Air Force Atheists Report ChristianFighterPilot.com as Hate Speech
It seems an Air Force Airman was upset that he was unable to access an atheist blog while he was on duty. To try to prove he was experiencing discrimination, he apparently tried to access ChristianFighterPilot.com from the same government computer and was successful. He couldn’t have that:
The “contractor” is largely an automated filtering system that frequently stirs debate over the sites it blocks and allows. Many blogs are blocked simply because they are blogs — that is, if they are formatted and recognized that way. The young atheist activist apparently failed to understand the nuances of the websites he was comparing (his accusation about format was inaccurate).
To be clear, it doesn’t matter whether you’re an atheist or a Christian, or whether you’re looking up an atheist or a Christian website: There is little reason to be doing it from a government computer. The military does allow a certain amount of “morale” web-surfing, which is remotely related to why most bases now allow YouTube and Facebook. If you’re going to take your little “mental health break” and update the world on your Facebook status during the duty day, fine.
As to a military member trying to get the government to block websites by calling them “hate speech” because of disagreement with their faith perspective…
As one of the programmers of the automated filtering system, I do NOT consider your site hate speech JD and I’ll challenge anyone that thinks/believes differently.
I have seen some very bad hate speech sites from all walks of life and beliefs. The lawyers/EEO typically decide what is or is not hate speech and not everyone agrees with them. The “system” to undo a decision they make in ridiculously painful.
I was in the Air Force myself, for 9.5 years. Seldom have I been more ashamed than I am of the notoriety of the “Christian Fighter Pilot” and the hateful speech on your blog. It’s truly people like you who give all Christians a bad name.
I’m a non-Christian and I now assume anyone wearing a cross is bigoted, self-righteous and against health care for my daughter. Pre-natal testing showed a chromosome abnormality. I did not miscarry, partially because of the good care I got from an Ob-gyn who calls his god Allah. Now, thanks to the ACA, she has good health care until she is 26yo. After that, I guess the good “Christians” like you just assume she should die and not be a plight on wealthy Christian tax-payers.
Many of the times I wore my “Mess Dress” I was actually on the arm of a fellow officer who happened to be gay. I’m proud of my Air Force service and embarrassed by people like you who are without compassion. I will work very hard to ensure your blog no longer appears on computers paid for with my tax money.
So do you think it OK that the other blog is blocked and yours not is OK?
Did the other site contain hate speech?
I hope they are successful – and while I respect your service to our country, you are awful and what you say is awful – and further your crazy 2000 year old hokum has no place in our military.
I think you’ll find that the guy’s problem is not with christianfighterpilot itself, but with the hypocrisy behind the fact that it is permitted whilst freethoughtblogs is blocked.
Also he has not, to my knowledge stated that cfp is hate speech. The reason for using that term is that the “justification” given for blocking ftb is that it’s classed as a “blog site / hate speech page”.
The issue here is that rules and standards have to be applied evenly; either both should be permitted, or neither
I must object to your slander against homosexuals that you have plastered all over your blog. And yes this website is a blog just as FTB is a blog. Given this fact the military should either allow both or none at all for the sake of fairness, and most importantly, because the religion clause of the Constitution demands it. And yes many of your comments, particularly about homosexuals, ARE hate speech! Just because it is couched in religious bull[–] doesn’t make it less so. Stupid f[–]g murderer.
[Edited by Admin.]
You cowardly piece of filth. Yes, I wrote *cowardly*, and I mean it. When the day comes that you don’t attack those below you in the chain of command, I may think about reassessing, but right now, you’re at least acting as a cowardly bully.
And as I’m a *civilian*, and not in your chain of command, and the *civilian* authority is paramount in the United States of America (regardless of your insubordinate and frankly treasonous posts against the current Commander in Chief), I can also call you a [ — ], and whether you post this or censor it, *you* read it and realize what at least one civilian thinks of your antics. I look forward to blackballing you when you’re out of the force and reducing you to a position where you’re unable to get a job or make a living due to your sociopathy.
[Edited by Admin.]
@Sherry
That should work out well for you.
