A combat unit assigned to a combat zone is not the same as living in San Francisco.  It is not an environment to suddenly practice a lifestyle counter to social norms. I get the impression that there is some sort of antagonism going on other than an issue of religious faith--or lack of it--simply by being an atheist. Whatever it is, the trust of his fellow soldiers that he will function when it is imperative isn't there. If this guy's life is in danger from other troops, he should be rotated somewhere else. He should not even be there.

You'd be suprised.  The military is extremely faith-based.

How do you decide to become an atheist?

Well, San Francisco, by it's very name, ought to tell you of the level of religious belief that goes on there. You know, Saint Francis/San Francisco, Spanish/English.  It's a VERY religious city, filled with h-u-g-e churches, attended by thousands upon thousands.

Move him?  That's what the armed forces had to do with personnel who were in interracial marriages: move, and move, and move them. Where would they be safe? It sounds like the same thing for this soldier. He's probably right to get out of that hell hole anyway. I know the feeling. I got the hell out of Fresno because at some point you realize you aren't safe and no one is going to assign a body guard to you and your husband and children.

I served eight years in the Air Force during the Vietnam Era and I never noticed the level of religious involvement like exists today. That's probably because religion has become such a political issue, people who are religious feel compelled to assert their beliefs more now than in the past.  When I was in the service, the really big social issue was about race. Everyone had to attend Human Relations counseling at least once a year.  There were lots of strident, vocal racial bigots in the service at that time and a great many of them got discharged because of their refusal to attend Human Relations training.

Atheists? They were/are more likely to keep their beliefs private for the same reason this soldier is citing. Tell someone and somebody will be on your case, either preaching to you or challenging your patriotism.  The same thing happens with gays in the military. If they don't outright turn you in when you tell them you're gay, they'll sometimes stalk you and preach.  

Didn't Pat Tillman's parents complain about being told by high-ranking officers that they'd "handle" their son's death better if they, and Pat, had been Christians?  And isn't religious hazing by evangelicals at the Air Force Academy the norm--so much so that there are former cadets filing discrimination lawsuits?  This is a very disturbing trend, but it's not really news.

Nancy wrote: "How do you decide to become an atheist?"

Nancy, I think it's a very complex process. I never actually "decided" because I always disliked the stigma attached to the name "atheist". 

It gets very personal with a lot of people. If, for example, you have something like homosexuality to face every day, and you turn to God hour after hour, day after day, week after week, month after month, year after year - doing this with your heart and mind fully open to God  - and you never get an answer, that silence allows the idea to creep in that just maybe you're talking not to God, but to yourself, that the God whom everyone promises will be there, never shows up.

Meanwhile, people are treating you badly, saying you "just didn't pray enough", or "you really didn't have faith" or "you are a horrible person."  That kind of thing happened to me even though, when I was a Christian, I never once acted on my sexual orientation.  Some people questioned my sanity. "Why did you tell anyone?" they'd ask. I don't know why the answer to that question seems so obvious to me but not to the Christians who asked it.

To me, it was a lie to conceal something that had such religious significance. Keep a lie concealed in your heart and it rots your heart. But to confess that you are gay in a religious environment is rarely treated as a person's decision to be honest. In my case, it meant the beginning of being shunned so harshly by my friends, I just couldn't bear to go to church any more. People wouldn't speak to me and could barely look at me.

For me, that was a major turning point. I tried to let God handle it all in private, by praying. Nothing happened. So revealing it to friends, hoping to get an understanding response, worked out to be the exact opposite of what I'd hoped.

