Jesus,and become believers if only for the length of time of the attack. I have yet to hear a believer become a non-believer, although there have been a couple cases of asking God why he did what he did.
Report Post »Uncurable wound
Posted on November 11, 2011 at 6:42pmRanger P Right on brother,how many brothers have we lost to the acu.
Report Post »Im sure some fat cat made bank off that.
Good luck spending it where their going.
TEA…
YoungBloodNews
Posted on November 11, 2011 at 7:05pmDont forget those darned Scientologists, I think they need ordained aliens or something to administer their theta-tests.
Report Post »YoungBloodNews
Posted on November 11, 2011 at 7:06pmAnd Christianity has been part of our military since, oh I dont know General Washington’s days?
Report Post »mikem1969
Posted on November 11, 2011 at 7:12pmOk, here is a problem, if you don’t believe, why do you need a chaplain?? Also, for those that do believe and want to talk to a chaplain for spiritual advice, why would they want to talk to a non-believer? They don’t believe, so why do they need a religeous figure of any kind?
Report Post »wzanesdad
Posted on November 11, 2011 at 7:43pmI think a chaplain that doesn’t believe is called a psychiatrist .
Report Post »Darren
Posted on November 11, 2011 at 8:09pm“I guess they need to provide wiccan chaplains too!”
Good point and my main concern is that once the military allows atheist chaplains, then atheist activists will naturally shove out religious chaplains (“religious chaplains” should be seen as redundant term). Chaplains have always held a place of religion within the military. This should not change lest the nature of our military changes.
Report Post »NOTYERHUCKLEBERRY
Posted on November 11, 2011 at 8:09pmReally!! As a true atheist (not me), one does not believe in any deity. So why does one need a councilor of any kind? Tell them to suck eggs! Have a nice afterlife!
Report Post »ishka4me
Posted on November 11, 2011 at 8:12pmfrom my Army days, Chaplains were Captains and need education. To be come a Chaplin of nothing you would need a degree in Nothing. Great fix, the occupiers are very qualified for this new position.
Report Post »suffolkva
Posted on November 11, 2011 at 10:27pmHow about telling the atheists to go to he**?
Report Post »Darren
Posted on November 11, 2011 at 11:33pmChristianity, by the way, is the best source of teaching morals and discipline. In fact, Christianity is the basis of what we asa society decide is right or wrong. Let’s keep it that way. Of course folks can have their own religious version of chaplain (Christian, Jewish, Muslim, etc.) but an atheist one is a bit of an oxy-moron.
Report Post »Darren
Posted on November 11, 2011 at 11:35pmLet me clarify. I think folks in the military may have their own religious representative but the title of “chaplain” has a direct history to Christianity and Christianity is clearly the best source of spiritual guidance. Let’s keep Christianity in the chaplain title. Change it and risk changing the face of the military and society.
Report Post »Darren
Posted on November 11, 2011 at 11:40pmOops;
I guess there is Jewish chaplains in the military. That’s cool.
http://www.politico.com/news/stories/1011/66930.html
Report Post »StonyBurk
Posted on November 12, 2011 at 7:36amOn 11-11-11 I delivered my paper titled Soldiers Cross / a House Divided to the Vietnam Veterans Memorial here in Fruita. Later I stood as the ruling class presided over a politically correct Veterans Day observance. replete with two (or does a circle back count as a third?) flyovers. And the very PC
Report Post »chaplains long moment of silence to honor those who do not pray like Christians do –and then an appologetic prayer broken up by a flyover. And lest I forget the keynote speaker was the top cop in
Grand Jct. who is not a Vet– but who assimilated as one who grew up an Army Brat. I find I am not
as adaptable to this 1984 /2011 vision for America. I much prefer America from 1984 to the decline since. As I noted in a paper remembering the destruction of our symbolic Memorials -The Schofeild Barracks Cross destroyed in 1997 -the Camp Smith Cross/Memorial destroyed as well by Court order in 88 . The Mojave Cross deemed allowable–by the supreme Court but stolen by a misguided thief in a crime of passion /drunken rage. And another memorial threatened by the same corrupt Court the 9th Circuit. will hear if Jesus should be evicted form the National Forest in Montana . A Memorial
erected by former members of the 10th Mtn.Div. (WWII ) whose Memorial reflects those seen in Italy.
If the authority cited as violated (the establishment Clause) prohibits any religious display on any Govt. land. if true– then melt down and recast the LibertyBell to remove Leviti
BulldogO6
Posted on November 12, 2011 at 9:46amrangerp
Posted on November 11, 2011 at 6:18pm
why don‘t we get cooks that don’t actually cook any food, and how about some mechanics that do not work on vehicles, and perhaps some medics that do not do anything medical. How about some infantry soldiers that do not do any fighting…..
I’ve seen plenty of that in 30 years of service. Commanders that don’t command….etc, etc, etc ..
Report Post »The10thAmendment
Posted on November 12, 2011 at 9:50amAll I have to say about this is?
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3GKhDCsLrUg&feature=related
Report Post »TheWholeTruth
Posted on November 12, 2011 at 9:57amUmmm.. that’s an oxymoron if ever I heard one! Now, after saying that, they DO! They are called ‘counselors.‘ I’ve gone to the Navy Chaplain once for a situation on housing. My husband at the time had to go through the chain of command. I told him “I don’t, and I’m going straight to the TOP!” After telling him the problem of needing to get into housing and that Navy Relief had told me that they were going to send me home (5 months pregnant) and put him in the barracks, he got so livid and asked for the name of the person that told me that and went and talked to them. Needless to say within 3 weeks we were offered base housing! This after every other place I went said that rules are rules and anyone below E4 here doesn’t get base housing.
Wow, that rabbit ran CLEAR around the pasture! Chaplains are for more than just faith based issues. If someone has a problem, they can generally help.
Report Post »AOL_REFUGEE
Posted on November 12, 2011 at 10:46amAnother thing they need is an Atheist’s Bible: a piece of my used toilet paper.
Report Post »Ruler4You
Posted on November 12, 2011 at 11:17amNon believing military chaplains? Do you realize how stupid that is? Have we allowed stupidity to rule the day? Is there not ONE single brain cell left undamaged in the world today?
I say; don’t believe in God? You should have no problem using a weapon, then.
Report Post »Nehemiah6.3
Posted on November 12, 2011 at 3:25pmYou atheists can wonder around trying to understand humanity and the world with your designated chaplain, but until you recognize that God does exist and He did create the world and is envolved in your life because He created you, you will always feel something is missing and you will always struggle to understand.
There has been other people throughout history who say they do not believe there is a God and every single time they end up destroying themselves. Hmmmm.
Like i’ve said before, if you walk away from the truth, you will be able to recognize truth less and less, until all you see is lies.
there will come a day when you will see the truth, which is to see things as they really are.
Report Post »WeDontNeedNoSteenkinBadges04
Posted on November 12, 2011 at 6:32pm“Atheists Continue Their Major Push For Non-Believing Military Chaplains”
TheBlazes’ titlepage picture shows non-believing soldiers in non-prayer to the non-God led by non-chaplains. Very non-touching.
Report Post »pavepaws
Posted on November 12, 2011 at 9:06pmNonbelieving chaplains? An oxymoron? Someone stressing “positive values” of humanism: “community, making meaning in life, scientific naturalism.” A social worker?
Report Post »donaldchar
Posted on November 13, 2011 at 12:02amWiccan chaplains have been in military service for decades now. So, how’s it going, Rip (vanWinkle)?
Report Post »NoRoomForSocialismHere
Posted on November 13, 2011 at 11:28pmI noticed the percentage has remained constant for at least 50yrs. In boot camp the Catholics got in their group and we Protestants got in ours. When we marched to services there were about a dozen left standing, yes the atheists. The number of the MAJORITY was 1500.
Anyting a person pursues is his religion and that is the definition. All this would leave those idiots is shrinks to help them cope with beng alone in this world and they are alone much like the homosexuals. We should put them on an island and let them live the life they want and let them defend themselves
Report Post »NoRoomForSocialismHere
Posted on November 13, 2011 at 11:43pmFindlas, Satan was the highest angel in heaven and was cast down as all that mock and deny the living GOD and his name is Jesus
Report Post »old white guy
Posted on November 14, 2011 at 7:32amanother wtf moment. a chaplin that doesn’t believe in anything.
Report Post »HumbleMan
Posted on November 14, 2011 at 7:38amRanger, you just described Obama’s Czars. Then “run” the energy industry without knowing anything about it. The “run” education without the slightest knowledge. And so on.
Oh wait, … I misspelled “ruin”.
Report Post »ZenBiker
Posted on November 14, 2011 at 8:03amI get such a kick out of so-called atheists. They are as ardent to prove there is no God as any Evangelical Christian strives to bring God into peoples lives. And now: an Atheist Chaplain. The only thing to trump that oxymoron would be a Marxist President of the United States of America, One Nation Under God, with Liberty and Justice for All. Like that’ll every happen, eh?
It brings tears to my eyes to see people who ignore their own business in order to direct the affairs of others. Our Military is here for the purpose of protecting our country from external threats to our freedoms. As these “atheists” should get on with getting their own houses in order, so, too, should our military members put all other belief and dogma behind them and place their sacred duties first.
Report Post »FoxholeAtheist
Posted on November 14, 2011 at 9:19amUncurable wound; Been there, never done that.
Report Post »Cornflake
Posted on November 14, 2011 at 9:10pmI think they already provide leadership for the wiccan! So, I guess the atheist figures, why not? They figure they are allowing gay members to serve, and will allow them to marry on base soon, so why not? With same sex marriages the military is going to have to provide for transgender counseling, housing for married same sex couples, adoption rules for them, pay for sex change operations,provide life long care for any sexually transmitted diseases, and fend off lawsuits by non same sex married people who think they are getting more benefits. I suppose that the atheist looks at the world and sees how lawless everything has become to include our government and military, that they feel they can push the can a little farther down the road. At the same time, recognized religions such as Chrisitianity are being torn to shreds! I sincerely hope that the atheist get recognized as a religious order. Then we can sue them as many times as they sue established regligious orders! Poetic justice!
Report Post »Prolife Conservative Atheist
Posted on November 11, 2011 at 6:08pmThis is one issue worth fighting for. I served in the military proudly. It would be nice to have someone who speaks of morality with recourse to observable nature (for you believers you can take that as “from God’s creation” if you would like) from a secular perspective. I’m a prolife conservative atheist. I’m very American with the same values as most conservatives and people of faith. Not all atheists are moral relativists. Please understand what some of us atheists are doing to turn that page with other atheists.