@rork and @Paul
Most of those accusations are coming from assumption, while more data is necessary to actually answer that question.
FreeThoughtBlogs is a wholly blog-based site. If you view the code, you can see it was built on a blog platform. On the other hand, ChristianFighterPilot.com is a static HTML, non-blog site. Currently, evidence suggests this blog — God and Country — is, and was, blocked from some locations. ChristianFighterPilot.com, which is a static website, was not necessarily so.
@M.F.
You may want to reference a dictionary and try that again.
@Paul
Your assessment, while noble, is incorrect.
Interesting that a few critics are so worked up about the mischaracterized content of this site — and not what members of the military are doing during the duty day on their government computers.
I asked a buddy what freethoughtblog is, hes an atheist, and he told me its a cult for crazy atheists, that even most other atheists hate, so i think thats different from this website
@Sealpup
So, you have never been to the site and you are giving an opinion on it? Are you kidding me? How can you compare two things together if you haven’t evaluated both?
Just a little clarification on the use of internet for all services. What is provided to a government computer is actually called NiPR or Non-secure Internet PRotocol. It is a internet based protocol used for unclassified data that is NOT the internet. NiPR is a standard that is enforced by a military agency called DISA. While there are some pretty definitive sites that are distinctly blocked from access while using a government computer, the general filters are set to block based upon keywords, specific protocols (such as chat) and foreign internet sites. There is a slew of things that can be blocked by NiPR and gateway access firewalls and while it is up to the Information Assurance officers at each location to strengthen or loosen the access, there is a standard that must be met in order for a network to maintain accreditation. Each and every Command must maintain records of violation and changes implemented.
It is quite possible that in one location you may be able to access a site, while in another you can not. There is some level of uniformity, but the restrictions can also be stronger and more prevalent in a location based upon the level of security (both physical and network) of the area that the equipment is located in.
While I am not a theist, I do not consider this blog to be hate speech. I may not agree with everything I read on here, but that does not mean it is necessarily hateful. I do however take issue on occasion with much of what I have read on free thought blogs. I do believe at times that it does border on hate speech and has even crossed the line at times. I am on Fort Bragg and am intimately familiar with all the controversy surrounding RBB. Had the organizers gone with the original intent of the event (Fort Bragg Freedom Festival) it would have been much more successful and been an inclusive event celebrating 1st Amendment rights rather than the hateful vitriol that flowed in the planning, execution and post event stages. Non theists in the military have been here all along, in close to 19 years I have never come across a situation that I could not state my opinion on and not feel threatened. I do not need a “foxhole atheist” to speak for me, especially when he waxes so eloquently in a hateful and ignorant manner.
The problem with many of those representing the military non-theist personnel is mostly they are doing it for their own agenda and they have not asked the community, writ large, if they even need representation or how they wish to be represented. FYI, the Bragg chapter of MASH has new leadership and they will be much more positive in how they represent themselves and the community. It will take a bit for them to erase the stigma that not even many of them are aware of, but I do believe they will be very successful in their endeavors. I hope the Airman who decided he needed to stir the pot with his dislike of this site and request it be placed on the no access list will evolve and understand that the military is not about the individual, but the team effort. The desire to stir the pot is counter to good order and discipline. There is a time to speak up, and there is a time to use your government computer for what it is intended for rather than personal needs.
One correction to my prior posting, NiPR stands for Non-Secure internet Protocol ROUTING. I would hate to get troubleshot on services I provide to military members of all services while deployed and in a garrison environment.
JD, you are certainly not a coward for defending traditional values in the military. Especially considering the visceral response from the religion of atheism. Every worldview deserves to be heard. And no one should take pride in fearmongering – what the atheist posts regarding this article are trying to accomplish. How ironic.
@jake
If i ask someone on the ground for a sitrep, and that sitrep tells me the area is fubar, i don’t have to walk the ground for myself to be able to report back that the area is in fact fubar. I stated in my post that the intel i got about freethoughtblog was secondhand and i wasn’t the primary source, this itself comes with qualifications that aren’t required to be illucidated.
In short jake, your point is moot.