Posted on 01/01/2011 2:50:50 PM PST by wmfights
Atheist organization Freedom from Religion Foundation demanded the Army halt a spiritual fitness program designed to combat stress because its diagnostic tool allegedly promotes religion.
FFRF Co-Presidents Dan Barker and Annie Laurie Gaylor wrote a letter to Army Secretary John McHugh Wednesday to protest the “spiritual fitness” assessment of the Comprehensive Soldier Fitness program. The co-presidents say statements in the mandatory “spiritual fitness” evaluation tramples on the freedoms of nonbelievers.
The spiritual statements include: “I am a spiritual person;” “My life has lasting meaning;” and “I believe there is a purpose for my life.”
Barker and Gaylor called the assessment of nonspiritual soliders “deeply offensive and inappropriate.”
“By definition, nontheists do not believe in deities, spirits, or the supernatural. The Army may not send the morale-deflating message to nonbelievers that they are lesser soldiers, much less imply they are somehow incomplete, purposeless or empty,” stated the letter.
The Army established CSF to address the increased stress induced by sustained combat. The program is meant to enhance the resilience, readiness and potential of soldiers, family members and Army civilians.
The CSF uses Global Assessment Test to diagnose the soldiers’ overall level of physical and mental fitness. The assessment has a section titled “Spiritual Fitness” that questions soldiers on their personal support systems, motivation, and methods of dealing with stress, among other things.
Besides the survey itself, FFRF also criticizes the curriculum for those who score low in the spiritual fitness as overtly religious. Soldiers in the programs are told that “prayer is for all individuals” and to seek out chaplain guidance, according to the group of freethinkers.
Yet contrary to FFRF’s claims, the program does attempt to acknowledge and cater to the beliefs of secular soldiers. According to the training manual, spirituality and the human spirit is defined, for the program purposes, as “the essential core of the person.”
The manual does make mention of religious practices such as prayer and talking with a chaplain. However, it emphasizes that prayer can be quiet thinking time. It also emphasizes that soldiers can talk with a fellow soldier for support rather than chaplains.
Army chaplains trained last month to participate in the CSF’s spiritual fitness initiative say it is about protecting soldiers’ mental health in the event of a traumatic experience, not conversion.
"Most traumatic events have an element of soul wounding," said the Rev. Dr. Chrys Parker, an Army chaplain, in a statement about the training.
Parker asserts that chaplains are best equipped to deal with issues involving the soul.
"Quite frankly, the chaplains have the expertise on how to deal with the spiritual damage that is inherent in trauma," he said.
BB: Short answer: There is no reason why we should.
And yet there is something inside us that causes us to know we are not supposed to live like that.
So now you're not arguing anymore that belief in God is automatically superior to atheism. Now you're arguing that belief in Judeo-Christian Scripture is superior to everything else.
This is what religious arguments always boil down to: first they try to get you to believe in God. Then in their God. Then in their denomination. Then in their personal interpretation of their denomination. By that time, whether they realize it or not, what they are really trying to get the rest of us to believe in... is THEM.
If a valid law is solely determined by who has the greatest power then the atrocities of WWII would be legitimate. I don't believe for a second that atheists would think those atrocities were legitimate even though they had the power of the law behind them, but why wouldn't they?
For me the answer is obvious, we have been given a conscience. I think this is also evidence of a soul.
No there isn't. Children come into this world selfish little savages. You have to teach them civilized behavior.
It's pointless to argue its truth as all agree it cannot be proven. It's faith. Only circumstantial evidence exists and that's not enough to prove beyond all reasonable doubt.
The Kamikazes and Nazis were not atheists.
It is. Look at its fruit. History bears that out.
The Protestant west has produced among the most civilized and free governments and societies in history. Western Europe under primarily Protestant influence saw the greatest advances in science, education, and social reform this world has seen.
I can't think of one single atheistic government that I would want to live under. Your choices are Stalin, Lenin, Stalin, Mao, Castro, Kim Jung Il, and Pol Pot. You pick.
I may be missing some but I can't think of ONE atheistic government that has ever benefited mankind.
People abandon Judeo-Christian thought and morals at their own peril. I presume that you're living in the United States and are enjoying the freedoms and benefits that that Judeo-Christan belief system has produced that you seem to now want to obliterate. You'll be shooting yourself in the foot.