Report Post »Kaoscontrol
Posted on November 11, 2011 at 8:22pmWhy do you try so hard to resist God’s love? Deep down you know there’s a creator. Time to be honest with that still small voice of the Holy Spirit and open your heart to meet the God who loves you.
Report Post »suffolkva
Posted on November 11, 2011 at 10:36pmHow can an atheist NOT be a moral relativist? If you are not a moral relativist, then, by definition, you must believe in moral absolutes. The obvious question is then from whence do the moral absolutes originate? Without going into a long explanation as to why it is required in this limited forum, keep in mind when answering this question the logical requirement that any moral absolute must transcend reason which, by definition is limited to self referential symbolic logic since in order to prove an absolute using reason is impossible because any reasoned argument requires axioms on which to base the argument and axioms are limited to non absolutes.
Report Post »Islesfordian
Posted on November 11, 2011 at 11:21pmI thouight atheists thought they dodn’t need religion. Why then do they think they need chaplains? Religious people value chaplains because chaplains are part of their RELIGION and they speak for God or help people stay connected to him. What would atheist chaplains do that atheists really want done? “Speak of morality with recourse to observable nature”? How incredibly lame that sounds.
What happened to the days when atheists were strong advocates of REASON and human autonomy? Now they have become all whiney and ME TOOish. “Waaahhh! Religious people get chaplains and we don‘t just because we don’t believe in God”. It‘s as pathetic as homosexuals whining about not being able to enjoy the benefits of marriage just because they don’t want to enter into a sexual union with a member of the opposite sex. Perhaps you think
The only thing more idiotic would be vegetarians whining that they aren’t given steak knives with their meals like the people ordering sirloins are.
Report Post »Prolife Conservative Atheist
Posted on November 12, 2011 at 9:41amSuffolkva
I don’t subscribe to moral absolutes but moral universals. Human beings have a common capacity to discern (if not readily intuit) a universal moral character. This is evident from natures observables not supernatural phenomena.
Islesfordian
It‘s not the Chaplain position that I’d fight for, but rather a like position with a person who spouses moral pros from a secular perspective. However, ought these people be available through the wellness program, that is sufficient. This atheist enjoys good conversation with other secular moralists (without recourse to the supernatural). There is nothing spiritual about strengthening your moral character and confidence in your virtues.
There are a lot of atheists, I will admit, that are merely reactionary atheist and they’re largely immoral (they’re reacting against Christianity; for many of them, atheism is merely a belief); also, there are a lot of people of faith (people who claim to be people of faith) who are immoral. Then in the field, or on a base, it would be nice to have someone as I’ve suggested above.
Report Post »apollo18
Posted on November 12, 2011 at 1:46pmI’ve never seen an atheist sponsor a Little League team (would you let your kid walk out the door with that on his back?). Also, do we need deaf translators? Or quadriplegic fitness instructors? How about blind range officers? “Pedophile Day Care”? Or liberal socialists with common sense? All impossible. All defy nature’s rule of “survival of the fittest”. What are “atheist chaplains” going to wear as a collar device? Just cut a hole where the cross or Star of David should go? If an atheist and a “real” chaplain have a meeting, what are they going to talk about? Cerebral, ethereal nuances of… lunch? I felt comfortable with a chaplain of any denomination, saying Sunday services (“Mass”, for us Catholics, even if we could only get them on Tuesday, or whenever). I’ve received Communion from a Protestant minister, and had several “heart to hearts” with the rabbi at our command. (Never had “traditional” confession with a non-Catholic, though. But isn’t that what bartenders are for?) I never met a chaplain that wasn’t respected by the command and usually by the rank and file, but I’m certain that an atheist chaplain would get laughed at, if not behind his back and eventually, to his face. Atheists I’ve met never asserted their “right” to a mandatory service, forced upon a parochial setting. They just wanted to ignore those of us that felt obligated to practice our faith, as we wished. Any atheist that wants to debate the question, bring it
Report Post »Cesium
Posted on November 13, 2011 at 11:31pmI’m with you PCA/ @THE WHOLE TRUTH who said…”A true atheist does not believe in ‘right’ and ‘wrong.’ Because with no God, there really isn’t either one of those things.” Well you’d have to be brainwashed pretty bad to believe that! Even animals show altruism. Where is their moral code? It is plainly obvious the best benefit to all people is respect, honor, and humility. Back in biblical times mind you there was no such thing as “theater” as an example of the dramas in human life. The action and consequence tales where provide in the bible. Along came Shakespeare, then Melrose place. It is quite apparent what the consequences are to one’s actions and how certain social cards played will result in consequence. What does god have to do with the reality of that!? The 7 deadly sins are obvious and built on what many many people came to find in ancient society as behavior that can cause strife.. pre-sociology mind you. Now we have sociology, A non-believer can be exposed to 1000s of fictional stories that exemplify cause and effect in life, and needs no bible or god to understand what is best for their life, includes being good to others.
Report Post »zoro51
Posted on November 11, 2011 at 6:05pmwhat DAFTNESS is this **** now? athiests chaplans// what theyll place a crystal on thier forehead n OHM thier spirit into it?? LOOK chaplins give COMFORT not BS new age crap.. athiests will DIE go into HELL period. IF they call out to GOD HE may even though they DENY him take them to heaven.. seriously show em a athiest whose bout to die n have him NOT call on god.. HELLOOO logic this athiestic chaplans.. SHEER STUPIDITY personified
Report Post »HKS
Posted on November 11, 2011 at 6:08pmWhere is it written that the majority must submit to the minority? Why is this stuff a talking point? The people are the government make a choice and tell the others to get lost. No society can cater to every renegade group on the planet. Wake up America your killing yourself.
Report Post »bringiton
Posted on November 11, 2011 at 6:05pmKewl! New troll. Thanks Joe (nobody cares what you think) Bonham. I’m not even religious, and you can gfy. :}
Report Post »Corwin525
Posted on November 11, 2011 at 6:04pmThese guy’s are not even “Oxy” their just plain moronic
Report Post »findinglostthings
Posted on November 11, 2011 at 6:04pmMilitary Chaplains do not “provide services for other faiths” they “provide for” service people of other faith. If a Muslim needs a prayer room while deployed a Christian chaplain is to provide for their needs–not perform a service for them. Secondly, as soon as this makes it to any court it will be thrown out first it is self-contradictory. Chaplains sole Constitutional duty is to “provide for the free exercise of religion” to those who would otherwise be prohibited by sequestration because of duty. Chaplains have only ancillary duty to non-religious people such as voluntary counseling. A chaplain cannot provide for the free exercise of religion for someone who does not have a religion. Secondly, an atheist cannot obtain the necessary endorsement by a religious denomination. The whole thing is a ploy to muddy the waters. It is stupid.
Report Post »MARCH4HIM
Posted on November 11, 2011 at 9:12pmMy only thought about their resoning would be ,if they can get a wedge..
A “foot in the door” …In the U.S. MILITARY
And we already have the example of ……
“ NO TEN COMMANMENTS ON GOVERNMENT PROPERTY”
Being a soldier, is working under a government branch..
Report Post »It would not be , to far of a stretch for our …Once Great Nation …to comply ..
and then… to (MAKE LAW) for (NO GOD ON A MILITARY BASE ) ..
Just a thought….
NoRoomForSocialismHere
Posted on November 13, 2011 at 11:53pmFinding…, well presented and the truth
We know Morality does not exist without GOD. A mind has to have information on the subject and it cannot come from mankind, left to our we would kill each other. Psychology is derived from the moral teachings of God only twisted to death.
Report Post »South Philly Boy
Posted on November 11, 2011 at 6:04pmAll the ROACHES think it’s their TIME
Report Post »TwoMinuteMan
Posted on November 11, 2011 at 6:01pmOutright ridiculous. Who is taking this seriously? If you dont believe in god or religion then you dont go to services anyway. If you feel the need to talk to someone there are plenty of therapists available in bases. Nobody is forced to go to services in the military.
Report Post »copatriots
Posted on November 11, 2011 at 6:08pmThis is just another attempt of removing God from this country, plain and simple. And they score bonus points for simultaneously trying to weaken the military.
Report Post »TunaBlue
Posted on November 11, 2011 at 6:50pmI see the roots of Secular Humanism in Confucianism, and a theme that appears many times throughout Chinese history from Yao to Mao.
It’s American roots come from the University of Chicago. Originally, the [belief] opposed an “acquisitive and profit-motivated society” and outlined a worldwide egalitarian society, along with other beliefs about the perfectibility of man, et cetera.
It’s world view approach supports social justice and progressivism ideology.
Report Post »dread_pirate_roberts
Posted on November 11, 2011 at 5:58pmOde to the modern military:
We the willing
led by the unknowing
are doing the impossible
for the ungrateful.
We have done so much
with so little
for so long,
we are now qualified to do
anything with nothing.
Author unknown, reprinted without permission, because the author is, well, uhh, UNKNOWN!!!
Report Post »searching for the Truth
Posted on November 11, 2011 at 5:58pmGod doesn’t want an atheist in a foxhole either – so what’s your problem?
Report Post »Joe Bonham
Posted on November 11, 2011 at 6:17pmExplain your statement please. Does god care what the religion is of the people doing the killing? I thought it was AGAINST his commandments to kill other people…
Report Post »kaydeebeau
Posted on November 11, 2011 at 6:54pmActually Joe – the commandment is Thou shalt not murder…..
Report Post »Joe Bonham
Posted on November 11, 2011 at 7:02pmKilling a man you never met in a country you’ve never set foot in before for vague political reasons because a politician thought it was a good idea… is this not also “murder”?
I’m not a pacifist, but JC made it pretty clear that he was.
Report Post »searching for the Truth
Posted on November 11, 2011 at 7:07pmGod does not want an atheist . Slowly now. God does not want an atheist, in a foxhole. God does not want an atheist in heaven either.
Report Post »Joe Bonham
Posted on November 11, 2011 at 7:38pmsearching for the Truth:
I really couldn’t care if your god “wants” me or not, actually.
And I find it interesting you keep repeating God doesn’t want atheists in foxholes. So are you saying he only wants Christians to die and kill?
Report Post »searching for the Truth
Posted on November 11, 2011 at 9:03pmListen very carefully – you are the one who is talking about killing – I’m talking about foxholes, atheists, and God.
