Thanks for the links Tchocky.

Remember that the US military academies are strickly voluntary. The cadets can withdraw at any time. And once again congress has made no law establishing any religion.

Doesn't sound nice, Tchocky. It matches what I had found on evangelist mobbing in armed forces, and killing people's career chances if they do not convert. Of course it all makes mockery of the secular nature the armed forces once had, and by their historic self-definition and mottos should have.

Happy crusade everyone! :up:

Yeah watch out for us Skybird. After the Christians take us over we're gonna join forces with the Muslims and come after you! :o:D

"Onward Christian Soooooldiers... (we need a musical note smiley)"

Ridiculous "jokes" cannot replace arguments. Often they illustrate the lack of these.

An imam and a rabbi walk into a bar...

Yeah just as your reply illustrates your lack of any sort of a sense of humor.

But seriously, what kind of argument do you suggest i make to a person such as yourself who knows very little of the intracacies of American society and has already made his mind up that all people who believe in a supreme being are crazy and dangerous?

Should i state my opinion based on my 48 years of experience as a US citizen? Or my 7 years of US military service, or the 17 years before that i spent as a US military dependant living on Army bases around the world? Or my current and extensive contacts within all four branches of the US military? All that stuff you have repeatedly discounted when it suits your argument.

After all how could I ever know more about my own homeland than the mighty Skybird, a foreign civilian with no military backround except maybe 2 years of conscript service in a military that hasn't seen active service since WW2? :roll:

I wouldn't base it on that.
It's bound to lead to bias.

It might lead to a correct conclusion, but a view from outside is allways more objective.

I disagree. Outside observers almost always have their own preconcieved notions of reality that shape their opinions. They also tend to give inordinate weight to the radical statements of others because they lack familiarity with the subject.

August, you know the diffrerence between joke and provocation. and what special knowledge about america do I refer to in this thread, eh? I linked a study of an ameircan who refers to some things about yourself and your country that you do not like, and you guys go into orbit attacking me instead, isntead of dealing with his findings. You do not wish to be reminded of your flaws and mistakes - but ignorrance will not make them go away, it just gives them time and space to grow under your protection. Sure, I read some books on America. And yes, all what those authors wrote must be wrong if it does not match August's view of america - or what? Atheists cannot be Americans and should be thrown out of the country. americans criticising it for it'S mistakes are antiamericans, they should get MacCarthynised - that is okay since it is for a good purpose, isn't it.

America today is a very different country than it was in the past. The ties between it'S attempt to become what it's constitution expressed it should be, and the opportune realities lobbies and leaders create, have worn out, and became extremely thin. the difference between the intentions of the founding fathers, and the present and future state of America, couldn't be any bigger, I think. It slowly changes towards what the founding fathers wanted it to save from becoming. Which maybe is no surprise, since nothings ever stays like it is, and everythign alsways is in movement. But as long as one does not recognize this simple fact of life, one is rejecting every chnace to influence the course of chnages for the better. Who does not see the changing taking place, also does not see any need to compensate and to adapt.

I did not refer to American's behavior. I did not comment on their cloathing style and weekend habits, and not on the way public life takes place on the street. That I do not know by experience. but I can read statistics and history books, and refer to the data given in these. And not every author is wrong simply because he does not mirror your tunnelview perceptions. Maybe they are pointing at things you do not like. that does not relieve you from having to prove their data and arguments wrong instead of messing around with my person - and in a way that has a bit more to offer than just your own life experience. That you can bring in, yes, and label it as "my experience with it is this: xyz." But actually you mismatch your subjective views of america with the one and only truth about america there is. But you cannot even be sure that you speak for a majoirty of your people. Both the study I linked, written by an american, published from a site associated with an american military academy, and those news Tchocky has linked - they both describe a specific problem defined in a clearly outlined context, that is perceived from outside the US as well as from people inside. And sometimes you can see some details from the outside that are hidden as long as you are inside, I was told that occaisonally, eventually, sometimes - it is like this indeed...

So declare what you want here: you have better findings and arguments from an independeant source (please, no official statements by the mulitary, they are brewing their own PR soup), and any data, able to prove the things linked here as obsolete and wrong, or do you just wish to go after me, and giving only biblical and constitutional scriptures whose idealistic intentions and superstitious assumptions you mismatch with the factual status of reality?

I'm sorry if I have touched a sensible issue, but we already have seen the Iraq war 2003 coming partialy from these dangerous developements of a derailing political ambition, and it affects the whole world, is not just an internal issue of America alone. We cannot afford not to be concerned. If evangelist views of the world form future decisions about war and peace, then where armageddon before remained to be one amongst many possible ways for history to choose, it now is guaranteed in an attempt to fulfill man-written scriptures in an act of self-fulfilling prophecy, and an American army made up by church-fanatics is in no way any different anymore than Islamic fanatics. Both have different names for things, but act by the same motivation of intolerance, demand to dominate, to supress, to bring every other view to inquisition.

