Right-wing fundamentalists proselytize US military

This is news? I thought the U S military would be a natural haven for right-wing politics and bigoted religion, since it is by natural an authoritarian rather than a libertarian force. To those who claim we owe our freedom to soldiers, what about the fact that those soldiers are themselves not free to quit their jobs if they disagree with the mission they are sent to, unlike any other profession? What if they are ordered to attack their own people for protesting against the government? Some freedom we would have then!

Dale Husband said: This is news?

I thought the U S military would be a natural haven for right-wing politics and bigoted religion, since it is by natural an authoritarian rather than a libertarian force.

eric said:

Dale Husband said: This is news?

If by that you mean "something which happened yesterday," then no. If by that you mean "something important for the public to be aware of," then yes.

I thought the U S military would be a natural haven for right-wing politics and bigoted religion, since it is by natural an authoritarian rather than a libertarian force.

While militarys are somewhat necessarily authoritarian, dominance of parts of the US military by evangelicals appears to be something that's grown in the past decade or two. And its neither automatic nor necessary. I haven't heard any stories coming out of Annapolis or West Point that even compare to the story about the young woman cadet from the AF Academy.

Where mikey really needs help now is with a problem at Fort Bragg. Last year the base spent thousands of tax dollars bringing "Rock the Fort", a billy graham evangelical event to the fort. Soldiers who did not want to attend were not given liberty but confined to quarters and given punishment.,

In response, soldiers planned "Rock beyond Belief" this summer. Plans were being made, Richard Dawkins was to be a speaker and then suddenly on March 3rd, the base commander refused to sign a simple letter to let the event continue.

If you want to know more or can help, here's the link.
http://rockbeyondbelief.com/2011/03/07/demand-equal-treatment-for-the-armys-non-religious-soldiers/

I forgot part of the above post. The commander's actions were against the advice of his legal advisors.

This issue seems off topic for PT. However, yes, this stuff has been going on for some time and the ACLU has intervened at times.(au.org) only to be ignored.

Example: recently Ft. Bragg senior officers sponsored a fundamentalist event (supported with tax $$) and punished anyone who didn't "voluntarily" attend. They promised equal support for a secular event but refused to follow through (http://blog.au.org/2011/03/07/fort-bragg-bias-military-fails-to-keep-promise-to-support-secularist-event/).

DavidK said: This issue seems off topic for PT. However, yes, this stuff has been going on for some time and the ACLU has intervened at times.(au.org) only to be ignored.

It's not really off-topic. The organizations that are doing this in the military are the same ones promoting creationism. It would be a big mistake not to recognize the organized and centralized nature of the American fundamentalist Christian movement.

It is absolutely the case in the submarine force, and other "elite" forces that evangelical Christians subject their coworkers to similar constant tactics and an attempt to make their workplace a micro chasm of small-town evangelical America.

This is news?

I thought the U S military would be a natural haven for right-wing politics and bigoted religion,

since it is by natural an authoritarian rather than a libertarian force.

To those who claim we owe our freedom to soldiers,

what about the fact that those soldiers are themselves not free to quit their jobs if they disagree with the mission they are sent to, unlike any other profession?

What if they are ordered to attack their own people for protesting against the government? Some freedom we would have then!

The United States military exists to defend the United States and its constitution

Papaya said: It is absolutely the case in the submarine force, and other "elite" forces that evangelical Christians subject their coworkers to similar constant tactics and an attempt to make their workplace a micro chasm of small-town evangelical America.

On paper, yes. If only that were true in practice.

I find it EXTREMELY hard to believe that there is any real organizational support for religious proselytization in the irreverent military -- ever hear the things Colin Powell says off the record?

That there are fools in positions of local authority is perfectly possible, of course, but it would take a really stupid senior officer to fail to realize that he would be making a career decision to court a public controversy over religious tolerance issues.
Third rail and all that.

Another organization that is in on the "fight" is Freedom from Religion Foundation. (FFRF). This isn't the first time I've heard about this. Considering that Colorado Springs is a major site for various fundie groups. The Air Force Academy had to be too much of a temptation for them to resist.

nmgirl said: Where mikey really needs help now is with a problem at Fort Bragg. Last year the base spent thousands of tax dollars bringing "Rock the Fort", a billy graham evangelical event to the fort. Soldiers who did not want to attend were not given liberty but confined to quarters and given punishment., In response, soldiers planned "Rock beyond Belief" this summer. Plans were being made, Richard Dawkins was to be a speaker and then suddenly on March 3rd, the base commander refused to sign a simple letter to let the event continue. If you want to know more or can help, here's the link. http://rockbeyondbelief.com/2011/03/07/demand-equal-treatment-for-the-armys-non-religious-soldiers/

mrg said: That there are fools in positions of local authority is perfectly possible, of course, but it would take a really stupid senior officer to fail to realize that he would be making a career decision to court a public controversy over religious tolerance issues. Third rail and all that.

