Dawkins to Leave Military Atheist Event Early, Army to Blame?
In publishing the schedule of the upcoming atheist Rock Beyond Belief at Fort Bragg, Justin Griffith highlighted a significant change to his lineup. For weeks the event has hyped that the controversial group Aiden would “headline” the event right into the main draw — Richard Dawkins. In fact, the Rock Beyond Belief website still says
Aiden will bring the rock right before Richard Dawkins goes on stage…
Now, the “main event” after Aiden is…a videotaped Q&A session with Dawkins. Dawkins’ speech is occurring much earlier in the day. Why?
There are too many variables that simply need to be locked down according to our contract with Fort Bragg.
Ah, its Fort Bragg’s fault. But wait, maybe not:
They did not force our hand…
That sounds more conciliatory, but its immediately followed with a dig at the Army:
…but I’m sure they are relieved to know that we will be able to censor / edit ahead of time.
As noted previously, the Army leadership has bent over backwards trying to support the atheists’ event. Even when Fort Bragg has given them exactly what they’ve wanted, they’ve still managed to find ways to denigrate the post that is giving them a free venue. (Indeed, other websites continue to mis-report the history of Rock Beyond Belief, and still portray the atheists as the persecuted innocents.)
All Griffith had to do was cull the melodrama and tell the truth: Richard Dawkins can’t do his speech at the planned time because he’s going to be on an airplane. So they made a schedule change. Big deal. Why drag the Army through the mud yet one more time?
You appear to have a serious problem with reality. You are seeing things that just aren’t there. After reading through your other posts regarding this event, I have to say, your ability to lie for Jesus knows no bounds.
You are a disgrace and an embarrassment to American service members.
@Skeeve
Richard Dawkins’ personal schedule was used to take an dig at the US Army, which has done nothing but magnanimously support this same ideological group. What part of that “isn’t there?”
“Seeing things that just aren’t there?” Atheists have to stretch to find things over which to be offended and claim persecution in an environment that very clearly supports them. The military goes out of its way to support them. Seems they’re the ones seeing something that doesn’t exist.
Outside of a gradeschool playground, calling someone a liar is normally supported by fact. Would you care to cite one, or is your position based only on name-calling?
@Skeeve…once again, someone who shows up, makes a claim and doesn’t post anything to support their claim.
If in fact you say JD is lying, post your facts. Pretty simple, heh?
The military does not “Go out of its way” to support atheists. The USAFA goes out of its way to make trouble for atheists. Clowns like the guy who writes this blog – goes out of their way to make trouble for atheists.
We don’t need fighter pilots anyway. Certainly not ones that still believe in a skygod.
Can’t they just pray the enemy away – or doesn’t that work too well
How does USAFA go out of it’s way to make trouble for atheists? Once again, when you make an accusation, back it up with facts…
Here’s an very clear example, Lt. Frank. When the freethinkers group at the Academy had the late Christopher Hitchens come to speak to their group, they had to do it off campus. But the Christian SPIRE groups, prayer breakfasts and luncheons, and any other Christian events can all take place on campus and have whatever speakers they want to.
I was at that meeting with Hitch, by the way, and it was a great time.
Nobody at USAFA in the cadet wing was ever pushy – the only people that ever butt heads with… more secular cadets… were permanent party members. That group of O6’s that Paquette had to keep dealing with who were *clearly* in support of Christian groups over secular ones: that’s where the issues lie. Force those ignorant blowhards into more precarious position in their career so that they can’t utilize polemics and demagoguery to bully cadets who don’t share their faith.
That’s just personal, anecdotal experience, though. Could be completely wrong.
@Chris Rodda
Not according to your boss, Michael Weinstein. The MRFF position is that you have to be the right kind of Christian before you can speak on USAFA. The only reason the Christian speaker was allowed to attend last year was because Weinstein lost the lawsuit he filed to stop it. Remember?
The MRFF opposes people like Clebe McClary, Franklin Graham, and General Boykin because of their prior comments, and that’s what did Hitchens in as well:
On the other hand, the MRFF supports atheists who have made prior offensive comments. Funny set of contradictions for a self-described advocate of “religious freedom,” no?
