Yes, but that isn’t really “pushing" religion so much as just accommodating those who are religious.
Really LM? Until 1972 chapel attendance was mandatory for all Naval cadets but was declared illegal by Anderson v. laird. Cadets still complain about pressure from chaplains who often recite the prayers before events and due to the subtle pressure from religious officers secular cadets formed a free thought org. Which hasn't as yet been recognized as a legitimate group and there are continuous complaints from freethinkers from the other branches. I'd say that's more than accommodating.
Cap't Jack
http://www.patheos.com/blogs/friendlyatheist/2012/05/24/secular-students-of-the-military-the-naval-academy/
If there is subtle pressure, that is wrong, but I meant that the presence of chaplains and such I did not see as "pushing religion" on anyone. Mandatory chapel attendance was wrong.
They do push religion and they've been called on it many times. Why do you think they have chaplains on every base, bought and paid for by the military? Whether the soldiers are trigger happy or trained killers doesnt change the fact that they are in the business of killing people. If any of them had half a brain they wouldn't be in the military and that includes the officers right up to the generals.
Why wouldn't someone with "half a brain" be in the military? Who is supposed to protect the country? We don't live in a peaceful world, we live in a world with lots of people who want to kill us. In World War 2, it was a maniacal death cult, Nazism, and the Japanese, who in the Rape of Nanking outdid the Nazis in the cruelty department. Then it was the Soviet Union, which was under the atheist religion of communism, which it sought to spread all over the world. Today it's radical Islam. I don't know about you, but I prefer to have intelligent people of good character running the military, not the dregs of society.
Our military is no longer "protecting" us. Our military is more likely to invade other countries than to protect us from attack. No country has tried to attack or invade us.
I, too, would prefer intelligent people of good character running our military, but we don't have that. Good character and killing seldom go together. Good character and invading other countries and killing and maiming innocent people also don't go together. Is radical Islam attacking the US? If so, please tell me where they are located. What country has tried to attack us? We've invaded two countries looking for "radical Islam." We've managed to devastate those countries and we haven't found the perpetrators yet. All we've done is kill innocent people by the thousands and we're responsible for the deaths and maiming of thousands of our own soldiers. What do we have to show for it besides creating desperate, angry people who had no intention of attacking us but who now DO have a reason to attack us. Please show me where we find "intelligent people of good character" wilimg to continue the insanity.
Yes, but that isn’t really “pushing" religion so much as just accommodating those who are religious.
Really LM? Until 1972 chapel attendance was mandatory for all Naval cadets but was declared illegal by Anderson v. laird. Cadets still complain about pressure from chaplains who often recite the prayers before events and due to the subtle pressure from religious officers secular cadets formed a free thought org. Which hasn't as yet been recognized as a legitimate group and there are continuous complaints from freethinkers from the other branches. I'd say that's more than accommodating.
Cap't Jack
http://www.patheos.com/blogs/friendlyatheist/2012/05/24/secular-students-of-the-military-the-naval-academy/
Eh, I agree with Logic Man on this.
Also, 1972 was a long time ago, and the Naval Academy is not typical of the military.
They do push religion and they've been called on it many times. Why do you think they have chaplains on every base, bought and paid for by the military? Whether the soldiers are trigger happy or trained killers doesnt change the fact that they are in the business of killing people. If any of them had half a brain they wouldn't be in the military and that includes the officers right up to the generals.
Why wouldn't someone with "half a brain" be in the military? Who is supposed to protect the country? We don't live in a peaceful world, we live in a world with lots of people who want to kill us. In World War 2, it was a maniacal death cult, Nazism, and the Japanese, who in the Rape of Nanking outdid the Nazis in the cruelty department. Then it was the Soviet Union, which was under the atheist religion of communism, which it sought to spread all over the world. Today it's radical Islam. I don't know about you, but I prefer to have intelligent people of good character running the military, not the dregs of society.
Our military is no longer "protecting" us. Our military is more likely to invade other countries than to protect us from attack. No country has tried to attack or invade us.
I, too, would prefer intelligent people of good character running our military, but we don't have that. Good character and killing seldom go together. Good character and invading other countries and killing and maiming innocent people also don't go together. Is radical Islam attacking the US? If so, please tell me where they are located. What country has tried to attack us? We've invaded two countries looking for "radical Islam." We've managed to devastate those countries and we haven't found the perpetrators yet. All we've done is kill innocent people by the thousands and we're responsible for the deaths and maiming of thousands of our own soldiers. What do we have to show for it besides creating desperate, angry people who had no intention of attacking us but who now DO have a reason to attack us. Please show me where we find "intelligent people of good character" wilimg to continue the insanity.
Agreed. If our military was full of "intelligent critical thinkers", then more of them would be in jail right now for disobeying direct orders. Independent free-thinkers just don't tend to make good soldiers.
Our military is no longer "protecting" us. Our military is more likely to invade other countries than to protect us from attack. No country has tried to attack or invade us.
