Resignation: Atheist NGO quits over remarks ("Spiritually fit soldiers are better")

[Bluebear]

On July 18th, 2006 Lt. Gen. H. Steven Blum, Chief of the National Guard Bureau, lumped atheists and agnostics together with bigots and in a paraphrase of an old untrue negative stereotype declared that there are no atheists in foxholes. It is ironic that such a bigoted remark would come during his speech about diversity to the NAACP. The National Guard received a number of letters complaining about his remarks and several atheist organizations denounced them. But the Army, despite how it defines unlawful discrimination in its own regulations, has decided that the remarks were not discriminatory. I disagree.

Blum’s remarks are just the tip of the iceberg. Since troops have been deployed to Iraq and Afghanistan in recent years there have been numerous bigoted remarks made by military chaplains and other officers disparaging atheists and perpetuating the myth that there are no atheists in foxholes. Some have gone as far as claiming that atheists are lesser soldiers than their religious counterparts. Chaplain Scott McCammon said “You can know how to dig a foxhole, but unless you are spiritually fit, you won't have the courage to stick your head out of the hole”. Chaplain Eric Albertson said “commanders recognize that spiritually fit soldiers are better fighters, and can bring a spirit of determination to the mission that is courageous and heroic”. But complaints by atheist soldiers are ignored despite the fact that Army regulations prohibit such remarks.

Army Regulation 600-20, section 6-2, paragraph a says “The U.S. Army will provide EO and fair treatment for military personnel and family members without regard to race, color, gender, religion, national origin, and provide an environment free of unlawful discrimination and offensive behavior. They have failed miserably at providing an environment free of offensive behavior for atheists. The regulation defines several terms in these sections which make it clear that the public comments of Blum and others constitute “unlawful discrimination”. Disparaging terms are defined as “Terms used to degrade or connote negative statements pertaining to race, color, gender, national origin, or religion”. Claiming that there are no atheists in foxholes implies that they do not serve at all which is patently false or that they all really do believe something other than what they say. It implies that all atheists are liars and cowards. That fits the definition of making negative statements about an entire group of people based solely on their religious identification.

The first response given when atheists complain is that atheism isn’t an organized or acknowledged religion and therefore atheists are not covered by the regulation. But the regulation defines the term “religion” as “A personal set or institutionalized system of attitudes, moral or ethical beliefs and practices held with the strength of traditional views, characterized by ardor and faith, and generally evidenced through specific observances”. The regulation’s definition of religion includes “a personal set” of beliefs and does not require organization or outside acknowledgement. The regulation also defines prejudice as “a negative feeling or dislike based upon a faulty or inflexible generalization (that is, prejudging a person or group without knowledge or facts)”. Claiming that there are no atheists in foxholes is both a “faulty” and “inflexible generalization”.

On August 19th 2006 I submitted a formal Equal Opportunity (EO) complaint on NGB Form 333 to the Ohio National Guard state EO office. It was forwarded to the National Guard Bureau (NGB) EO office and they signed for it on August 22nd. They then sat on it for seven weeks. It was supposed to be forwarded to the Department of the Army Inspector General’s (DAIG) office because it named a general officer. But they sat on it until I called the DAIG office to find out the status of it. They told me they never received it. When they called the state EO office they found it had been sent to NGB EO a few days after I filed it. When they called the NGB EO office, they NGB EO had to contact the state and ask them to send another copy of it. They either lost it or tossed it. This is not how formal EO complaints are supposed to be handled in the military. Not at all.

Once it did reach the DAIG office they tried to dissuade me from going forward with the complaint by asking me to resubmit the complaint if I “still wanted to proceed with this”. They said it was not signed, did not state how I was harmed and did not suggest a remedy, all of which were untrue. I again sent them a copy of the complaint via snail mail to verify that it had been signed and did contain the information requested. They ultimately concluded that Lt. Gen. Blum’s remarks were not discriminatory. Apparently, they have never read Army Regulation 600-20. I had to learn all of this through numerous phone calls that I initiated because they never once initiated contact with me throughout this complaint process. I was even told that to obtain the document which answers the formal complaint I had to request it through the Freedom of Information Act. So it turns out that the problem which I had thought was limited to the unfortunate remarks of a few isolated bigots is really a systemic problem. It’s cultural. It’s institutional. The Army has not only failed at their stated goal of providing an environment free of offensive behavior, they have perpetuated it. They are nurturing it.