The cadets were still given an SCA, meaning the Academy gave the cadets special permission to be off campus just so they could meet with Hitchens — even though no other cadets were allowed off campus at the time.
So the Academy did go out of its way to let them hear Hitchens, even if it didn’t allow Hitchens to speak at USAFA.
Actually, JD, the issue with McClary was that the prayer luncheon was being promoted by the command structure. And the issue with Franklin Graham at the Pentagon was that he was speaking for the NDP Task Force, a private organization, in violation of the prohibition on endorsing non-federal entities. And Boykin? Well there was that little matter of his having been rebuked by the president (Bush) and the Sec. of Defense (Rumsfeld) because his comments are so offensive. But, the main thing is that all of your examples are events that were supposed to be for people of ALL faiths, and, in two of the cases, it was mainly CHRISTIANS who objected to them being allowed to speak.
So, forget about the prayer breakfasts and luncheons. That was a bad example on my part. It’s the SPIRE groups that are really the apples to apples comparison to the Academy’s freethinkers group. Has a Christian SPIRE group ever been denied permission to meet on campus because of who they chose to have at their meetings?
Oh, and by the way, JD, did you see the nice write-up I did about you on Huffington Post? We really do need to find a better photo of you, though. You look sort of like a terrorist in the one I have. ;-)
@Chris Rodda said:
When, in fact, the MRFF said:
Yeah, that sounds like “command structure.”
@Chris Rodda said:
When, in fact:
Yeah, that sounds like “speaking for the NDP Task Force.”
@Chris Rodda said:
Referring to Boykin, Weinstein said
Yeah, “vile Islamophobe” sounds a lot like “prior rebukes.”
@Chris Rodda said:
And? Are you trying to say a Christian can’t speak to “people of ALL faiths?” There you go again…
And finally, @Chris Rodda said:
Yet she just said above:
So, you’re admitting you previously made an accusation of religious discrimination against USAFA with no evidence to back it up.
And you wonder why no one but sycophants and conspiracy theorists believe you.
Well done.
Yes, we and lots of other people find Boykin, McClary, and Graham offensive, and that’s why people have come to us to help get them disinvited from speaking. But that’s almost never the only reason. There’s usually something else, like the promotion of a speaker by the command structure or some other violation of regulations, like the endorsement of a non-federal entity. I know you have trouble seeing that there are sometimes more than one reason for things.
But, I ask again: Has a Christian SPIRE group ever been denied permission to meet on campus because of who they chose to have at their meetings like the freethinkers group was?
We were given an SCA? Nobody told me. We used passes because we could.
Aside from that: you think it is equitable giving secular cadets an SCA to fill out and get signed and giving religious cadets speakers that they can walk to a few hundred yards away? You *really* don’t see a difference between those two things?
Here’s what Hitch actually had to write on the matter: http://www.militaryreligiousfreedom.org/press-releases/ap_vanityfair_combined.html
…just so we have actual sources and you don’t have to take my word that I was actually there and actually experienced the things you’re discussing rather blithely.
@Steven Ardler
Your “actual source” was already discussed here when it came out. It’s also irrelevant. The issue is USAFA’s conduct in the incident, not what Hitchens thought of it. Blithely speaking.
You’re being disingenuous. The Freethinker SPIRE group could walk a few hundred yards and meet with speakers, too.
> The Freethinker SPIRE group could walk a few hundred yards and meet with speakers, too.
That’s what the issue is: they didn’t let Mr. Hitchens on base, but they let Christian/Jewish/etc. speakers traipse about the place. Heck, they even let movie stars see what they’d like from time to time for PR.
Did you think we were complaining for some other reason…?
Additionally, little of that discussion had anything to do with USAFA… really none of it did but I’m feeling generous since the word did appear on that webpage.
You seem to feel I’m attacking you disingenuously, but I’m just trying to offer first hand experience rather than some emotionally charged polemic about the issue. You *are* discussing it rather blithely, probably because you weren’t personally involved, but that’s hardly insulting.