That's in part because of the military that other countries have no tried to invade or attack us (although terrorists have). And the military does not act as some independent entity, it answers to the government, which itself is elected by the people.
I, too, would prefer intelligent people of good character running our military, but we don't have that. Good character and killing seldom go together. Good character and invading other countries and killing and maiming innocent people also don't go together. Is radical Islam attacking the US? If so, please tell me where they are located. What country has tried to attack us? We've invaded two countries looking for "radical Islam." We've managed to devastate those countries and we haven't found the perpetrators yet. All we've done is kill innocent people by the thousands and we're responsible for the deaths and maiming of thousands of our own soldiers. What do we have to show for it besides creating desperate, angry people who had no intention of attacking us but who now DO have a reason to attack us. Please show me where we find "intelligent people of good character" wilimg to continue the insanity.
The U.S. barely killed anybody invading Iraq. That was Al-Qaeda, which decided to start a war with the U.S. in the country. As for Afghanistan, the U.S. did not devastate that country by any means. The U.S. presence there is not like the Soviet presence was and the terrorists have done much threatening of the people there.
Agreed. If our military was full of "intelligent critical thinkers", then more of them would be in jail right now for disobeying direct orders. Independent free-thinkers just don't tend to make good soldiers.
The military has lots of independent free thinkers, and yes independent free thinkers do make excellent soldiers. In fact, they make among the best soldiers (read up about the Special Forces ("Green Berets"), Navy SEALs, and so forth---one can't be stupid and join those forces). I think you guys are confusing a mindset being willing to execute orders from the civilian authorities versus just blindly following orders.
Agreed. If our military was full of "intelligent critical thinkers", then more of them would be in jail right now for disobeying direct orders. Independent free-thinkers just don't tend to make good soldiers.
The military has lots of independent free thinkers, and yes independent free thinkers do make excellent soldiers. In fact, they make among the best soldiers (read up about the Special Forces ("Green Berets"), Navy SEALs, and so forth---one can't be stupid and join those forces). I think you guys are confusing a mindset being willing to execute orders from the civilian authorities versus just blindly following orders.
Being intelligent doesn't automatically make you a good critical thinker. Of course you can't be stupid and be a Navy SEAL, but you MUST be obedient. That's the problem.
And most military that I know personally and consider to be free thinkers absolutely hate the military now, because they now see it for what it is.
Not always. I believe the issue with this is actually moral righteousness, which can't ever be laid out - because morality is relative.
Either way, my point still stands, free-thinking humanists and critical thinkers make horrible soldiers.
Either way, my point still stands, free-thinking humanists and critical thinkers make horrible soldiers.
I have known some soldiers that I would consider very much humanist and critical thinkers, so I still think that's over-simplified. It also depends on the military. If it's a nation with a military where you are just expected to side with said nation and that's that, regardless of whether what the nation is doing is good or evil, then humanists will be terrible. For example, humanists would not have done well in the Wehrmacht or the Soviet military. But Western militaries that try their best to respect human rights and which answer to democratic governments that also try to respect human rights are different, and humanists can function better in those.
Either way, my point still stands, free-thinking humanists and critical thinkers make horrible soldiers.
I have known some soldiers that I would consider very much humanist and critical thinkers, so I still think that's over-simplified. It also depends on the military. If it's a nation with a military where you are just expected to side with said nation and that's that, regardless of whether what the nation is doing is good or evil, then humanists will be terrible. For example, humanists would not have done well in the Wehrmacht or the Soviet military. But Western militaries that try their best to respect human rights and which answer to democratic governments that also try to respect human rights are different, and humanists can function better in those.
Yes, it would be great if they respected human rights, and it would be pretty good if they answered to a democratic government too. Except we are talking about the US military, a massive government tool that is used for imperialistic purposes. This is not something that a clear thinking humanist would support.
They do push religion and they've been called on it many times. Why do you think they have chaplains on every base, bought and paid for by the military? Whether the soldiers are trigger happy or trained killers doesnt change the fact that they are in the business of killing people. If any of them had half a brain they wouldn't be in the military and that includes the officers right up to the generals.
Why wouldn't someone with "half a brain" be in the military? Who is supposed to protect the country? We don't live in a peaceful world, we live in a world with lots of people who want to kill us. In World War 2, it was a maniacal death cult, Nazism, and the Japanese, who in the Rape of Nanking outdid the Nazis in the cruelty department. Then it was the Soviet Union, which was under the atheist religion of communism, which it sought to spread all over the world. Today it's radical Islam. I don't know about you, but I prefer to have intelligent people of good character running the military, not the dregs of society.
At this point we are now more in danger with the military than without it.
For the record, I do prefer to have intelligent people running the military. But that is not what we have now and won't have for decades, if then. If the US were fighting WWII all over again, with today's military, we'd lose bigtime.
Yes, it would be great if they respected human rights, and it would be pretty good if they answered to a democratic government too. Except we are talking about the US military, a massive government tool that is used for imperialistic purposes. This is not something that a clear thinking humanist would support.