From that point, it was a looooooong, slow process with me doing what is actually a natural habit everyone has. When something dreadful happens to you, you have a powerful motivation to distance yourself from the pain. So, then, you'll begin to allow other visions, other views of the world to come into your mind for examination.  Gays generally have no where to turn when their relationship with their faith turns bad.  So, if you have any kind of intellectual curiosity about "What else is out there that has an ethical standard, a standard that is necessary, and appeals to me", you can find such ethical standards in the literature of atheism.  These days, the term "Free Thinker" is gaining popularity because of the stigma "atheist" bears. I prefer Free Thinker because the intellectual atmosphere a non believer actually dwells in isn't perpetually focused on religion, as "a-theist" seems to suggest. You may not have any confidence in religion, but religion seems to define "atheist" when "Free" defines "Free Thinker." It's a concept that is appealing that, I think, empowers me to think out of the box on a great many topics that have nothing to do with religion.

So, in summary, becoming non-religious/atheist/Free Thinker is a journey.

I'm sorry.  I know you spent a lot of time explaining it but it's really very simple.  It's not something you "decide."  You either believe or you don't.  And yes, it's a process but it's not a decision. 

Pat Tillman realized something that a lot of less educated soldiers don't: When the enemy is shooting at you, you need to get your ass in gear. A second or two wasted on prayer can cost you your life.

If someone punishes a cadet at the Air Force Academy for not being a Christian, that someone deserved to be murdered. Period.

Nancy wrote: "You either believe or you don't.  And yes, it's a process but it's not a decision. "

I'm not a great one to speak for non-believers. I did reach a point where I could definitely say that I didn't believe in the supernatural. But I still live in a kind of half-way house in terms of my sympathies about religious people. That's because I had a very joyful experience as a Christian. I have two brothers and two sisters whom I love dearly. They never were challenged about religion the way I was, so they still have their own personal relationships with the kind of influence I grew up with and experienced.

I'd feel like a fool to assert that religion was without merit. I don't believe that. It has the capacity to bring great peace to one's life. So, for that reason, I have respect for the religious experience; the spiritual experience is real. But I really don't extend that respect any further that I'm aware of. I trust science and scholarship, ethics that apply to all of humankind, principles that cause me to believe in the goodness of individuals, the content of a person's character. None of those beliefs require or necessitate the need for religious guidance. They all seem as man-made and universally embraced as the best examples of religion provide.  "Love one another" isn't the property of religion, its the highest, most noble ambition of human kind.

Seems to be a hint of a "Crusades" mentality involved. Gotta slaughter the heathen non believers. Why do the ultra believers resort to a method of asserting thier beliefs that only makes them seem unsecure in it and trying to "convert" the unbeliever to thier state of mentality...a way of justifying thier stance as being right. You should not have to "justify" your faith if you are secure in it.

This is in no way an isolated incident.

Remember what happened at the Air Force Academy?

http://www.wnd.com/news/art...

Not to mention how Wiccans are treated in the military.

http://seattletimes.nwsourc...

And yes, it's a process but it's not a decision

That doesn't make sense.

If it's a process, then common sense tells you that options are weighted and alternatives considered and the end result is a decision.

The incidence of religious whackos in the armed forces--those who beleive they're on some sort of divine mission in a god-vs-satan struggle in Iraq, for instance--is quite worrying.  Because "Christian Soldiers" have *NEVER* hesitated to turn their weapons on those whose only failing is that they don't share the folie a' dieu.

As usual a few people are making a lot of comments with out the facts.  Such as the crusade myth that certain self proclaimed liberals have as there mantra, even though the facts in no way match that fantasy.  Just like the "War for Oil" Myth and "George Bush is the cause of all the worlds problems" Fantasy  Come on people try showing some rational skepticism for once and don't believe everything you read;D 

