- Home
- About
- FAQ
- Law & Politics
- Media
- Events
- Press Information
- Christians Take Over Interfaith Army Chapel in Combat Zone
- Press Kit
- 9/11: 'Never Forget' Must Include All Victims
- Atheists Advocate Separation of Church and State at DNC
- Congressman Pete Stark to Speak at 2013 National Convention
- American Atheists Announces 50th Anniversary Logo Design Contest
- American Atheists Announces Harassment Policy for Conventions and Conferences
- American Atheists Jubilant Over Latest Religion Report
- American Atheists Removes Religious Billboards from Charlotte
- Former Pastor Now American Atheists Public Relations Director
- Former Pastor Teresa MacBain New Public Relations Director
- ITALIAN JUDGE LUIGI TOSTI ACQUITTED!
- American Atheists to Protest Bradford County, FL Decalogue on May 19
- Join
- Shop
Supporting Civil Rights for Atheists and the Separation of Church and State
19
Jan
2011
More Shipboard Preaching
An active duty member of the Navy, who is currently at sea aboard the USS Abraham Lincoln, reported that the only available meal on a particular day during the holiday season contained a program and menu that specifically included a sectarian prayer as part of the meal.
USS Abraham Lincoln is famous for the "Mission Accomplished" banner. US Navy Photo, licensed under creative commons.
According to our informant, who must remain anonymous in order to safeguard his career, the menu included this prayer: "Praise God, from whom all blessings flow. Eternal God, this joyful day is radiant with the brilliance of your one true light. May that light illuminate our hearts and shine in our words and deeds. May the hope, the peace, the joy, and the love represented by the birth in Bethlehem fill our lives and become part of all that we say and do. May we share in the divine life of your son Jesus Christ, even as he humbled himself to share our humanity. Bless us and the feast that you have provided for us, let us be thankful for the true gift of Christmas, Your Son. Amen."
You can see the actual menu here (Word document).
This situation has been verified by several sailors aboard the USS Abraham Lincoln, and according to our source, complaints through leadership and equal opportunity channels resulted in no action.
This is just another example of the military's failure to ensure religious parity. If you were on the USS Abraham Lincoln during the holidays and didn't want a Christian prayer with your dinner, on this day, you were out of luck.
By Kathleen Johnson
Your contribution to our Matching Billboard Fund is DOUBLED!
50th Anniversary National Convention
The convention was a great success!
We are now offering on-demand video
of all the talks for $20! (6 months' access).
DVDs are also coming very soon.
Like our Page on Facebook and
Follow us on Twitter
for updates on DVD availability.
50th Anniversary T-Shirts, polos, & fleece jackets
still available in very limited supply—
Get your piece of history before they're gone!
Available for web purchase soon.
See you next Easter weekend in Salt Lake City!
March 28-31, 2013
Austin, Texas
Featuring: A.C. Grayling, Congressman Pete Stark, Katherine Stewart, Jay Jay French, Cara Santa Maria, Dave Silverman, Matt Dillahunty, Teresa MacBain, Seth Andrews, Hemant Mehta, and many more!
American Atheists Magazine 
is now available on your iPhone and iPad!
User login
Archive
- December 1969 (2)
- September 2008 (2)
- October 2008 (2)
- November 2008 (5)
- December 2008 (1)
- March 2009 (1)
- April 2009 (1)
- May 2009 (1)
- October 2009 (1)
- November 2009 (4)
Pages
Online
There are currently 0 users online.
Who's new
- xesilixbopo817f
- mozelleledouxozafyu
- sadyerohrjtekxtbud
- revezeqtelo134i
- RheinlanderNRW
- robertburroughs
- octaviakeisterqts
- darrinwiesekmsm
- atheistrahul
- Trent
Get our Website Updates!
Do you want the latest AA news as soon as it happens?
Sign up using the link below and be the first in the know!
American Atheists Visa
Apply for the American Atheists Visa Card
and show your support with every purchase you make!
Comments
Religious parity is religious equality. I'm not sure that I see where the menu violated religious parity so long as atheists and other groups would have had equal opportunity to do the same had they so chose. The military Chaplaincy has long been a part of the military for those soldiers who choose to access it. I'm not sure how this menu prayer is any different that the presence of the Chaplaincy.
Couldn't the sailor simply have chosen to NOT read the thing?
I suspect you would have a different opinion if the Navy were forcing sailors to participate in Islamic prayers.
Well see Chris, no one is forcing the sailors to participate in anything.
Dane-
Not reading "the thing" is an unacceptable solution. That would be an option for a private citizen who could choose to eat elsewhere in this case or turn to a channel other than ones with services on them for another example. A soldier aboard the USS Abraham Lincoln (who was at least agnostic ironically) does not have that same choice. The choice for that solider is to endure it or starve. Beyond that, however, by even hosting the event as a Navy event, as opposed to a christian group of soldiers hosting the event, it is essentially naming christianity as the official religion of the Army and thus the United States. Doing so is not only unconstitutional, but also rude considering there are non-christian soldiers (jews, atheists, and even muslims) in every branch of the Armed Services. While I would still take issue with calling it a "holiday meal" since doing so assumes that some days are holy (and they aren't), how hard would it have been to simply not include the ridiculous prayer? Those who wished to pray before eating could certainly do so on their own in silence and those who just wished to eat could do so as well.
