Those "loving" people...

[TomAZ]

Where do they all come from?:confused:


http://www.truthout.org/docs_2006/092107Z.shtml

[cpwill]

:lol: if i could get a nickel for everytime i get harrassed or hazed or threatned for anything and everything i say and do...

look, if he ever DOES get beaten then it's an issue for his chain of command to fix. if he doesn't, then he's just a crybaby on top of an athiest (which is probably why he started it all in the first place)

[Ethos]

:lol: if i could get a nickel for everytime i get harrassed or hazed or threatned for anything and everything i say and do...

look, if he ever DOES get beaten then it's an issue for his chain of command to fix. if he doesn't, then he's just a crybaby on top of an athiest (which is probably why he started it all in the first place)

The man is being threatened, but unless someone actually carries out that threat, he's just a "crybaby"?

Is this another example of Christian ethics?

Ethos

[Dangerrmouse]

:lol: if i could get a nickel for everytime i get harrassed or hazed or threatned for anything and everything i say and do...

Is this turning the other cheek, or appeasing bullies?

[Turenne]

He is an Atheist.He is no doubt a '******' as well.Cpwill is of course right, why care about the concerns of such a person?

[Sgt Schultz]

:lol: if i could get a nickel for everytime i get harrassed or hazed or threatned for anything and everything i say and do...

look, if he ever DOES get beaten then it's an issue for his chain of command to fix. if he doesn't, then he's just a crybaby on top of an athiest (which is probably why he started it all in the first place)

He isn't a crybaby, he's facing something that us atheists in the military face all the time. I can't tell you how many times in my career I was threatened, veiled and implied because I wasn't christian. The time for the chain of command to stop it is now, not after the fact. There is no religious test for being in the military.

[CVN76]

He isn't a crybaby, he's facing something that us atheists in the military face all the time. I can't tell you how many times in my career I was threatened, veiled and implied because I wasn't christian. The time for the chain of command to stop it is now, not after the fact. There is no religious test for being in the military.

You were threatened for not be a Christian? Or for being an atheist?

No religious test, but...

"I, _____, do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will support and defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies, foreign and domestic; that I will bear true faith and allegiance to the same; and that I will obey the orders of the President of the United States and the orders of the officers appointed over me, according to regulations and the Uniform Code of Military Justice. So help me God."

[Sgt Schultz]

You were threatened for not be a Christian? Or for being an atheist?

Both.

No religious test, but...

"I, _____, do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will support and defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies, foreign and domestic; that I will bear true faith and allegiance to the same; and that I will obey the orders of the President of the United States and the orders of the officers appointed over me, according to regulations and the Uniform Code of Military Justice. So help me God."

The requirement to say "so help me god" is not required when you affirm versus swear. There is a section within the US Code of Federal Regulations that when a person affirms versus swearing they are not required to recite "so help me god". I don't have the exact section here at my fingertips but do have it written down at the office.

[CVN76]

Both.



The requirement to say "so help me god" is not required when you affirm versus swear. There is a section within the US Code of Federal Regulations that when a person affirms versus swearing they are not required to recite "so help me god". I don't have the exact section here at my fingertips but do have it written down at the office.

Interesting. I have never witnessed anyone refuse to say "so help me God".

[Sgt Schultz]

Found the specifics.

AR 601-280 "The Army Retention Program," Appendix D Paragraph 2k, which states specifically that the reenlisting soldier need not swear to god.

USC 512 Title 28 (Revision June 25, 1948 ch. 646, 62 Stat. 925) which clarifies that an oath of affirmation excludes the 'so help me god' portion.

Air Force should refer to AFI 36-2606 (Ch.3, 2. "Detailed Instructions for Completing the DD Forms 4/1 and 4/2", Table 3.9, Item Number 15 - Confirmation of (Re)enlistment Oath).

[Sgt Schultz]

Interesting. I have never witnessed anyone refuse to say "so help me God".

I am one, and have witnessed many over the years.

[SpringRain]

Interesting. I have never witnessed anyone refuse to say "so help me God".

My house was burgled recently and the folks were caught within a few days. I had to go to their trials wherein I had to warn the PA that if he didn't want the proceedings to be slowed; he needed to know to give me a non-religious swearing in because I refuse to swear to an imaginary being. I ran into this first when going through a divorce. The judge didn't like it and my divorce rulings indicated that. It can be done, but it seems to bring quite a bit of attention when a person requests/requires a non-God swearing in.

[SpringRain]

I am one, and have witnessed many over the years.

Are you or the others you know of that have/are experiencing this able or willing to help the case against the military regarding forced religion? Have you ever been able to document threats or negative considerations because of your atheism?