Report Post »searching for the Truth
Posted on November 11, 2011 at 9:13pmBesides I don’t know any gods.
Report Post »justgonnastay
Posted on November 12, 2011 at 1:15am“And if there were a God, I think it very unlikely that He would have such an uneasy vanity as to be offended by those who doubt His existence” Bertrand Russell
Report Post »searching for the Truth
Posted on November 12, 2011 at 6:26amThere one goes again – circular arguments – I am not going to destroy the hope for those who cry out to God in their time of need while lying in a foxhole by agreeing with anyone that God does not exist. Ask the author of this article – maybe he will agree with you. And, ” God’s Mercy endureth forever.”
Report Post »NoRoomForSocialismHere
Posted on November 13, 2011 at 11:40pmNo chappy, you have just interpreted something that is above your being and knowledge.
The commandment you speak of is old English, properly translated from original text it is MURDER. Look in a lawyers dictinary for the legal application now that you have the true word.
Your twist did and diversion did not work, get some sleep child
Report Post »Bad_Ashe
Posted on November 11, 2011 at 5:57pmABSOLUTELY! I think that atheists should certainly be allowed into the chaplaincy if (and only if) an atheist or humanist group petitions the United State government that their ideology be recognized as a religious belief.
Think of all the fun we could have at their expense if atheism or humanism suddenly became a religion. Think of the hilarious legal repercussions alone! Not to mention how this would completely turn much of their anti-religious polemical fodder on it’s heel.
The atheists at the FFRF and AA would go stark raving mad, their heads might even explode. All in all, I think it would be a hoot.
Report Post »Git-R-Done
Posted on November 11, 2011 at 8:39pmAnd atheists claim that atheism isn’t a religion. Then why is there this push for a chaplain for them?
Report Post »Andreaweingarten
Posted on November 11, 2011 at 5:57pmThis doesn’t even make any sense. They are seriously insane!
Report Post »justgonnastay
Posted on November 12, 2011 at 1:23amJust pray for them then. Isn’t that the Christian thing to do? Mocking and stereotyping them isn’t very Christian. Calling someone insane because they look at things differently than you doesn’t impress anyone and God already knows your heart, if that’s what you believe. So…pipe down and pray.
Report Post »majorsco
Posted on November 11, 2011 at 5:55pmChaplains by definition are religious figures. To have an athiest to want a non-religious chaplain, it wouldn’t be a chaplain. What he needs is a psychiatrist! It is not any different than gay marriage destroying the institution of marriage when all they need is the legal rights of marriage in a civil union. Marriage is itself a religious union even more than a legal one. All that they want is destruction of society.
Report Post »dread_pirate_roberts
Posted on November 11, 2011 at 6:03pmYe be hav‘in the right ’o it, that ye are!
Glen said “they will push you and prod you and try to get the reaction they want to justify their actions!”
this, this is just plain stupidity of the highest (or lowest pending your point of view) order. Obviously they feel that “We the people” really really are that STUPID!
Report Post »MMR
Posted on November 11, 2011 at 5:55pmI‘m sorry but I’m an Atheist in the Armed Forces, you can to family support services to talk to someone thats not a chaplain. I have never felt uncomfortable while people pray. I just put my head down until this done.
Report Post »Raymond Koepsell
Posted on November 11, 2011 at 5:54pm… and the camera slowly pans to a dark, shadowy corner a few feet away where Rod Serling is smoking a cigarette and making an incisive remark about the irony and insanity of war.
Report Post »Snafu777
Posted on November 11, 2011 at 5:53pmSo much for atheism not being a religion.
Report Post »last frontier
Posted on November 11, 2011 at 5:53pmThere are no Atheist in the fox holes.
Report Post »Joe Bonham
Posted on November 11, 2011 at 5:56pmI’m an atheist, and I was in a foxhole. Sorry Christians – you’re not the only ones in the military.
Report Post »copatriots
Posted on November 11, 2011 at 6:04pmReading a book by Ray Comfort, “God Doesn’t Delieve in Atheists”. Poor Jon, I know good men who were in foxholes and vow that the saying is true. You are merely a fool because a fool says in his heart “there is no God”. Or you are a liar and a poser as someone who actually saw any military action. Either way, I am sad for you.
Report Post »JakeEllis
Posted on November 11, 2011 at 6:08pmDoubt it Joe. It is easy to post nonsense like you in order to look like your ideas appear to make sense. If it is so, go to hell where you belong.
Report Post »kmichaels
Posted on November 11, 2011 at 6:11pm[Joe Bonham
Posted on November 11, 2011 at 5:56pm
I’m an atheist, and I was in a foxhole. Sorry Christians – you’re not the only ones in the military.]
You’ll have a hard time proving, Joe, that you did not pray to God once the bullets started flying around your head. I guess we could take your word, knowing as we do that atheists, liberals, socialists and or marxists never lie. But, we wont be doing that now will we.
Report Post »Joe Bonham
Posted on November 11, 2011 at 6:12pmPersonal attacks aside… do you have any actual EVIDENCE for this claim?
Heck, I’ll even admit the argument has some merit – humans are silly and cowardly creatures – so they make sense of a scary situation by pretending there is a mythical being protecting them on the battlefield.
But why is a Christian god superior to, say, Apollo, Zeus, Baal… or Allah?
As for me – I prefer relying on the guy to my left and right for safety, not fairies or leprechauns.
Report Post »Lucy Larue
Posted on November 11, 2011 at 6:15pmJOE BONHAM,
You may an Atheist but you were never in a foxhole.
Military huh? What J.A.G…, like Ol‘ Joe Biden’s son Beau?
You know…,air conditioned buildings…,yadda,yadda.
HOOAH!
Report Post »Joe Bonham
Posted on November 11, 2011 at 6:25pm@ Lucy:
Actually, I was USMC – so technically its “Oorah”. :D
And also – you’re right. I was never in a foxhole. Technically we call them “fighting holes”. And if we REALLY want to get detailed, technically it was mostly “ranger graves” we dug.
Report Post »copatriots
Posted on November 11, 2011 at 6:28pmSorry Joe, if you can’t look at creation and see for yourself, no one here is going to be help you. I was on a flight just the other day and marveled how the ocean evaporates to form clouds that bump together to create lightning and lightning bolts that are essentially fire. Water becomes fire…..stunning. Of course, you believe in a ridiculous Big Bang that magically appeared out of nowhere from nothingness.
Report Post »Bad_Ashe
Posted on November 11, 2011 at 6:29pm@Joe Bonham – The old Zeus argument, hey Joe? Fine by me. If the metaphysically necessary first cause of the universe turns out to be Zeus, I’m okay with that. Of course, Zeus had a physical form…so he’s not really a metaphysical being or construct is he? Hmmm — well that rules him out.
You really need to start scouring better websites for this stuff. I‘m willing to be that you can’t even honestly tell me what in last 2000 years has prevented Christianity from descending into mythology. I’ll give you a hint, it’s the same quality that presents it in its most powerful context.
You can surely give a snarky answer, of course. It would be wrong, but based on your previous posts, I expect nothing less of you.
Report Post »Joe Bonham
Posted on November 11, 2011 at 6:32pmcopatriots:
Isn’t that just another example of how marvelous science is? Primitive tribesmen watched thunder and lighting and were terrified – the gods were angry! Now with SCIENCE we understand water, evaporation, electricity, lightning… now not only can we marvel at nature – we can understand the SCIENCE behind it!
Report Post »copatriots
Posted on November 11, 2011 at 6:36pmYup, it is miraculous science. And where did that come from? Poof….it’s magic.
Report Post »Joe Bonham
Posted on November 11, 2011 at 6:45pmcopatriots:
Where did it all come from? I don’t know.
I don‘t need to make up an imaginary deity to explain what I don’t understand.
Report Post »copatriots
Posted on November 11, 2011 at 6:49pmAgain Joe, that is why I am sad for you. I can tell you from personal experience that the more you know the True and Living God, the more evidence He gives you that He Is. I hope you seek and find Him.
Report Post »Joe Bonham
Posted on November 11, 2011 at 6:53pmcopatriots:
Thanks, but I used to be a Christian – but now I look back and see how horrid and hypocritical my “beliefs” really were, and am trying to avoid ever repeating that mistake.
Report Post »copatriots
Posted on November 11, 2011 at 6:58pmThankfully, I didn’t make Him up. What a disaster that would be. I had questions and sought answers among many viewpoints. Only the Bible answered every critical question I had. But, hey, that’s me. You can call my Lord & Savior an imaginary deity to offend me and Him but I’ll trust Him over your unknowns.
Report Post »Ireland1775
Posted on November 11, 2011 at 6:58pmSince we are getting into the whole previous reliogns and all the old school gods. In all honesty if jesus really was the son of god then he was an alien. technically being as he wasn’t of this earth. So if the christian faith is the right one, why did god wait so long to come down and help us. if you believe the bibles version of it all we have been aroud for 6000 years. Why did he wait for 4000 years? screw the other people? thats awesome. Also I always hear about how chrisitians care for their fellow man and all that great why do you say that you hope that they burn in hell? thats really christian of y’all. Now contarary to popular belief not all atheist are out raping and killin little innocent people. In a nation that is primarly christian we sure do have a hell of alot of abortions. Am i to believe that they are all heathens? Now lets say for the sake of argument that the christian god is the numero uno. If an atheist lives a relativly good life no killing, stealing, and they actually do numerous acts of kindness for their fellow man, wouldnt that be the type of person you would want in your kingdom of heaven? or how about this ive never been baptised so if right before i die i go and get baptised, whish those new age preachers will do so dont say they wont, ill beat the system and be forgiven for all my supposed sins and be allowed into the kingdom heaven. Loophole.
copatriots
Posted on November 11, 2011 at 7:05pmSadly, Joe, you probably went to church and were disappointed by the church or people who are by nature sinful. Or God didn’t behave in a way that you wanted him to in your life or had a personal tragedy. Nonetheless, I seriously doubt you ever placed your faith in Christ.
Either way, what is your purpose here? You come to a site ran by a Mormon to applaud that an article is written about atheists advancing their beliefs?
Report Post »Obama>Jesus
Posted on November 11, 2011 at 11:41pmSince no one else is going to say it, Joe, thank you for our service in our military. Religious are not, you are a true hero, and on this Veteran’s Day, insulting a member of our service is distasteful in the highest order.