Evidently this is something recent. I served while the draft was in effect and after the end of the draft 1968-1994, and saw none of this. There was no proselytizing that I could see. There were such things a prayer breakfasts, which were voluntary and no repercussions if a person didn't attend.

Hercules Grytpype-Thynne said:

DavidK said: This issue seems off topic for PT. However, yes, this stuff has been going on for some time and the ACLU has intervened at times.(au.org) only to be ignored.

au.org is Americans United for the Separation of Church and State The ACLU' site is www.aclu.org.

Colorado Springs wasn't the evangelical hotbed it is now when I was in the Air Force there in the late 70's. Matter of fact it was a pretty laid back town. I think Ted Haggard and his ilk are what killed it.
Enjoy.

"The Southern Poverty Law Center has documented a disquieting increase in the number of hate groups over the last decade; they now count just over 1000 such groups."

A few facts about the SPLC and "hate groups":

1. There is no legal definition for “hate group,” which is why even the FBI does not track “hate groups.”

2. The SPLC uses the deliberately meaningless term “hate groups” in its fund-raising propaganda precisely because it allows them to denigrate their perceived opponents without accusing them of any actual crimes.

3. The SPLC’s “Hate Map” is a fund-raising tool, nothing more. It provides no information whatsoever on the 1,002 alleged groups, in fact, the SPLC didn’t even bother to make up locations for 262 of the groups; that’s 26% of the total.

http://wp.me/pCLYZ-8u

Many of the alleged “groups” are listed twice in the same location. In many states, the percentage of phantom "groups" runs to 80-100%.

4. Since the SPLC is the sole arbiter of the meaningless “hate group” label, AND because SPLC fund-raising is directly tied to creating the illusion of an ever-increasing threat, it is in their direct financial interest to raise the numbers each year.

Since 2003, the SPLC has taken in more than a third of a BILLION dollars in tax-free cash, and yet the number of “hate groups” always goes up.

http://wp.me/pCLYZ-82

5. The most ironic (read: "hypocritical") thing about the Southern Poverty Law Center is that NOT ONE of its top ten, highest paid executives is a minority.

http://wp.me/pCLYZ-7m

In fact, according to the SPLC's hometown newspaper, the Montgomery Advertiser, despite being located LITERALLY in the back yard of Dr. Martin Luther King's home church, the SPLC has NEVER hired a person of color to a highly paid position of power in its entire 40 year history.

Some "experts"

truthspeaker said:

The United States military exists to defend the United States and its constitution

On paper, yes. If only that were true in practice.

eric said:

Dale Husband said: This is news?

If by that you mean "something which happened yesterday," then no. If by that you mean "something important for the public to be aware of," then yes.

I thought the U S military would be a natural haven for right-wing politics and bigoted religion, since it is by natural an authoritarian rather than a libertarian force.

While militarys are somewhat necessarily authoritarian, dominance of parts of the US military by evangelicals appears to be something that's grown in the past decade or two. And its neither automatic nor necessary. I haven't heard any stories coming out of Annapolis or West Point that even compare to the story about the young woman cadet from the AF Academy.

John Kwok said:

eric said:

Dale Husband said: This is news?

If by that you mean "something which happened yesterday," then no. If by that you mean "something important for the public to be aware of," then yes.

I thought the U S military would be a natural haven for right-wing politics and bigoted religion, since it is by natural an authoritarian rather than a libertarian force.

While militarys are somewhat necessarily authoritarian, dominance of parts of the US military by evangelicals appears to be something that's grown in the past decade or two. And its neither automatic nor necessary. I haven't heard any stories coming out of Annapolis or West Point that even compare to the story about the young woman cadet from the AF Academy.

Agree with your observations, eric. Moreover I have visited annually United States Navy warships here in New York City during Fleet Week and haven't seen any sign of religious proselytizing. The problem at the Air Force Academy has been underway for years (I have a high school classmate who teaches there but haven't been in touch with her for a while so I don't know if it is still serious.).

I would add that one of the memories I have of my naval career is the chaplin standing on the quarter deck as we left to party in the Phillipines. He was handing out condoms and saying "have fun, be careful"

Richard Keefe -

You seem to have commented on the final paragraph, which is somewhat tangential to the rest of the article.

May I ask you a few questions?