Perception of reality dominated by religious views like these ancient superstitions leaves mankind not a single chance to ever see better days, but will lauch an endless chain of religiously motivated wars, conflicts and hate filled acts of intolerance and barbarism. In other words: in that scenario, the US would not be any better than Al Quaeda, and religiously motivated supression of any other culture and believe and religion would be the American norm - like in islam. All in the name of democracy, tolerance, peace and freedom of course. Well, today's terms do not mean anything anymore, if everybody can understand something different under the same term.

That is where the threats described in the study are leading to. Why doesn't make anyone a stupid joke about it? I'm sure that joke is coming.

By the way you and some people here totally ignore all that and wipe it off the table with some wide gestures only, and saying "it cannot be what should not be, and if it is nevertheless, then it is harmless becasue it cannot be that in america something goes wrong and is different to what the constitution says it should be like", then by that you show exactly that dangerous blindness towards internal problems, you show exactly that filtering of perception and give an example of that kind of culturally motivated arrogance - the authors are rightfully complaining about. That you help their argument by that is ironic, to say the least.

You guys all turn it into an issue "you versus evil, atheist Skybird". Atheism free of political and religious ideologies has caused mankind much fewer aggression, conquest, intolerance and hate than any of the great theistic religions, becasue it has not conviction that makes it think it miust impose them onto others, no matter what. So your attacks on my atheistic attitude are like medals of honour for me, and a confirmation of why i am against institutionalised religions in total. If I want to reassure myself of why i think it is bad for man, and a lethal threat to mankind - all i need to do is to listen to some of you guys.

Tell that Lieutenant Colonel William Millonig.

Ok, how about this?

I don't see anyone besides you saying that is the case here in my country so where does it come from? Those so called "history books" you refer to?

I refer to politicians from both parties having expressed the first part of these statements more than just once since WWII - Reagan for example was one of them. the second part is an ironic summary of the general spirit behind it. The same McCarthian spirit has been expressed here on the board oh so many times as well. So: try again.

Or better: don't. This thread has been derailed enough for the sake of avoiding to adress the primary issue from the beginning: and that was a study by Air Force Lieutenant Colonel William Millonig (if I may stress your precious patience and remind you all a third or fourth time of it), that the publishing site, a US military academy, has summed up like this:

Not difficult to decide if you have any argument or knowledge to say something on that, or not.

So everybody, if you have nothing on the orginal topic to say or do not wish to do so, and only want to go after me instead - stop waste your - and more important: my and other people's - time, and just stay away. I will no longer react to offtopic comments here.

Why doesn't every one just take a little break from the religious stuff on this thread. Let's all take a step back. Even better still spend 5 minutes to purchase the new Subsim 2008 Almanac. :up: :yep:

Ignore? Hardly, it illustrates my point. It's pure gobbledegook Skybird, written to make a mountain out of a mole hill for political purposes. "Conservative Christian values"? Calling them Christians wasn't bad enough apparently, now they're "conservative" Christians. So what's next? "Neo-Christians"?

If the US military has indeed moved to the christian right since the Vietnam war, and that's very debatable given the strong religious backround of the great majority of our military leaders over the two centuries of our national history (and the fact that there are few athiests in foxholes), perhaps it's because ever since the Vietnam war the left has done all it could to alienate them. For example, calling our servicemen and women "murderers" and "baby killers" and throwing feces at them. Don't tell me it didn't happen Skybird. I've seen it with my own eyes. Or offhandedly insulting our troops intelligence like John Kerry did recently, or Algore and co trying to get military absentee ballots thrown out on technicalities like they did in the Y2K presidential election.

If you look hard enough you can find somebody to echo any argument you want to make Skybird and athiests are quite adept at using the internet to make their arguments, but that doesn't make it a valid problem. So far all you have shown with all your and Tchockys links is that there were at one time some overzealous Chaplains in the service academy of one single branch, and that the issue was addressed by the command several years ago. This does not prove that such things are prevailent in our military nor does it prove that athiesm is a better way of life.

The way i see it athiests tend to preach their beliefs (or lack thereof) with even more fervor than the most radical holy roller. Like many Muslims you are so fond of villifying, athiests walk around with the classic chip on their shoulder looking for things to get outraged about. When more than just them are worried about it then it might be a real issue, but until then i see it as just another athiest strawman argument.

It's just more nonsense....the military is to serve the people, and if majority's of the people are Christian, or whatever then surprise surprise that there would be an influence...same goes for governement.The argument is athesistic nonsense.There should be an influence or else what happens you get some nut case in power with no morals or values and decides Christians should suffer a final solution. :hmm:

I thought this was religious, not political. Find me any candidate who'd have a realistic chance at office if he/she claimed to be an atheist.
Have a look at the Founding Fathers, they believed some very strange stuff, by our standards.
And this random collection of morons are responsible for a religious shift in a secular armed service? I don't get you. The armed forces are to remain irreligious, no matter what politicians may be saying. Politicians should try the same thing.

Either A - you aren't reading the links. Or B - you're selectively reading them.
That article is twenty days old. Either read links or don't, but don't pretend to. It just looks silly.