I stated, hint of "Crusade" ; mentality ,

The Crusades were, in part, an outlet for an intense religious piety which rose up in the late 11th century among the lay public. A crusader would, after pronouncing a solemn vow, receive a cross from the hands of the pope or his legates, and was thenceforth considered a "soldier of the Church". This was partly because of the Investiture Controversy, which had started around 1075 and was still on-going during the First Crusade. As both sides of the Investiture Controversy tried to marshal public opinion in their favor, people became personally engaged in a dramatic religious controversy. The result was an awakening of intense Christian piety and public interest in religious affairs. This was further strengthened by religious propaganda, advocating Just War in order to retake the Holy Land—which included Jerusalem (where the death, resurrection and ascension into heaven of Jesus took place according to Christian theology) and Antioch (the first Christian city)—from the Muslims. Further, the remission of sin was a driving factor. This provided any God-fearing man who had committed sins with an irresistible way out of eternal damnation in Hell. It was a hotly debated issue throughout the Crusades as what exactly "remission of sin" meant. Most believed that by retaking Jerusalem they would go straight to heaven after death. However, much controversy surrounds exactly what was promised by the popes of the time. One theory was that one had to die fighting for Jerusalem for the remission to apply, which would hew more closely to what Pope Urban II said in his speeches. This meant that if the crusaders were successful, and retook Jerusalem, the survivors would not be given remission. Another theory was that if one reached Jerusalem, one would be relieved of the sins one had committed before the Crusade. Therefore one could still be sentenced to Hell for sins committed afterwards.

All of these factors were manifested in the overwhelming popular support for the First Crusade and the religious vitality of the 12^th century.

The fact are:

There is an active lawsuit alleging mistreatment, and the DoD is taking it seriously enough to assign bodyguards.

There are repeated reports of proselytization in the specifically non-religious military, in particular at the Air Force Academy.

The United States *DID* attack Iraq in order to control the country's oil, as demonstrated by subsequent events which showed that none of the other stated reasons was true.

As for the "crusade myth," General Boylan, anyone?

 I'm sorry.  I know you spent a lot of time explaining it but it's really very simple.  It's not something you "decide."  You either believe or you don't.  And yes, it's a process but it's not a decision.

Nancy, faith has everything to do with making a decision. Why else would God give us free will?

Wayfarer - I suggest you take your own advice.  One of the major problems with this country (and probably most countries for that matter) is that we tend to use cognitive dissonance to justify our actions.  Open up any standard High School history textbook, and you'll find a ton of information which is doctored to make it appear as if the United States has always been a champion of democracy and equality.  If one does their research, they'd easily be able to punch holes in just about every chapter of these books.

The same happens with our Government and the News Media.  You want concrete examples? Go back to the speeches Bush made in 2003, and continues to make concerning Iraq, and count how many times in each speech he uses the buzzword "Freedom." Isn't it ironic that Bush appears to be the "Champion" of freedom in the 2000's, yet Iraqi's are far from free, and as this and many other articles prove, our own soldiers do not seem to have the very freedoms that Bush so fervently talks about.

If you read one of my recent blog posts of my Senior Thesis in college, you'd know that there are well documented government sources from the 1980's which outline U.S. policy in Iraq, with all intentions of securing billions of dollars in contracts to maintain Iraqi oilfields... and what do you know, we're still doing it ! Here's the latest:

http://www.nytimes.com/2008...

Oh, and if you want to read the Government documents outlining U.S. Policy towards Iraq in the 1980's, just go to the Digital National Security Archives (though unless you're a student or faculty of a University, you'll probably have to pay money to view anything).  I spent 4 months digging through hundreds, if not thousands of declassified documents, reading all up on U.S. policy in Iraq in the 80's and early 90's.

"The incidence of religious whackos in the armed forces--those who beleive they're on some sort of divine mission in a god-vs-satan struggle in Iraq, for instance--is quite worrying.  Because "Christian Soldiers" have *NEVER* hesitated to turn their weapons on those whose only failing is that they don't share the folie a' dieu."  The Fact is that this is what Random posted which is his paranoia of "Religious Wackos" and "Christian Soldiers" who never hesitate to "kill one of there own."  These statements don't seem rational to me and there is nothing in the posted article to lead to such broad conclusions.  Maggi what does the medieval Roman Catholic Crusades have to do with modern U.S. policy.  First of all the Roman Catholic Crusades are not typical of Christendom nor is mass murder in the name of ones beliefs.  The failed atheist persecutions of the Soviet Union being one example.  There is no evidence that it has been U.S. policy to invade Iraq or anywhere else to spread Christianity.  As a matter of fact the U.S. was killing Christians for muslims in the Balkans.  As for the "War for Oil" myth; show me the oil!  As for George Bush being the source of all the worlds troubles.  I believe that mankind as a whole is the source of it's own troubles and individuals must start with correcting themselves before telling everyone else how they should live there lives.  And finally I don't believe everything I was taught in school.  Not even the revisionest history. 

