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.
The circumstantial evidence is there, if you have eyes to see it.
If by “one man’s opinion is equal to another’s” you mean that no one will judge either one in the afterlife, you’re right. But if you mean that their opinions will have equally advantageous results for humanity, then no, you’re wrong. But you don’t need a God to tell you the difference between a happy, thriving culture and a pile of murdered bodies. Do you? I don’t.
I know a lady who has circumstantial evidence that suggests that a certain A-List celebrity has been having an affair with her for years, using false names and disguises to "test" her love. She has one photograph of herself standing next to him in what is clearly a fan venue. She has a schedule of his visits that has been carefully crafted not to conflict with any of his public appearances. She has a "hypnotist" who helped her uncover the "truth," and she has a child with eyes kind of like his.
But she's just a schizophrenic. The fact is, if you WANT to believe in something magical, you construct a fantasy world that is difficult to disprove. Then you just stand your ground and argue your head off. It doesn't make you right, but it does keep you occupied, which for some people is reward enough.
That's a red herring, a straw man argument, A_perfect_lady. Whether or not unicorns exist is entirely beside the question. It hardly seems to be an urgent question from my point of view.
But if you want me to hazard an answer, I'd say that unicorns both (certainly) do and (possibly) do not exist. Certainly they exist in the human imagination; i.e., in the arts, in literature, etc. — the unicorn historically/culturally is a symbol of purity. What you are really asking is whether they are physically tangible. And I don't know the answer to that. All I can truthfully say is: I have never seen one.
I don't "group" atheists. If there is a "group" for atheists, it is something atheists self-select into. I don't force them into it.
Now here's my point. If I am trying to get you to believe in unicorns, it makes no sense for me to demand that you must prove they don't exist or you must believe.
Notwithstanding, His Truth [Logos] alone is the difference between "a happy, thriving culture" and "a pile of murdered bodies."
Cultures — societies — that produce piles of murdered bodies historically have all been atheist ones.
Do you think our present-day American society is a "happy, thriving" one?
Nonsense, God-fearing muslims slaughtered the Armenians, God-fearing Hebrew tribes slaughtered the Canaanites, God-fearing Spaniards took out entire cultures in the Americas... come on. God-fearing muslims, are in fact slaughtering people briskly at this very moment. You may disagree with their grasp on what “God” wants but you can’t deny they think He’s up there.
I have never asked you to believe in unicorns. And as to what you believe, all I can say is this:
It's not my job to "tell you" what to think or believe regarding present matters, or any other matter. My job is to show you where to look if you want to go find out for yourself.
Moreover, "proof" is a term relevant to mathematics and logic only. But we are speaking of neither here.
You have a pleasant day, ya heya
Hey, go ahead and do that, you and Heraclitus, and C.S. Lewis. I'm not going to. I think it's a waste of time and energy.
But it is God "up there" who commands them to do these things? Maybe they are simply using God as an excuse to perpetrate purely human crimes, to "sugar-coat" acts of purely human libido dominandi and moral turpitude.
Certainly I believe that is the case with Islamic Jihadism.... I also believe that to have been the case WRT the Spanish conquistadors....
The case of Israel is seemingly different. But I would leave the elaboration of that issue to Jewish scholars, not having the competence myself.
And now you’re upset. Yellow is a color on the color spectrum. Yesterday was 24 hours ago. You believe in things that are not real and now you’re mad because I think you’re silly. You have a nice day, too.
The fact remains that those murderous societies are not/were not atheists. So believing in God obviously does not necessarily enhance one’s moral sophistication.
Actually, my method — such as it is — is inductive: I don't start with a conclusion into which I want to fit selective evidence, as if the truth of reality were some kind of Procrustean bed.
I'd say that is the sort of thing the folks who cling to "the machine metaphor" are doing. And they have to rule out entire sectors of reality to do it.
Me, I'm happy to let the Creation — Nature — "explain herself." And "Nature" includes human nature.
You use definitions held as convention, by the developed society, yet you think yourself so clever that you can play word games? Is there a difference in 'a perfect bitch dog' and 'a perfect lady'? Of course there is. A perfect bitch dog has no comprehension for societal convention in order to define 'yellow' as you tried to do. A perfect bitch dog does not read a clock and conclude that 'yesterday' was 24 hours ago. And you don't know if yesterday still exists, any more than you know if tomorrow yet exists. You reason based upon 'convention', agreed upon definitions. We all do.
Being a Southern Gentleman, I am old enough to know that a perfect lady doesn't play word games designed to be insulting in order to try and appear clever. You're not important enough or clever enough to get me angry. I am however amused by you. If you were able to rise to Christopher Hitchens' level of nihilism, I might could even find discussion with you to be a pleasant mental exercise.
It is not often that one witnesses such a circularly functioning mind as you exhibit. You have to work hard to achieve nothingness. And denial becomes the river upon which you float your leaky dingy. Have you figured out yet that you probably don't know all there is about this universe in which you currently dwell? Has it yet dawned on you that there are aspects to reality which Science has yet to define? ... Or have you such limited sight that you think it has all been discovered? Closing the far end of the observation tube nets you only a darkened spot.
"Faith without works" — the latter understood as acts consistent with God's moral law — "is dead." (So says James, 2:20.)
People can always find excuses to do what they want to anyway. But they will be held to account for this. If not in "this" world, then in the "next."
Of course, you don't have to worry about this, do you, A_perfect_lady? You obviate the entire problem by denying a "next" world altogether.
And if the world does not have a "beyond," you'll be "safe" from such an accounting; i.e., for thoughts and deeds you commit in this one.
Good luck!
I know anger when I see it. Calm down and stop trying to get me equally angry, because you are wasting your time. The world is what it is. Deal with it ... or make up elaborate metaphysical endgames peopled with angels and demons, gods and monsters. Give them names and personalities. Add a few dragons, if you want. It doesn’t matter to me. I think of you the same way I think of Scientologists and astrologers, but that needn’t impact our ability to ignore each other.
And you don’t have to worry either, about ever having to realize you lived more of your life in a fantasy world than in the real one. Because when you’re dead, you’re dead. You’re gone. You’re not lying there in your coffin thinking “Well, THIS sucks!” So live in whatever world you want to construct. Like the lady who thinks the celebrity sent her a message just the other day, by wearing certain shoes in the paparazzi photo, it all makes sense to her. The evidence is there if you just look at it right. He really does love her! Sure! As long as she doesn’t do anything to me, I don’t care.
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.