Agreed to an extent. As we all know, recently DADT was overturned. One objection to that was that heterosexual servicemen would be subjected to seeing homosexual couples openly showing affection to one another. For the heterosexual who objects to that lifestyle, whether he be a Christian or not, seeing that flagrantly displayed is offensive. One solution offered to the dilemma for those heterosexual servicemen to simply look the other way and accept that there are bigger fish to fry that whether or not they are exposed to homosexual behavior. The heterosexuals who are offended need to simply learn to live with it and look the other way---- or get used to being offended.
Although I may personally object to the homosexual lifestyle, I too would recommend that offended servicemen should try to get used to it or plan on being continually offended.
I think that in this case the same dynamic applies. No one was reading the prayer to the serviceman. The existence of the card and the "holiday meal" was not really hurting the serviceman in any way other than he or she was offended.
Well, I get offended on a regular basis by everything from bad drivers to politicians... but I learn to live with a lot.
If a guy in traffic flips me the finger it is offensive but I just go on about my business. If that same guy rolls up a fist and tries to punch me in the face then it is a different story.
I just think that people can benefit a lot by learning to be less easily offended... I think this goes for people of all walks and faiths or none at all.
The military pays for the Chaplaincy... I think it's the same thing.
By the way, days are holy if someone believes that they are. I think what you mean is that they are not inherently holy, but the holiness of a day depends on the way that a person perceives it. To say that something is holy in a religious sense is to say that it has been set aside for a specific purpose that is sacred. Sacredness depends on the beliefs of a person so if a person believes a day is holy then it is holy.
It may not be holy for me because it is not inherently holy, but there are still days that are believed by people to be holy. So, holidays do exist.
I do not think Hanukkah is holy but the Jews do, therefore it is holy for them... it is a holiday whether I observe it or respect it or not. Same thing holds true for Ramadan. It is holy to the Muslim so it is holy for them. It is a holy day so it is a holiday and I can respect it as such without actually believing personally that it is holy or connected in any way with the divine.
Dane,
You talk about homosexuals like they're cockroaches. You are the reason that this country has basic civil rights issues to this day. I'd hate to hear how you feel about women in society or whatever else you're bigoted about. And your tone reeks of "Christian privilege". You're all "Oh why is everyone all up in arms about a little govt funded baby Jesus?" in one breath, then: "That atheist display is offensive and attacks my beliefs". Bigot.
well groggy... I like how you seem to leave a discussion about the topic and launch off into name-calling. I try to talk about the issue with people who disagree rather than talking about the people themselves. I haven't said anything that implies that I think homosexuals are anything less than human beings with all of the inherent value that comes with being a human being.
What I did was use an illustration that included 2 characters: the homosexual couple and the heterosexual couple who objects to homosexuality. These were 2 character that I used in order to create a situation similar to the one with the prayer so that I could illustrate a point and ask a question about the 2 scenarios.
I didn't say anything derogatory about homosexuals.
However, I could make that same argument easily about how many atheists interact with theists. YOU've done the very thing here with your name-calling and such. I can say that you speak to me as if I am a cockroach simply because I've expressed a different scenario than the one you want to believe is just and true.
Do you have anything to say to debunk my point that the atheist sailor can simply choose to ignore the menu card just like the heterosexual sailor can choose to ignore the homosexual behavior?
Do you have anything to say to debunk my point that theists and atheists alike need to learn to not be so easily offended?
The difference is that the menu prayer was issued by a government entity to government employees. A government institution specifically representing one religion over another is antithetical to our national constitution. Gays in the military, on the other hand, isn't the government supporting gays over other people, it's the government tolerating gays as much as they tolerate anyone else. Do you see the difference? If the government had issued some sort of "Merry Christmas, you must watch these two dudes make out" order, your correlation would be apt.
You are right that we as citizens have the right and bear the burden of dishing out and dealing with offense daily. However, trying to give the government individual rights is a short sighted, poorly thought out idea. The government is NOT a person - it's an institution that is supposed to represent all of the people governed by it equally. We hold the actions of our government to a higher standard than we hold one another because of this - and that's how it should be.
Saying "Just don't look at it" is the default position of a privileged class. And Chris B made an excellent point - if the government had allowed an Islamic prayer on the menus, I doubt you would be so flippant about it.
You make a good, well thought-out and courteous response pinkcommie. I appreciate that. Instead of just dismissing my position out of hand, you've actually responded to it. Thank you.
I may be an ignorant, knuckle-dragging bigot, but that's another issue altogether. (har)
Alright, I agree with part of your response, but I think what you mean is that we SHOULD hold our gov't to a higher standard than we hold individuals... but we don't. We can look at the sexual habits of guys like Bill Clinton as well as the Republican and Democratic Congressmen who bounce checks at the bank, cheat on their taxes, and all other things and we turn a blind eye because it ends up putting money in our pockets.