1) With regard to the actual topic at hand here, do you think military personnel should be subjected to unwanted, aggressive sectarian proselytizing?

2) Do you think that gatherings, festivals, or celebrations associated with some religious groups should receive preferential treatment, relative to those associated with other religious groups, within the military?

3) Your criticisms of the SPLC could be valid even if this is not true, but purely for full context...do you belong to a group, or hold opinions about the appropriate role of ethnicity in American society, that the SPLC might disapprove of? As I noted, even if this is the case, it would not necessarily invalidate your criticisms.

Please don't falsely accuse me of "assuming" anything, as all I am doing is asking questions.

I was in the Navy as well from 85 to 91 and do not recall seeing any of this, but then it seems to me the whole world was more "live and let live" kind of attitude towards religion back then. I think the change came after 2000, when Bush was elected. Hence also was the Dover trials that spawned this site and piqued my interest as to why this foolishness exists in this day and age.

Richard Keefe said: "The Southern Poverty Law Center has documented a disquieting increase in the number of hate groups over the last decade; they now count just over 1000 such groups." A few facts about the SPLC and "hate groups": 1. There is no legal definition for “hate group,” which is why even the FBI does not track “hate groups.” 2. The SPLC uses the deliberately meaningless term “hate groups” in its fund-raising propaganda precisely because it allows them to denigrate their perceived opponents without accusing them of any actual crimes. 3. The SPLC’s “Hate Map” is a fund-raising tool, nothing more. It provides no information whatsoever on the 1,002 alleged groups, in fact, the SPLC didn’t even bother to make up locations for 262 of the groups; that’s 26% of the total. http://wp.me/pCLYZ-8u Many of the alleged “groups” are listed twice in the same location. In many states, the percentage of phantom "groups" runs to 80-100%. 4. Since the SPLC is the sole arbiter of the meaningless “hate group” label, AND because SPLC fund-raising is directly tied to creating the illusion of an ever-increasing threat, it is in their direct financial interest to raise the numbers each year. Since 2003, the SPLC has taken in more than a third of a BILLION dollars in tax-free cash, and yet the number of “hate groups” always goes up. http://wp.me/pCLYZ-82 5. The most ironic (read: "hypocritical") thing about the Southern Poverty Law Center is that NOT ONE of its top ten, highest paid executives is a minority. http://wp.me/pCLYZ-7m In fact, according to the SPLC's hometown newspaper, the Montgomery Advertiser, despite being located LITERALLY in the back yard of Dr. Martin Luther King's home church, the SPLC has NEVER hired a person of color to a highly paid position of power in its entire 40 year history. Some "experts"

Shebardigan said: At the USAFA and elsewhere within the US military, there are systematic unofficial safeguards in place ...

http://www.truth-out.org/armys-fitness-test-designed-psychologist-who-inspired-cias-torture-program-under-fire66577

The above is a link to information about the Army's spiritual fitness questionnaire. This program is required for all soldiers. It's not a local program.

I liked the subtitle of that link:

"Test Was Designed by Psychologist Who Inspired CIA's Torture Program"

That set off every last one of my "conspiracy theory baloney filter" alarms.

Again ... if there was a systematic problem here, it would be evident from other sources than the atheist sites. There are plenty of Jewish GIs, and since evangelicals often diss Catholics and Mormons, GIs of those persuasions would object, too.

If there was a systematic problem here, there would be a very loud WAR going on.

... it is in their direct financial interest to raise the numbers each year.

1. There is no legal definition for “hate group,” which is why even the FBI does not track “hate groups.”

2. The SPLC uses the deliberately meaningless term “hate groups” in its fund-raising propaganda precisely because it allows them to denigrate their perceived opponents without accusing them of any actual crimes.

3. The SPLC’s “Hate Map” is a fund-raising tool, nothing more.

It provides no information whatsoever on the 1,002 alleged groups,

AND because SPLC fund-raising is directly tied to creating the illusion of an ever-increasing threat, it is in their direct financial interest to raise the numbers each year.

Since 2003, the SPLC has taken in more than a third of a BILLION dollars in tax-free cash, and yet the number of “hate groups” always goes up.

5. The most ironic (read: “hypocritical”) thing about the Southern Poverty Law Center is that NOT ONE of its top ten, highest paid executives is a minority. http://wp.me/pCLYZ-7m In fact, according to the SPLC’s hometown newspaper, the Montgomery Advertiser, despite being located LITERALLY in the back yard of Dr. Martin Luther King’s home church, the SPLC has NEVER hired a person of color to a highly paid position of power in its entire 40 year history.

