{"id":22787,"date":"2013-05-21T01:35:46","date_gmt":"2013-05-21T04:35:46","guid":{"rendered":"http:\/\/christianfighterpilot.com\/blog\/?p=22787"},"modified":"2016-11-26T01:28:53","modified_gmt":"2016-11-26T04:28:53","slug":"atheist-supports-restricting-military-religious-freedom","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/christianfighterpilot.com\/blog\/2013\/05\/21\/atheist-supports-restricting-military-religious-freedom\/","title":{"rendered":"Atheist Supports Restricting Military Religious Freedom"},"content":{"rendered":"

Update<\/strong><\/em><\/span>: Former Marine pilot Tom Carpenter of the Forum on the Military Chaplaincy — a liberal activist group — largely repeated the list below a few weeks later<\/a>, though he did so without attribution.<\/p>\n

\n

Jason Torpy, the one-man band that is the Military Association of Atheists and Freethinkers, recently posted a point-by-point refutation<\/a> of recent accusations of the US military being hostile to Christianity.<\/p>\n

Much of his disagreement was nuance or the way in which something was phrased, which isn’t worth discussing here.\u00a0 The interesting ones, though,\u00a0were the cases in which he agreed<\/em><\/strong> with the US military’s “anti-Christian” actions:<\/p>\n

January 2010 \u2014 Department of Defense orders removal of tiny Bible references on military scopes and gunsights.
\nTorpy: True and appropriate.<\/em><\/p><\/blockquote>\n

This issue has been discussed before<\/a>.\u00a0 While there is no religious requirement the references remain, the fact they were targeted because <\/em>of their (obscure) religious reference — only after Michael Weinstein complained, notably\u00a0— is troubling.\u00a0 That he would seek this out, sensationalize it, and then the US military would acquiesce to such a hypersensitivity says much about the relationship between Weinstein and the US military.<\/p>\n

September 2011 \u2014 Air Force Chief of Staff prohibits commanders from notifying airmen of religious programs.
\nTorpy:\u00a0True and appropriate. Policy memo remands religious activities to the chaplain\u2019s office to avoid appearance of command endorsement of religion.<\/em><\/p><\/blockquote>\n

Retired Army Col Don Snider had an effective discussion on this topic<\/a>.\u00a0 It begs the question:\u00a0 How do the Marines, Navy, and Army avoid “appearance of command endorsement” without this policy?\u00a0 The answer is simple, of course: A commander announcing chaplain programs does not equate to religious endorsement.\u00a0 That the Air Force felt the need to create this policy says much about the environment of hypersensitivity to religion in the service.<\/p>\n

The Air Force Academy rescinds support for Operation Christmas Child because it is run by Christians.
\nTorpy: True and appropriate. The faith-based program was removed from the command chain and remanded to the chaplain corps.<\/em><\/p><\/blockquote>\n

Torpy actually errs here.\u00a0 OCC was a cadet <\/em><\/strong>sponsored event, not a command <\/strong><\/em>sponsored event.\u00a0 The fact that a USAFA cadet could stand up and support any <\/em>charitable event except<\/em> religious ones is on awkward Constitutional grounds, and it says much about the hypersensitivity to religion at USAFA.\u00a0 Remember, no one cared until a cadet emailed Michael Weinstein<\/a> — a cadet, by the way, who “didn’t think much of it.”\u00a0 It was Weinstein, not the cadet, who declared it\u00a0an issue.<\/p>\n

February 2012 \u2014 The Army orders Catholic chaplains not to read archbishop\u2019s letter to soldiers.
\nTorpy:\u00a0True and appropriate. Chaplains prevented from preaching anti-Obama, anti-choice letter from the pulpit \u2013 preach don\u2019t politic.<\/em><\/p><\/blockquote>\n

Torpy should probably read Rigdon v Perry<\/a><\/em>, in which a District Court said the US military couldn’t do this very thing.\u00a0 Oddly, the Army said<\/a> the Catholic chaplains could distribute <\/em>the letter, just not read it during their religious services<\/em>.\u00a0 That Torpy would agree with direct Army control of religious services is unusual, since most atheists advocate a much stronger view of “separation of church and state” — at least, when it suits their purposes.<\/p>\n

August 2012 \u2014 Lt. Col. Jack Rich of the U.S. Army emails subordinates saying they should be on the lookout for people who share FRC\u2019s values because they are not \u201cArmy values.\u201d
\nTorpy:\u00a0True in that the email went out and that FRC\u2019s values are not Army values.<\/em><\/p><\/blockquote>\n

Of course, the Family Research Council’s “values” are largely consistent with mainstream Christian values — and the Army disavowed the characterization of an attack on a religion<\/a>, though not the email itself.\u00a0\u00a0But it seems Torpy is in agreement with the perception <\/em>the US Army has labeled Christians a “hate group.”\u00a0 That a military officer could send out such an email at all, without repercussion,\u00a0says much of the lack <\/em>of hypersensitivity to religion, if it is Christianity being demeaned.<\/p>\n

2013 \u2014 Officials briefing U.S. Army soldiers include \u201cEvangelical Christianity\u201d and \u201cCatholicism\u201d along with the terrorist organizations Al-Qaeda, Muslim Brotherhood, and Hamas as examples of \u201creligious extremism.\u201d
\nTorpy: True and resolved. The incident occurred and then the Army apologized publicly, reprimanded the soldier, and took action to prevent issues in the future.<\/em><\/p><\/blockquote>\n

This time, Torpy seems to be willfully misleading.\u00a0 This issue was previously discussed here<\/a>.\u00a0 The Army did not apologize publicly (the briefer reportedly did, privately).\u00a0 In fact, Congress has called on the Army to do so, but there is no indication they have.\u00a0 Despite Torpy’s assertive statement, there is no public indication any <\/em>Soldier was “reprimanded” (nor would there be, since such action would be protected by the Privacy Act).\u00a0 Finally, the Army took no action “to prevent issues in the future” outside\u00a0of that single brief; it said the slide had been removed from the sole briefing in which it was a part. Interestingly, Torpy seems intent on making the Army look overly contrite, likely because he’s actively trying <\/em>to undermine the basis for the accusations of cultural hostility in the military toward Christianity — while simultaneously agreeing with instances in which it has <\/em>been hostile to Christians, according to some.<\/p>\n

Ultimately, none of this is surprising.\u00a0 Torpy called these actions legitimate restrictions on “rampant proselytism,” apparently because he’s concerned about the large numbers of people converting to Christianity while they serve in the US military.\u00a0 Actually, not.\u00a0 Torpy just advocates for the restriction of religious liberty when he disagrees with the religion.\u00a0\u00a0As an example, long ago, Torpy said he expected <\/em>DADT repeal to result in the restriction of religious liberty — and he welcomed <\/em>it<\/a>.\u00a0 Jason Torpy is a former Army Captain and current atheist; normally, he focuses on “freedom” for atheists.\u00a0 Sometimes, though, he rails against religious liberty.<\/p>\n

Apparently Jason Torpy wants ‘freedom for me, but not for thee.’<\/p>\n

<\/div>\n

ADVERTISEMENT<\/strong><\/span><\/p>\n

\n