Wayfarer - there are plenty of documented examples where Christians have commited mass murder in the name of God.  In fact, from 1492 through the 1890's, Europeans and then European Americans were on a crusade of rape, pillaging and murder against the indigeneous peoples of the continent, all in the name of God.

Gee, I don't seem rational to the guy with the multiple personalities. 

As a matter of fact, religious rivalries played a major part in the Balkans, with Orthodox Christians fighting "not on the side of the angels," to put it poetically. 

.

Silly Buffoo, you didn't think the War for Oil was intended to give *YOU* any oil, did you?  You're not a major oil-company shareholder, by any chance? 

I believe that mankind as a whole is the source of it's own troubles

First sensible thing you've said.  There's no need of any "devil," human beings are quite capable of causing their own heartbreak.

You don't believe everything you were taught in school?  It shows.

Florida you are merely repeating  revisionist history which I don't wholly buy into.  I think the real motive is money.  If you care to check there are many cases of missionary's risking there lives to protect the native populations from unscrupulous traders and soldiers.  May I suggest reading "Orthodox Alaska."  Also as I pointed out mass murder is not something that was done by so called Christians ,though we can wonder if the murders were really Christian in the first place.  Atheist killed millions in the 20Th century trying to stamp out other faiths.  As did the Jew's, Pagan's and Muslims did trying to stamp out Christianity.   

Hint means Hint.... Must have stomped pretty close to the anthill though,some are getting antsy....As for the "War for Oil" there`s where you can dig for facts, denial is no longer classified as a fact....I can show you the "War" and the Oil Corporations involved and the mega profits they have made to this point, just because there is no major oil coming to the conquers doesn`t mean it`s not a war based on it, gather facts...

In reponse to Random's last comment.  Have a good morning.  I am off to do something constructive now. 

As for the "crusade myth," General Boylan, anyone?

Not just Boykin.

Bush himself called it a crusade.

And then he called it "Operation Infinite Justice", which has overt religious meaning. So much so, he was forced to stop using it and ended with "Operation Enduring Freedom".

As did the Jew's, Pagan's and Muslims did trying to stamp out Christianity.

Spanish Inquisition, anyone?

Christians would have probably been left alone if they didn't try to stamp out other religions first with the Crusades.

Athiests may be raised in a church but they know from the get go they don't believe any of it.

Athiests may be raised in a church but they know from the get go they don't believe any of it.

Nonsense.  Many a true believer undergoes a conversion when the critical thinking skills kick in.

TSM, thanks for the spelling correction.  It was Boykin, not Boylan.  And the Whacko-in-Chief, of course.

Wayfarer - I'm not repeating "revisionist history" - I'm speaking from my own research of primary source documents.  Your argument on whether these people were real Christians is a valid one, when coming from a completely theological viewpoint.  However, from a completely historical viewpoint, Europeans did murder in the name of God - whether they actually followed Christ's teachings is not what we're debating here. Yes, you are correct that there are cases where missionaries did everything they could to help the natives; however what you are not admitting to was how the missionaries came to be there in the first place.  The first Europeans to come to the Americas had absolutely no agenda for conversion.  Once the Spanish had military domination over the Americans (I'm speaking of the "Indians"), that's when the missionaries began to come over.  Even after that, there are many documented cases where indigeneous peoples were given one of two options: convert or die.