[CVN76]

Are you or the others you know of that have/are experiencing this able or willing to help the case against the military regarding forced religion? Have you ever been able to document threats or negative considerations because of your atheism?

Just the record, there is no forced religion in the U.S. military.

[SpringRain]

Just the record, there is no forced religion in the U.S. military.

Perhaps in theory, but the suit wouldn't be happening if in practice there wasn't both forced religion and repercussions for being atheist or pagan which has also been in the news. If I recall families had to sue to get pagan symbols on their headstones of pagan servicemen killed in the current wars.

[Sgt Schultz]

Are you or the others you know of that have/are experiencing this able or willing to help the case against the military regarding forced religion? Have you ever been able to document threats or negative considerations because of your atheism?

I never documented them because in the vast majority of cases I was able to overcome the threats because of my record and reputation. Most of the time the threats were implied but never overt because the guilty parties knew they would end up on the wrong side of the law. I have assisted airmen in knowing their rights when they too were harassed. But in a few cases I have had to stand my ground and recite regulations and remind individuals, including some officers who really should have known better that there is no religious test to be an American or in the military.

[SpringRain]

I never documented them because in the vast majority of cases I was able to overcome the threats because of my record and reputation. Most of the time the threats were implied but never overt because the guilty parties knew they would end up on the wrong side of the law. I have assisted airmen in knowing their rights when they too were harassed. But in a few cases I have had to stand my ground and recite regulations and remind individuals, including some officers who really should have known better that there is no religious test to be an American or in the military.

So do you think that the fellow(s) filing suit just were ineffective in presenting their cases to the higher powers or didn't have a record that allowed them to be as "bold" as yourself? Is it because they are "in country" and responses are different there? I'm not trying to annoy, but I am confused that you experienced this and seem to have been able to resolve it without negative consequences but these other fellows couldn't.

[TomAZ]

It will be very interesting to see how this situation plays-out. Myself, I would never have opted for a lawsuit because there are better options. For one, the Major in question did, in fact, overstep his boundaries. Obviously he isn't aware of how vulnerable he is, as all military officers are, especially the career types. Officer Fitness Reports are very meaningful and even a slight blemish can be the difference between a promotion or not getting one.

As for the gangsta's who are harrassing this kid, they are more the cry-babies who are snivelin' because someone rejected their imaginary man-in-the-sky. Soldiers like this would have made Hitler smile. Gott mit Uns!

[Sgt Schultz]

So do you think that the fellow(s) filing suit just were ineffective in presenting their cases to the higher powers or didn't have a record that allowed them to be as "bold" as yourself? Is it because they are "in country" and responses are different there? I'm not trying to annoy, but I am confused that you experienced this and seem to have been able to resolve it without negative consequences but these other fellows couldn't.

I was in the Air Force, this guy is in the Army; two very different climates when it comes to getting things resolved like this. Also him being in the war zone doesn't help him when trying to get issues like this resolved. Religion is very prevalent in the military and those who don't fit in are seen as trouble makers by some, especially if religion plays a significant role in their own lives. There are those who abuse their rank and authority, or at least push it as close to the edge as they can. In my case some of the instances later in my career were much easier to handle simply because I was a Senior NCO and had proven myself to make it that far.

[Mickey Shane]

The faithful need to understand the rights of persons who do not believe.

That lawsuit is right as rain, and will win, or this ain't the U.S. of A.

[heel31ok]

The man is being threatened, but unless someone actually carries out that threat, he's just a "crybaby"?

Is this another example of Christian ethics?

Ethos
No this is an example of how police ethics. Don't call us until something actually happens.

[Dangerrmouse]

cpwill morphed into a policeman?

[Ethos]

No this is an example of how police ethics. Don't call us until something actually happens.

I see. So if a woman is being threatened with rape, she should wait until after being violated before she complains about it.

Makes perfect sense.

Ethos

[cpwill]

The man is being threatened, but unless someone actually carries out that threat, he's just a "crybaby"?

Is this another example of Christian ethics?

Ethos


no, it is an example of military ethics.

look, if you complain about "oh life is hard"; you're going to get verbally harrassed in the military.

if the man is beaten then he has a reason to actually file suit. but as i understand it 1) he hasn't been 2) the military is having trouble locating the actual officer the suit mentions and 3) life isn't fair in the military.

[Ethos]

no, it is an example of military ethics.

look, if you complain about "oh life is hard"; you're going to get verbally harrassed in the military.

if the man is beaten then he has a reason to actually file suit. but as i understand it 1) he hasn't been 2) the military is having trouble locating the actual officer the suit mentions and 3) life isn't fair in the military.