So in a way, I agree that we should hold them to a higher standard, but we just don't.
Now let me ask this. If the heterosexual walks into the birthing area and sees two guys making out and it offends him to be exposed to that. If he is in his birthing area and he can hear a couple doing their thing or if he is in the shower and he can clearly see a homosexual sailor "checking him out," does he have any recourse for his offense?
Under the Uniform Code of Military Justice he will have nearly no recourse legally and whatever recourse he takes will negatively affect his career. Under the UCMJ homosexuality will be the same as being a woman or a black man and when the heterosexual expresses an opinion contrary to the homosexuality he sees he will be in danger of being charged with violating the UCMJ just as if he had used a racial slur or said, "I don't want to shower with those (N-Word.)"
This places him in a position of having to see the activity or hear it without and recourse. His best bet at this point is to get used to it or get out of the service. He can simply keep his mouth shut and look the other .
I'm simply saying that in the same way the atheistic sailor can choose not to read the menus.
To answer your question, I would not personally care if they offered an Islamic prayer on the menus. I know many who would be offended, but I would not. If they required the sailors to fast during Ramadan then I would object, but to passively have a prayer on a menu card wouldn't bother me at all. If my fellow theists complained about it I would tell them to find something worth fighting about and quit whining. I've done things like that many times.
Comparing an individual being offended by public displays of affection to a soldier being offended that the military is issuing a Christan prayer doesn't make sense to me. That correlation still seems like apples and oranges.
In the examples you listed (guys like Bill Clinton as well as the Republican and Democratic Congressmen who bounce checks at the bank, cheat on their taxes, and all other things and we turn a blind eye because it ends up putting money in our pockets.) you listed people who act as representatives of the government - I'm talking about the government itself - an offshoot of which is the military. I think people will always have biases and make questionable ethical choices - that's why it's even more important to try to keep the government itself in check so that we don't make the mistake of allowing the government as an entity to be a reflection of bias and unethical behavior. That's one of the reasons telling people to simply ignore when the government does something that is unconstitutional is such a huge mistake in my opinion. If we ignore it, the government itself is only going to become more and more corrupt.
Claiming that "This places him in a position of having to see the activity or hear it without and [sic] recourse" isn't actually true. If they complain and it hurts their military career, I see that as another issue to be taken up with the military - not a reason to allow unconstitutional religious messages in the military. Does that make sense?
To simplify - it seems like (and I'm really sorry if I'm misunderstanding your position) you're arguing from a position of "lots of things in the military are unfair/broken/etc. That's how it is - might not be fair, but get over it." and my response to that is - if something isn't fair, ignoring it isn't going to fix anything. You might as well be perpetuating the problem by staying silent. The only way we can address these issues is by, well, addressing them! :)
But again, the whole I find homosexuals offensive and I have to look at them, therefore prayer in the military ought to be ignored argument doesn't hold water for me. I don't think heads ought to roll because of it - it may have been a thoughtless mistake, and we all do that from time to time - but it should still be addressed.
Pinkcommie.... I've just scanned your response and I'm on my way out to work. I'll respond a little later today, but I can tell scanning it that you're a guy (or gal) who is actually structuring an argument and you seem to be able to disagree with someone without being disagreeable. I love that!
PinkCommieBastard,
Holy (or unholy if you will) Friggin Crap, Batman! I think I have actually found someone with something to say and who can say it without being rude. I've found an atheist who can present a structured argument, read a counterargument, and respond to that counterargument without resorting to name calling or other personal insults. I LOVE that you've actually read my responses for what they are and not thinking, "Ah, this guy is a stupid theist so I need to dismiss whatever he has to say out-of-hand."
I do appreciate that. You are an example that I think a lot of atheist I encounter need to follow.
With that said, I don't think you and I are very far off in our position, although we disagree on our conclusions. I am basically saying what you have said,
"I don’t think heads ought to roll because of it – it may have been a thoughtless mistake, and we all do that from time to time – but it should still be addressed."
I have absolutely NO problem with it being addressed. Honestly, I don't know who paid for the menus and I didn't see that information or a citation in the blog itself. Perhaps the menus were subsidized by some outreach or something of that sort. I don't know and I may be grasping here, either way, if a significant number of sailors are being offended by the menus and complain then sure it should be addressed.
My issue is that including the menus in the meals probably offended several atheist sailors but that doesn't rise to the level of some grand oppressive discrimination against nonChristians. Is it was gov't funded has that been deemed as illegal according to the alleged Separation? Well sure it has been, but I just don't think it rises to the level of some grand oppression.
If the officers were requiring the atheists to attend church, pray, or whatever then I would be alongside of you in screaming for their rights.
Listen, I know A LOT of people I go to church with who I wouldn't trust with that power over me or anyone else.
I'm just saying what you are saying that it could be a sign of a move towards systematic, institutionalized discrimination but I don't think that it is in itself discrimination or a violation of the rights of the atheists any more that I think that the heterosexual being exposed to public homosexuality on board ship violates the rights of he heterosexual.