The Army uses taxpayer money to publish these bigoted remarks by Army officers in Army publications and Department of Defense websites. They use their Digital Video Imagery Distribution System (DVIDS) to beam remarks from bigoted chaplains back to the US from the front and post them on the DVIDS website so other publications can pick them up.

Worst of all, when soldiers complain about disparaging remarks made about them on the basis of religion, when commissioned officers and supposed leaders call them liars, cowards and lesser soldiers simply because they lack a belief in the supernatural, the Army looks the other way and disregards its own regulations designed to prevent religious discrimination.

I can no longer be a part of an organization that denies my service in combat, ignores discrimination complaints by soldiers, violates its own regulations and protects bigots. This will serve as written notification that I am resigning my commission as an officer in the Ohio Army National Guard effective as soon as possible.

1st Lt. Wayne Adkins

XO, 196th MPAD

Contact Wayne Adkins at [e-mail]
http://www.americanchronicle.com/articles/viewArticle.asp?articleID=17380

[smirkymonkey]

1. Because we all know that the religiously insane make better

killers.

Kick!

:kick:

[tridim]

6. Yea, just ask Timothy McVeigh.

[dysfunctional press]

15. "religiously insane"...isn't that redundant?

nt

[ItsTheMediaStupid]

20. No. And all atheists aren't unethical and immoral either.

You can't defeat bigotry with more bigotry.

[dysfunctional press]

22. anyone who honestly believes that an all-powerful deity knows all their thoughts...

isn't all there.

it would seem to verge on paranoia, at the least.

[ItsTheMediaStupid]

24. You're calling a majority of the earth's population insane

The problems don't come from thinking a diety knows my thoughts.

The problems come when someone is certain they know what a diety is thinking. This is what starts wars, genocides and other assorted stupidity.

[dysfunctional press]

29. exactly.

and believe me, it can get pretty scary at times for the minority of us who aren't.

the problems start when people start thinking that they have to appease/respect/fear said non-existant deity.

[Marnieworld]

23. I agree

We are asking for respect despite our differences. In turn we should give the same respect.

[dysfunctional press]

30. i can't respect deluded fools.

sorry.

[Marnieworld]

31. But you can be respectful of their right to be deluded

It's not my belief system but I chose to treat others as to how I would like to be treated. If my belief system was in the majority I would still disagree with statements (official statements in this case) disrespecting the views of the minority and therefore exclude them from the group. Atheists here are referred to as cowards and liars. The response to this shouldn't be well you're deluded. How does that solve anything? We should all be free to be ourselves and when we join together as Americans we should join together as Americans.

Personally I feel many use religion as a coping mechanism or way of dealing with unpleasant realities. Also many find strength and wisdom in the parables of their faith. Life is often so tragic and hard that I can't fault people from whatever helps them get through it. I only object when people do not have the right, or they are disrespected for choosing a different way of perceiving things. We won't ever have agreement but perhaps there can be a working harmony of many viewpoints. That is what I'd like and I think that's the only fair goal. Responding to hate with hate helps no one.

[dysfunctional press]

32. i can only respect that "right" to the point that it's not forced on me-

or my government.

and sadly, that has not historically nor recently been the case.

and to add- people who need religion as a "coping device" for life, obviously have some serious emotional weaknesses.

[Marnieworld]

33. well we agree there

It's the forcing of beliefs onto others that is wrong. And who among us doesn't have "emotional weakness"? It's part of being human.

[dysfunctional press]

34. there are emotional weaknesses and serious emotional weaknesses...

and when you have to create/rely on an imaginary deity in order to cope with day-to-day life- it's pretty serious.

[pnwmom]

2. I wonder if they'll refuse to accept his resignation.

This is probably only the beginning.