Also, your article is factually incorrect:
> He failed to comprehend that permission to go off base during the week is something any cadet requires
Cadets *can* leave base on weekdays (firsties, at least, and often others) without SCA. The SCA is typically used so cadets don’t have to use passes and so other duties don’t take priority (as they would over simple passes), but because they are such a pain to get and fill out most just use passes to get to whatever off-base function they might want to attend. At least, that’s how it was when it actually happened, but what do I know?
(factually incorrect in context, which was an implication that an SCA was needed to leave base)
…just realized how that could be interpreted incorrectly and wanted to explain a bit better.
@Steven Ardler
If you have issues with factual correctness and context, you need to reread the Vanity Fair article. It was Hitchens who first said what you believe to be incorrect. And cadets do need permission to go off base, no?
You are not using your “first hand experience” to illuminate USAFA’s treatment of atheists vs Christians. You’re using it to claim discrimination by the military, supported only by vague implications. You categorically equate Hitchens (and two other atheists) with “dozens of Christian speakers” — implying each of them equaled Hitchens’ status, notoriety, and penchant for “degrading others,” as USAFA explained. That’s disingenuous. If you disagree, provide evidence to support your accusations.
While you may have been at the pub with Hitchens, that does not grant immediate credibility with regard to the decision processes of USAFA’s leadership. If you have such first hand insight, please share it. To this point you’ve said nothing that isn’t already in the press — except that it was a “great time.”
@Chris Rodda tried to use this as an example of USAFA going out of its way to make trouble for atheists. Neither you nor she have proven any such malicious intent based on philosophical viewpoint. In fact, given that USAFA gave priority permission for cadets to leave campus specifically to speak with Hitchens, the opposite seems to be true.
Yeah … the freethinkers group got “special permission” to leave campus. I’m sure they saw that as a “privilege” every bit as much as the Danbury Baptists who got “special permission” to not pay taxes to the established church in Connecticut saw that as a privilege. In fact, they saw it as so much of a special privilege that they even wrote to President Thomas Jefferson about it!
Looks like I took too long to return here. Mr’s Rodda and Ardler seem to have it covered, though.
@Lt. Frank: My proof is on almost any page dealing with atheists here. (I haven’t read any other topics, so can’t comment about their veracity)
@Skeeve
Should have been, “Mrs Rodda and Mr Ardler”, my apologies, Chris.
> You’re using it to claim discrimination by the military, supported only by vague implications.
I *am*, am I? If I remember correctly from the full 7-odd sentences I’ve written, I don’t believe I’ve done anything of the sort. I did ask if you saw a difference between two separate scenarios – a question you dismissed without cause or reason as you felt I was “disingenuous.” I do have to wonder, to what definition of the word “disingenuous” are my words apropos while yours remain innocent?
>You categorically equate Hitchens (and two other atheists) with “dozens of Christian speakers” — implying each of them equaled Hitchens’ status, notoriety, and penchant for “degrading others,” as USAFA explained.
I did no such thing. I merely asked:
>you think it is equitable giving secular cadets an SCA to fill out and get signed and giving religious cadets speakers that they can walk to a few hundred yards away? You *really* don’t see a difference between those two things?
My quote and your words about it are stunningly disparate.
Furthermore, I’d hardly expect the board of Colonels that oversees the cadet groups / speakers that Cadet Paquette had to appeal to had anything to say about the “character” of the speaker. If I remember correctly, they had more questions about why (now 2LT) Paquette felt that his group *deserved* a speaker. I’d have to ask him, directly, as it’s been a few years now.
Never, however, did he mention that Mr. Hitchens’ was disqualified from coming on base because of some penchant for “degrading others” (a particularly biased and relative claim. As I see it, there are many speakers who have been considered totally acceptable who have a penchant for diminishing those of us who do not have religious leanings… McClary comes to mind). I understand that the official press release from USAFA said as much, but I don’t believe that it was made clear to us that Hitch wouldn’t be allowed because he was an inflammatory character.
>In fact, given that USAFA gave priority permission for cadets to leave campus specifically to speak with Hitchens, the opposite seems to be true.