Both sailors can say, "That sucks to be exposed to on board, but I'm going to pick my battles and cope with these people." (Whomever "these people" happen to be.)
I think it's important that, whether it is an atheist, theist or some other group, pick it's battles wisely. If the AA gets an email from a sailor on board the carrier and the sound a 5-Alarm Fire siren then if it ever reaches a time when atheists are systematically being mistreated then the people just may treat the AA like the boy who cried wolf.
That's all I was saying from the beginning. I wasn't promoting the menus or Christianity at all. I was simply saying that I think the menus were some well intentioned gesture by some Christians somewhere (in command or not) that ended up offending someone. I don't think for a minute that the command of the USN thought, "Hey, let's put this propaganda in the meals so that these atheists will know that if they want promotions that he better say the prayer. Even if they don't convert, at least they'll know to keep their mouths shut."
I think it was very well intentioned and it ended up offending some atheists on board. I think that the people responsible for the menus probably had goodness in mind and not malice and that in this case that their intention should be considered.
Instead, some atheist groups like the AA seem to want to be hall monitors who stand there waiting to see some student late for class and walking too fast so that they can pull the fire alarm, call the police and fire department and go into a conniption fit screaming, "SLOW DOWN!!! STOP RUNNING OR ELSE YOU MIGHT KILL SOMEONE!!!!"
That's my point so I think that although you and I may disagree philosophically or theologically that we actually agree that this may need to be addressed but that it may not need some national alarm.
No atheists were being lynched or had any reason to expect a lynching. When the atheists start getting death threats, banned from the military or overt things like that then call me up and I'll march alongside of you.
Excuse me? We all have plenty to say - as for the rude, well, you've done little but repeat the same old tired excuses we've heard ad infinitum.
It's no one's fault but your own that your opinions are lame.
Hey, I've blasted other atheists for such claptrap, so don't think I'm not equal opportunity.
A stupid opinion is stupid regardless of who holds it.
Dane sure likes to discuss homosexuality a lot.
Actually, I like to discuss a lot of things with people who are intelligent adults.
Yeah, but you've brought up this topic on 3 different threads - none of which have anything to do w/your apparently favorite topic.
Oh Wow Krys... you've caught me.. maybe I'm gay... oh no.. what will people think now? I better stop using homosexuality as an illustration of my assertions or else people may think I'm homosexual.... oh no...
I'm just saying, you seemed to be...unusually focused is all. Obviously you're not gay, or you wouldn't be such a sexual bigot.
That's right Krys.. I'm a sexual bigot... you caught me.
Thanks for t he Wikipedia link, but when I was in school earning both of my degrees, one of which is in religious studies, NONE of my professors (from the Christian and Secular Universities)would allow me to use Wikipedia as a source for anything. Yes, it has good information on it, but it is very unreliable. If a person is already at a certain level of expertise in a subject they can use Wiki to look at things because they are familiar enough to see the errors. If they are not then Wiki is pretty much junk.
I'd get a refund on the religious study.
You need to cite 3 primary sources. However, Wiki is useful in that it provides at the very outside, a generalized source. It is prey to arbitrary editing, but I usually use answers.com - it provides a variety of cross-reference in addition to the Wiki entry.
However, it is easy to dismiss a generalize primary source, discourage its use (mostly due to the fact that you're not up on many topics), & using that argument is a substantive logical fallacy known as poisoning the well, via the ad hominem argument.
So just because some of your unnamed (& alleged) professors refused to allow it (which is also an argument from authority, another logical fallacy), that is insufficient grounds to dispense using it unless it's a finely nuanced point of fact. It serves as an adequate generalized source to call upon, & your refusal to accept a link is duly noted as flight.
I'm sorry Blair. I wasn't referring to you. I was referring to a post by Krystaline.
Ok Krys. Whatever you say. I'm not trying to sound arrogant or anything, but scholarly study involves a lot more than Wikipedia and Answers.com.
Which I spoke to. Also, it's helpful that you check Wiki & Answers prior to shooting your mouth off, as in attributing Christianity w/the invention of hospitals, orphanages, etc. when in fact it wasn't religion that invented anything, it was people.
Yes Krys... people.... who had a Christian Worldview.... that is probably the most moot of all moot points in this conversation. Philosophy and Religion is what drives people to do things... check Wiki and Answer.com and see what they tell you.
Actually no - if you'd been paying any attention @ all, I've always maintained people will do what they want to...they just need an excuse to do it.
No, numbnuts, I use wiki & answer to check facts, something you need to learn to do. Along w/work on your comprehension.
While your homosexual example is highly offensive, I'll look beyond that and focus on the content. I agree with you - if someone doesn't like something, they can, in most cases, look away. This is the case with your homosexual example. If you don't like it, don't watch. However, this example is nowhere near equivalent to the holiday meal example. To make it equivalent, we'd have to say that the behavior of "homosexual couples openly showing affection" is being displayed on every television on the ship, pictures of this behavior are everywhere, and there is 1 gay couple fucking in the open every 3 feet... in other words, looking away and avoiding it would no longer be an available option. That's how the holiday meal was. The choice was to deal with it or starve. Only having these 2 choices is unacceptable.