That being said, I freely admit that I believe that sovereign governments should have control over who enters their countries, and “some of my best friends” are Catholics, Protestants, academics and publishers. All of the above have been designated “hate groups” by the Southern Poverty Law Center.

mrg are you saying you think the spiritual fitness thing is not real?
Justin talks about it in his Rock Beyond Belief blog. http://rockbeyondbelief.com/2011/01/05/smoking-gun-proves-mandatory-army-spiritual-fitness-test-is-religious-test-unconstitutional/

I saw a comment about this issue being off topic for PT, and thought I should let you guys know about something that makes it not so off topic. Part of the military's "Spiritual Fitness" scheme has been to push creationism as a means of suicide prevention. The "reasoning"? If you think you were created by god, you'll think your life has a purpose and won't kill yourself. I'm the Senior Research Director at MRFF, and you wouldn't believe all the crazy crap like this that I see. I wrote about one insane instance of it in the Air Force here:

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/chris-rodda/creationism-the-latest-in_b_147155.html

mrg said: I find it EXTREMELY hard to believe that there is any real organizational support for religious proselytization in the irreverent military -- ever hear the things Colin Powell says off the record? That there are fools in positions of local authority is perfectly possible, of course, but it would take a really stupid senior officer to fail to realize that he would be making a career decision to court a public controversy over religious tolerance issues. Third rail and all that.

If Weinstein punched an officer as a doolie at the Academy he would have been drummed out so fast. I think you better check your facts before you start accussing a man.

harold said: Richard Keefe - You seem to have commented on the final paragraph, which is somewhat tangential to the rest of the article. May I ask you a few questions? 1) With regard to the actual topic at hand here, do you think military personnel should be subjected to unwanted, aggressive sectarian proselytizing? 2) Do you think that gatherings, festivals, or celebrations associated with some religious groups should receive preferential treatment, relative to those associated with other religious groups, within the military? 3) Your criticisms of the SPLC could be valid even if this is not true, but purely for full context...do you belong to a group, or hold opinions about the appropriate role of ethnicity in American society, that the SPLC might disapprove of? As I noted, even if this is the case, it would not necessarily invalidate your criticisms. Please don't falsely accuse me of "assuming" anything, as all I am doing is asking questions.

Larry Monte said: If Weinstein punched an officer as a doolie at the Academy he would have been drummed out so fast. I think you better check your facts before you start accussing a man.

If Weinstein punched an officer as a doolie at the Academy he would have been drummed out so fast. I think you better check your facts before you start accussing [sic] a man.

Richard Keefe -

Thank you for that civil reply, and mild apologies for my second comment, which, although basically civil, is irritated in tone.

For the record, I have mixed feelings about the SPLC.

At this moment in time, I have more concern about the overall tone of right wing politics in the country than I do about possible exaggerations by the SPLC.

Also, we deal with creationists here, who never stop dissembling and using flawed logic; it makes some of us acutely sensitive to that type of thing.

I do stand by my analysis of some of your statements, but I am willing to retract some of my generalizations about you as a source.

Chris Rodda said: I saw a comment about this issue being off topic for PT, and thought I should let you guys know about something that makes it not so off topic. Part of the military's "Spiritual Fitness" scheme has been to push creationism as a means of suicide prevention. The "reasoning"? If you think you were created by god, you'll think your life has a purpose and won't kill yourself. I'm the Senior Research Director at MRFF, and you wouldn't believe all the crazy crap like this that I see. I wrote about one insane instance of it in the Air Force here: http://www.huffingtonpost.com/chris-rodda/creationism-the-latest-in_b_147155.html

harold said: John Kwok - Well, let's see - incidentally, I don't discount all "right wing" sources for all information. WSJ (although I no longer pay for it) is often one of the most accurate sources, outside of its opinion pages. Certain types of crime or gossip stories are followed in more detail by "right wing" sources, as well. Unfortunately, Richard Keefe is a worthless source, and that is true even if he is found to be a major contributor to Dennis Kucinich, simply based on what he writes.

1. There is no legal definition for “hate group,” which is why even the FBI does not track “hate groups.”

Unequivocally true.

2. The SPLC uses the deliberately meaningless term “hate groups” in its fund-raising propaganda precisely because it allows them to denigrate their perceived opponents without accusing them of any actual crimes.

False statement and mind-reading fallacy. The term "hate group" is clearly not "deliberately meaningless" (lack of a legal definition does not make a term "meaningless"). The motive ascribed to the SPLC could not be known to this writer and is probably false. The final few words are correct. The SPLC does denigrate their perceived opponents without necessarily accusing them of crimes. In at least some cases, the denigration is very well deserved.

3. The SPLC’s “Hate Map” is a fund-raising tool, nothing more.

Non-sequitur. It does not follow from the fact that something is a fund raising tool that it is necessarily "nothing more".

It provides no information whatsoever on the 1,002 alleged groups,

Direct falsehood. in fact, the SPLC didn’t even bother to make up locations for 262 of the groups; that’s 26% of the total. http://wp.me/pCLYZ-8u

Many of the alleged “groups” are listed twice in the same location. In many states, the percentage of phantom “groups” runs to 80-100%.

Possibly accurate; independent confirmation required.

4. Since the SPLC is the sole arbiter of the meaningless “hate group” label,

Misleading. The term is widely used in much the same way. The SPLC is the sole arbiter of their own internal use of the word

AND because SPLC fund-raising is directly tied to creating the illusion of an ever-increasing threat, it is in their direct financial interest to raise the numbers each year.

Implied non sequitur and deceptive failure to note an obvious alternate explanation. It does not follow from this that the number of hate groups is not increasing. Statement ignores the impact of the election of Barrack Obama, first black US President, in 2008.

Since 2003, the SPLC has taken in more than a third of a BILLION dollars in tax-free cash, and yet the number of “hate groups” always goes up.

Illogical on a number of levels. A) Implies that the objective of the SPLC is to directly reduce the number of hate groups. B) Overlooks the obvious fact that other factors could lead to a net increase, even if SPLC had net decreasing impact.

5. The most ironic (read: “hypocritical”) thing about the Southern Poverty Law Center is that NOT ONE of its top ten, highest paid executives is a minority. http://wp.me/pCLYZ-7m In fact, according to the SPLC’s hometown newspaper, the Montgomery Advertiser, despite being located LITERALLY in the back yard of Dr. Martin Luther King’s home church, the SPLC has NEVER hired a person of color to a highly paid position of power in its entire 40 year history.

Not relevant to the issue of whether or not their identification of hate groups is accurate. Unfortunately, a quick perusal of Mr. Keefe's web site further reveals a tendency to dissemble and mislead. From the front page...

That being said, I freely admit that I believe that sovereign governments should have control over who enters their countries, and “some of my best friends” are Catholics, Protestants, academics and publishers. All of the above have been designated “hate groups” by the Southern Poverty Law Center.

The opening sentence attempts to equate opposition to ethnic bigotry against immigrants with opposition to having an immigration policy at all. In fact, most reasonable people realize that we need immigration policy, yet still oppose ethnic bigotry against immigrants. The second sentence makes the absurdly false claim that the SPLC identifies all Protestants, Catholics, academics, and publishers as hate groups. My point here is not to defend the SPLC. If you read carefully, you will note that I have said nothing about the SPLC one way or the other. However, it is very clear that Richard Keefe is a dishonest, biased source, who uses cheap language tricks to smear others with false accusations. Unfortunately, his output is worthless one way of the other.

mrg said: "Unofficial" -- as in "not established as formal policy" or "undocumented"? This sounds like speculation.

Well, I think I stop here -- because on the face of the argument presented, I can't think I have any reason to lose any sleep over it one way or another, and chattering on about it isn't a good use of my time.

mrg said: I find it EXTREMELY hard to believe that there is any real organizational support for religious proselytization in the irreverent military -- ever hear the things Colin Powell says off the record? That there are fools in positions of local authority is perfectly possible, of course, but it would take a really stupid senior officer to fail to realize that he would be making a career decision to court a public controversy over religious tolerance issues. Third rail and all that.

Matt Young said:

... it is in their direct financial interest to raise the numbers each year.

Perhaps, but if you follow my link, you will find that the number of "patriot" and militia groups declined markedly from 858 in 1996 to 131 in 2007. In fact, it held relatively constant from 2001 to 2008, then shot up to 512 in 2009 and 824 in 2010. Not exactly what you would expect if they were deliberately inflating the numbers. Certain of Mr. Keefe's other criticisms may be valid; I have no inside knowledge. But I share Mr. Harold's curiosity about the answers to his questions.

So is the SPLC tracking ANY trend outside of their own combination of the ideological desire to find enemies, and the financial desire to justify further contributions? Do changes in the number of "groups" point to anything like broad social directions, or just changes in the definition of a "group"?

A little poking around on this Richard Keefe indicates that he trolls the net for references to the SPLC and then posts much the same verbiage in response. Not that I pay much mind to the SPLC, but Keefe clearly has an axe to grind here, it's just unclear what it is. That should NOT imply a request for clarification, BTW.

Richard Keefe -

You make some interesting points, but aren't you to some degree doing to the SPLC what you accuse them of doing to other groups?