Report Post »copatriots
Posted on November 12, 2011 at 12:28pm@IRELAND,
You have numerous questions thrown out that require your own seeking and understanding. But, from the tone of your email, your heart is hardened, your mind already made up and your intent is provoking. As such, having a meaningful message board “discussion” with you seems relatively pointless and very lengthy to cover all your topics. Although, if you were genuinely seeking answers, there are untold resources available to you.
I will take a stab at a few though. This, by no means, is exhaustive. Just a meager attempt to hit a few answers in this limited forum.
1) If you review the history of God’s chosen and the model they provided for human nature, you will gain understanding as to Jesus’ timing walking the earth 2,000 years ago.
Report Post »2) I have a very clear understanding of hell and wish no one to go there. Thus, I never use that expression even while I deal in reality that many are making their own choice to go there. The very reason I am typing this is because I hate for anyone to reject Christ’s path for eternal salvation.
3) Your point is valid that it is likely Christians have had abortions. Abortion is a sin and can be repented and the sweet woman find forgiveness. I know that numerous teenage and early 20‘s girls had no idea what was involved and bought into Satan’s lie that it was an acceptable choice. I also know an untold number of women live with the guilt and agony of that choice many years later and for some the rest of th
copatriots
Posted on November 12, 2011 at 12:40pm4) No one is good enough, not one, in their lives to warrant heaven with a Perfect and Just God. Praise God that He provided His Perfect Son as redemption. Again, study and understand Israel’s history and you will see how necessary it is for humankind to have an Intercessor.
5) Baptism is not a prerequisite for salvation. Baptism is an outward and public profession on one’s faith. God knows your heart and motive. It is indeed possible for genuine deathbed confessions. I’m not sure I agree that you “beat the system” as having a meaningful, genuine relationship with Jesus is incomparable. But, salvation requires only a confession in your heart that Jesus is the Christ, the Son of the Living God, died for your sins and rose again. If that isn’t on your deathbed, then your life from that point forward will reflect the sincerity of your belief.
Blessings to any who hear His message and receive salvation.
Report Post »copatriots
Posted on November 12, 2011 at 1:05pm@ OBAMA
What a hypocrite you are! You have nerve to chasten others while your very screen name is a constant insult to any Christian. Nevertheless, in a separate post, I thanked all military past and present, for their service. As you can see from the above dialog, I questioned Jon’s military action. He signed up for an account on The Blaze the day before and chose to spend his time on Veteran’s Day on a conservative site arguing for atheism. God permits Christians discernment and I stand behind His guidance. Nevertheless, while my discussion with Joe was more aimed at faith, I wholeheartedly thank Joe for his service to this country if he indeed served in any capacity. And I apologize for my doubt if I was wrong.
Report Post »Joe Bonham
Posted on November 12, 2011 at 5:51pmCOPATRIOT:
I’m not trying to sound like Billy Badass or Ricky Recon – I’m just saying I have some background in the subject the article was discussing – in several different units, two different chaplains, various lay readers.
My bottom line is this – why do Christians feel threatened by atheists? Why do you need a monopoly on spiritual services? Christ talked about peace, love and understanding – why don’t you all show some to your fellow man, whether or not we agree on Christ’s state of deity?
Report Post »copatriots
Posted on November 12, 2011 at 6:07pmI appreciate your post, Joe. I am by no means threatened by atheists. I’ve said all along that I am sad for atheists and wish hell on no one but I am certainly not threatened. The issues and underlying fact in today’s America is that any other religion or belief system is advanced and applauded while the God of Abraham, Isaac and Joseph as well as anything to do with Christianity is being systemically condemned while attempting to be removed from our history and culture. This is not the America I grew up in, nor is it the one you did…..regardless of your age.
I ask you……..morally, as a culture, are you happy with the downward, anything-goes spiral in this country over the last 30+ years as we simultaneously remove all things God from our society?
Report Post »copatriots
Posted on November 12, 2011 at 6:36pmAnd Joe, I am currently also reading a book called “Crazy Love” by Francis Chan. It is incredibly convicting as to how a Christian should attempt to love others by following Jesus’ example. We are first told to love God with all of our heart, mind and soul. Then, to love others as ourselves. We, Christians, are surely challenged with loving others as others attempt to take away our very rights to worship in this country. In addition, others are trying to advance all sorts of immoral behavior as acceptable within society. How do you think Christians in America should react? As for me, I seek God’s wisdom and direction while praying for His mercy over our country.
Truly, may God bless you Joe. And again and more directly to you, I want apologize for doubting your service and I thank you for it. While we disagree on faith, we are surely united as Americans.
Report Post »FoxholeAtheist
Posted on November 14, 2011 at 9:25amJoe, I second you.
Report Post »TRONINTHEMORNING
Posted on November 11, 2011 at 5:53pmI know! Why don’t they just come to Christ and they can use the Chaplain that is already in place? Oh, and what a great new life they would have. This stuff just makes my hair hurt!
Report Post »Obama>Jesus
Posted on November 11, 2011 at 11:43pmBecause they are too smart to believe in fairy tales.
Report Post »GumRock
Posted on November 11, 2011 at 5:52pmI look at Atheists as there own religion .
they have No rights greater or lesser than any other religion .
God or No God we all have equal rights to believe what ever we want .
with that said .. what the Hell do they want a chaplain for ?
Report Post »Bad_Ashe
Posted on November 11, 2011 at 5:51pmABSOLUTELY! I think that atheists should certainly be allowed into the chaplaincy if (and only if) an atheist or humanist group petitions the United State government that their ideology be recognized as a religious belief.
Think of all the fun we could have at their expense if atheism or humanism suddenly became a religion. Think of the hilarious legal repercussions alone!
The atheists at the FFRF and AA would go stark raving mad, their heads might even explode. All in all, I think it would be a hoot.
Report Post »Joe Bonham
Posted on November 11, 2011 at 5:57pmAre you kidding? I would love for atheist organizations to enjoy the same tax-exempt status religions do!
Report Post »Bad_Ashe
Posted on November 11, 2011 at 6:17pm@Joe Bonham – you‘re missing the big picture here because you don’t seem to understand how atheism being recognized as a religion completely changes the atheist narrative, the affect on atheist literature, the elimination of much of their more inflammatory and idiotic talking points. Not to mention the rift between atheism being recognized as a religion, and those militant atheists who petition the government to end tax exemption for religious organizations, the boy scouts, and add other such burdensome idiocy onto our legal system. I’d love it just for the in-fighting alone.
On a related note — would Dicky Dawkins be elected the AtheiPope Darwin I?
Report Post »honestynow
Posted on November 11, 2011 at 6:22pmHeavens, no!
Report Post »Joe Bonham
Posted on November 11, 2011 at 6:27pmBad_Ashe:
“Religion” is just a word to me. Sure, I know a few Atheists who are deeply offended by being called a religion – but to me it doesn’t matter. I consider Atheism just to be a perspective on life and the universe. So you can call it a “religion” all you like. Its just a “religion” without a god(s)
Report Post »Bad_Ashe
Posted on November 11, 2011 at 6:41pm@Joe Bonham – But see Joe, that’s where all the fun comes in. I tend to divide atheists into two groups…the lower case “atheists”m and the upper case “Atheists”. In general, I have no issue with the lower case type. Atheism qua atheism is simply non-belief, no more, no less. “Atheists” on the other hand are the types who hold a heavy disdain for religious belief, yet are morally parasitic regarding the religious framework they exist in. They tend to spread poor arguments, tend to be historically illiterate, are often rather fascistic, and when given sufficient power, have shown a propensity for mass murder. They also really love Internet message boards — strange.
Anyway, given the tone of your posts, I took you for the latter. if you are in fact the former (lower case) and not the latter (upper case), I can say that while I don’t agree with you, at the same time I understand your lack of belief and respect it because it is your choice. I think it is an exceedingly poor choice, but on this we will agree to disagree.
However, on the subject at hand, can you logically rationalize allowing an atheist/humanist into the chaplain corps? There are plenty of secular-based services to fit the needs of these soldiers. Therapeutic, psychological, etc. While I understand they may be “men on an island” in comparison to the number of Christians serving in the military, this is simply a demographic reality.
Report Post »Joe Bonham
Posted on November 11, 2011 at 6:49pmBad_Ashe:
Am I a lower case or upper case? Good question. I guess I would consider myself a lower case – in *real life* I’m not very vocal, and generally don’t discuss religion or politics unless directly asked about it (though once a debate has started I can go on all day!)
I do see a lot of harm and destruction has been caused by people and organizations fighting under the banner of “God” or “Allah” or whatever, and I do think the world would be more peaceful if we abandoned religion. However, I am under no illusion that humans would stop killing each other if we didn’t have religion. But I feel the solution to our problems is not ideology, but education and understanding. People kill because they either don’t understand the other side and see them as “inferior”.
Report Post »Bad_Ashe
Posted on November 11, 2011 at 7:07pm@Joe Bonham – You know Joe, it’s funny that you mention the whole war issue. This is something that get bandied about an awful lot by atheists, and it’s sort of perpetuated by popular media. However, in truth, this is actually incorrect.
If you look at the Encyclopedia of Wars (which is generally considered to be one of the most accurate texts of its kind), only 7% of the 1,763 wars from 8000 BC to 2000 AD are considered to be religious in their motivation.
Additionally, when you look at things like Christian religious atrocities (the Crusades that are deemed religious, the Inquisition) when compared to atheist atrocities, the atheist/communist dictators of the latter 20th Century killed more people than any of the historical black marks on Christendom combined.
While I‘m sure this won’t convince you, it certainly is eye opening.
Report Post »Joe Bonham
Posted on November 11, 2011 at 7:33pmBad Ashe-
I haven’t seen that percentage before, but it sounds about right to me.
But I‘m sure you’ll agree that lines tend to get blurred when we start talking about “motivation” and “justification”. Even in the most religious of societies, religion tends to play second fiddle to a secular authority – a king, a parliament, a dictator, a political insitution of some sort. So except in very rare cases (like the Crusades), a war is going to be declared by a political authority, not a religious one.
But then we start getting into “justification”. While you’re absolutely right, the vast majority of wars aren’t exactly “holy” wars, AKA, started by a religious authority to achieve a religious goal – almost all wars have been JUSTIFIED by religion. Marx called religion the “opiate of the masses”, and quite honestly – he was right. An unpopular war (or for that matter, domestic policy) can be justified with religious rhetoric.