I agree, their options were "Deal with it or starve." So why not deal with it by sitting it aside, eating and moving on. That's what I'm saying. I mean, it was simply a menu of some sort with a prayer printed on it and a few sailors were offended. I just don't get why the event calls for some great big protest. Again, I can't believe that I'm offering advice to atheists about furthering their cause, but you all would probably benefit a lot if you chose your battles a little better.
"Oh MY GOD! Here's is a prayer printed on my menu!! HOLY CRAP! I'M PISSED!! THEY HAVE INJURED ME!!! I WANT A BLOG!!"
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Discrimination_against_atheists
Ok, so now the Muslims who have obtained leadership positions on the ship are merely using their positions of power to promote Islam with the goal of influencing as many sailors as possible to become Muslims. They're also sending a major signal that makes the non-Muslims wonder if faith was a factor in being given undesirable assignments or being passed over for promotion. Do you object yet?
What about this?
"The Muslims begin requiring the sailors to kneel and pray 5 times a day facing Mecca. If the sailors don't do that then they are made to pull out their own fingernails and eat their own feces.... are you offended now?"
Come on Chris, we can go on forever coming up with hypothetical stories of "what ifs."
Let's see what sort of story we can come up with that will eventually cross this guy's threshold and offend him.
"I know. There have been atheists who were passed over for promotion based on their atheism. I'll take those isolated incidents and multiply them into a pattern of institutionalized discrimination against atheists and present that to him and see what he says."
Come on. I'm sure there have been atheists who have been passed over.
Was it was a matter of a Christian officer discriminating against the sailor simply because he was not a Christian or was it because the atheist was also a jerk? I mean, maybe the guy's atheism contributes to other parts of his personality and those things cause him to be passed over?
We have no way of knowing either way, but the rarity of atheists being passed over is an example of why the AA is going on this "Atheists in the Closet" campaign. Atheism is such a minority that cases of discrimination are very rare. If AA can convince people that they are really atheists (what Christians call evangelism) then they may be able to get those numbers up. This can help them move forward on policy issues because they will be more visible. AND then there's always the added benefit of selling memberships to these atheists who they dragged out of their closets.
I'm sure that your scenario between Christians and atheists happens. I doubt it is very widespread and it is completely possible that the person is passed over for reasons besides his atheism.
Maybe the atheist is just a jerk?
It's not a hypothetical. The Christians who have obtained leadership positions on the ship are promoting Christianity with the goal of recruiting as many sailors as possible to join the religion. And in such an environment, non-Christians have to wonder if they're being discriminated against. If you have already decided that Christians never discriminate against anyone, and cannot imagine yourself in a position of being discriminated against,... well... I guess you're protecting yourself from challenges to your own attitudes about your religion. Such as the idea that your religion could ever be oppressive to anyone. I encourage you to look for the shades of gray in the world, challenge your assumptions every day, and practice imagining the world through other's eyes (empathy).
Chris,
"And in such an environment, non-Christians have to wonder if they’re being discriminated against."
But, "having to wonder" doesn't mean that they are being discriminated against. All of us have to be wondering whether we are being discriminated against on one level or another at some time in our lives. The gov't doesn't have the power to do anything that will keep anyone from wondering whether they are being discriminated against.
When I was a child I had a front tooth broken out. I got a crown. It eventually came out. It never bothered me and I had such a great personality that it never seemed to hold me back in life.
Then I went into business for myself for a while as a sign maker and I found that people are far less willing to hire you when you have teeth missing. They perceive you as "not so smart."
Some time ago I got a permanent crown and guess what... yep, business picked up...
Guess what I deal with now?
When I graduated high school I was 185 pounds and 6'3" tall. Now I am 300 pounds or so... guess how people discriminate against you when you are that fat? Not only are you "not-so-smart" but you are lazy too in their minds. AND since I occasionally do ministry work from the platform in church I am simply the "fat preacher."
For that matter, Mr. Scott plainly told me that they delete religious people from their FB page... that's discrimination. I know it isn't gov't sponsored discrimination but it's discrimination all the same.
What I am saying is that discrimination is human nature. As I've said earlier, the question is whether it is just discrimination (like having a sexual offender registry) and then whether the reaction meets the action.
We all deal with this is some fashion. I just don't think it calls for some great big reaction from anyone until it reaches a certain threshold.
Harassment in the workplace is a crime. Harassment out of the workplace is often a crime too, but there is a different threshhold for what "the actor [harasser] knows or has reason to know would cause the victim, under the circumstances, to feel frightened, threatened, oppressed, persecuted, or intimidated." (www.letswrap.com/legal/harass.htm) If the goverment is sponsoring harassment, however mild, we all have a problem.
Ha beak.... I think that by definition the gov't's job is harassment. Ask anyone who lives in Iraq, Afghanistan, has had an Audit from the IRS or dealt with a municipal building code official.
Dane,
One thing you need to understand is that your point about two homosexuals making out or showing affection in the military and the resulting offense to a heterosexual. Your point is moot. Why? Because, certain behavior is not in keeping with good order and discipline. This includes the showing of affection in public by servicemembers regardless of their orientation. If a heterosexual military couple were "making out" in berthing, they would both be accountable under the UCMJ. The same would apply to a homosexual couple. It is impossible to compare your point to that of a Sailor sitting down for a meal onboard that is served in the name of Jesus. Just as it would be equally as improper to have a meal dedicated to Zeus, or Satan, or Allah.
The meal wasn't "dedicated to Jesus." Read it again.
Literally true, perhaps, Dane, but that's just nit picking his paraphrasing. You just disrespected flynavy76 by ignoring his honestly presented argument.
The prayer is addressed to 'Eternal God' and amongst other wishes, asks Him to "Bless us and the feast that you have provided for us..." Just mentally substitute any one else's "eternal" deity for God and see if you can bring yourself to appreciate how it feels to the minorities.
Did you really think that hetero couples are permitted to make public displays of affection while on board ship? There is no justification in suggesting that same sex couples have been granted licence to do so, except to appeal to homophobia.
In the history of American prejudice, no minority has convinced the privileged majority to grant them equality by simply putting up and shutting up about discrimination. Not African Americans, not women, not GLBT, not Atheists.
Granted, Atheists have not in any way suffered as much as those others, in the past and continuing today. Mostly, that's because when we do keep our opinions to ourselves we are almost undetectable. Probably several of the people you work with are hidden Atheists.
Why would they hide? Christians would otherwise deny them jobs, promotions and friendships on assumptions that they are immoral or pawns of Satan with designs on their immortal souls. That and there's all the hard sell proselytising and the "I'll pray for you" condescension to have to put up with.
DD,
"Christians would otherwise deny them jobs, promotions and friendships on assumptions that they are immoral or pawns of Satan with designs on their immortal souls. "
I haven't been a Christians all of my life and I have worked many different types of jobs. I don't mean that I've worked as a welder, electrician and pipefitter which are all construction jobs. I mean that I have been a newspaper reporter, radio broadcaster, heavy equipment operator, bus driver, commercial fisherman, car salesman and many other things that span different industries.
I have NEVER been asked what my religious beliefs were. This is true of my time as a Christian and as my time as a non-Christian. When I get on a job I simply do the job.
The manager who hired me to sell new Toyotas for him asked me, "Now, all this God stuff. When you're here to work, do you think you can sort of set that aside and just sell?"
I explained to him that my faith wasn't something that I could simply set aside, but that I knew a lot of Christians who would buy. I got the job, but that atheist sales manager gave me issues the entire time I was there.
Did I go to my Christian general manager? He has hired the atheist. Nope. I simply did my job to the best of my ability and understood that sometimes you have to put up with crap out of some people.
Oh By the way, he knew I was a Christian because my pastor knew the general manager and recommended me for the job. I hadn't brought it up at all.
My point is that I have NEVER been asked my religious leanings on a job interview. When you travel construction like I have done you find a lot of well-meaning Christians who want to preach to you on a job. These come from all different flavors and scents and usually they disagree with each other at some point or another.
Even before I was a Christian I just tolerated it. I just figured they had a right to speak their minds just like I did.
I did hate it when they'd get out of working on Sunday because they had to go to church. I mean, they knew they'd have to work Sundays when they hired in.
Oh yeah... I still hate it when church people get Sundays off. It doesn't always happen, but it still does sometimes. I guess that's discrimination to some extent because they get Sundays off and people who don't go to church don't.... but it isn't worth it to me to protest about it. I mean, if I complain about things like that then when I have a foreman who threatens my job based on personality issues then I've already branded myself a whiner.
The guy's words were, "Ya better hope you never get on my crew. I'll get your job!"
I went to his boss and took care of that. This was a completely nonunion job, but I had ground to stand on because I did my job and wasn't complaining about a lot of things. When I did complain it got attention.
My whole point in NOT to say that gays will be making out in berthing. I think that some of you were distracted by the controversy of the illustration. I was NOT saying that they would be making out. I was speakinng hypothetically to simply say that there are heterosexuals on board who are offended by an open display of homosexuality. They will simply have to see it and move on. Likewise, this menu issue is a minor thing to deal with so I'm not sure why atheists are making such a big deal out of it.
I mean, people are offended every day by one thing or another. I was sitting in a mexican restaurant yesterday afternoon and there were 2 college couples in the booth behind me. The place is near the Univ of South Al. Anyway, when one couple wasn't making out with each other, the 2 guys were talking and dropping the F-Bomb and worse. It was offensive to me to have to sit there with my wife and hear that, but did I start complaining or posting blogs about how bad college kids are?
Nope, I just sat there and ate my fish taco (they are amazing. If any of you are ever in Mobile, call me up and I'll treat you to a couple.)