The SPLC is ALSO engaging in free speech, which you don't like. As are we all.

The possibility that speech will be criticized is an essential component of free speech.

It's my habit to state my positions openly, in an unambiguous way, and to change them when I am proven to be wrong due to an error in logic or knowledge.

Unfortunately, it's undeniable that some people try to use vague and emotionally charged terms like "patriot", "liberty", "socialism", etc, to mask their true positions (while anticipating that those who share the same true positions will "break the code"). Many of the groups that the SPLC criticizes probably tend to use this technique. Those who point this out are doing public discourse a favor.

harold said: Richard Keefe - You make some interesting points, but aren't you to some degree doing to the SPLC what you accuse them of doing to other groups? The SPLC is ALSO engaging in free speech, which you don't like. As are we all. The possibility that speech will be criticized is an essential component of free speech. It's my habit to state my positions openly, in an unambiguous way, and to change them when I am proven to be wrong due to an error in logic or knowledge. Unfortunately, it's undeniable that some people try to use vague and emotionally charged terms like "patriot", "liberty", "socialism", etc, to mask their true positions (while anticipating that those who share the same true positions will "break the code"). Many of the groups that the SPLC criticizes probably tend to use this technique. Those who point this out are doing public discourse a favor.

Dale Husband said: ...? What if they are ordered to attack their own people for protesting against the government? Some freedom we would have then!

Wayne Francis said: But then we are the few, the proud.

Mike Elzinga said:

Wayne Francis said: But then we are the few, the proud.

When I was in the submarine force, there was a story that said, “In the Navy we take the dumbest sailors we can find, bash out whatever brains they have left, and make boatswains mates out of them.” “Then we take those that can’t cut its as boatswains mates and make Marines out of them.” Then a Marine pointed out, “Yeah, and those that can’t cut is as Marines we turn into submariners. Hua!”

Wayne Francis said: :) Another funny fact. Never had proselytizing about religion while in the Marines....did have proselytizing from other marines about Amway tho. Having been exposed to Amway a few years earlier I saw it coming from miles away. Not surprisingly they where using many of the same tactics that IDiots try to use to get their foot in the door.

When I was in the US Navy in the 80s, servicemen were always pressured to attend religious functions. also, at least one base, NPTU Idaho Falls was under control of Mormons (CO, XO, and most senior officers) and the command openly discriminated against people with other beliefs. They not only looked up religions from service records, they also questioned enlisted men abut their beliefs in XOI and other investigations of alleged wrongdoing, with implications that things would go better if they converted.

harold | March 15, 2011 7:46 PM | Reply | Edit On paper, yes. If only that were true in practice. Supporting the right of military personnel not to endure religious discrimination is highly consistent with an overall objective of supporting appropriate, defensive use of the military.

Sign up here for military service son. Serve your country and protect human rights and freedom.

Sounds great, where do I sign? I love human rights. We can protect people form being spied on and tortured without due process.

Well sure, except when national security is involved. Then it's too important to give the bad guys all those rights and freedoms.

Well, at least you are fighting for equal sexual rights for everyone.

Sure, just as long as they ain't gay or nothin perverted like that.

And religious freedom, the very basis of our democracy. Surely we will be fighting to protect that.

Of course. You just got to go to the one true church every sunday and learn exactly what the one real religion is. Then you and your like-minded homophobic, sadistic buddies can fight to protect everyone's freedom all you want. Sign here.

Wayne Francis said:

Dale Husband said: ...? What if they are ordered to attack their own people for protesting against the government? Some freedom we would have then!

Being in the USMC for 6 years from 88-94 I can tell you what I would have done. I'd point out that it wasn't a lawful order and against not only the UCMJ but against the constitution of the USA. Back when I was in there was no pressure about religion and the only discussion I ever had about religion was with a civilian government employee who was a YEC'er and I shit you not a advocate of a flat Earth. I know the Marines are a fair bit different then other branches of service. People equate Marines with Guantanamo Bay but I'll point out that it was Marine's refusing to be involved with "interrogations" of prisoners as one of the primary reasons brig guards from the other 3 branches of the military where brought into Guantanamo Bay. I know there are bad seeds in the Marine Corps but the organisation as a whole I would hope refuse such unlawful orders. But then we are the few, the proud.

PZ has info on Pharyngula.