[riderinthestorm]

3. I'm confused, is this an NGO or an NCO? nt

This doesn't surprise this atheist regardless....

[progdonkey]

5. neither, as far as I can tell...

As I'm reading it, I'm wondering what organization it is that's leaving.

Then when I realize it's about a person, I think that the poster meant NCO.

But then I see the writer is a 1st Lt.

:shrug:

[jdadd]

9. I think it means....

National Guard Officer NGO

[Bluebear]

12. indeed. thanks nt

[mandyky]

21. National Guard Officer from Ohio

NCO is a non-commissioned officer - corporals sargents, etc
Officers are Lieutenents and above.
Only commissioned officers resign, enlisted folk (including NCOs) enlist or not in increments of time, usually 3 or 4 years. Enlisted people can't just resign, but they can get medical discharges or if they are "bad" soldiers, they get dishonorable or less than honorable discharges.

[YankeyMCC]

4. But atheists are not persecuted in this nation

:sarcasm:

[Trillo]

7. Soldiers need the right to go AWOL

without ANY penalty, which means, an end to AWOL.

President lies. Fuck em.

[Mich Otter]

17. Soldiers need the right to go AWOL without ANY penalty???

Are you suggesting we approve of Bush's military record?
Oh, wait, half the country already approves of military personel going AWOL.

[Trillo]

19. Yes, it creates a true voluntary military,

which we don't have now, even though some entities love to call it such. (But "no" to your second question)

It would require that the President, since he is CIC, to have the approval OF EACH individual member of the armed forces, presumably also the national guard since this president apparently usurped control of those forces as well (which as you rightly pointed out was highly hypocritical of this particular President because of his circumstances) before he could fight a war using any one of them.

It would require the President and Congress to CONTINUALLY raise an army. In the event the CIC gets the troops involved in something that he lies about, then continues to lie about but with changing rationale, troops could FUCK 'em by going home without any penalty.

Then the dictator loses his troops.

It would prevent Congress from doing the same. For example, say Congress gets taken over by a group of extra-national corporations. One day The Lobbyist sends emails to each member that the corporation has a little problem, that that nation 'over there' has something we want and since that nation isn't cooperating with our plans, do something about it. So Congress, instead of declaring war, decides to get sneaky, and tells the president that he may go to war if 'he wants to.'

We don't have a volunteer military, in case you hadn't noticed, though it seems the corporate media and recruiters love to call it that. It seems we have a system of voluntary conscription, where the initial choice to join is voluntary, but then nothing is voluntary for a period of time during which period the soldier cannot legally leave, and if he or she does they're considered Absent WithOut Leave.

One lesson of Iraq (under W) is that The President has too much power, power too easily abused, a bought and paid for Congress defaulted on its duty to Declare War, instead it used the Authorization for Use of Military Force. Therefore, the soldiers themselves need a check and balance on the excesses of those in power.

[NoPasaran]

27. An army where the soldiers can come and go at will is not an army

It is an armed mob.

[Wrinkle_In_Time]

8. Well there's your problem right there...

But the regulation defines the term “religion” as “A personal set or institutionalized system of attitudes, moral or ethical beliefs and practices held with the strength of traditional views, characterized by ardor and faith, and generally evidenced through specific observances”.

   (Emphasis mine)

Ardor and faith, FFS! What about non-observance?

My Atheism doesn't include faith, it's based in reality. For me, Atheism is not "belief that there is/are no God/Gods" but rather "not believing that there is/are a God/Gods." There's a BIG difference.

It only touches on ardor/ardour when confronted with bullshit such as this. Fucktards.

{Edited for formatting}

[Kerrytravelers]

10. K&R. As a person who considers themselves a Christian, this embarrasses me.

I am so sick of all the religious crap going on. I apologize, but it won't stop the religious fucktards that are destroying this country.

I think this little smilies illustrates my feelings fairly accurately:

[Rex_Goodheart]

11. I'd be interested to hear

what Lt. Gen. Blum's exact words were.

[and-justice-for-all]

13. I understand the bases here...

...as to why Atheist organizations and some in their community would be pissed about this. Equal is Equal regardless of sexual orientation, religios or non-religious beliefs.