As I’ve pointed out, twice now, this is hilariously misleading. Requiring that the freethinkers group go off-base for the *one* speaker we have all year, while the religious cadets are pandered to during meals (a Chaplain yelling “God loves you” at me before morning meal comes to mind) and with religious speakers within a few hundred feet of their dorm room (requiring no special paperwork), is somewhat ridiculous. If I didn’t know better, I’d say you have a somewhat obvious bias in this situation… that is an inaccurate statement, is it not?
All said, I didn’t feel “discriminated against” while at USAFA, it may interest you to know. I did feel as if the infamous “board of Colonels” Paquette had to stand before were ignorant blowhards, but I didn’t make a huge fuss about it then or now. There is certainly a problem with religion and the military, but it’s far too large an issue to tackle in blog-post format and I don’t much care to do so.
@Steven Ardler
I take it that the lack of response to my first point is an admission that you were incorrect in your charge? I only ask because of the lack of an admission of that fact.
>You’re the one who said [emphasis added]:
>That implies an environment that discriminates against atheists. It appears you’re now retracting that statement. Fair enough.
It does? I thought it implied that they allowed (/allow) plenty of Christian speakers on base, but not Hitchens. Does that:
>categorically equate Hitchens (and two other atheists) with “dozens of Christian speakers” — implying each of them equaled Hitchens’ status, notoriety, and penchant for “degrading others,” as USAFA explained.
No. I did not “[imply] that each of them equated…”
>As noted above, you equated Hitchens with other religious speakers that “traipse about the place,” implying they should have received equal treatment. And that’s not all. You said USAFA
I did not equate them, but I did note the barring of his entry to the base (which requires no funds or anything on their end) as opposed to the free-access given to celebrity-types and highly-religious speakers.
>chose to bar entry to three separate atheist speakers regardless of the fact that they would consume zero resources AND that dozens of Christian speakers had been allowed the very same year.
>Again, without qualification you equate atheist speakers with Christian speakers. Merely possessing an ideology or theology is not sufficient cause to claim identical treatment.
Oh, fun, you’ve dug up posts from elsewhere on the internet void of context (this post was referencing more Fun with USAFA the following year – not Hitchens, specifically). The last gasps of a lost argument, I think I might assume.
What is sufficient cause to claim identical treatment? What system do you propose to determine that? The Wiccan hill doesn’t exactly have hundreds of cadets at the top of it, but it still deserves due respect and equal treatment (which was not offered when some cadet (presumably) stuck a large wooden cross in the middle of their circle). What must atheist speakers do to earn the same respect that religious speakers do? Do they need doctorates in theology or similarly degrees potentially offered by diploma mills? Why do they need qualification, if Christian ministers (or even simply openly Christian military members) are offered speaking positions at the yearly “Character symposiums” that USAFA hosts?
What, specifically, do *you* think that an atheist group needs to warrant *allowing speakers on base* in the same way that religious groups are allowed?
>You’re moving the goalposts. I’d like to see a citation of Clebe McClary “degrading others,” which was the issue at hand.
You’re quoting only a portion of a paragraph and claiming a moved goalpost. HIGHLY disingenuous, I’d say. The larger context doubted the validity of the claim that *Hitchens* has made “degrading remarks” in any more appreciable manner than *McClary*. My position is that neither is particularly inflammatory, but only one was seen fit to speak by permanent party – that’s a fairly appreciable bias. Where Hitchens called religion a “fairy tale” or something similarly “rage-inducing”, McClary might have something like “To him, USMC will always mean a U. S. Marine for Christ” on his website – a position fairly diminutive to atheistic members of the armed forces. I see no clear difference between these two comments, save that one favors a position held by the majority.
>You’re digressing, again.
I’m not. You’re removing portions of my paragraphs without context, again, though. Here’s the full two sentences:
>As I’ve pointed out, twice now, this is hilariously misleading. Requiring that the freethinkers group go off-base for the *one* speaker we have all year, while the religious cadets are pandered to during meals (a Chaplain yelling “God loves you” at me before morning meal comes to mind) and with religious speakers within a few hundred feet of their dorm room (requiring no special paperwork), is somewhat ridiculous.
Given this quote, this response:
>Are you really going to suggest that the Westboro Baptist Church be allowed to speak at USAFA just because they’re the “*one*” speaker invited by a group all year? Quantity has nothing to do with it.
