Tennessee atheists win right to distribute literature after schools give Bibles

[Dos Equis]

So you would be still be cool  if it said: "Under Allah", instead?

Of course not.  I just wouldn't say it.  But that's really not a realistic hypothetical anyway.  Never going to happen.  Our country wasn't founded by Muslims.  We don't have deeply rooted Muslim traditions.  Mohammad doesn't appear throughout our founding documents, etc. 

[Skeletor]

No.  Nobody is being forced to say "under God."  If someone is truly offended by that, then don't say those words.  How hard is that?  Emotional distress?  Please.  Cry me a river.  I find it hard to believe that you accept something like that.   

I am a firm believer in church-state separation.  But what I really cannot stand is this false notion that God and religion (or in almost every context Christianity) has to be cleansed from the public square.  That's not what church-state separation is all about.  So I get a little irritated when people like Michael Newdow and Mitch Kahle (examples of irrational atheists) run around the country and my state crying about things like a legislator putting a fish symbol on his office door, or looking for crosses erected as memorials on public property, crying about "In God We Trust" on money, etc.  Asinine.

If the government is trying to force a kid to pray, or the government establishes a state religion like England, or people lose the right to have no beliefs at all, then I have a problem.  But this kind of stuff?  Like I said, it's friggin stupid.  It detracts from legitimate arguments involving government and religion. 

There's also an issue with the Air Force and those who choose to re-enlist and have to sign an oath that says "So help me God"... When the service member crossed out these words as he did not believe (he must have been a "paranoid anti-religious extremist" ) he was told he either has to accept "So help me God" and sign it or leave...

So much for "church-state separation", especially in the case when a man wants to serve the country in the armed forces.

[Dos Equis]

There's also an issue with the Air Force and those who choose to re-enlist and have to sign an oath that says "So help me God"... When the service member crossed out these words as he did not believe (he must have been a "paranoid anti-religious extremist" ) he was told he either has to accept "So help me God" and sign it or leave...

So much for "church-state separation", especially in the case when a man wants to serve the country in the armed forces.

I don't have a problem with him crossing out those words, or not saying them as part of his oath.  Shouldn't be a big deal. 

[avxo]

No.  Nobody is being forced to say "under God."  If someone is truly offended by that, then don't say those words.  How hard is that?  Emotional distress?  Please.  Cry me a river.  I find it hard to believe that you accept something like that.

Straw man. The issue isn't whether anyone is forced to say "under God" or not. The issue is different: that is, whether the official pledge of allegiance, codified in law, and recited in many situations by citizens - some of whom believe in many gods and some of whom believe in none, should even mention a deity. In essence, the codified version forces some of us to do one of two things:

• make a false pledge (after all, I don't believe we're a nation under God, so if I include that statement, my pledge is false); or
• omit a part of the pledge (therefore, taking a different pledge that everyone else, which I shouldn't have to do)

So again, why are those words necessary in the pledge?

I am a firm believer in church-state separation.

I'd be curious to know where a sponge falls in your "firmness" scale.

But what I really cannot stand is this false notion that God and religion (or in almost every context Christianity) has to be cleansed from the public square.

Straw man argument. The question is whether Government should adopt and/or promote a particular religion. If you want to wear your "REAL MEN LOVE JESUS AND I'M A REAL MAN" t-shirt, go ahead. If you want to use the power of the Government to compel me to wear one, then go fuck yourself.

The Pledge, as it stands, is forcing me to wear a t-shirt. You are suggesting that it's ok, and maybe I can just tape over or cut out part of the t-shirt and wear it anyways and it's all good.

So I get a little irritated when people like Michael Newdow and Mitch Kahle (examples of irrational atheists) run around the country and my state crying about things like a legislator putting a fish symbol on his office door, or looking for crosses erected as memorials on public property, crying about "In God We Trust" on money, etc.  Asinine.

There's all sorts of crazy people - I file Newdow in the same category as the legislator putting the fish symbol on his office door.

If the government is trying to force a kid to pray, or the government establishes a state religion like England, or people lose the right to have no beliefs at all, then I have a problem.  But this kind of stuff?  Like I said, it's friggin stupid.  It detracts from legitimate arguments involving government and religion.

School children recite the pledge of allegiance all the time... not sure where that falls in your "this kind of stuff" test.

I don't have a problem with him crossing out those words, or not saying them as part of his oath.  Shouldn't be a big deal.

It shouldn't. But that sidesteps the important, underlying question: why should those words be there to begin with?

[Dos Equis]

Straw man. The issue isn't whether anyone is forced to say "under God" or not. The issue is different: that is, whether the official pledge of allegiance, codified in law, and recited in many situations by citizens - some of whom believe in many gods and some of whom believe in none, should even mention a deity. In essence, the codified version forces some of us to do one of two things:

• make a false pledge (after all, I don't believe we're a nation under God, so if I include that statement, my pledge is false); or
• omit a part of the pledge (therefore, taking a different pledge that everyone else, which I shouldn't have to do)

So again, why are those words necessary in the pledge?