Hypothetical situation - Would you see it as a violation of the separation of church and state if a branch of the armed services evangelised it's soldiers in one direction, claiming that unbelievers would burn in hell?

So people who aren't religious have no morals or values?

Two problems Skybird:

Starting from the last quote:
What gives your culturally homogeneous group the priviledge of exemption from the same demand? As far as I understand, you do not advocate diversity, as the author of this piece does, Christian and even Muslim groups included, as long as no group is hegemonic, but an homogeneously atheist Army, as that would be a better army in your opinion. To back my claim, I quote the author praising diversity, not homogeneity of atheism:

So you pretend to be on the same boat as the author, but in fact the two of you have different positions.

Secondly:

Once again the two of you diverge. You question every single one of these individual beliefs and not only is concerned but already judged them wrong, steps the author did not take.

Negative. The author has the same problem with this "homogenous group" claiming more shares than are it'S own, like i have. His thoughts in this paper are concenring the so-called christian right, or evangelical fundamentalists, and that this special, clearly defined subgroup of Christianity is winning more and more influence, as is to be concluded from this study as well as from the courtcase Tchocky referred to in his articles. It is not about this belief system "Christianity" in general, which is quite different in it'S different forms of christian schools, sects or however you may call them, it is about the diversity of these not being represented in the military. It is about this group "evangelical fundamentalists" being massively overrepresented, and even more: bullying people and put pressure on them to join this one groups' faith (evangelical fundamentalism), and that it also has marked great success in winning positions of power and influence where decision making and anylyse procedures get influenced by this group's dogmatic perception filters.

I did not complain about Christian faith being the dominant faith in the military, but a certain fundamental sub-group being overrepresented, stillg rowing in influence, and abusing it's position to define goals of military politics. Whatever I think on believing and relgio9n in general, I kept it out of this threat, and di not speak about religion nin general, but just this one school of "evangelical fundamentalism". Yes, I have criticism on relgion going beyond just these guys. but that did not play a role here. The courtcase in Tchocky's links features this rich evangelical preacher abusing the Air Force Academy to aggressively recruit new believers for his sect. thatz is again not about christian chaplains in general, but evangelical fundamentalism and proselytizing special.

Depending on the source you use, you will read varying numbers saying that around 60-80% of the American population are confessing to some of the many different Christzian sects and churches in the US. that Chrstian belief is thus the dominant relgion in the armed forces is nothing to be surpsied off. The problem is about the armed forces no longer being truly secular, not interfering with issues of religion (as it should be nby their own rules), but instead having become playground and hunting ground for not all Christian churches, but some fanatical ones amongst them.

the problem is the growing violation of this dictum: “Military professionals must remember that religious choice is a matter of individual conscience. Professionals, and especially commanders, must not take it upon themselves to change or coercively influence the religious views of subordinates.” Religious Toleration (Air Force Code of Ethics, 1997)

Earlier in this thread, Antikrusek wrote: "Most christians who have been in power have not been backwards bible literalists, its those people who are the threat not the christians who put common sense before scripture." I totally agree. I just hint at this study saying that it is no more like that. The situation has chnaged, and that chnage is dangerous.

Again, negative. I have not started this thread as a general criticism of beliefs and relgion in general, but with regard to the problem I just has outlined above. I repatedly have tried to lead it back to that after it was ignored and hijacked by others to turn it into a general discussion on religion that the paper - and me - orginally were not about. So I do not question every signle individual's beliefs, as you put it, not in this thread. I was talking about the growing influence of just one powerful, clearly defined subgroup of chrstian belief: envangelical fundamentalism. And that means there are a lot of christian churches and sects that are NOT that. these many churches are not what is the target of the criticism. It is just ione fundamentalist subgroup, that has successfully combined it's power with the conservative values of the political right, and the neocons, and nthat now try together to get the Us under their domination and control.

Exactly this diversity - gets intentionally prevented by fundamental Christians. they do not wish it. Like all fundamentlaists, they claim that it all has to be around THEIR views, and their views exclusively.

How can one turn things by a 180° and make them appear as exactly the opposite as what this study, the general, an my little efforts, are about?

the study fits nicely with the sueing of the Air Force Academy as linked by Tchocky. That story illustrates perfectly what the general is about.

And some quotes from the first report:
What was it with diversity, TteFaBob?
Diversity, anyone?
...?
...
Ha, with a plus in place of a minus, that sounds familiar, I have read it often - in books about Islam, it's fanatism and lacking tolerance, and such. When I attack Islam for what it is, I cannot leave Christian fundamentalism untouched without contradicting myself. Both are offsprings of the same egocentric mind, like twin brothers.

When I started this thread, I did not knew about these events, and Tchocky's articles. I just had read several other, German essays on the problem in general. Somebody in this thread has complained somewhere above that I named it as "The enemy within."
The first of Tchocky's articles is entitled "The cancer within". I wonder what I would have heared if using that instead.

These walls of text are really getting old.