Is hilariously misleading and poorly formed.
Also, I don’t see any reason why a representative of the Westboro Baptist Church shouldn’t be allowed to speak to a student group (and I think I’d find it a highly educational look into radical Christianity), if invited. Though, with them, you might actually have a case to make for their language being inflammatory, or their remarks degrading.
>USAFA said Hitchens was not allowed on campus because of his prior statements. It was likely an issue of public relations as much as anything else.
Which is why the topic of the remarks of *Christian speakers* and whether Hitchens could actually have been considered “inflammatory” is wholly relevant. If *Christian speakers* were allowed on base, where they told their audience that they should “make warriors for Jesus” or other nonsense that’s said regularly in the chapel, *There is no reason* you can say that Hitchens shouldn’t have been allowed to talk to atheistic cadets about the silliness of religion.
>In order for your complaint that “Christians had speakers…” to be relevant, the speakers in question have to have been of the same character as Hitchens.
You haven’t provided any evidence of Hitchens to be of poor character – any more than any other person in the world. Should every Christian who has ever called for proselytizing not be allowed on campus, as well (intentional reductio ad absurdum – don’t fly off and attack a straw man, again).
>You just categorically say if a Christian speaker gets on campus, then Hitchens should, too.
Save good reason to the contrary… *Yes*. You, and USAFA, have not provided good reason to the contrary, especially considering USAFA’s history of inviting more religious speakers with similarly questionable pasts (in that neither Hitchens past nor Christian speakers’ pasts are particularly questionable).
@Steven Ardler
You’re attributing an argument to me I’ve never made. USAFA made a public statement on its logic for not allowing Hitchens on the base. The question you’ve raised, or not, is whether religious speakers also had to be held to that same logic. I neither criticized nor defended their logic.
*I’ve* never said anyone had poor character. *I’ve* never said Hitchens shouldn’t be allowed on campus. USAFA gave its reasons. Those were what was being discussed. The question was whether USAFA should have restricted Christians for the same reasons they did Hitchens. You provided no evidence there were any religious speakers that year who should have been restricted because of their prior comments.
An interesting question previously hinted at here, but not relevant to this discussion.
This is but one example of several instances in your comment where you use the underlying logic “if religious…then atheists.” Why are you comparing the treatment of atheists with the treatment of religious groups?
And yes, that’s an honest question.
Just to provide an update, and to clear up some facts:
Any speaker, any outside brochure of any kind, presented by a SPIRE group, has to be approved through the chaplain’s office. I’m a leader in a SPIRE group, and I learned that when we tried to set up a guest speaker a while back.
Also, I’d like to point out that there are secular SPIRE groups who now have the exact same privileges as religious ones, such as meeting on base. Secular SPIRE leaders are allowed to come, and any guest speakers must be approved just like they would for a religious SPIRE group.
JD said: And? Are you trying to say a Christian can’t speak to “people of ALL faiths?” and talked of the “right kind of Christian.”
Let me say that I don’t think all Christians can or should officially speak to people of other faiths. Fundamentalist Evangelicals are sworn to convert those to whom they speak, causing an adversarial situation out of the gate.
As to the “right kind of Christian” I have always believed the moderate Christian is the Icon for Christianity. The fundamentalist is far too extreme to carry Christianity forward as a respected faith. Moderation in all things seems to be a Biblical provision yet Evangelical Christians, especially the Dominionists run rough shod over that bit of advice.
Religion, it seems to me is not a race in which believers place first second or third. It is a privately held belief system that is supposed to elevate the believer and its doctrines to words and deeds of peace and good will. Many of today’s Christians appear to be for one world Christianity to the exclusion of all other faiths which they consider false religions.
This creates the crusades, decimations, pogroms, inqiuisitions, genocides and other dark activities in which Christianity has found itself. Nouvous (sp) Christianity would put doctrine back where Jesus had it. Peace, love, gentleness, caring for the poor, accepting women as equals and a lot of other stuff. Christians no longer have to be warriors for their faith. But they can be warriors for their country.
Pingback: God and Country » Atheists Denigrate US Army that Supports Them. Again.