PZ has info on Pharyngula.

nmgirl said:

Chris Rodda said: I saw a comment about this issue being off topic for PT, and thought I should let you guys know about something that makes it not so off topic. Part of the military's "Spiritual Fitness" scheme has been to push creationism as a means of suicide prevention. The "reasoning"? If you think you were created by god, you'll think your life has a purpose and won't kill yourself. I'm the Senior Research Director at MRFF, and you wouldn't believe all the crazy crap like this that I see. I wrote about one insane instance of it in the Air Force here: http://www.huffingtonpost.com/chris-rodda/creationism-the-latest-in_b_147155.html

Chris, thanks for chiming in.

“THIS HOLY BIBLE IS PRESENTED TO THE USS NEBRASKA (SSBN 739) WHICH WAS CHRISTENED ON AUGUST 15, 1992 AND COMMISSIONED ON JULY 10, 1993 BY THE SUBMARINE’S SPONSOR MRS. PATRICIA PROS EXON”

Mike Elzinga said: The problem seems primarily local and dependent on the command at the time.

Robert Byers said: Why is pandas thumb attacking a particular group of people by religious beliefs ? First right-wing fundamentalists is always a slur. it never mean good guys. Whats right-wing got to do with a complaint about evangelization? The word is evangelical Christian. Theres a hostility here deeper then complaining about Christianity in a profession. Its unkind, prejudiced , and desperate. Competition is no bad.

Dale Husband said: You really have no clue, it seems.

Mike Elzinga said: By coincidence I recently received an email from another submarine veteran that had a PDF document attached which consisting of a bunch of pictures about the ballistic missile submarine USS Nebraska (SSBN 739). One of the last pictures in this PDF document shows a gift of a Christian bible enclosed in a Plexiglas case engraved with the following:

“THIS HOLY BIBLE IS PRESENTED TO THE USS NEBRASKA (SSBN 739) WHICH WAS CHRISTENED ON AUGUST 15, 1992 AND COMMISSIONED ON JULY 10, 1993 BY THE SUBMARINE’S SPONSOR MRS. PATRICIA PROS EXON”

. I think there are all kinds of things that sponsors can give to submarines and other ships at christening and commissioning; so I don’t take this as any indication that there is some kind of sectarian conspiracy going on here. There is also the issue of the dramatic increase in the number of women now serving in the military, on ships, and soon to be on submarines. I have no idea if or how this relates to any trends in sectarianism in the military. But from what I can gather from meeting those who are in various branches now; none of this ever comes up. The problem seems primarily local and dependent on the command at the time.

DavidK said: Isn't it interesting that we still conduct ancient superstiuous ceremonies like ship christening, blessings of the fishing fleet, animals, etc. I guess it's still supposed to put an invisible, protective shield around whatever. Sigh, how these old customs linger on.

Mike touches on an important point when he says that members of groups need to relate to each other. That is an overriding requirement in the military, and it sharpens a primal human need to belong to a group.

Now, for FL's sake, some scientific (well, anthropological) discussion of the observations of the US military given above.

Principle one: Individuals generally need to identify as members of a group, particularly when under stress. One means by which individuals demonstrate identity with a group is by assimilating, supporting, expressing and transmitting its cultural institutions.

One such institution, in the US professional military, (or at least in its non-elite elements) is fundamentalist protestantism.

Why this should be the case is a question for research. The suggestion is that recruits, both enlisted and commissioned, derive disproportionately from rural and small-town backgrounds, often in the South. Whatever the cause, repeated observations confirm that the expression of fundamentalist protestantism is a cultural value in (parts of) the armed services of the United States.

Principle two: The expression of cultural values is subject to feedback, and hence increases. This increase is most clearly seen in groups that are separated or isolated in some way from larger, more inclusive or culturally diverse societies. The US military is such a group.

That is, the expression of cultural values tends to increase in scope, in power and in the resources devoted to it. This increase occurs independently of its actual utility to the group. Unless some other factor intervenes, the expression may increase to the point where it is actually catastrophic to the group.

Observations in support of this:

The Easter Islanders expressed a cultural value - reverence for their ancestors - by erecting huge stone statues in specific places. To transport them, they cut down the palm forests of their island, on which they relied for food, to make rollers. They continued erecting ever more grandiose statues and cutting down the trees, until the forests were destroyed. They then starved.

The Aztecs valued human sacrifice. They made ever-increasing demands for sacrificial victims of their subject peoples, so that when Cortes arrived, their subjects enthusiastically joined him. The Aztecs' reaction to this was to demand more sacrifices, which only ensured their downfall.

The northern Italian condottieri were mercenary soldiers who valued profit. It was more profitable to manoeuver and then negotiate without actually fighting. As a result, they were destroyed by an opponent who was prepared actually to go to battle.

These observations and many others from history tend to confirm the hypothesis that expression of the cultural values of a group may increase to the point where this increase can and does actually subvert the supposed purpose of the group, and even its actual survival.

Therefore:

Prediction one: The expression of fundamentalist protestantism in (parts of) the armed forces of the US will tend to increase over time, unless some other factor intervenes.

Prediction two: This increase will ultimately subvert the actual purpose of the armed forces - ie the defence of the United States, its territory, people and Constitution. One obvious point of this subversion is the difficulty of maintaining the Constitutional separation of Church and State in the face of a culture of fervour for one, given, exclusive religion in the armed forces of the State.

Hence, it is the duty of those sworn to defend and protect the Constitution of the United States to intervene to prevent this from happening. The Executive and the Joint Chiefs must act; but more, every officer of the US armed forces has that identical duty.

If officers do not intervene to prevent the coercive expression of religion, or fail to confirm and uphold the Constitutional right of freedom of religion, they are in dereliction of their duty. But if they actually attempt to deny the Constitutional rights of others by preferring or differentially treating any expression of religion or non-religion, they are criminally in breach of their oaths, and should be dealt with by military justice.

Dave Luckett said: Prediction one: The expression of fundamentalist protestantism in (parts of) the armed forces of the US will tend to increase over time, unless some other factor intervenes. Prediction two: This increase will ultimately subvert the actual purpose of the armed forces - ie the defence of the United States, its territory, people and Constitution. One obvious point of this subversion is the difficulty of maintaining the Constitutional separation of Church and State in the face of a culture of fervour for one, given, exclusive religion in the armed forces of the State.

Mike Elzinga said:

Dave Luckett said: Prediction one: The expression of fundamentalist protestantism in (parts of) the armed forces of the US will tend to increase over time, unless some other factor intervenes. Prediction two: This increase will ultimately subvert the actual purpose of the armed forces - ie the defence of the United States, its territory, people and Constitution. One obvious point of this subversion is the difficulty of maintaining the Constitutional separation of Church and State in the face of a culture of fervour for one, given, exclusive religion in the armed forces of the State.

There is a further danger in that the “heroes” and high-ranking officers in such a military become prime candidates in political elections for public office. High government officials who are fervent followers of such sectarian views would not hesitate to use the military to enforce these sectarian rules on the entire population. The microcosm of the Air Force Academy in the community of Colorado Springs is a thought-provoking reminder.

And Air Force officers tend to have jobs like working in missile silos, flying armed combat aircraft, securing our nuclear weapons stockpiles, etc.

What could happen if one of them were an evangelical who decided that these are the End Times, and it's his job to initiate the prophesied Armageddon?

Just Bob said: What could happen if one of them were an evangelical who decided that these are the End Times, and it's his job to initiate the prophesied Armageddon?

mrg said:

Just Bob said: What could happen if one of them were an evangelical who decided that these are the End Times, and it's his job to initiate the prophesied Armageddon?

Or got upset about the fluoridation of water supplies.

Mike Elzinga said: Bat Guano. Now there was a charater.

Just Bob said: And Air Force officers tend to have jobs like working in missile silos, flying armed combat aircraft, securing our nuclear weapons stockpiles, etc. What could happen if one of them were an evangelical who decided that these are the End Times, and it's his job to initiate the prophesied Armageddon?

Wayne Francis said: Honestly there are a lot of safe guards to prevent just this type of action happening. Even if they manage to launch there are still mechanisms to destroy the weapons in flight.

Launch a nuke, probably not. But even a launch with a non-activated warhead could provoke a counterstrike. And could we talk our way out of an incident where a bomb or cruise missile crashed and failed to initiate a nuclear explosion--but spilled its radioactive guts over, say, Islamabad?

And contemplate what a fully fueled B-52 could do to the Capitol Building or the White House (with that Kenyan Muslim Socialist in there!).

mrg said:

Mike Elzinga said: Bat Guano. Now there was a charater.

I always remember Slim Pickens as Major "King" Kong, going out with quite the bang. "Hello Dmitriy? This is Alex. How are you? I am fine. Well, you are fine, too. We're both fine." "I have some bad news, Dmitriy. Well, one of our generals went a little bit funny in the head and ordered all his bombers to attack your country ... Dmitriy ... Dmitriy ... " Inspector Clouseau was not Peter Sellers' only claim to fame.

Dale Husband said: This is news? I thought the U S military would be a natural haven for right-wing politics and bigoted religion, since it is by natural an authoritarian rather than a libertarian force. To those who claim we owe our freedom to soldiers, what about the fact that those soldiers are themselves not free to quit their jobs if they disagree with the mission they are sent to, unlike any other profession? What if they are ordered to attack their own people for protesting against the government? Some freedom we would have then!