But, this is how I feel about. Great, so you have an army of Xtian warriors willing to pick up a gun and fight unjust wars for their g-d whoreship master. Excellent, I am a Gay Atheist and have no interest in such barbaric and uncalled for actions anyway, unless we are being invaded. Which will probably never happen, at least not in my lifetime.

I dont want to be an Atheist in their fucking foxholes anyway and being Gay as well, thats a double wammy for me, WooHoo. War is for small minds anyway and Global Emperialism at the end of a gun, crucifix and superstitious fiction is not only bullshit, but pathetic as well. I have no interest in participating in atrocities for anyone.

Lt. Gen. H. Steven Blum can go fuck himself for all I care.

[MercutioATC]

14. At least you're not a woman...

...they get "infections" when they're placed in foxholes...

[Minnesota_Lib]

16. Yes, there are no atheists in foxholes...

..because while the theists are curled in fetal positions at the bottom of their holes, praying for their god to save them, the atheist, knowing the battle will not be won by divine intervention, has left the hole and is taking the fight to the enemy. :)

[Warren DeMontague]

18. What's astounding to me is, the "terrorists" we're allegedly fighting are RELIGIOUS NUTS.

So why the FUCK should the a-religious, the non religious, the reality-based, critical thinkers and the skeptics be disparaged by our military?

If anything, it should be glassy-eyed fundamentalists that they're worried about.

[PurityOfEssence]

25. Pat Tillman: atheist in a foxhole

What an endlessly bigoted statement; it suggests that "truth" comes to everyone facing death and it also intimates that atheists are cowards or shirkers of their duty.

Andy Rooney flew on combat missions over Germany in World War 2, and he's a non-believer.

The list is endless, and those who would demand privilege and aristocratic status due to their spiritual belief are selfish and deluded.

"Spiritually Fit"; what an ugly term.

[nam78_two]

26. K&R/nt

[L0oniX]

28. Sounds like a good way to get rid of all the fake Christians

killing for Jesus ...yea right!
:puke:

[HardRocker05]

35. Bastards. the US army theme song is 'Onward christian soldiers." it's scary. nt

[Az]

36. Clarity

Atheism is not a religion. The old joke goes that atheism is to religion what baldness is to hair color. But lets be specific about what is being said here.

When a person declares themself an atheist all you know is that they lack a belief in god or gods. Thats what the word means. Thats it at its simplest. Just like theism is not a religion atheism is not a religion. But... (All my friends have big buts. - PeeWee Herman) theism and atheism can be components of religions.

Throw the word religion open wide enough and it can include stamp collectors:

Main Entry: re·li·gion
Pronunciation: ri-'li-j&n
Function: noun
Etymology: Middle English religioun, from Anglo-French religiun, Latin religion-, religio supernatural constraint, sanction, religious practice, perhaps from religare to restrain, tie back -- more at RELY
1 a : the state of a religious <a nun in her 20th year of religion> b (1) : the service and worship of God or the supernatural (2) : commitment or devotion to religious faith or observance
2 : a personal set or institutionalized system of religious attitudes, beliefs, and practices
3 archaic : scrupulous conformity : CONSCIENTIOUSNESS
4 : a cause, principle, or system of beliefs held to with ardor and faith
- re·li·gion·less adjective

And when we are discussing rights and laws it is best to throw the net open as wide as possible. A group of people that gather together and include amongst their beliefs a decided absense of belief in gods can be considered in the widest sense of the word to be part of a religion.

There is a reason it is difficult to develop programs for computers that can interpret speech. Its because so much of what we mean is conveyed in context that a system that cannot take that context into consideration can be horribly confused.

Atheism is not a religion. But as it relates to a position decidedly affected by religion it should and must be included as a protected affiliation just as any religious person enjoys.

[usregimechange]

37. Good for you!

[KamaAina]

38. "Spiritually fit"?! What would a "spiritual fitness" program look like?

Watching a video of Richard Simmons' "Prayin' to the Oldies"? :eyes: