Howdy, Stranger!
It looks like you're new here. If you want to get involved, click one of these buttons!
Quick Links
Army to EO Reps: Discrimination Against Atheists OK
porgie
Member Posts: 1,516
Army to EO Reps: “Discrimination Against Atheists OK”
http://www.americanchronicle.com/articles/viewArticle.asp?articleID=25659
Wayne Adkins 
It was bad enough when Army chaplains and leaders like Chief of the National Guard Bureau Lt. Gen. H. Steven Blum were disparaging atheists in the press. It was bad enough when my formal EO complaint was thrown away by the National Guard Bureau EO office. It was bad enough when the Department of the Army Inspector General’s office refused to follow regulations and send me a written response to my formal EO complaint. It was bad enough when I had to file for documents pertaining to my complaint under the Freedom of Information Act to discover its disposition. It was bad enough when those documents revealed that, despite the unlawful discrimination that had occurred according to Army Regulation 600-20, the Army concluded that “Lt. Gen. Blum’s remarks, though perhaps insensitive, did not rise to the level of an offense”.
Now the Army National Guard is telling its unit level Equal Opportunity representatives that it is OK to discriminate against atheists. They are using my formal EO complaint as a training scenario in which a Lieutenant files a formal EO complaint against a general officer for claiming that there are no atheists in foxholes. The Sergeant Major who conducted the EO training for Ohio’s unit level EO reps told them that “since atheism is not a religion, atheists are not protected by the regulation and it is acceptable for officers and chaplains to disparage their own soldiers”. This is, of course, a fallacy. To discriminate against a soldier because he has no religion is still discrimination on the basis of religion. The Army’s position on this is like saying that discriminating against someone because they are black is illegal, but discriminating against someone because they are “not white” is fine.
This only further confirms that the problem of bigotry towards atheists in the Army is a systemic one. The Army not only looks the other way when officers and supposed leaders disparage soldiers because they lack a belief in the supernatural, the Army systematically ignores formal EO complaints by atheists and refuses to enforce its own regulations. Now, being the efficient machine it is, the Army is training its EO reps to ignore legitimate EO complaints by atheists at the lowest possible level. I am so glad I submitted my resignation as an officer. The Army has disgraced itself by protecting bigots and allowing unlawful discrimination to continue.
1LT Wayne Adkins
-----------------------
</OBAMA>
Comments
"'k."
-----------------------
</OBAMA>
Ok so they don't want atheists fighting in the military? They'll live on and breed as payback lol.
But seriously that's pretty f'ed up and more hypocrisy.
______________________________
"When Saddam flew that plane into those buildings, I knew it was time to kick some Iranian ass!"
-cheer leading, flag waving American
The problem is the phrase they are getting that belief from. "There are no athiests in foxholes." And they are correct. I have seen the most strict athiest convert to christianity and every other religion "just to be safe" in a warzone. You never know and every little bit helps right?
However the phrase should be continued. "There are no athiests in foxholes and no denominations either."
Kai
This guy reminds me of the obnoxious self-righteous loudmouth that every grade growing up had.
Some guy uses some saying for whoever knows what purpose, and the guy gets his feelings hurt.
Firstly, this IS the army, I mean honestly, if the guy is such a pussy, why'd he join?
Newborn babies seem to have tougher skin than most people nowadays...
If the guy was being discriminated to the extent of not being treated fairly, and being black-balled for the basis of his lack of religious belief instead of merit, then an investigation SHOULD take place. But honestly...this is pathetic.
"Fear not death; for the sooner we die, the longer shall we be immortal."
My husband got a little harrassment for being an atheist, so he went and changed it to agnostic instead, and that seemed to be ok. He didn't even have to pretend to believe in God or anything.
An off-topic aside, does anyone else here compulsively lie on forms that ask for personal information like religion? ... I am guessing that's just me.
...
This is where I draw the line: __________________.
Discrimination Against Atheists OK ., but not wiccans anymore...
www.cnn.com/2007/US/04/23/wiccan.grave.ap/index.htmlI didn't read anywhere that he was not allowed to exercise that right, nor was anyone even attempting to stop him from exercising that right.
An officer merely said, "There's no such thing as an atheist in a fox-hole" and he suddenly gets bent out of shape. That to me, is what makes him a pussy. It wasn't even a slandering or derogative statement, as the official report said, at most, was insensitive.
"Fear not death; for the sooner we die, the longer shall we be immortal."
I don't see how that has happened in this case. Someone stated their opinion, and someone else was overly sensitive to that opinion. That would be like the Christians on this forum reporting a poster who claimed that they believed that good scientists didn't believe in religion.
Personally, I think it's probably a fair comment about fox-holes. I would imagine that the percentage people living comfortably in western society who are atheists is vastly higher than the percentage of atheists in the trenches in World War I. Perhaps someone should report me?
I didn't read anywhere that he was not allowed to exercise that right, nor was anyone even attempting to stop him from exercising that right. You need to reread the article. It clearly states that. "EO reps told them that “since atheism is not a religion, atheists are not protected by the regulation and it is acceptable for officers and chaplains to disparage their own soldiers”. How is this not discrimination?
An officer merely said, "There's no such thing as an atheist in a fox-hole" and he suddenly gets bent out of shape. That to me, is what makes him a pussy. It wasn't even a slandering or derogative statement, as the official report said, at most, was insensitive.
Answer as you can see its not about the comment anymore but about the reaction! Oh and by the way disparge means: dis·par·age /d??spær
?d?/ Pronunciation Key - Show Spelled Pronunciati
"Fear not death; for the sooner we die, the longer shall we be immortal."
also hamster thing is great.
So someone said something you didn't like.....grow up and get over it. If this is the most serious adversity you have to face in life, consider yourself fortunate. You could have been told you have advanced liver cancer.
There are no atheists with advanced liver cancer.
........I believe.....bow your heads and pray for the salvation of these sinners livers.....hallelujah brother.....I believe......
1LT Wayne Adkins should have just ignored the complaint like any other atheist. If we all were all this sensitive we would even be offended politicians and terrorists. In this world a lot of people say stupid things.
See the absurdity of the statement? It's about being true to oneself. Something not many people can do. And there are atheists in foxholes. I have personally met two vietnam vets that actually become atheists in the war. One was studying to become a minister and he states that most of the clergy he dealt with were atheists. They were just enjoying the ride.
Or hey, I've got a better idea. How about instead of calling someone a pussy who speaks up we instead call the ignorant people who make the derogatory comments pussies and tell them to shut their mouths. Or do we always have to default to the negative f*cks making the derogatory comments as the tough ones? Personally, that seems a little backwards to me. And I don't see how that leads to anything getting better.
===============================
"Fear not death; for the sooner we die, the longer shall we be immortal."
Anyway, I think he should stand up for what he believes in (not religion, but more on his view point in life) and he should be treated equally.
===============================
