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.

You should try reading them, might liven them up a bit for you. Or there is a second options, if you do not wish to see long posts discussing something that isnt a simple back and white issue stay away from threads dealing with such instead of clutering them up with pointless posts like that, the exact thing im doing right now by replying to you.

I think there is an easier way to make a point than just bloviating all over the place. If you can't get to the point in 10 seconds then you have wasted my time.

You do not need even that long to waste ours. Dismissed. Report back when you have something constructive to say with regard to this thread's focus - Ltn Col Millonig's study paper, and the events at the Air Force Academy, that is.

Yeah and if you actually read the article like i did you'll note that he was talking about something that happened in 2004. Maybe you should follow your own advice dude.

So if we can believe this obviously biased persons numbers, out of 48 new chaplains at the AF academy back in 2004 a whopping 12 of them are considered (by him) to be evangelical. Yeah i'd say that would be pretty diverse. Maybe not as diverse as it could be but far more diverse than you imply.

I wonder how many of the other 36 chaplains are Muslim? :D