So again we come to the conclusion that threats are meaningless. Unless the man is physically assaulted, he should not open his mouth.

It may be a militaristic viewpoint, but hardly a Christian one. I would have hoped the latter would outweigh the former in open discussion. Apparently not.

Ethos

[Sgt Schultz]

no, it is an example of military ethics.

look, if you complain about "oh life is hard"; you're going to get verbally harrassed in the military.

if the man is beaten then he has a reason to actually file suit. but as i understand it 1) he hasn't been 2) the military is having trouble locating the actual officer the suit mentions and 3) life isn't fair in the military.

What military ethics is it for an officer to threaten an enlisted person because of personal beliefs? None that I know of or was taught during my career. And the military is having a hard time locating the officer? Sure they are. :rolleyes:

[TomAZ]

There was a screw-up about the name of the Major in question. The Army has found him.

www.myspace.com/freddywelborn

[steveksux]

The major in question is probably just a little on edge from being persecuted. He just got back from a deployment in the War on Christmas, and is suffering Post Traumatic Stress Disorder. When enlisted men don't believe in Jesus, he has flashbacks.

Right Christian of him, using color of authority to push Jesus on people. I've often wondered why Jesus, with all the fishermen in his entourage, never resorted to using nets. Persuasion is much less efficient.

Randy

[CVN76]

I think the reason this guy is getting harassed is not because he is an atheist, but because he sued the Secretary of Defense and an Army major. Really, who in the military would do that? Sue the Secretary of Defense. Or sue a Major. He should have used other avenues. Use the chain of command and if that fails make an IG complaint and it should be investigated.

[Ethos]

He should have used other avenues. Use the chain of command and if that fails make an IG complaint and it should be investigated.

Now this I can agree with.



I think the reason this guy is getting harassed is not because he is an atheist, but because he sued the Secretary of Defense and an Army major.

This I cannot. While I agree such an action likely exacerbated the situation, I suspect he was being harassed before the suit was filed, if for no other reason than because we have people in this thread telling us it happens.

Ethos

[cpwill]

What military ethics is it for an officer to threaten an enlisted person because of personal beliefs? None that I know of or was taught during my career. And the military is having a hard time locating the officer? Sure they are. :rolleyes:

did the officer threaten physical violence? or did other enlisted ;).

[Sgt Schultz]

did the officer threaten physical violence? or did other enlisted ;).

A threat to harm someone, whether it is physical or related to an individuals career is still a threat. It is unbecoming of an officer, or an enlisted person for that matter and should never be tolerated, period.

[TomAZ]

did the officer threaten physical violence? or did other enlisted ;).

cp; Obviously you didn't read the whole article. Yes, he was threatened by his peers, also the meeting was approved by a chaplain.

Now the question I have for you is would you just ignore a similar situation if a jewish, muslim or atheist officer broke-up and harrassed a bible-study group? I think not.

[CVN76]

cp; Obviously you didn't read the whole article. Yes, he was threatened by his peers, also the meeting was approved by a chaplain.

Now the question I have for you is would you just ignore a similar situation if a jewish, muslim or atheist officer broke-up and harrassed a bible-study group? I think not.

It is all allegedly threatened. Just because someone files a lawsuit doesn't mean it is true.

Besides the author of the article is Jason Leopold:

Jason Leopold Caught Sourceless Again (http://www.cjr.org/politics/jason_leopold_caught_sourceles.php?page=1)

We wonder if the folks over at Truthout.org are rethinking their affiliation with reporter and serial fabulist Jason Leopold. Leopold, you may recall, is the freelance reporter who was caught making stuff up in a 2002 Salon.com article, self-admittedly “getting it completely wrong” in pieces for Dow Jones, and had his own memoir cancelled because of concerns over the accuracy of quotations....

[cpwill]

A threat to harm someone, whether it is physical or related to an individuals career is still a threat. It is unbecoming of an officer, or an enlisted person for that matter and should never be tolerated, period.

a threat of violence from an officer is stupidity and if repeated definitely should be sent up as it is a violation of their station. a threat of violence from enlisted is tuesday. hell, i think every chewing out session i've ever heard included some form of suggestion of or threat of violence. :rolleyes: i stick to my original statement; this guy is "that guy"

[TomAZ]

[QUOTE=CVN76;1071556]It is all allegedly threatened. Just because someone files a lawsuit doesn't mean it is true.


You're absolutely correct. As I said in my earlier post, it will be interesting to see how this situation plays-out.

[Sgt Schultz]

Another article from a different source.

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/20922106/