As for atheist mass murderers – you’re quite right – like I said earlier I was under no illusion that elimating religion turns everyone into peaceful hippies. But here we blur the lines even more, now not only are we talking about traditional religions, we bring up “political ideologies”. For example Communism, while this doesn’t have a “god”, it does have a set of absolute beliefs and rules, just like any other religions. So while we can call Stalin an “atheist mass murderer”, it would be more accurate to say “Communist mass
Report Post »Bad_Ashe
Posted on November 11, 2011 at 8:20pm@Joe Bonham – You bring up some interesting points, but they perhaps aren’t as supportive as you might like. I’m sure you and I can admit that just about anything that impassions people can be used to justify almost anything. Religion has surely been used, communism has been used, racial superiority has been used, atheism has been used, even a single act of violence has been used.
However, eliminating any of these motivators does not necessarily equate to a more peaceful world, and you admit this yourself. However, when weighing religion as a whole compared to other motivators and grounds for justification, it appears to be less harmful, not only in motivation for war, but in moral accountability.
In addition to what I cited earlier, one need to simply look at the aforementioned atrocities of the 20th century. Atheist leaders killed millions upon millions, yet religious leaders of equal power and stature did not. What was it about these personal ideologies that caused them to take one set of actions as opposed to the other?
The “no true Scotsman” fallacy regarding communism-not-atheism is simply that – fallacious. Because they acted in the name of communism rather than atheism doesn’t mean that their atheism did not primarily influence their decision making. Indeed, communism and atheism are ideologically-and-historically-speaking, quite the bedfellows. Smoking still causes cancer, whether you did it in the name of Marlboro or not.
Report Post »republitarian
Posted on November 11, 2011 at 10:27pmExcellent exchange! Thank you both.
Bad Ashe, I agree about the two types. And to use your terms, the lower case ones are no problem. I am still seeking and some days I feel like joining them. But the upper case ones just make me crazy. Why would anyone try to convince another that there is no God? It’s a fools errand at best.
Report Post »Bad_Ashe
Posted on November 12, 2011 at 1:34am@REPUBLITARIAN – Thanks for your comment, and I’m sure Joe appreciates it too.
When I engage in exchanges like this, it has nothing to do with me attempting to prove I am correct, or changing the atheist’s viewpoint — which if it does eventually change, is not going to happen because of a single exchange on a message board. They are for others reading along like yourself, who might be weighing the evidence, who might be at an impasse about this particular topic, or who might be straddling the line, swaying from one side to the other.
I was once there not too long ago, and it wasn’t any sort of “come to Jesus moment” for me, but rather it was a matter of carefully weighing the evidence, both for and against the existence of God and of the ideological repercussions that come with such a decision.
Best of luck on your continued search — from an evidentiary and philosophical standpoint, you may find the works of William Lane Craig, Gerald Schroeder, and JP Moreland to be enlightening, and ideologically speaking, old standbys like Chesterton and Lewis, additionally I would also recommend “Letters From a Skeptic” by Gregory Boyd.
Report Post »Joe Bonham
Posted on November 12, 2011 at 6:08pmBAD ASHE -
If you see this message – I do appreciate the exchange. I wouldn’t say it “changed” my views, but it is always useful to hear different points of view (Hence the reason I am on a Conservative site in the first place)
As far as “Communism-Atheism” is concerned – I kinda-sorta agree with you. And also Eugenics.
And my answer to you is – you’re right. Creating a new moral system is dangerous and violent. But necessary. The human race has quite frankly “outgrown” the religions of the past. We no longer see other races and tribes as “inferior”. We no longer support slavery. We no longer see homosexuality and sex before marriage as “sin”. In part this is because of economic changes. Western countries are no longer homogenious, so it became absolutely imperative that we make all the different races get along with each other. As for slavery, it is no longer economically viable. A free workforce will always outperform a slave workforce, so once again it became absolutely imperative to get rid of slavery. As for sex, we have birth control and safe abortion – so keeping the girls virgins simply doesn’t matter so much anymore.
Moral changes have happened in the past. Christianity and Islam caused a lot of violence, but in the end they (arguably) did good for the regions they affected. I suspect Secular morality will be the same.
Report Post »Bad_Ashe
Posted on November 13, 2011 at 2:25amHi Joe – I appreciated this exchange as well. Again, my purpose is not to change your mind, but to simply make readers think long and hard about their perceptions.
Your statements clarify your personal opinion, but not much more. Has humanity “grown out of religion”? Since 90% of the global population believes in God, with nearly all of that percentage identifying with a certain faith, I would say no — humanity has not come anywhere close to growing out of it. Your perception is surely a reflection of your ideology, but it is contra to humanity as a whole.
Additionally, stats show that the populace of more secular countries are now shifting towards “paganism”, not atheism — which is not surprising considering the studies showing that people are predisposed to teleological thinking. Let us also remember that the fastest growing religion in China and the third world is Christianity.
Your share a list of supposed “Christian” outdated beliefs and sins, many of which are certainly up for debate (the slavery canard comes to mind), but I would ask that you don’t mistake social tolerance for glorification and agreement. An integral part of Christianity is that EVERYONE sins. Additionally, has the ever-growing Islamic population come to think of homosexuality as not being a sin? Certainly not, and most of them aren’t particularly tolerant of it either.
Needless to say, it appears religion is here to stay — in spite of atheist’ dreams of a secular utopia.
Report Post »Bad_Ashe
Posted on November 13, 2011 at 2:40am@Joe Bonham – Last but not least, I couldn’t help but smile at your comment regarding secular morality. The issue here is that the concept of secular morality is somewhat self-refuting, as you run smack dab into the problem of deriving an “ought” from an “is”.
Christianity, etc. has divine command theory, but a secular morality has what? Utilitarianism? The inherent problem with secular morality is that it is subjective, which makes it relatively meaningless. “Moral” is whatever the secularist wants it to be when he wants it to be that because it is not based in any kind of objective standard. Is it good? By what standard do you define what is good?
This is not to say that you can’t be good without belief in God; I want to make that abundantly clear. There are certainly very moral, “good” atheists out there. Heck, I‘m sure you’re one of them. But the simple fact is that they exist as moral parasites, leeching off of the existing moral framework around them, which — much to their chagrin — is a religious framework.
Sam Harris in his last book attempted to craft a “moral landscape” for defining secular morality, and needless to say he choked on the chicken bone. He simply attempted to ignore is/ought, and while he may have repackaged utilitarianism into a kinder gentler package, the contents remained the same. Ultimately it seems that any atheist trying to develop a “secular morality” is on a fool’s errand.
Best of luck to you Joe in your ongoi
Report Post »copatriots
Posted on November 13, 2011 at 11:40amAmen BAD_ASHE! I have been blessed by your posts and thank you for them. I also noticed how infrequently, or rather, subject-selectively you post and ask that you share your wisdom here more often. ; )
Like you, I also smiled at JOE’s “secular morality” comment. I can barely imagine what society would look like were it not for the established Judeo-Christian principles this country was founded on. We are certainly seeing Joe‘s utopia unfolding before our very eyes on a daily basis and it sure isn’t pretty. Whether it‘s the OWS camps or San Francisco’s disgusting “Up Your Alley” annual parties, a godless society is anything but moral.
Again, I truly have appreciated and have been encouraged by your posts, Ashe. I came to faith on an intellectual basis as well but your learnings have far exceeded my own. Thank you for sharing a bit of what you have learned. May you continue to be blessed as you pursue knowledge of Him!
Report Post »Joe Bonham
Posted on November 13, 2011 at 8:16pmBad Ash –
You make a lot of good points, and I’ll address them one by one as best I can, considering the character limit-
You state, correctly, that roughly 90% of the world’s population is religious. But I think you’ll agree that the very definition of “religious” has changed drastically. Take 11th century Western Europe – pretty much EVERYBODY was Catholic – in every sense of the word. Attending mass every sunday, and having religion in every aspect of their lives. Is a typical Catholic today the same as one in the 11th century? Definitely not. How many Catholics, or Christians in general, attend church regularly, never have sex outside of marriage, etc etc? Today, being “religious” generally means just believing in God. 75% of America’s population “believes in God”, but again, how many attend church or do all the other things that was expected of a Christian just a few hundred years ago? Not very many.
The bar is being lowered as society becomes less religious. And even more traditional religions like Islam – they’re not going to be holding onto a monopoly much longer. Just as far as birth rates are concerned even countries like Iran are expected to have rapid drops in population in the near future. The internet and television are encouraging people to abandon religion and think for themselves. Middle Eastern progressives communicate and coordinate protests against their governments with Twitter and facebook. popular networks like Al jazeera promote se
Report Post »Joe Bonham
Posted on November 13, 2011 at 8:39pmAs far as “secular morality” as I called it “leeching” off of Judeo-Christian morals – I dunno. For starters, we really aren’t. Secularists generally believe “Do no harm”, which goes back to philospher like Kant, not Christianity. And we don’t follow the rules traditionally associated with Christianity – I see no problem with gay marriage, alcohol, porn, sex… if it doesn‘t hurt someone else there’s nothing wrong with it. Its a pretty basic system.
And how about the claim that Christians “invented” modern morality and tolerance? I don’t buy it. Hammurabi’s Code pre-dates Mosaic Law, and is very modern – it discusses libel, malpractice, veteran’s compensation, bankruptcy, healthcare – the works. If it doesn’t matter WHICH god is the basis for your morality system, do we really need a god at all?
And furthermore – religion does not correlate with lower crime. Demographic groups that are extremely religious are also the ones that have the highest crime rates. What DOES matter is education, wealth, and family stability. Those are the factors that lead to increased prosperity and lower crime – not religion.
Report Post »Bad_Ashe
Posted on November 14, 2011 at 2:53pmHi Joe,
This will be broken down into a few parts.
Religious views certainly shift over the course of 800 years, but do they disappear? Sometimes, though they almost always come back. While modern realities allow us certain benefits, statistically speaking the world is no less religious than it was 100 years ago. Is the Catholic of today the same as 1000 years ago, is the Christian of 1000 years ago the same as 800 year before that? Certainly not — but were they MORE or LESS religious?
The important data is the long term trend. In Christian history alone, we have an early era where the modern idea of “church” didn’t exist, followed by centuries of ebbs and flows of church attendance, the role of faith in daily life, and in morality itself. The rise of Catholicism, the “enlightenment”, the Puritan movement, the “Godless” old west, the anti-religious intellectualism of mid 20th century Eastern Europe, the rise of the “religious right” in the 1980s, and today we have the Web, religious broadcasting, and emergent churches.