Funny thing about atheists. They seem to like to spit in the face of the very belief system that grants them the freedom to spit in its face.
If they weren’t atheists, then, I guess we can quit blaming war and slaughter on atheists. Could you let your other religionists know...?
Excellent post, metmom. I might insert “Christian” for Protestant, but that aside, well done. :)
Well, why not? Isn't it necessary to clarify our terms if we hope to advance our debate?
Or are you invoking Niels Bohr's remark — "And so we are suspended in language in such a way that we cannot say what is 'up' and what is 'down'?" — and just leaving it at that? (He was speaking of the quantum world, of the problem of the "observer" in that world; but we humans don't completely live in that world. The reason being: Human beings do not entirely "reduce" to that world. There is something more that human beings express in their very "beingness," so to speak....)
If so, human communication becomes impossible.
"Suspension in language" indeed seems to be where we are. For we seemingly cannot find a common ground of meaning. Or at least, not so far....
And yet what I know is that ontology — the science of being and existence — and epistemology — the science of knowledge and knowing — are intimately bound up together, resonate together, shed light on each other.
This understanding lies at the very foundation of Natural Law theory and, thus, of the natural sciences themselves. It proclaims that the universe is structured in such a way as to be knowable, that is to say accessible to the human mind, given its natural structure....
And this is no "accident."
A Christian might say that this is so because both ontology and epistemology proceed from the One Source, which is God.
War, slaughter, murder, and voting Democrat, are all caused by envy, not atheism or religion. Religion just provides a competitive advantage defeating the evil of envy.
Yep — they specialize in the fine art of "sawing off the very branch to which they naturally have to cling for their own existence and survival." LOL!!!
Thank you ever so much for your fine insights, dear metmom!
It is self evident, just on the basis that living by the laws God has given us is clearly superior to living by the law as determined by who has the most power.
Now you're arguing that belief in Judeo-Christian Scripture is superior to everything else.
I didn't just start, that has always been my position.
This is what religious arguments always boil down to: first they try to get you to believe in God. Then in their God.
I think if you take the time to go back over my posts you will find that is not the case. My whole point has been to get you to take the first step towards recognizing the existence of "higher laws". The next step after that is to begin the process of figuring out where they came from.
By that time, whether they realize it or not, what they are really trying to get the rest of us to believe in... is THEM.
This couldn't be farther from the Truth.
I wouldn't expect you to understand because it's not something you've studied in great detail. The posters on this thread represent multiple churches and we have very heated discussions about a variety of topics, but none of them have asked you to join their specific church.
If what you want to argue is that Judeo-Christian culture is the best, then argue that. But don’t make this about atheists, or you’ve got the muslims on your side too, and I’m pretty sure you don’t want them. Not to mention the brutality that Catholicism has, in the past, evinced. Look, as far as CULTURES go, if I have to live among any religious people, I’ll take the J-Cs. But one of the reasons I’ll take the J-Cs is that the religion is predicated not on obedience, but faith and free will. If you try to shove your religion down athiest throats, you might as well be Muslim.
No you do not. If that were true civilization would not have developed.
Okay, if that's what you want: can you please clarify which laws are "higher" and which laws are "lower"?
Cultural beliefs are already a part of Reality.
Why do you relentless try to expunge them from the picture?
Do you have some animus towards man?
You know, I just can't agree. I think love of freedom is a better motivator.
Sure they would. Because children eventually become adults and think "I hate being robbed. Hey, let's outlaw it!" Notice how LONG it took true civilization to develop? That should tell you something.
But based on your arguments about the military providing spiritual counseling, you seem to be satisfied to shove YOUR atheism down our believing throats. Wouldn't that make you like as a muslim yourself?
Such a typical atheistic/liberal double standard. Atheists sure seem willing to force their viewpoint on others the whole while claiming that others are doing the exact same thing to them.
But you're forgetting what makes Judeo-Christian rule the least obnoxious (at least currently. Don't know if I'd agree it was best, say 400 years ago.) What makes it best is that it is predicated on free will and faith. It has to be freely chosen. You aren't to shove it down anyone's throat. If you do that, you begin the eradication of what separates you from Islam, from the Catholic church, and from Marxists.I have to go, we can continue this later if you want.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.