I'd be curious to know where a sponge falls in your "firmness" scale.


Straw man argument. The question is whether Government should adopt and/or promote a particular religion. If you want to wear your "REAL MEN LOVE JESUS AND I'M A REAL MAN" t-shirt, go ahead. If you want to use the power of the Government to compel me to wear one, then go fuck yourself.

The Pledge, as it stands, is forcing me to wear a t-shirt. You are suggesting that it's ok, and maybe I can just tape over or cut out part of the t-shirt and wear it anyways and it's all good.


There's all sorts of crazy people - I file Newdow in the same category as the legislator putting the fish symbol on his office door.


School children recite the pledge of allegiance all the time... not sure where that falls in your "this kind of stuff" test.


It shouldn't. But that sidesteps the important, underlying question: why should those words be there to begin with?

Actually, the straw man is you bringing up "independent deities" and that whork gimmick bringing up some Muslim reference.  

The entire pledge of allegiance isn't "necessary."  Neither is having any statements on money.  But our society decided to make reference to God, because the founders of our country believed in God and the overwhelming majority of people in this country believe in God.  The real question is why should those references be removed?

The answer is to appease a handful of hypersensitive, irrational crybabies.  Nobody's liberty is being threatened.  No national or state church is being established.  No one is being deprived of the right to worship how they choose, or not worship at all.

I gave you examples of what I believe would be inappropriate.  

[whork]

Actually, the straw man is you bringing up "independent deities" and that whork gimmick bringing up some Muslim reference. 

The entire pledge of allegiance isn't "necessary."  Neither is having any statements on money.  But our society decided to make reference to God, because the founders of our country believed in God and the overwhelming majority of people in this country believe in God.  The real question is why should those references be removed?

The answer is to appease a handful of hypersensitive, irrational crybabies.  Nobody's liberty is being threatened.  No national or state church is being established.  No one is being deprived of the right to worship how they choose, or nor worship at all.

I gave you examples of what I believe would be inappropriate. 

In marketing language, a gimmick is a unique or quirky special feature that makes something "stand out" from its contemporaries. However, the special feature is typically thought to be of little relevance or use. Thus, a gimmick is a special feature for the sake of having a special feature. It began, however, as a slang term for something that a con artist or magician had his assistant manipulate to make appearances different from reality. Such things as the manipulating of a gaming wheel led to the idea of a "gimmick" being used. Musicians often use gimmicks such as Slash's top hat, Angus Young's schoolboy uniform and Deadmau5's mouse helmet.[1]

Should i now cry for a mod to delete this moderators post?

[avxo]

Actually, the straw man is you bringing up "independent deities" and that whork gimmick bringing up some Muslim reference.

Why is a straw man? I am directly suggesting that if the wording of the pledge of allegiance included language that didn't fit with your pre-existing worldview and referenced an imaginary friend other than yours your approach would be quite different.

The entire pledge of allegiance isn't "necessary."

Sure, except that it's effectively required at many schools and is a part of our life outside of school as well. The wording, as it is, requires that people such as myself either refrain from saying the pledge, as codified, or be made into liars. Do you believe this is acceptable? Again, saying "well don't say that bit then" amounts to forcing me to wear a t-shirt under the logic that it's ok to force me to even if the t-shirt says something I disagree with, since I can just cover over that bit.

Neither is having any statements on money.

Right. But there's a fundamental difference in how one uses a dollar bill vs. how one uses the pledge of allegiance.

But our society decided to make reference to God, because the founders of our country believed in God and the overwhelming majority of people in this country believe in God.

Whether an overwhelming majority believes in God is as relevant as whether an overwhelming majority loves cheeseburgers. We live in a Constitutional Republic and overwhelming majorities can't - by design - just up and do whatever they feel like doing if what they feel like doing is prevented in the Constitution.  So the question becomes does having "under God" in the pledge of allegiance violate the Constitution? Maybe, maybe not. Ultimately, only the Supremes can decide that. However, common sense should tell you that it does. What if tomorrow, that same overwhelming majority you reference chose to change "under God" to "under Vishnu the ancient, the creator, the recent, the self-born"?

The real question is why should those references be removed?

Because it's both unnecessary and inappropriate? Forget the fact that the statement alienates a number of Americans who don't believe this nation is under God. The simple reality is this: common sense tells me that if the pledge of allegiance includes a reference to a deity, then the pledge of allegiance promotes religion - and government isn't allowed to do that and quite rightly so.

The answer is to appease a handful of hypersensitive, irrational crybabies.  Nobody's liberty is being threatened.  No national or state church is being established.  No one is being deprived of the right to worship how they choose, or nor worship at all.

Nice try, but the Supreme Court has, repeatedly, ruled that the doctrine of separation of church and State isn't limited to depriving someone of the right to worship how they choose or whether to worship at all. You may find 1971's Lemon v. Kurtzman (91 S. Ct. 2105) illuminating - especially the second prong of the test.

[Skip8282]

Actually, the straw man is you bringing up "independent deities" and that whork gimmick bringing up some Muslim reference. 

The entire pledge of allegiance isn't "necessary."  Neither is having any statements on money.  But our society decided to make reference to God, because the founders of our country believed in God and the overwhelming majority of people in this country believe in God.  The real question is why should those references be removed?

The answer is to appease a handful of hypersensitive, irrational crybabies.  Nobody's liberty is being threatened.  No national or state church is being established.  No one is being deprived of the right to worship how they choose, or nor worship at all.

I gave you examples of what I believe would be inappropriate. 

I usually base it on if somebody is being forced - but I know that's a can of worms to be sure.  Religious references on money, I don't find any harm.  Yes, we have to use money, but I just can't give a fuck what's on it, as long as it's accepted.  Not really hurting anyone.

The pledge...used to be you had to say it, could be kids get ostracized for not saying currently if they're uncomfortable.  To me, it's just more forced than the money issue.  And, eliminating religious reference doesn't harm you either.  So, trying to be reasonable isn't always easy for either side, lol.

Stuff like Baccalaureate (which I was forced to attend) or these put your head down and pray speeches are a bridge too far.

Keep religion to yourself and other like minded individuals and I doubt there will be too many issues.  Crybabies are abound on either side, of course.

[Dos Equis]

I wonder if this would have happened if he replaced his Christian references with Islam references?

Does the military have a problem with Jesus?
By Todd Starnes
Published October 31, 2014
FoxNews.com

A colonel’s column was removed from an Air National Guard newsletter because the writer violated military policy by including references to Jesus Christ and God, an Ohio National Guard spokesman said.

Col. Florencio Marquinez, the medical group commander of the 180th Fighter Wing, wrote an essay in the September edition of the “Stinger.” It was titled, “A Spiritual Journey as a Commander.”

He wrote about how his mother’s faith in Jesus Christ influenced his life and he referenced a Bible verse from the New Testament, “With God all things are possible.”

Before you could say God bless America, the military ordered the colonel’s remarks stricken from the newsletter. Ohio National Guard spokesman James Sims told me the column was a clear violation of military policy.
“So no matter how stressful your life can be with juggling family issues, relationships, career advancement, work, school, or any burden that life throws your way, cast it upon the Lord and He will sustain you,” the colonel wrote.

It wasn’t too longer after the newsletter was posted online before someone filed a complaint – lamenting that the colonel’s words had caused great angst and offense.

The Military Religious Freedom Foundation’s Mikey Weinstein reached out to Air Force officials at the Pentagon, the Air National Guard is governed by Air Force rules, as well as the 180th Fighter Wing demanding they remove what he called “that odious and offending proselytizing commentary.”

Before you could say God bless America, the military ordered the colonel’s remarks stricken from the newsletter. Ohio National Guard spokesman James Sims told me the column was a clear violation of military policy.

“It’s very clear what you can and cannot say in an Air Force publication,” Sims said. “Once it was brought to our attention and we compared it with the regulation, we found it was in violation of the regulation.”

So what rules did Col. Marquinez violate by referencing the Almighty? I want to quote from the official statement provided by the Ohio National Guard:

“The article violated AFI 1-1, Sections 2.11 and 2.12.1, and the Revised Interim Guidelines Concerning Free Exercise of Religion in the Air Force guidance, and finally, ‘The Air Force Military Commander and the Law’ book.”

A bit much, don’t you think? All that for mentioning that “With God all things are possible.” 

I’m surprised the Air Force didn’t convene a court martial. For the record, Sims told me that to his knowledge the colonel was not reprimanded for writing about Jesus – just censored.

But the Air Force wasn’t content with just removing the colonel’s column. No sir. They had to publically shame and humiliate this officer and gentleman.

As Sims noted in his statement, after the article was removed from the newsletter, it was “followed up with a base-wide email, with updated link for the Singer, stating: ‘The 180th FW Public Affairs office has removed the article ‘A Spiritual Journey as a Commander’ from The Stinger, Volume 52, Issue 09, September 2014 due to sensitivities.”

Sensitivities?

I’ve included a link to the colonel’s “offensive” column. Please note the “sensitive” nature.

Here’s one of the sections that violated the “godless” standards of the Air Force.

“I would not be the man I am today if it wasn’t for my mother leading our whole family to Jesus Christ,” Col. Marquinez wrote. “Her creed to us five children growing up is God first in your life, then comes family and third work.”

The Air Force regulations that were allegedly violated regard “government neutrality regarding religion.”

“Leaders at all levels must balance constitutional protections for an individual’s free exercise of religion or other personal beliefs and the constitutional prohibition against governmental establishment of religion,” the regulation states. “For example, they must avoid the actual or apparent use of their position to promote their personal religious beliefs to their subordinates or to extend preferential treatment for any religion.”

Think of it as a sort-of religious version of “Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell.”

As you might imagine, the Air Force’s censorship rubbed religious liberty advocates the wrong way.

“Not only did you publicly humiliate him by your actions, but you have sent a chilling message to other members of the Air Force, that they need to keep their faith to themselves or else rise the judgment of the command,” wrote Chaplain Alliance for Religious Liberty executive director Ron Crews in a letter to the wing commander.

“Your actions violated his rights under the First Amendment – both his free exercise of religion and his free speech,” Crews added.

Chaplain Alliance is calling on the Air Force to reverse its censorship and repost the colonel’s column.

“The Ohio National Guard is not free to censor the protected speech of one of its members based on the content that speech,” he said.

As Crews pointed out in his letter, just last year a Moody Air Force Base publication posted a column entitled, “Atheist Ponders Spiritual Fitness.”

So if the Air Force can make an accommodation for atheists, why can’t they make one for Christians?

http://www.foxnews.com/opinion/2014/10/31/does-military-have-problem-with-jesus/

[RRKore]

Love the expression on the guy's face at the end of the clip when he realizes he's being video recorded:

[Dos Equis]

 

Lawsuit fights against 'under God' in Pledge of Allegiance at NJ school
Published November 19, 2014
FoxNews.com

A judge heard arguments Wednesday in a lawsuit filed against a New Jersey school district by a family who claims the Pledge of Allegiance discriminates against children with atheist beliefs.

The Monmouth County family, identified in court papers as John and Jane Doe and their child, sued the Matawan-Aberdeen Regional School District in February, alleging the phrase "under God" in the pledge is discriminatory. State Superior Court Judge David Bauman heard arguments on the school district's motion to dismiss the lawsuit. The case was filed by the American Humanist Association, which claims the recitation of the pledge violates Article 1 of the state's constitution.

“Public schools should not engage in an exercise that tells students that patriotism is tied to a belief in God,” said David Niose, attorney for the American Humanist Association’s Appignani Humanist Legal Center. “Such a daily exercise portrays atheist and humanist children as second-class citizens, and certainly contributes to anti-atheist prejudices.” 

The school district doesn't require that students say the pledge. Bauman said there wasn't any evidence the student in question had been "bullied, ostracized or in any way mistreated." but he also noted during his questioning of district attorney David Rubin that district policy requires parents whose children don't say the pledge to furnish an explanation in writing.

Rubin said he wasn't aware of any cases in which parents had refused to supply an explanation and didn't know what the ramifications would be if they didn't. He accused the plaintiffs of filing a lawsuit claiming the pledge violates laws against the official establishment of religion "masquerading as an equal protection case."

Bauman didn't issue a ruling Wednesday on the district's motion to dismiss the lawsuit, but said he expected to issue one shortly. Bauman, a nominee by Gov. Chris Christie for the state Supreme Court whose nomination expired before being taken up by the Legislature, probed both sides with hypotheticals, including whether substituting the phrase "under God" with "created by great white men" would create grounds for discrimination suits by women and minorities.

School district officials have claimed they're simply following a state law requiring schools to have a daily recitation of the pledge. In a court filing, the district wrote that the plaintiffs can't claim a violation of equal protection laws because all students are treated equally by not having to recite the pledge.

The American Legion and Knights of Columbus have joined the lawsuit in support of the school district.

In a response to the atheists’ lawsuit, New Jersey high school student Samantha Jones is going to court to defend her right to recite the words “one nation under God” in the pledge. Jones and her family are represented by the Becket Fund for Religious Liberty.

“When I stand up, put my hand over my heart and say the Pledge of Allegiance, I am recognizing that my rights come from God, not from the government,” said Jones, a senior at Highland Regional High School, according to the Becket website. “If anyone wants to remain silent, that is their right. But it is not their right to silence me.”

The phrase "under God" was written into the Pledge of Allegiance in 1954. In May, the highest court in Massachusetts ruled in a similar case that the words "under God" in the pledge reflect a patriotic practice, not a religious one.

“It's not the place of state governments to take a position on God-belief," said Roy Speckhardt, executive director of the American Humanist Association. "The current Pledge practice marginalizes atheist and humanist kids as something less than ideal patriots, merely because they don't believe the nation is under God."

http://www.foxnews.com/us/2014/11/19/family-claims-under-god-in-pledge-allegiance-is-discriminatory/

[Dos Equis]

Why can't irrational atheists just be happy during the most wonderful time of the year?

American Atheists' Billboard Campaign in Bible Belt: 'Skip Church' This Christmas and Stop Listening to 'Fairy Tales'
BY STOYAN ZAIMOV , CHRISTIAN POST REPORTER
December 2, 2014|9:22 am

(PHOTO: AMERICAN ATHEISTS)
American Atheists Christmas billboard reading “Dear Santa, All I want for Christmas is to skip church! I’m too old for fairy tales," released on Dec. 1, 2014.

American Atheists has launched a billboard campaign in several Bible Belt states urging people to skip church this Christmas and stop listening to "fairy tales."

"Even children know churches spew absurdity, which is why they don't want to attend services. Enjoy the time with your family and friends instead," said American Atheists President David Silverman. "Today's adults have no obligation to pretend to believe the lies their parents believed. It's OK to admit that your parents were wrong about God, and it's definitely OK to tell your children the truth."

The new billboards feature an image of a young girl writing a letter to Santa Claus, which reads: "Dear Santa, All I want for Christmas is to skip church! I'm too old for fairy tales."

The billboards have gone up in Memphis; Nashville; St. Louis; and Fort Smith, Arkansas; while a fifth billboard in Milwaukee is co-sponsored by the Southeast Wisconsin Freethinkers. They have been positioned in residential areas near schools and churches, which marks a change from previous campaigns, which had been centered in urban settings, such as Times Square in New York City.

Last year, the AA billboards claimed that nobody needs Christ during Christmas. The motion graphics featured a text asking "Who needs Christ during Christmas?" before crossing out the word "Christ" and replacing it with "nobody."

The latest billboard campaign was rejected in Jackson, Mississippi, however, with area lessors refusing to put up the ad because of the content. AA Public Relations Director Danielle Muscato claims that the billboards are needed in the South, where "discrimination and mistrust of atheists is especially pronounced."

Earlier this year AA launched its first-ever all-atheist TV channel in July. Atheist TV is being offered on streaming service Roku, with AA asserting that it represents a different option to TV channels that "kowtow" to religious preferences.

A worldwide Pew Research poll released in March found that the majority of Americans believe that it is necessary to believe in God to be moral. The results showed that 53 percent of Americans who responded to the survey shared that view, while 46 percent say that belief in God is not essential to morality.

The global poll found that in 22 out of the 39 countries surveyed, the majority of people believe that faith in God is needed for people to be moral and have good values. The results varied considerably throughout regions, with European nations most often rejecting that such a belief is necessary for morality, while Africa and the Middle East were particularly strong in opinion that faith in God is necessary for good values.

http://www.christianpost.com/news/american-atheists-billboard-campaign-in-bible-belt-skip-church-this-christmas-and-stop-listening-to-fairy-tales-130529/

[Dos Equis]

Irrational atheists strike again.

Chaplain under fire for comments during training
By Michelle Tan, Staff writer
December 11, 2014

The chaplain for 5th Ranger Training Battalion is fighting back after a soldier complained that he advocated Christianity and used the Bible during a unit suicide prevention training session.

Chaplain (Capt.) Joseph Lawhorn received a letter of concern from Col. David Fivecoat, who commands the Airborne and Ranger Training Brigade, the 5th RTB's parent unit. The complaint stemmed from a mandatory training session Nov. 20 in Dahlonega, Georgia. The 5th RTB runs the mountain phase of the Army's storied Ranger School.

"During this training, you were perceived to advocate Christianity and used Christian scripture and solutions," according to the letter of concern. "You provided a two-sided handout that listed Army resources on one side and a biblical approach to handling depression on the other side. This made it impossible for those in attendance to receive the resource information without also receiving the biblical information."

The letter goes on to state: "As the battalion chaplain, you are entrusted to care for the emotional wellbeing of all soldiers in the battalion. You, above all others, must be cognizant of the various beliefs held by diverse soldiers. During mandatory training briefings, it is imperative you are careful to avoid any perception you are advocating one system of beliefs over another."

The letter is administrative, Fivecoat wrote, adding that he intends to file it in Lawhorn's local personnel file for no more than three years or until he leaves the command.

"This is an open administrative action," said Maj. Gen. Scott Miller, commanding general of the Maneuver Center of Excellence, in a statement. "It would be premature to comment on the specifics of an option action in which the commander has not yet made a final decision. However, in general terms, a local letter of concern is a temporary administrative action and is not a punishment. It is a counseling tool with no long-term consequences provided any behavior of concern does not recur."

Lawhorn was merely doing his job, said Mike Berry, Lawhorn's attorney.

"The training he conducted, that's something Army regulation designates chaplains do," Berry said. "The Army has decided, appropriately, I would add, that a key component of overall mental health and wellness is spiritual wellness. That's one of the reasons the Army has designated chaplains as what they refer to as gatekeepers. They're on the first line of defense when it comes to suicide prevention and depression."

Berry works for the Liberty Institute, which describes itself as "a nonprofit legal group dedicated to defending and restoring religious liberty across America."

To better relate to his fellow soldiers, Lawhorn shared his personal experience and struggle with depression, Berry said.

"He'd battled depression himself, and he knew where it could lead," Berry said. "He just felt that if there was anything he could do to prevent even one suicide, he opened himself up and made himself vulnerable and shared some of his personal struggles, and he paid the price for that."

At no time during his presentation did Lawhorn consider himself to be in a "preacher" role, Berry wrote in his response to Fivecoat.

Berry said he has submitted to Fivecoat 33 letters of support, both from soldiers who attended the training and those who know Lawhorn well.

"They all almost universally say that he said, 'I'm not telling you that using faith or religion or spirituality is the only way to deal with it. I'm not telling you it's the correct way to deal with it. I'm just saying this was what worked for me,'" Berry said.

Lawhorn didn't know that the complaining soldier was upset or uncomfortable with his presentation, Berry said.

In his response to Fivecoat, Berry wrote: "Had Chaplain Lawhorn known of this, he would have happily sat down with this soldier and answered any questions or concerns he or she had. Unfortunately, Chaplain Lawhorn was not given this opportunity - a professional courtesy - because the soldier in question alerted a civilian advocacy group, the Military Association of Atheists and Freethinkers, who apparently then alerted a media outlet, the Huffington Post."

In an article on its website, the Military Association of Atheists and Freethinkers said the chaplain "used his official position to force his personal religious beliefs on a captive military audience."

The article also states: "Suicide is an epidemic in our military. When the military condones evangelism in mental health training, the epidemic will get worse, not better."

Lawhorn, whose endorsing church is Grace Churches International, is a senior captain who's eligible for promotion to major, Berry said. He earned the Ranger tab in 1999 and previously served for three years as an enlisted cook. Lawhorn, who deployed to Afghanistan in 2011, has served as the chaplain for 5th RTB since December 2012.

The goal is to have Fivecoat withdraw his letter of concern, Berry said.

"We want this punishment to be withdrawn and removed from Chaplain Lawhorn's file so there's no risk of this coming back to bite him later on or have any adverse effects on his thus far stellar career," he said. "Chaplain Lawhorn was blindsided by this."

http://www.armytimes.com/story/military/2014/12/10/army-chaplain-joseph-lawhorn-ranger-training-complaint/20213399/

[Agnostic007]

Irrational atheists strike again.

Chaplain under fire for comments during training
By Michelle Tan, Staff writer
December 11, 2014

The chaplain for 5th Ranger Training Battalion is fighting back after a soldier complained that he advocated Christianity and used the Bible during a unit suicide prevention training session.

Chaplain (Capt.) Joseph Lawhorn received a letter of concern from Col. David Fivecoat, who commands the Airborne and Ranger Training Brigade, the 5th RTB's parent unit. The complaint stemmed from a mandatory training session Nov. 20 in Dahlonega, Georgia. The 5th RTB runs the mountain phase of the Army's storied Ranger School.

"During this training, you were perceived to advocate Christianity and used Christian scripture and solutions," according to the letter of concern. "You provided a two-sided handout that listed Army resources on one side and a biblical approach to handling depression on the other side. This made it impossible for those in attendance to receive the resource information without also receiving the biblical information."

The letter goes on to state: "As the battalion chaplain, you are entrusted to care for the emotional wellbeing of all soldiers in the battalion. You, above all others, must be cognizant of the various beliefs held by diverse soldiers. During mandatory training briefings, it is imperative you are careful to avoid any perception you are advocating one system of beliefs over another."

The letter is administrative, Fivecoat wrote, adding that he intends to file it in Lawhorn's local personnel file for no more than three years or until he leaves the command.

"This is an open administrative action," said Maj. Gen. Scott Miller, commanding general of the Maneuver Center of Excellence, in a statement. "It would be premature to comment on the specifics of an option action in which the commander has not yet made a final decision. However, in general terms, a local letter of concern is a temporary administrative action and is not a punishment. It is a counseling tool with no long-term consequences provided any behavior of concern does not recur."

Lawhorn was merely doing his job, said Mike Berry, Lawhorn's attorney.

"The training he conducted, that's something Army regulation designates chaplains do," Berry said. "The Army has decided, appropriately, I would add, that a key component of overall mental health and wellness is spiritual wellness. That's one of the reasons the Army has designated chaplains as what they refer to as gatekeepers. They're on the first line of defense when it comes to suicide prevention and depression."

Berry works for the Liberty Institute, which describes itself as "a nonprofit legal group dedicated to defending and restoring religious liberty across America."

To better relate to his fellow soldiers, Lawhorn shared his personal experience and struggle with depression, Berry said.

"He'd battled depression himself, and he knew where it could lead," Berry said. "He just felt that if there was anything he could do to prevent even one suicide, he opened himself up and made himself vulnerable and shared some of his personal struggles, and he paid the price for that."

At no time during his presentation did Lawhorn consider himself to be in a "preacher" role, Berry wrote in his response to Fivecoat.

Berry said he has submitted to Fivecoat 33 letters of support, both from soldiers who attended the training and those who know Lawhorn well.

"They all almost universally say that he said, 'I'm not telling you that using faith or religion or spirituality is the only way to deal with it. I'm not telling you it's the correct way to deal with it. I'm just saying this was what worked for me,'" Berry said.

Lawhorn didn't know that the complaining soldier was upset or uncomfortable with his presentation, Berry said.

In his response to Fivecoat, Berry wrote: "Had Chaplain Lawhorn known of this, he would have happily sat down with this soldier and answered any questions or concerns he or she had. Unfortunately, Chaplain Lawhorn was not given this opportunity - a professional courtesy - because the soldier in question alerted a civilian advocacy group, the Military Association of Atheists and Freethinkers, who apparently then alerted a media outlet, the Huffington Post."

In an article on its website, the Military Association of Atheists and Freethinkers said the chaplain "used his official position to force his personal religious beliefs on a captive military audience."

The article also states: "Suicide is an epidemic in our military. When the military condones evangelism in mental health training, the epidemic will get worse, not better."

Lawhorn, whose endorsing church is Grace Churches International, is a senior captain who's eligible for promotion to major, Berry said. He earned the Ranger tab in 1999 and previously served for three years as an enlisted cook. Lawhorn, who deployed to Afghanistan in 2011, has served as the chaplain for 5th RTB since December 2012.

The goal is to have Fivecoat withdraw his letter of concern, Berry said.

"We want this punishment to be withdrawn and removed from Chaplain Lawhorn's file so there's no risk of this coming back to bite him later on or have any adverse effects on his thus far stellar career," he said. "Chaplain Lawhorn was blindsided by this."

http://www.armytimes.com/story/military/2014/12/10/army-chaplain-joseph-lawhorn-ranger-training-complaint/20213399/

Color me an irrational atheist then because I agree

[Dos Equis]

Color me an irrational atheist then because I agree

You would have gone to the "Military Association of Atheists and Free Thinkers" instead of the just expressing your concerns to the chaplain?  That's pretty weak.  

[OzmO]

Why can't irrational atheists just be happy during the most wonderful time of the year?

American Atheists' Billboard Campaign in Bible Belt: 'Skip Church' This Christmas and Stop Listening to 'Fairy Tales'
BY STOYAN ZAIMOV , CHRISTIAN POST REPORTER
December 2, 2014|9:22 am

(PHOTO: AMERICAN ATHEISTS)
American Atheists Christmas billboard reading “Dear Santa, All I want for Christmas is to skip church! I’m too old for fairy tales," released on Dec. 1, 2014.

American Atheists has launched a billboard campaign in several Bible Belt states urging people to skip church this Christmas and stop listening to "fairy tales."

"Even children know churches spew absurdity, which is why they don't want to attend services. Enjoy the time with your family and friends instead," said American Atheists President David Silverman. "Today's adults have no obligation to pretend to believe the lies their parents believed. It's OK to admit that your parents were wrong about God, and it's definitely OK to tell your children the truth."

The new billboards feature an image of a young girl writing a letter to Santa Claus, which reads: "Dear Santa, All I want for Christmas is to skip church! I'm too old for fairy tales."

The billboards have gone up in Memphis; Nashville; St. Louis; and Fort Smith, Arkansas; while a fifth billboard in Milwaukee is co-sponsored by the Southeast Wisconsin Freethinkers. They have been positioned in residential areas near schools and churches, which marks a change from previous campaigns, which had been centered in urban settings, such as Times Square in New York City.

Last year, the AA billboards claimed that nobody needs Christ during Christmas. The motion graphics featured a text asking "Who needs Christ during Christmas?" before crossing out the word "Christ" and replacing it with "nobody."

The latest billboard campaign was rejected in Jackson, Mississippi, however, with area lessors refusing to put up the ad because of the content. AA Public Relations Director Danielle Muscato claims that the billboards are needed in the South, where "discrimination and mistrust of atheists is especially pronounced."

Earlier this year AA launched its first-ever all-atheist TV channel in July. Atheist TV is being offered on streaming service Roku, with AA asserting that it represents a different option to TV channels that "kowtow" to religious preferences.

A worldwide Pew Research poll released in March found that the majority of Americans believe that it is necessary to believe in God to be moral. The results showed that 53 percent of Americans who responded to the survey shared that view, while 46 percent say that belief in God is not essential to morality.

The global poll found that in 22 out of the 39 countries surveyed, the majority of people believe that faith in God is needed for people to be moral and have good values. The results varied considerably throughout regions, with European nations most often rejecting that such a belief is necessary for morality, while Africa and the Middle East were particularly strong in opinion that faith in God is necessary for good values.

http://www.christianpost.com/news/american-atheists-billboard-campaign-in-bible-belt-skip-church-this-christmas-and-stop-listening-to-fairy-tales-130529/

Although i think spending money on this is stupid.  I think the billboard is funny. 

[Agnostic007]

You would have gone to the "Military Association of Atheists and Free Thinkers" instead of the just expressing your concerns to the chaplain?  That's pretty weak.  

No, I would have gone to my supervisor with the expectation they would forward my concern up the chain first.

[Dos Equis]

Although i think spending money on this is stupid.  I think the billboard is funny. 

Yeah it is a little funny. 

[Dos Equis]

No, I would have gone to my supervisor with the expectation they would forward my concern up the chain first.

Why not just tell the chaplain directly?  Seems like the adult thing to do.

And someone getting offended because a chaplain talks about or references God or religion is pretty dang stupid.  (Not calling you stupid.) 

[Straw Man]

Why can't irrational atheists just be happy during the most wonderful time of the year?

LOL @ a fundie using the term irrational atheist

atheism is de facto a rationale perspective

believing in ANY religion is the irrational choice which is why ...of course... you need FAITH

 

[LurkerNoMore]

LOL call something that you can't prove and have never personally seen or witnessed a "fairytale" and people just lose their minds.

[OzmO]

Why not just tell the chaplain directly?  Seems like the adult thing to do.

And someone getting offended because a chaplain talks about or references God or religion is pretty dang stupid.  (Not calling you stupid.) 

Are people offended by the billboard?   If so that's funny too

Personally I see nothing wrong with it.  I still think it's stupid to spend money on. 

[Dos Equis]

Are people offended by the billboard?   If so that's funny too

Personally I see nothing wrong with it.  I still think it's stupid to spend money on. 

I don't know if people are offended, but you don't see mainstream Christian churches or groups running around the country filing lawsuits claiming to suffer emotional distress because someone is holding an atheist sign. 

[Dos Equis]

Filed under the "get a life" category.

Atheists Want To Destroy This Town’s 50-Year-Old Christmas Tradition, But It Won’t Be Easy
“If people don't like the look of it..."
PETER BROWN — DECEMBER 11, 2014



“If people don't like the look of it..."

The town of Brookville, Indiana, is fighting to keep a nativity scene from being torn down. The nativity scene, a town tradition for over 50 years, is placed next to a courthouse, hence the controversy.

A Wisconsin group called the Freedom from Religion Foundation has been sending letters since 2013 insisting that the scene violates the First Amendment to the Constitution and should be torn down. The group says that the scene is proof that the government is endorsing one religion over another.

Advertisement-content continues below

The Freedom From Religion Foundation says its goal is to promote the separation of church and state and to “educate the public on matters relating to nontheism.”

What exactly is the Freedom from Religion Foundation? According to Tad Cronn of Godfather Politics:

“The FFRF, founded by atheists Anne Nicol Gaylor and her daughter, Annie Laurie Gaylor, in 1976, is the major organization whose name crops up whenever someone is “offended” by a public display of the Ten Commandments, a graduation prayer or a Christmas display.”

“They’ve gone after historical markers, courthouse displays and even veterans memorials. There’s no corner of America’s Judeo-Christian heritage that FFRF isn’t low enough to seek to obliterate.”
The town commissioners have so far ignored the letters and have fought to keep the Nativity scene standing.

Brookville resident Wally Munroe said:

“If people don’t like the look of it I think they can look the other way, or don’t look at all. It’s been a tradition here for many, many years and I hope it’s for many more years. I think we deserve the right to put up what the community wants and I don’t think anybody else should tell us what to do.”

http://www.westernjournalism.com/50-year-old-nativity-scene-torn-thats-one-group-thinks/#lVkUhO3m7dYy6eCh.99

[Dos Equis]

This is hilarious.     An example of a rational atheist interviewing an irrational atheist.

Daily Show: Atheist Group ‘Petty A**holes’ Who Need to ‘Lighten the F**k Up’
By Kristine Marsh | December 12, 2014

Instead of the Daily Show’s usual targets – conservatives and Christians – atheists were the surprising villains on the Dec.9 episode of the left-leaning comedy show.

Daily Show correspondent Jordan Klepper pulled no punches, calling the atheist group Freedom from Religion Foundation “petty a**holes,” and “trolls” who needed to “lighten the f*ck up” for making a fuss over a diner offering small discounts to customers who pray before they eat.

Klepper spoke with the Freedom from Religion Foundation’s co-President Dan Barker about the group’s issue with Mary’s Gourmet Diner, a small business whose owner, Mary Haglund offers 15 percent discounts for customers who pray before meals. Klepper asked Barker why didn’t he just fake pray to get the discount, but Barker insisted it would be against his beliefs to do so.

Klepper mocked, “Well what’s going to happen if you’re a hypocrite atheist? You going to go to ‘not-Hell?’”

Barker didn’t do himself any favors by continually comparing his “fight” with the diner to fights over civil rights and even genocide.“ In one case it’s race or skin color, in another case it’s religion,” Barker insisted. At the news that the Freedom From Religion Foundation sent “a threatening note” to Mary’s Gourmet Diner saying she was in violation of the Civil Rights Act, Klepper laughed and said, “Are you kidding me?”

After interviewing actual atheist customers of the diner who said they received discounts for things like telling like the cook “thank you,” Klepper decided that no one was being discriminated against and the atheist group was complaining about nothing.

Barker’s groups’ actions were those of “petty assholes,” Klepper concluded. “In the end, maybe we’d all be a little better off if Dan would just lighten the fuck up.”

http://newsbusters.org/blogs/kristine-marsh/2014/12/12/daily-show-atheist-group-petty-aholes-who-need-lighten-fk#sthash.m6iGVr9D.dpuf