The historical trends clearly shows that while religion shifts, it remains a persistent force, and that church attendance does not necessarily equate to religiosity. Finally, every atheist from the enlightenment, to Darwin’s discovery, to the rise of socialism/communism, to the stalled “brights”movement has stated some version of the same thing you state here. Religion is on the way out — yet it has not only persisted, but continues t
Report Post »Bad_Ashe
Posted on November 14, 2011 at 3:04pmHi Joe,
Without further ado, here is Part 2:
As for your demographic claim, it‘s hard to suss out where you’re mirroring demographic reality.
Secularists (and even the armchair Christians that dominate the gen. pop.) are being exponentially outbred by Evangelicals, Mormons, Muslims, observant Jews, and Catholics. If current trends shape up, much of Europe will be predominantly Muslim in 50 years, and here in America, Catholics (particularly Latin-born) will be a majority. This is not to mention the number of Christian-derived or Muslim converts per year, both in the modern West, and in the third world and China.
You also seem to think that the Internet and other media are somehow more influential in the long term than one’s family environment and community. Once again, studies on the retention of faith from parents to children show that this is simply not the case, not to mention studies on general behavioral influence. By all appearances (and with a great sense of irony), it seems that Atheism is an evolutionary dead end of sorts.
I do tip my hat at your appeal to modern methods of communication, but while the Internet has given secularists a voice that they tend to use loudly to the point of deafness, the combination of historical trends, demographic realities, and the evidence that people are hardwired to seek out teleological explanations, do not bode well for the atheist cause.
Report Post »Bad_Ashe
Posted on November 14, 2011 at 3:21pmHi Joe,
This too will be broken down into parts. In our morality debate, you’ve set up a strawman to knock down. I didn’t state that Christians “invented” morality. My argument was that Christian morality is based in a objective moral standard, derived from the (in the Christian view) highest authority.
It matters not whether Hammurabic Code predated Mosaic Law and Christianity (though I imagine this was stated more as an argument against your “invention” strawman) — the simple fact is that the framework of Western society in which you currently exist is the result of a highly-developed Judeo-Christian value system. The similarities between Christian morality and other comparative moral systems tend to be grossly exaggerated — one need only look at the historical attitudes toward sexual assault to see this in action.
You write of Kant’s formulations as if they are an independent source from which morality can be derived, but these are no more than philosophical interpretations of the existing moral and ethical system of the 18th century, which again, was a well-developed Judeo-Christian morality. This is but another example of moral parasitism on the part of the atheist.
The bottom line is that the concept of a secular morality is not based in an objective source, is highly subjective, fails the is/ought dilemma, isn’t derived from a higher authority, and therefore becomes whatever the secularist deems it to be. “Moral” simply becomes a relative term
Report Post »Bad_Ashe
Posted on November 14, 2011 at 4:11pmHi Joe,
Here’s Part 2 — I’ve seen versions of your crime argument before, and when broken down sociopolitically, it tends to present as a Red/Blue state argument. Major cities in Red states have more crime than Blue states — Red states are more conservative and religious, Blue states more liberal and less religious. Sam Harris makes this argument in his book “Letter to a Christian Nation”. Unfortunately, the argument (or at least Harris’ version of it) is a bad one.
When you dig into the crime stats on the U.S. most dangerous cities, you discover that while yes, more of them are in Red states, the vast majority of them are actually in Blue counties, which is a much more specific and therefore demographically realistic sample of that city’s population. In fact, 84% of the most dangerous U.S. cities are in Blue counties.
Again, I‘m not saying that atheists can’t be good without God, but in the absence of the moral framework in which they already exist, can the atheist even truly define what “good” is? The answer seems to be a resounding no.
There’s a lot here to respond to, and this exchange has to end eventually, so if you end up not responding, I just want to say that this has been a great exchange! Not only has it been compelling for you and I, but for those reading along as well. You seem to be a bright guy, and much like I did a few years ago, perhaps you’ll someday realize that atheism is not the foregone conclusion you think it is. Thanks agai
Report Post »Joe Bonham
Posted on November 15, 2011 at 12:03amOk BAD ASHE, looks like I’ll have to break down my response into parts as well….
-You’re right, religion ebbs and flows, as old religions die off and new ones appear. But the trend remains clear and present nonetheless. Even in the Old Testament the trend is obvious. God walks with Adam and Eve. He wrestles with Jacob. He appears to Moses, Abraham, and Job. The timeline of the OT is fuzzy at best, because many of these stories are ancient mythology passed by word of mouth over hundreds of years, while others are relatively “new” – written during the Babylonian Captivity. “Moses” is actually based on a Babylonian myth, which means the Moses parable is much newer than people originally thought.
But despite the confusion of chronology – we can still see the trend. Early on when man knew nothing about nature, “gods” were an ever present force in every aspect of life. But as man learned more about his environment, and the supernatural was gradually replaced by rational scientific explanations. So in an “early” parable the hero can not only wrestle god, but actually defeat him, and force the god to grant him a wish. This is a very primitive, primal story of a man actually defeating a god – so some people suspect that the jacob story is much older than the chronology of the OT implies. But later on not only do people not physically grapple with god, he only talks to them in signs. Then through prophets. Then later, NOT AT ALL. These are basically signs of man’s so
Report Post »Joe Bonham
Posted on November 15, 2011 at 12:09amfor some reason my last post was cut off…
“signs of man’s social evolution”.
Anyways, now on to the next point: religion and crime. When I said religious demographic groups, I didn’t mean red states or blue states – I should have been clearer, but I meant by race and social background. So while Latino and Black communities are usually deeply religious, they still have high crime rates. By no means do I mean religion causes crime. I mean there are other more important factors. Inner City schools are inadequate, and there are high rates of single parenthood – these are the major factors in whether or not a young person grows up to be a criminal. If a man who grew up in the hood in Oakland doesn’t know how to read or do basic math – he’s probably going to become a criminal. Whether or not he believes in Jesus is irrelevant. So while teaching this young man about Jesus may be a touching idea, it would be smarter to teach him how to read and do math.
Report Post »Joe Bonham
Posted on November 15, 2011 at 12:17amAnd lastly… your point that atheists didn’t “invent” morality – does it really matter? Can the invention of morality really be attributed to any one particular belief system? Arguably, one could say the first morality systems were literally invented by atheists. After all, religion didn’t just spring up out of the ground, it was invented by someone. But regardless, the chicken/egg question really is kind of irrelevant. Who invented the basic don’t kill/steal/rape/adulterate/etc? The Jews/Christians have the 10 commandments. The Greeks have Solon the Law Giver. Both Moses and Solon were predated by Hammurabi’s Code. And that’s not even mentioning the Chinese or any of the other early civilizations around the globe. Lot’s of cultures throughout human history independently came up with more or less the same moral systems.
Which means what? Simply – survival of the fittest. A society that fails to control its members, provide safety and security… is doomed to fail. A tribe or village filled with murderers and rapists won’t survive. Socrates pointed out that even thieves have their own code of honor, so fellow gang members don’t steal from each other. So clearly, there are deep evolutionary forces at work.
So all atheists have done is cut out the middle man. Its wrong to steal, murder, etc not because a god says that’s bad… but because our society would destroy itself if we didn’t all follow some basic rules.
I look forward to your response. It’s been
Report Post »Joe Bonham
Posted on November 15, 2011 at 6:06pmTo expand more on my point about the similiarities between most belief systems – yes, there are some differences, but end result Christianity is pretty much the same as everything else. Marriage, war, slavery/bondservants, foreign immigrants, politics, government, taxes, death, orphans, etc – important issues that every society needs to address. Sometimes the answers are different (like polygamy or monogamy) – but more often than not the answers are the same.
Report Post »Bad_Ashe
Posted on November 15, 2011 at 8:32pmHi Joe – These will (once again) be broken up into parts.
We go a bit off topic here, but I had to address it. Nearly every atheist I’ve ever met believes that all religions are part of some tangled web of plagiaristic theological conspiracy where everyone is “in on it”. It‘s like describing either the world’s most boring episode of 24, or the most exciting Dan Brown novel ever written. The false confidence with which atheist jokers like Richard Carrier deliver these apparent defeaters, as if they were actual fact, is nothing more than rhetorical posturing.
An atheist once told me that Jesus was based on the Greek myth of Dionysus, and were it not for all the sewing to thighs, eating of hearts, the lightning bolts, and other fundamental dissimilarities, I might have even believed. him, given his confident proclamation. I had another tell me that Jesus was based on Mithra because of their shared “virgin birth”.
This second atheist had a point though — I’m more than willing to concede that the giant rock from which Mithra emerged had in fact never gotten it on with another rock.
Since the 90s, many biblical scholars and archaeologists are beginning to realize that the problem may not be the OT, but rather their timeline. Why? Because in other areas, Jewish oral tradition has been shown to be quite dependable, and because the evidence points in that direction.
Report Post »Bad_Ashe
Posted on November 15, 2011 at 8:47pm@ JOE (Part 3)
As for your remaining points, I’ll address them and then gracefully retire from this exchange. In reading your last two posts, I’m certain you are debating someone, but that person has somewhat ceased to be me. I want to avoid us going off the rails here, and make sure we both end on a high note.
You go on a bit about OT historicity, but this simply is not relevant to the major themes of our exchange. The relevant point I made previously was this — Religion persists. You seem to agree.
Though I was writing of Christianity, since this was the focus of the timeline you established, you appear to admit to this point, so nothing more need be written. We’ve reached the point where you are trying to rationalize why, but no rationalization is needed, it either persists, or it does not, and historical trends show that it does.
Your “social evolution” explanation of divine interaction is a dubious ex post facto rationalization. This rationalization assumes scientific knowledge is the principle on which religions with elemental deities were abandoned. While this may be a minor contributor, it is not the driving force — unless of course you think that early Christian converts were well-versed on the scientific explanations of the age, or that the Romans suddenly discovered that the sun was made of plasma. A much more accurate statement would be that previous religions were simply abandoned for greater (truer) religions. Many gods, one God.
Report Post »Bad_Ashe
Posted on November 15, 2011 at 8:51pm@JOE (Part 3)
Regarding religion and crime, you again want to build a strawman here. No one is arguing that religion exists in a social vacuum, or that society can exist on religion alone. Religion does not make men good by default, nor does atheism make them bad by default, this is your point, but it is not one being argued.