Here's a challenge for the Christian folks who are reading this thread.
Imagine you are on a ship at sea, an environment where your every actions are completely controlled and monitored, you have very little privacy, and your actions are subject to the whims of your leaders.
Now, imagine every day, Muslim calls to prayer are issued over the ship's loudspeakers. You are told you must stop reading, working, exercising, watching TV, or any other activity you might be engaging in in order to show "respect" for those praying. You must then be absolutely silent and listen to these prayers as they are broadcast on the ship. You do not have the option of opting out by continuing whatever activity you were engaging in. You must be silent you must listen because there is no where else to go and nothing you can do to avoid it.
Further, imagine you are not a Muslim and that you don't want to participate in these prayers but would like your own religious faith to be given the same level of respect and attention that the Muslims enjoy. When you complain, you are told that while your own prayers cannot be broadcast, you have nothing to complain about because no one is stopping you from doing your religious activities on your own. If you are nonreligious and complain, you are told that you should simply stop and be silent out of "respect" for the beliefs of your fellow sailers and that since you are not being forced to actually say prayers, you also have nothing to complain about.
Finally, imagine you go to dinner and your only dining option involves a meal dedicated to Allah and that a prayer to Allah was printed and placed on your plate where you have no choice but to see it and read it. When you complain, you are told that you have nothing to complain about because you have the option of simply not reading the prayer.
If you can successfully imagine all of this, and you find the idea of being basically forced to participate in the practices of a faith group that is not your own to be repulsive, you might have an inkling of why this issue is such a big deal.
Kathleen Johnson
Kathleen, your logic sways a little. I get what you're saying, but in your first two scenarios you posit the sailors being forced to observe a religious practice and listen to Muslim prayers. In that scenario, whether the prayers were Muslim or Christian I would be protesting with you.
In the dinner menu issue the sailors can simply set aside the menus and eat without reading the menu cards or praying or anything.
In order for your first 2 scenarios to be parallel and work, you would have to give the sailors the ability to mute the intercom speakers so that they couldn't hear the prayers being read because that would be equal to simply not reading the cards.
Either that, or you would have to portray the sailors eating the meal as having the prayer cards read to them... shouted in their ear, even. That wasn't what was happening.
Whenever something like your first 2 scenarios happen and you are being forced to observe a religious exercise and submit to religious worship or observance on that level then hit me up. I was also a commercial sign maker for a few years. I'll make your picket signs for you.
But a simple menu card is easily set aside and you can eat your meal as usual.
If God does not exist then the prayer is of no effect. To hear you all talk about it it sounds like you think something material happened when the meal was dedicated to this god. You say you are offended because the meal was dedicated to the God of the Universe and you had no choice but to eat it. if God doesn't exist then it was dedicated to nothing so I still don't get the issue except that it offended a few sailors.
Good response though Kathleen. I like talking to you even though we're on different sides of the issue.
What I described in the first two scenarios is currently going on, only it's Christian prayers and not Muslim prayers that are currently being broadcast to shipboard captive audiences who have no choice but to participate. Do you still want to protest or are you like the many Christians who think its just fine to have religion forced upon sailors as long as it's their religion being pushed?
As for the menus, folks in leadership positions on that ship had to approve the prayer menu and spent government money to print and distribute them, thereby further contributing to the general climate of directly promoting Christianity to the exclusion of everything else. If you were on that ship and you had to attend a meal dedicated to Allah and read a Muslim prayer in order to see what was on the menu, would you still regard it as harmless and simply set the menu aside?
It's really got nothing to do with the dedication itself. Of course we atheists don't believe that there is any spirit in the sky to dedicate a meal to. It's offensive for the reason I just stated - the leaders on that ship clearly think it's okay to favor and endorse Christianity to the exclusion of every other world view.
Kathleen
I have many friends and family members who serve on board ships and I've asked then about this... they say they aren't subjected to it. I have no way right now of knowing for sure whether there are Christian prayers being broadcast on the intercom or whether sailors are being forced to stop everything and listen.
Do you? If so, I would love to see it so that I could do some more investigation. If there are sailors being forced to participate in Christian worship services then that is an injustice and I would gladly support stopping that practice. That is not because I am a believer in the separation of church and state (which isn't in the Constitution) but instead it is because there is NOTHING in sound Christian theology or the Bible or doctrine that supports doing that.
So, please send me to the evidence that there are Sailors being forced to stop everything, be silent and listen to Christian worship.
As far as the "exclusion of every other worldview" goes... that is a bit of a misnomer in a way when it comes to atheism. I understand you all sort of get offended on behalf of other religions, but when it comes to atheism there really wasn't an exclusion committed because you all don't pray or worship.
If the menus had been done "atheistically" then it would not have reflected any holiday symbolism at all. Atheism is an invitation to a spiritual nothingness.
How could the menus have been done that would have given atheism "equal time?"
I've never been in the service so I am at a disadvantage to speak from a personal experience. My Dad was in for 20 years and I have other friends from various branches. All I have to go on is what they've told me which is that they weren't pressured to go.
