Comments on: Court Dismisses Atheist’s Lawsuit Regarding Fort Riley

By: Paul Quinn

Paul Quinn — Tue, 12 Jan 2010 11:19:57 +0000

The army by its nature is “regimented”. I understand why attending services is compulsary! If everyone did what they wanted when they wanted, there would be no army as we know it today! This is why they make everyone attend.

I am not saying this is right or wrong … just it is the way it is in the army (at present).

Is this guy suggesting he might be turned Christian?

By: StarliteShadow

StarliteShadow — Mon, 11 Jan 2010 20:36:24 +0000

I find it interesting that an atheist is willing to put his life on the line at his commander’s order, but not put up with a few minutes of activities that are not in any way harmful to him – and have no significance to him either.

Surely its like telling a Christian to eat pork – Pork has no special significance to Christianity (well as far as I know), and as the army is all about serving and following orders – I don’t see how this task requires someone to sue.

By: Steven Mading

Steven Mading — Mon, 11 Jan 2010 19:49:15 +0000

To the people who claim this soldier was complaining about something he volunteered to do, and therefore is being a crybaby about it:

The relevant thing you are missing is that the military does not claim to be a religious institution. At no point did this soldier volunteer to join a religious group that was advertised as such. He volunteered to join a secular organization that it turns out has been taken over by religious kooks. And according to its official charter it’s explicitly not supposed to be one. The military is not following its own rules, and it’s impossible nowadays to seek proper channels inside the miiltary for pursuing these complaints about that issue – because the people to whom you are supposed to complain are themselves part of the problem now.

By: Gaz

Gaz — Mon, 11 Jan 2010 16:48:22 +0000

The religious beliefs or superstitions of others do *not* need to be respected if they are so arrogant as to be enforcing those beliefs on others.

By: chris

chris — Mon, 11 Jan 2010 16:37:42 +0000

Yeah I have got to say, no one’s rights are violated here. If a religious person is not allowed to say prayers, thats a violation of his free speech, and freedom of worship. But the only problem that a rational person should have with standing around saying prayers is that it is a massive waste of time. He does not have a right not to hear things he doesn’t agree with.

By: roz

roz — Mon, 11 Jan 2010 13:57:14 +0000

i knew a pagan chaplain (he wrote the pagan chapter fer the army manual) & he never seemed to feel the army was proselytizing. i wonder if things have changed since then? or maybe the army just doesnt like atheists? because they still think “there are no atheists in foxholes”?

By: Cormac

Cormac — Mon, 11 Jan 2010 12:47:09 +0000

Belief systems are based on fabrication. There is nothing unique about the Christian story, for example. The story of Jesus is almost identical to that of previous ‘gods’ or ‘prophets’ including Mithras, Horus and Krishna to name only 3. They were all born on or around December 25th, they had 12 disciples, they rose again from the dead after being crucified, etc. As a teenager, I wanted to be a priest. I believed in social inclusion. However, the Catholic faith had become based on the exclusion of large parts of society. To those who believe that this soldier should just accept it, would you go along with being forced to go to a synagogue or mosque because everyone else does? Religion has been at the root of conflict for thousands of years something that ‘believers’ should be ashamed of. This soldier is fighting for his country not ‘God’.

By: _JonBaxter_

_JonBaxter_ — Mon, 11 Jan 2010 12:40:27 +0000

Thought the US was run by god. Bloody unpatriotic of him. Not as if it was something American either…like ‘suing’.

By: Jess xxx

Jess xxx — Mon, 11 Jan 2010 12:33:14 +0000

I wish we knew what these ‘events’ were. If it was part of the everyday routine – once in the morning and once at night, and a few times inbetween – then yes, that would be a bit unfair (Religion, as Raymond says, can’t really contribute to business – unless you’re a church.) But if (as the word ‘events’ kind of suggests,) prayers only happened every so often, for special events – maybe for respecting the dead; can’t really think what other use the army could have for prayers – I can’t see why you would sue over something like that. To me, it just sounds like he’s whining that he had to be exposed to anything religious at all.

By: JayKay

JayKay — Mon, 11 Jan 2010 12:08:01 +0000

@ Mike Hoffman says ‘@James Windsor – yes, ha ha, of course it is *exactly* like that. Doh! He’s not campaigning for the right to hold Atheist Services, but rather not to participate in something that he does not believe in, but is outside the remit of his job.’ Exactly.

Sometimes people have to stick their necks out to make a point and this soldier is doing just that. Most of us just go along with things to keep the peace; sitting through Holy Joe weddings, Christenings and funerals where the priest is more interested in the numerous collections – but what’s wrong in stopping and making people think?

It might not bother me to sit through a few prayers here and there, but it may bother some – especially those in the armed forces who see exactly what this ‘belief system’ (read man-made bollocks) leads to; wars, wars and more wars.