{"id":24835,"date":"2013-08-06T01:19:59","date_gmt":"2013-08-06T04:19:59","guid":{"rendered":"http:\/\/christianfighterpilot.com\/blog\/?p=24835"},"modified":"2016-11-26T01:06:56","modified_gmt":"2016-11-26T04:06:56","slug":"atheist-misrepresents-facts-in-crusade-for-atheist-chaplains","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/christianfighterpilot.com\/blog\/2013\/08\/06\/atheist-misrepresents-facts-in-crusade-for-atheist-chaplains\/","title":{"rendered":"Atheist Misrepresents Facts in Crusade for Atheist Chaplains"},"content":{"rendered":"

Jason Torpy, a former Army Captain and atheist leading a one-man crusade to install a humanist chaplain in the US military<\/a>, has stooped to misrepresentation to support his cause.\u00a0 Again.<\/p>\n

After years of misrepresenting military demographics<\/a> to claim non-theists are a substantial portion of the US military, Torpy has recently started distancing himself from his own claims — not long after a member of Congress pointed out<\/a> that certain people demanding atheist chaplains<\/p>\n

make vastly exaggerated claims about the religious demographics of the military.<\/p><\/blockquote>\n

Torpy’s modus operandi<\/em>, however, appears to continue in his other battles.<\/p>\n

First, Jason Torpy — who says he is the endorsing agent for Jason Heap<\/a>, the man attempting to be a humanist chaplain in the US Navy — has repeatedly used selective quotations from Department of Defense regulations to claim the military is required to allow humanist chaplains.\u00a0 Most recently he said<\/a>\u00a0[formatting original]:\u00a0 <\/p>\n

DoDI 1304.28…E3.1.3.1 requires an endorsing agency simply to be recognized as a \u201cchurch\u201d by the Internal Revenue Service…<\/p>\n

Don\u2019t be fooled \u2013 The Humanist Society is fully qualified under current military regulations to endorse military chaplains<\/strong>…<\/p><\/blockquote>\n

But Torpy “simply” leaves out the full text of E3.1.3.1, which was already discussed<\/a> but follows below [emphasis added]:<\/p>\n

E3.1.3. The religious organization<\/strong> shall submit documents verifying the following information with regard to such organization:<\/p>\n

E3.1.3.1. That the religious organization<\/strong> is organized as an entity functioning primarily to perform religious ministries<\/strong> to a non-military lay constituency and currently holds a section 501(c)(3) exempt status…as a church for Federal tax purposes from the Internal Revenue Service (IRS)…Such rules stipulate that the particular religious beliefs<\/strong> of the organization are truly and sincerely held and that the practices and rituals associated with the organization\u2019s religious belief or creed<\/strong> are not illegal or contrary to clearly defined public policy…<\/p><\/blockquote>\n

In order to be “fully qualified,” to use Torpys term, the Humanist Society must be a religious organization<\/em>, not just an IRS-recognized “church.”\u00a0 It must perform “religious ministries,” including rituals of its “religious belief or creed.”\u00a0 Given the difficulty of reconciling those requirements with humanism, it seems evident why Torpy conveniently leaves that out.<\/p>\n

Is the Humanist Society\u00a0a religious<\/em> <\/strong>organization?\u00a0 The Humanist Society<\/a> is an “adjunct” of the American Humanist Association<\/a>, and according to the AHA, its board of directors has approved the following definition for humanism<\/a>:<\/p>\n

Humanism is a progressive philosophy of life that, without theism and other supernatural beliefs, affirms our ability and responsibility to lead ethical lives of personal fulfillment that aspire to the greater good of humanity.<\/p><\/blockquote>\n

While the Humanist Society was founded by Quakers decades ago, any association with religion has long since disappeared.\u00a0 To become a humanist “celebrant,” you have<\/em> to be a member of the AHA, and you’re supposed<\/em> to agree with the AHA statement.\u00a0 Then you pay your fee and get your degree.\u00a0 Even Torpy says<\/p>\n

It is true that humanists are atheists, but it is not we who are making a big deal about atheism…<\/p><\/blockquote>\n

Again: Is the Humanist Society a religious<\/em> <\/strong>organization?<\/p>\n

By its own statements: No<\/strong>.\u00a0 In fact, it is explicitly a<\/strong>religious, with its primary statements avoiding mentions of religion and explicitly disavowing every traditional definition (even dictionary definition) of religion.<\/p>\n

Thus, the Humanist Society does not<\/em>\u00a0qualify as an endorsing agent because it is not a religious organization<\/em> — despite Torpy’s claim it is “fully qualified” under DoD rules.<\/p>\n

Therefore, Jason Torpy — who\u00a0is the AHA treasurer<\/a> as well as the HS endorsing agent<\/a> — is either ignorantly wrong or being intentionally misleading.\u00a0 Given that he’s quoting the very same sentence — and conveniently leaving out the “difficult” words — the latter seems more likely.<\/p>\n

Second, Torpy returns to the issue of demographics. Dismissing his own claims of non-theist domination in the US military, he simply says that non-theists outnumber minority religions and, ipso facto<\/em>, deserve a chaplain:<\/p>\n

No one is saying Hindus are a minority so they don\u2019t need their own chaplains. No one is calling for the elimination of chaplains for Christian Science (0.1% of the general population) or Judaism (0.33%).<\/p><\/blockquote>\n

Torpy’s attempted analogy misrepresents\u00a0the status of\u00a0humanism, as he\u00a0conveniently ignores the fact that Hinduism, Christian Science, and Judaism — whether you agree with them or not — are considered religions<\/em>.\u00a0 The government’s provision of chaplains for religions<\/em> does not support a claim that the government should appoint a chaplain for a non-religion<\/em>.\u00a0 There may very well be\u00a0more chess players, motorcycle riders, and Republicans in the US military than some minority faiths.\u00a0 That doesn’t mean they’re entitled to a “chaplain.”<\/p>\n

Psychologists are often presented as an option as well, but no one suggests that Catholic or Muslim needs can be met exclusively by psychologists.<\/p><\/blockquote>\n

Again, Catholics and Muslims have religious<\/em> rights, protected under the US Constitution, that the government accedes are best\u00a0met by religious<\/em> leaders in their faith.\u00a0 Humanists claim they have “philosophical<\/em>” needs, not religious needs, therefore they require no religious leader.<\/p>\n

Again, this is a simple discussion:\u00a0 The First Amendment protects religious exercise from government interference.\u00a0 When the government does<\/em> interfere (as in military service) it attempts to mitigate that restriction on liberty.\u00a0 By its own explanations, even those of Torpy himself,\u00a0humanism is not\u00a0religious exercise<\/em>.<\/p>\n

Members of the AHA are free to practice their philosophy as they will, and their freedom to do so is not impacted by military service.\u00a0 If it was, the government would be obligated to accommodate their philosophy just as much as it accommodates other non-religious groups like the Toastmasters, the chess club, and the local motorcycle club.\u00a0 While liberty abounds in the United States, for the record, the US Constitution explicitly protects religious<\/em> exercise, not philosophical<\/em> exercise.<\/p>\n

Integrity is still considered a virtue, and it is one that is valued in the military service.\u00a0 Torpy’s reliance on misrepresentation seems to indicate he’s forgotten that virtue in the years since he left the service.<\/p>\n

<\/div>\n

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

\n