Education is certainly important, and yes crime (typically gang crime) is high among religious minorities…but other factors come into play. Levels of intelligence, socioeconomic hardships, etc. Let’s look at this inversely. Amish are highly religious, are a minority, are often financially burdened, and have roughly a 5th grade education — yet I see very little in the way of Amish on Amish gang crime.
Additionally, statistics show that Catholic school and home schooled religious students excel beyond their peers in secular and public education. They are learning to read, learning math, and learning about Jesus — perhaps the key is teaching all three.
Finally, if liberal atheists cared as much about students in public schools learning composition, math and general science as self-advertised, they would be efforting real education reform, not pushing their continued obsession to teach students with an average IQ of 100 about complex Darwinian evolution.
Report Post »Bad_Ashe
Posted on November 15, 2011 at 8:55pm@JOE (Part 4)
When it comes to morality, you disengage from some of the points being made, while attempting to gloss over addressing other with more ex post facto evolutionary rationalizations.
The point is that the concept of an “atheist morality” is subjective. It is not based in any objective authority and therefore is whatever the atheist deems it to be. The current morality Western atheists currently utilize is simply parasitic of their current cultural surroundings, which are based on a highly developed Judeo-Christian system.
You write nothing here to counter this claim.
You lean on the word “invented” because it ostensibly strengthens your argument. If ALL morality is invented, then atheist morality is just as good as that religious morality. This “invention crutch” is only valid if objective moral duties and values do not exist, and if ALL morality is subjective.
So, is the sexual assault of a child objectively or subjectively moral or immoral? If you claim that it is objectively immoral, then your defense here has no legs. Morals are not invented, at most they are revealed. If you believe this morality to be subjective, this goes to the fact that subjective atheist morality is meaningless.
With that, I leave you with a simple philosophical moral argument:
1 – If God does not exist, objective moral values and duties do not exist.
2 – Objective moral values and duties do exist.
3 – Therefore, God exists.
Report Post »Bad_Ashe
Posted on November 15, 2011 at 8:57pm@JOE (conclusion)
Last but not least, I want to cal you out on once again attempt to explain moral consciousness with ex post facto evolutionary rationalizations that have very little in the way of evidence to support them. Morality exists in the realm of consciousness, an area in which naturalistic science currently has little to say.
As moral researchers such as Petroninovich, Mikhail, and Hauser agree — “much of our knowledge of morality is…based on unconscious and inaccessible principles for guiding judgments of permissibility”
That’s it for me, I’m sure you have a lot to digest here. Thanks again for the lengthy and compelling exchange, I’m sure to see you around these boards in the future.
Report Post »Bad_Ashe
Posted on November 15, 2011 at 9:23pm@COPATRIOTS – Thank you and bless you as well! I’m humbled by your comment. Perhaps I’ll start posting around here more often if time allows, though I don‘t If I’d refer to myself as “wise”.
Thanks again.
Report Post »Bad_Ashe
Posted on November 15, 2011 at 9:32pm@JOE
Part 2 redux —
Anyway…
Part 2 did not post for some goofy reason. The Blaze comment board must not like certain words it didn’t recognize. Essentially it was a few examples of archaeological information affirming the Moses narrative and the OT. Things that biblical scholars and archaeologist were sure didn’t exist — until the found them. While Moses is not specifically mentioned (he may have even had a different name), it certainly lends evidence to the narrative. While he may have been an amalgamation of previous Babylonian stories, I wouldn’t bet too much on it given some of the narrative affirming evidence.
Either way, our conversation was not about religious historicity, but I just couldn’t let such a matter of fact statement that was anything but, go unaddressed.
At any rate, best of luck to you and I’ll be seeing you around.
Report Post »Joe Bonham
Posted on November 16, 2011 at 8:26pmBAD ASHE – its unfortunate that you are retiring from this, but I suppose all good things must come to an end.
My closing arguments:
You seem to object to the fact that people often share ideas, and religions often intertangle – but you have not presented any evidence as to why this couldn’t be true. Its common sense really – you take a group of refugees, destroy their temple, and drop them into an alien country, OF COURSE they’re going to pick up some new ideas. Babylonian influence shows all over Hebrew culture. That’s a major reason the “Conservatives”, the Sadducees (sp?) rejected the notion of an afterlife – while the “Liberals”, the Pharisees, embraced it.
As for the social evolution pertaining to science – you bring up Greece and Rome. Funny thing is, we can see the same principle at work – early playwrights portrayed the gods as involved in every aspect of life, even fighting among men in battle. Yet later on, the gods were either distant actors, or not mentioned at all. As for Rome, they picked up a lot of Greek religious customs – after all, they were colonized by Greece (the Etruscans). Christianity popped up, and after the fall of the empire came to dominate every aspect of life.
but surely you’ll acknowledge that religion has more or less consistently become less intrusive into day to day life, and has slowly but surely taken a back seat to secular politics.
Report Post »Joe Bonham
Posted on November 16, 2011 at 8:36pmQuite frankly, I don‘t see what you’re getting at in regards to education.
You appear to be agreeing with me when you say religion doesn’t necessarily make people good, but that there are other more important social factors. So frankly, I’m not sure where on this point you disagree with me.
As for the Amish – that’s a poor example. They are a cult. You might not like that word, but they are a cult nonetheless – any young person who doesn’t like that life style or the rules, can simply leave. Its such a piss poor and idiotic lifestyle that only the truely brainwashed would want to stay. Hence the low crime rate.
And as far as science is concerned – do you object to teaching children evolution, or science in general? Americans – unfortunately – especially christians – show a staggering level of ignorance when it comes to science. Even our politicians, like Perry or Bachman, stand up and say incredibly stupid things, like they don’t believe in evolution, or they don’t believe the world is warming.
So my answer is YES – we do need to teach our kids basic scientific fact, and keep religion in church and out of the classroom.
As for homeschoolers and Catholics, there we go with social factors again. Only relatively affluent parents can afford to stay at home and teach their kids. Same with Catholic schools – they are private schools, hence higher quality and more expensive. Religion has nothing to do with it.
Report Post »Bad_Ashe
Posted on November 17, 2011 at 6:00pmHi Joe,
I normally don‘t respond once I’ve wrapped up an exchange, but you misread or misrepresented so many aspects of my closing arguments here, an addendum appeared necessary. So, like the mob, you’ve pulled me back in for one last time.
Reread my comments…you’ve set up another strawman here. Nowhere did I object that cultures share ideas which permeate their faith. What I did object to (and my examples were clear) is when atheists take this cultural reality to an obscene and unrealistic level in their attempts to undermine religious belief. You have stated nothing to refute this.
Your social evolution comment about the Greeks and Romans only supports the basic truth of lesser religions being given up for truer religions. That this is reflected in the cultural output is self-explanatory, and does nothing for your argument. Atheists often mock Christians with the “god did it” insult, but one can plainly see that “evolution did it” is the atheist equivalent. This is evolution of the gaps, made even more fallible when applied psychologically/sociologically.
The fundamental point that religion persists still has not been refuted. Historically, it ebbs and flows, it goes through periods of increased and reduced importance to daily life, yet it remains. I even mentioned historical examples. You cannot refute this, yet you continue your “secular age” argument, even managing to neglect the fact that the world has previously been more secular than it is now
Report Post »Bad_Ashe
Posted on November 17, 2011 at 6:25pmHi Joe (2)
In my comments on education, I‘m surprised that you can’t recognize your own argument turned on its head. We agree that socioeconomic causes are the primary factors, but where you err is in your conclusion. Despite citing the driving force of social factors, you still make the argument that teaching the “touching idea” of religion would be better spent on education.
My examples show that this cuts both ways, demonstrating that a religiously-driven life with little education can lead to a crime and violence-free existence (the Amish), and that the idea of inserting “Jesus” into education has no harmful repercussions in quality of education (Catholic and homeschoolers).
Additionally, your complaint that the Amish are a cult is meaningless -they’re still a highly-religious and peaceful society, yet have very little in the way of education. I’m not sure how much this helps your overall point, as crime and cults are not exactly strangers. The rest of your somewhat hateful and short-sighted ad-hominem about the Amish is hardly worth noting.
I do have a problem with teaching Neo-Darwinian theory in school, as it is an absolute waste of time. The average public school pupil has an IQ of 100, and attempting to teach them a complex, yet (at best) fundamentally shaky and incomplete biological theory is idiotic, a waste of time, and something 99.9% of them will never need to know. Time is better spent on fundamentals.
Report Post »Bad_Ashe
Posted on November 17, 2011 at 6:33pmHi Joe (3)
What we have in the United States is an educational fundamentals issue. “Classical education” should be returned to the classroom (most liberals disagree), and more time should be spent teaching all levels of composition, fundamental history, basic and semi-advanced math, logic, and general science/method. Darwin need not apply.
Atheists have shown time and again that they care much more about their pet subject (and keeping that evil sky daddy out of schools) than they do actual education reform. In addition to not refuting this, you actually manage to prove my point for me with your own written words.
Your conclusion, while a valiant effort, not only managed to demonstrate many of my points, but is also guilty of straying off-topic into conservative religious-baiting (the Amish, not to mention Perry and Bachmann, neither of who said anything wrong regarding Evolution or AGW), and of more than a few informal logical issues that hurt your argument. Had you more accurately represented my final points in your attempts to counter them, perhaps then you would’ve been on to something.
With that, I exit stage right for the final time. Hopefully we will get the chance to engage each other someday soon (perhaps even more formally than this shotgun debate approach – as many points went unaddressed) and try this whole thing over again. I look forward to it.
Report Post »Joe Bonham
Posted on November 17, 2011 at 7:07pmNow as far as education goes – I apparently didn’t make my point clear, so the fault lies with me. The “driving force” as you called it behind a successful school isn’t the magical religion behind it, it is MONEY. Your examples – homeschoolers, Catholic schools, have more money. Private schools (like catholic schools) spend more money per student. Which means they can have much lower teacher-to-student ratios. Teaching 18 kids from good backgrounds is almost always going to produce better results than trying to teach 40 kids from troubled families. As for homeschoolers, while they are not technically more expensive, they have that magic teacher to student ratio of one teacher per one or two students. A student who gets an adult to pay 100% attention to him the whole school day should generally be more academically successful than a student who only gets 1/30th of a teacher’s time.
As for the Amish, you may consider me calling them a cult a personal attack, but it is not. They are a small and tightly controlled group of brainwashed people – so it should come as no surprise that they are docile. And like I said earlier, all the “bad apples” are allowed to leave and live their own lives.