The U.S. military has not been used for imperialistic purposes for many decades now. You don't see the United States conquering and colonizing any areas of the world. And the U.S. military respects human rights very much. It isn't their fault that terrorists like to place all their targets in civilian areas.
At this point we are now more in danger with the military than without it.
No we aren't. The military is how the U.S. underwrites global trade and global security. If the U.S. withdrew form the world militarily, you would see a massive amount of instability and war break out all over the place. The only reason why those European nations are able to get by with such puny militaries is because of the presence of the U.S. military in the world.
For the record, I do prefer to have intelligent people running the military. But that is not what we have now and won't have for decades, if then. If the US were fighting WWII all over again, with today's military, we'd lose bigtime.
We have the most educated and professional military in the nation's history right now. I am rather baffled by your WWII comparison. If you mean we'd lose with the people of today's military commanding it in a WWII scenario, I disagree completely. If anything, we might have won the war sooner and easier (there were some real strategic blunders done during WWII). If you mean technologically, we'd have crushed the Nazis and Japanese fairly quickly.
Yes, it would be great if they respected human rights, and it would be pretty good if they answered to a democratic government too. Except we are talking about the US military, a massive government tool that is used for imperialistic purposes. This is not something that a clear thinking humanist would support.
The U.S. military has not been used for imperialistic purposes for many decades now. You don't see the United States conquering and colonizing any areas of the world. And the U.S. military respects human rights very much. It isn't their fault that terrorists like to place all their targets in civilian areas.
Lol, you'd make a great soldier.
Except we are talking about the US military, a massive government tool that is used for imperialistic purposes. This is not something that a clear thinking humanist would support.
Yes, this kind of relates to my previous comments.
There was no rationality to us starting the Iraq war, and the Afghanistan war has gone far beyond any necessity. A truly critical thinker would probably not take part in these events, or by extension, enlist in the military. Also, humanists seem to be very sensitive people who have loads of empathy for others; those attracted to military service are generally not like that, IMO.
Except we are talking about the US military, a massive government tool that is used for imperialistic purposes. This is not something that a clear thinking humanist would support.
Yes, this kind of relates to my previous comments.
There was no rationality to us starting the Iraq war, and the Afghanistan war has gone far beyond any necessity. A truly critical thinker would probably not take part in these events, or by extension, enlist in the military. Also, humanists seem to be very sensitive people who have loads of empathy for others; those attracted to military service are generally not like that, IMO.
Oh I see. I clearly misunderstood you. That's what I get for not doing a better job at getting the context before responding. I'm sorry.
At this point we are now more in danger with the military than without it.
No we aren't. The military is how the U.S. underwrites global trade and global security. If the U.S. withdrew form the world militarily, you would see a massive amount of instability and war break out all over the place. The only reason why those European nations are able to get by with such puny militaries is because of the presence of the U.S. military in the world.
------
It's the presence of the US military that has allowed other countries to get by with puny militaries. Why should they spend their money on their own militaries when the US will gladly do it for them with the American taxpayer footing the bill?
The US not only "underwrites" global trade and global security, by doing so it is practicing global imperialism by another name. The word "underwrites" is one of the best euphamisms I've ever heard for imperialism. There are more roads to imperialism than taking over a country to corner a market. The US has simply found a different and less expensive way to skin a cat, and other countries have realized it's to their advantage to allow the US to do all the dirty work of protecting their market and having us pay for it. Who would pass up a bargain like that? You are kidding yourself if you think that is not outright imperialism by another name, such as "underwriting security."
-----------
For the record, I do prefer to have intelligent people running the military. But that is not what we have now and won't have for decades, if then. If the US were fighting WWII all over again, with today's military, we'd lose bigtime.
We have the most educated and professional military in the nation's history right now. I am rather baffled by your WWII comparison. If you mean we'd lose with the people of today's military commanding it in a WWII scenario, I disagree completely. If anything, we might have won the war sooner and easier (there were some real strategic blunders done during WWII). If you mean technologically, we'd have crushed the Nazis and Japanese fairly quickly.
There was no rationality to us starting the Iraq war, and the Afghanistan war has gone far beyond any necessity.
There are plenty of rationality to invading Iraq, but a major hunk of the foundation the rationale was base on turned out to be wrong. Afghanistan is a situation where if the U.S. leaves, it will probably turn back into a hotbed for terrorists, but there is not really anything the U.S. can accomplish by staying there either.
A truly critical thinker would probably not take part in these events, or by extension, enlist in the military. Also, humanists seem to be very sensitive people who have loads of empathy for others; those attracted to military service are generally not like that, IMO.
Tell that to the Army Special Forces ("Green Berets"). And that's a rather narrow-minded view of those who join the military.
"Lol, you'd make a great soldier" is not an argument for anything. If you are going to claim the U.S. military is used for "imperialistic purposes," then you need to explain how.