We use to get a present ( Candy bar, cupcake,cookie) when we got off the church bus if we sat through the whole propaganda speel, we even had " money drops" for anyone who brought a new "recruit" to Sunday school. Nothing financial about that religious situation......The "crusades" just offered a little better" present" for recruits, nothing really changes....

Coverage of religion in the military, with blog comments:

http://ac360.blogs.cnn.com/...

Back to the original post: How do you violate an atheist's religious freedom?

By violating his freedom *FROM* religion.  By discriminating against him on the basis of his not swallowing *YOUR* religious dogma.   

Death threats will also accomplish the same thing.

Home run.....outta the park.....Barry Bonds would be proud.....

And all without steroids.

New legal threat to school science in the US

http://tinyurl.com/62lptf

Jindal is fully into the mythology.  He's even participated in an exorcism.  We're hoping McCain picks him as VP to pull his ticket down further than his recent Social Security remarks.

And a Texas court just ruled in favor of *FORCIBLE* exorcisms.  God help them.

RF wrote: "And a Texas court just ruled in favor of *FORCIBLE* exorcisms.  God help them."

Isn't that what the Turlock dad was doing? Witnesses (police and the passerby who reported him) said he "beat, kicked and stomped" his infant son to death and did so while telling police he was "getting demons out of him".

Forcible exorcism. Plain and simple. The police in Texas, under this ruling, would be guilty of violating this man's constitutional rights had they shot the man like the Stanislaus County police did.

Im just curious but do you all enjoy your inaccurate views of reality and just get on here to read each others uneducated views?

Husband material this is not directed at you, btw interesting post

Hahahaha BS.. you're one to talk.

BS.. you're one to talk.

BS engages in projection on a regular basis.

I am speaking from personal experience Random Factor.

As am I.  And there are any number of unbelievers who were previously quite devout.

Not in my experience.  And I know a LOT of atheists. 

As do I, several of them formerly active in their churches.

I was an altar boy and *TRAINED* altar boys.  My "conversion" came in June 1968.

oenophile - I have a number of personal friends of mine who were once evangelical Christians when they were teenagers, and during their time in college had a change of heart and are now Atheists.  While I don't agree with their opinions concerning Divine existence, the fact is, they at one time did have Faith.

I doubt that you convert someone to atheism who has a genuine belief in god anymore than you can make a believer out of a "born" atheist.

I knew at the age of five it was nonsence.

oenophile - your doubts show your close-mindedness. Anything is possible.

There are, alas, many converts from professed atheism to believer.   Buffoo is one such.  Madalyn Murray O'Hair's son had Christianity beaten into him.

Nancy asked... How do you decide to become an atheist?

Atheism addresses the belief.  Atheists need not positively believe that no gods exist. Some do, and this position is often known as strong atheism. By contrast, other atheists hold that neither claim is sufficiently supported by evidence to justify acceptance, a position known as weak atheism.  A "weak" atheist is one who doesn't claim that there is no god, but instead simply lacks belief in a god. This form of atheism is the most common, and is sometimes called "agnostic atheism"

A "strong" atheist is one who positively asserts that "there is no god". Strong atheism is the form of atheism that most theists reference in debates, since most don't know the distinction between strong and weak atheism, however strong atheists are rarer than most people think.

I'm sorry.  I know you spent a lot of time explaining it but it's really very simple.  It's not something you "decide."  You either believe or you don't.  And yes, it's a process but it's not a decision. 

So, I hope you see that it's not just something you "decide".  If a previously non-religious person ran into the FLDS and said, "I believe!!  I have no evidence to prove your savior is Warren Jeffs, but I believe!", then that person has maed an emotional choice.

Florida   You're making a  lot of assumptions about me based on three statements.  My atheism stems from my absolute suriety that a god does not exist.   Believing in a god has more to say about the believer than the belief.   It fills a need. 

And yes anything is possible as long as it obeys the laws of physics.