I also find it interesting that you object to atheists supposedly “leeching” on Christian morality, but you have no problem with the Amish literally leeching off of a modern industrial nation with complete military protection, all the while calling themselves “superior” to the
Report Post »Joe Bonham
Posted on November 17, 2011 at 7:15pmBAD ASHE:
I did write a response to you regarding the evolution of religion and the OT, but I don’t see it yet. If it hasn‘t appeared soon I’ll re-write it.
One last thing, considering ignorant politicians: here is the comments I was referring to:
Both Perry and Bachman believe that evolution is “just an unsubstantiated theory” and believe in Creationism:
http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/on-faith/post/attention-governor-perry-evolution-is-a-fact/2011/08/23/gIQAuIFUYJ_blog.html
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/michael-zimmerman/michele-bachmans-stance-o_b_868771.html
Bachman believes climate change is just “manufactured science”
http://thinkprogress.org/green/2011/08/17/297902/michele-bachmann-man-made-climate-change-is-manufactured-science/
Perry believes climate change is a “hoax”
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2011/10/01/rick-perry-climate-change-global-warming-science_n_990213.html
Now before you make any assumptions – I am a climate skeptic. I am doubtful that man is the #1 cause of climate change, and even if we are, there is very little we can do to change that, because even if the US and Europe go completely green, Chinese CO2 pollution will continue to dwarf ours.
However, to believe that climate change does not exist like these right-wing politicians are saying, is utter nonsense. We know for a fact that the world has been warming for the past couple centuries, its just a question of what is causing it.
Report Post »copatriots
Posted on November 11, 2011 at 5:49pmCame across this in my study today.
“Because you have rejected this message, relied on oppression and depended on deceit, this sin will become for you like a high wall, cracked and bulging, that collapses suddenly in an instant.”
Isaiah 30:12-13
So said the Holy One of Israel.
My heart breaks for those who reject His message.
Report Post »Thatsitivehadenough
Posted on November 11, 2011 at 5:52pmThis defies ALL logic. This is Communist China, if they do this. Communism, where it’s illegal to believe in God. Make no mistake, this is communist infiltration of the armed forces.
If they let this happen, someone needs to go. Away.
Report Post »Bro Geo Too
Posted on November 11, 2011 at 5:45pm-
Report Post »Is it me or is the concept of an atheistic chaplain an oxymoron?
Joe Bonham
Posted on November 11, 2011 at 5:55pm“Christian soldier” is an oxymoron. You kill other people, you‘re breaking your god’s commandments, and you’re going to hell.
That is, if hell existed.
Report Post »Bad_Ashe
Posted on November 11, 2011 at 6:05pm@Joe Bonham – Someone needs to study their Hebrew. The most accurate translation is murder, not kill — and though it is quite often translated as the latter — it is generally understood to mean the former, or in its most basic definition, “unlawful killing”. Additionally,the Bible contains prohibitions against the aforementioned unlawful killing, yet does not condone justified killing in the context of war.
I applaud and appreciate your inept attempt, but you should really go away and come back when you have something other than mindless, incorrect, historically ignorant atheist troll fodder.
Report Post »Lucy Larue
Posted on November 11, 2011 at 6:09pmBRO GEO TOO,
Report Post »It is most certainly an OXYMORON!
Progressive infiltration is EVERYWHERE in this country.
They need to go back to their filthy hideyholes.
They have been emboldened by the Progressive First Family and his Progressive Administration.
Joe Bonham
Posted on November 11, 2011 at 6:23pmBad_Ashe:
So I should “study my hebrew”. Do YOU know Hebrew, and can translate it yourself? Just curious.
As for the difference between “kill” and “murder” – spare me the rhetoric. Do you seriously believe your god would condone political violence between two nations? Jesus would smile and pat you on the back if you kill a guy you’ve never met in another country, because the politicians ordered you to do it?
Report Post »Lucy Larue
Posted on November 11, 2011 at 6:46pmJOE (the big soldier)BONHAM
Um…,Christian Soldier is NOT an OXYMORON.
It refers to Christians spreading the word of GOD.
But….,there ARE Christian Soldiers. Actually the military is a veritable POTPOURRI of every religion.As you read in the story.
Report Post »The military is a very accepting group of people. The first and pretty much only criteria is…,being a good soldier.
That is why it is beyond my ken that this weeny whiny “HUMANIST” Capt. Ryan Ken was berated for his Atheism.
More likely he is a lousy soldier with “ISSUES”.
Joe Bonham
Posted on November 11, 2011 at 6:52pmLucy:
What I meant was Jesus generally had a low opinion of violence, for whatever reason.
Though with that said, I retract my previous statement – Jesus did heal the centurion’s boyfriend when he was sick – so perhaps he is willing to forgive whatever was done during a believer’s military service.
Report Post »Bad_Ashe
Posted on November 11, 2011 at 6:55pm@Joe Bonham – That first line (regarding the Hebrew) was really what we like to call “rhetorical flourish”, however, since you asked — yeah — I’m currently studying Biblical translation, and learning Hebrew and Latin via Rosetta Stone. It’s slow going, but I’m doing okay. I don’t know how well I could translate anything yet, but it’s a work in progress.
That being said, you’ve essentially changed your argument here. Your original statement was that war and killing was against the foundations of the Christian religion. It is clearly not as addressed in not only the translation issue, general understanding of the commandment, and biblical passages in Leviticus, Exodus, and Kings. Your modified second argument here is simply incredulity. Again, I appreciate your point of view, and I think the idea of Jesus slapping anyone on the back is a hilarious visual — particularly if you add milk coming out of someone’s nose — but you’re simply wrong here.
Report Post »Walkabout
Posted on November 11, 2011 at 7:02pmJoe Bonham
There is a difference between killing & murder.
“Thou shall not murder” makes sense. “Thou shall not kill” does not. I would have thought that someone who has been around for more than a decade & half would have learned this.
Read the bible before taking it out of context. It clearly states that if a thief comes in the night & breaks into you domicile & you kill him, then you shall be held guiltless. That is in the Old Testament.
As someone pointed out, you are a troll. You seem much to exercised to be concerned & wanting to get your viewpoint out. Your either a retread or a newby troll. At any rate welcome. By having you we don;t need anything analogous to the “Royal Order of the Tree shakers”. You will serve a good purpose in spite of yourself. :)
Report Post »Lucy Larue
Posted on November 11, 2011 at 7:06pmJOE BONHAM,
The universe, as Buzz Lightyear told us all, is infinity and beyond.
Does it not strike you that, with this unending vastness, Atheists are rather egotistical?
It sounds to me as though you’re dissatsifaction is with organized religion…,not God.
Report Post »Science may explain many things.
Science can tell us that plants grow from seeds. They cannot tell us where the first seeds came from.
Joe Bonham
Posted on November 11, 2011 at 7:18pmBad_Ashe:
Your studies are admirable. Perhaps one day when you feel confident in your abilities to translate, you can bring a refreshing perspective into it. It is a good and rare skill to have!
And you’re right – I did rethink my argument, in fact I didn’t put enough thought into it to begin with before I started typing – a grievous error I am now correcting. As far as the Old Testament is concerned – it was silly for me to suggest the Old Testament God frowned upon killing. He ordered his “children” to slaughter hundreds of thousands of men, women, and children. Clearly, killing was not considered “murder” if it was ordained by him.
As far as Christ is concerned though, IMO he is without a doubt a pacifist. Turn the other cheek, if a man demands your cloak give him your tunic too, walk the extra mile (This is a reference to Roman soldiers forcing a random local to help carry his packs) – Jesus was pretty vocal and uncompromising in his doctrine of nonviolence.
Though with that said, the vision of the animals in a blanket and the healing of the centurion’s boyfriend could have a double meaning – not only are Gentiles acceptable in heaven, but soldiers too apparently.
Report Post »Bad_Ashe
Posted on November 11, 2011 at 7:49pm@Joe Bonham – Given the testimonial evidence, it seems that Jesus was certainly pacifistic, though in instances such as the cleansing of the temple, he was not above getting a fired up and doing what needed to be done. That being said, the reasons Christians accept the Hebrew Bible as the Old Testament is because Jesus accepted the Hebrew Bible, and the Old Testament God as his god. Whether you believe there to be a dissonance there is another (and much longer) conversation.
Thanks for the kind words regarding my studies. I am not a theologian, but am greatly interested in Biblical hermeneutics, hence the studies. I still haven’t chosen a doctoral field yet, and am seriously considering theology or philosophy of science — but I’m still in my early thirties, so I’ve got time.
On a personal note, as a believer to a non-believer — in my twenties I was a pretty hardcore agnostic. I gave Catholicism up when I was a teenager. There was no great awakening that brought me back to theism, it was actually a matter of my personal research attempting to push my agnosticism into full on atheism having the opposite effect. I realized that when I weighed the evidence, the scales came down on the side of theism – then it was just a matter of which religion was “most” right, if any. I only write this because perhaps someday you will find yourself in the same situation I was in, and when that happens, who knows?
On a final note, thanks for the service to our country.
Report Post »Islesfordian
Posted on November 11, 2011 at 11:35pm“Jesus generally had a low opinion of violence, for whatever reason.”
Where do you get that, Joe? I’m not saying that Jesus APPROVED violence. But he made no special arguments about it either way. Atheists who have only a passing knowledge of the Bible should not go about telling Christians what their God allows and condemns.
Report Post »WD0331
Posted on November 11, 2011 at 5:44pmHow come the blaze doesn’t follow this story?
Report Post »http://conservativetalk.org/2011/11/07/obama-accused-of-sexual-harassment-at-harvard-law-review/
garyM
Posted on November 11, 2011 at 5:51pmRomney has some baggage to, if anyone would run it!
Report Post »Bro Geo Too
Posted on November 11, 2011 at 5:53pm`
Report Post »I followed the link you supplied — good grief! If the allegations are true, no wonder Chris Mathews got that chill up his leg and no wonder B O is selling this country down the river.
NOBAMA201258
Posted on November 11, 2011 at 6:37pmPrez ohomo? I had a hunch about that but i guess moochelle was enough of a smokescreen! More proof of the MSM willingness to look the other way when a lib does wrong!
Report Post »phillipwgirard
Posted on November 11, 2011 at 5:42pmWhat?
Report Post »Chappy123
Posted on November 11, 2011 at 5:42pmIf they dont beleive, they dont need a Chaplain.
Those people are truly sick.
Report Post »