As noted before, some atheists, like many political or social activists, can sometimes become so engrossed in their presumed persecution they see offense where none exists.

Military atheists, for example, took a General officer to task when she made the fairly benign statement that military service requires you to believe in things “bigger than yourself.”  They derided a US military Chaplain for describing his duties as required by regulation.  In both cases, statements were attributed to the officers they didn’t actually say — it was just what the atheists thought they heard — a perception apparently skewed by an assumption of persecution.  Most recently, atheists brought up an old story about a Navy atheist who was “forced to permanently cover” a tattoo.  CTR2 Michael Wheeler had the logo of the band Bad Religion, the “crossbuster,” tattooed on his arm where it was visible, even in uniform:

Naturally, there was much consternation and implication of persecution on the part of the atheists.  In the end, a few who commented did correctly note a tattoo like the “crossbuster” would likely contravene military regulations against offensive body art.  For example, from Army Regulation 670-1:

1-8.e.(2) Tattoos or brands that are extremist, indecent, sexist, or racist are prohibited, regardless of location on the body, as they are prejudicial to good order and discipline within units.
(a) Extremist tattoos or brands are those affiliated with, depicting, or symbolizing extremist philosophies, organizations, or activities. Extremist philosophies, organizations, and activities are those which advocate racial, gender or ethnic hatred or intolerance; advocate, create, or engage in illegal discrimination based on race, color, gender, ethnicity, religion, or national origin; or advocate violence or other unlawful means of depriving individual rights under the U.S. Constitution, Federal, or State law (see para 4–12, AR 600–20).

The Navy regulation is simpler (NAVADMIN 110/06):

Tattoos/body art/brands located anywhere on the body that are prejudicial to good order, discipline, and morale or are of a nature to bring discredit upon the naval service are prohibited.

Notably, both indicate such tattoos are impermissible even if they are not visible.  Also, multiple service regulations establish commanders as final authorities as to compliance.  However, even Wheeler acknowledged his body art was offensive:

[A Navy LCDR] asked me if I realized that it could be “highly offensive” to people. I told her that yes I did and to have a nice day.

Others seemed shocked anyone could possibly be offended over the emblem; it’s just a band’s logo, after all.

And they think the Confederate flag is “just a flag,” right?

(Incidentally, military briefings generally say members are liable even if they didn’t know the symbol could be interpreted as offensive.  For example, the number “88” is often banned for what may not be obvious reasons.)

While claiming a double standard, it seems some atheists are either ignorant of, or intentionally blind toward, the offense they might cause others.  Besides the “crossbuster,” another military atheist group hosts “Left Behind” picnics — an intentional mockery of some Christian beliefs.  Given their response to things that offend them, what would they have said if a military Christian group started a meeting called the Psalm 14:1 picnic?

Doubt it?  After the “crossbuster” posting above, some claimed Christian crosses were equally offensive to them, and should be treated the same as the crossbuster (that is, banned by the military).  Even Wheeler said

I am really mad at the CO, the chaplain and the LCDR that made a big deal about it. Do any of them ever stop to think that their crosses might be offensive to me? Probably not.

He failed to see — as atheists often do — that the criticism of another’s belief is not the same thing as the celebration of one’s own.  Not a single person — including atheists who are currently serving in the military — corrected the errors in those claims.  In fact, the story was heavy with implication the discrimination was “successful” only because of the low rank of the sailor involved:

Unfortunately I was not as well informed then or of a rank that I was willing to make an issue out of it.

On the contrary, the sailor still needs to be “informed” that regardless of his rank, the wear of tattoos is governed by military regulation.  Someone who “make[s] an issue out of” being told to remove or cover offensive messages may end up on the receiving end of official sanction — including discharge.  While they might then complain of “discrimination,” it would have nothing to do with their beliefs.  (After all, what tenet of atheism describes the use of the crossbuster?)  It has everything to do with the environment of mutual respect required in the military.

As with the prior examples noted above, the martyr complex is so strong some see persecution where none exists.  Contrary to their assertions, a symbol of the atheist belief system (some have tried to popularize an “A” or a modified atom symbol) would be more akin to the Christian cross or the Islamic crescent.  The “crossbuster” would ultimately be little different than a “Muhammad buster” or an “atheist buster.”  Thus, the atheists would be more within their rights to complain of a person wearing an “atheist buster” tattoo — but not someone with a cross or other religious symbol.

Regrettably, this cycle of imagined offense and outcry over incorrectly perceived “discrimination” will likely continue if those who claim to be atheist “leaders” continue to do nothing to correct it.  After all, the most vocal military atheists — including American Atheists’ military director Justin Griffith, who is also in the Army and posted the story about Wheeler — have attributed little to their ideology other than the criticism of religion.

Of all theology-based groups represented in the military, atheists are the only ones whose sole ideological purpose is the opposition of other theology-based groups.  That might explain how they could feel a crossbuster is “religious expression” or showing disrespect to religious freedom is “freedom” that should be protected.  To them, the “religious exercise” of atheism is the criticism of religion — that’s apparently all they know how to do.

It’s time for atheists “leaders” to step up and demonstrate otherwise.

Instead of publicizing something generating a misperception about the religious environment in the US military — which (inaccurately) reflects poorly on the military as a whole — this would have been a great time for Griffith to take Wheeler aside and explain that, despite their right to have their beliefs, military regulations do not protect his ability to have that tattoo; in fact, the environment of mutual respect in the military likely proscribes it altogether.  That is the “mentoring” role Griffith needs to take on.

The US military does an admirable job of protecting religious freedom in a society represented by a host of differing religious beliefs.  It does so by promoting an environment of tolerance — of all beliefs.

That doesn’t mean religions cannot express “offensive” beliefs.  It is perfectly acceptable for Muslims in the military to believe all others are “infidels;” Christians in the military can believe other religions are false; atheists in the military can believe all religions are myths.  When they can express those “offensive” beliefs — including by display of tattoos — may be restricted by the strictures of the military.  Doing so in uniform, checking IDs at the gate, as Wheeler was?  Probably not the best idea.

Normally, Michael Weinstein would be all over such a connection of religious belief and the imprimatur of the uniform.  Then again, this was a “crossbuster,” not a cross.

Think this conversation would even be happening if it that red slash went through a Jewish Star of David instead of a Christian cross?

---

*To give you an idea of how adolescent this angst even is, the band Bad Religion apparently picked the symbol “to annoy their parents.”  As one of the bandmembers said,

“The name Bad Religion and the crossbuster logo came to pass in the minds of two fifteen-year-olds who were trying to find the most offensive name and image they could possibly find…”

Sounds real mature, doesn’t it?  Things like that never sound as cool decades later after teenage despair has passed.  Of course, tattoos don’t exactly improve with the body’s age, either…