I could see how refusing to go would be refusing a direct order. I would think that in the service that you should follow orders regardless of whether you agree or not and then after fulfilling your duty you could follow proper channels to create change?
Either way, if they would force you to wax floors when you didn't go to church on Sunday then let me know where to sign the petition to change that. I agree that that should not happen because scripture doesn't support that at all. That sort of thing happens when you give the church state power and I'm not in support of that at all.
I just don't think that including a prayer menu at a meal is on the same level as forcing you to go to church. If they were standing there screaming it in your ears or forcing you to recite it out loud then, like I've said, I would be right there with you.
Come on guys, it was just a piece of paper with a prayer printed on it.
A good comparison would be my church friends who throw a great big fit because stores and such say things like "Happy Holidays" instead of "Merry Christmas." I go in, I see the signs and I think, "Oh well, they aren't Christian.. oh look what's on sale!" and I buy it.
I mean, I think that the church has bigger social fish to fry than whether or not Home Depot celebrates "Christmas" or simply the "Holidays."
I think it's the same thing as the menu cards. The atheists on board can see it, set it aside and move on. It's just a piece of paper.
I see what you mean about the prayers on the loud speakers, but I wouldn't call that being forced to worship. I understand it may be disturbing the peace, but it isn't worship. Yes, it's probably a violation of your rights, but it isn't worship.
Guys, I'm not trying to promote Christianity, prayer, Jesus, or whatever.
I'm just saying that sometimes people are too easily offended and that propensity to be offended ends up watering down their effectiveness on the bigger scale.
On a similar note of you washing floor Mr. Scott,
Back when I had real jobs it was common that smokers got a lot of breaks.... whenever they needed a nicotine fix they got a break, but since I didn't smoke I had to keep working. Was that offensive? Sure it was. I ended up putting in far more labor that day than the smokers and we were paid the same amount...so it's not just atheists in the navy that get the short end of the stick because they don't do what the clique does.
But I didn't raise a stink about it because the cigarettes stunk enough and I figured the impending health issues would be just desserts.
When I was in boot camp (Navy) you either had to go to church on Sunday or clean the barracks. That is being forced to go to worship services or get punished for not going.
When I was in boot camp a Christian rock band came to perform and it was mandatory to attend. I refused and was threatened with "failure to follow a direct order," but I persisted and was finally given permission to not attend but to stay behind and wax the barracks floors: again... punished for not going to worship.
Every night over the 1MC was evening prayers to Jesus: captive audience prayer. There is no escaping it because the 1MC is ship wide. The only way to avoid it was to put on headphones.
Every award ceremony (mandatory attendance unless you were on watch) was started by a Jesus-laden prayer.
That's forced worship.
I don't use Wikipedia for the article itself. I use Wikipedia for the references and citations. I use those to go directly to the source.
Dane, you never did answer my question concerning if you would feel the same way about the prayer menu being "just a piece of paper" if it was a prayer to Allah.
As for evidence that sailors are being forced to stop their activities and be silent during Christian prayers being broadcast on their ships, I have stories from dozens of atheist and non-theist sailors who tell the same story. You can see this for yourself using Google or by visiting the websites for American Atheists, MAAF, MRFF, FFRF, or any of the countless other non-theist organizations who support the military.
However, we both know you know where to find the real facts but will choose to ignore them...
Kathy
The thing is Kathy, there's really no reason to imply that I choose to ignore facts. Instead of allowing these facts to speak for themselves, which is what honest, intellectual discourse is for, it's easy to insult the intelligence of the other person. There's really no reason for it and it stifles the conversation. You can read through my responses and you'll find that I haven't tried to directly insult anyone simply because we disagree on conclusions. What I've tried t o do is have a conversation about the issue and not about personalities or the people involved in the conversation. What I have received in return from several on this article is the exact opposite. Like I've said, there's no reason for that.
I think I did answer your question, but if I didn't then I'll answer it here for you. If the gov't decided to include a Muslim prayer then I would not object to it being there entirely. What I would do is wonder what basis the military used for allowing it.
Before you jump and begin to say , "AH-HAH!" let me explain.
This nation has a Puritan history and the Christian worldview has been a part of it from its inception. This worldview may not have always worked itself out in public policy, but that heritage has been there. The vast majority of Americans will respond in the affirmative when asked whether they are a Christian. Now, they may not be a Christian in fact or practice, but most people in this country consider themselves some flavor or a Christian. So, this country has a Christian history and not a Muslim one.
Also, the holiday being celebrated was Christmas which is traditionally a Christian holiday. I understand everything about it originally being the Solstice and all of that, but we aren't celebrating the solstice. The time of year that we are celebrating is Christmas and not a Muslim holiday so there wouldn't be a logical reason to have a Muslim prayer on the menus. Your question becomes a moot point.
Now, if you were to ask me how I would react to a Muslim prayer being printed on menus during Ramadan or something of that sort then my answer would be the same, "I would hope that Christians would be gracious enough to simply set it aside and eat."
You see, most Christians would which is why you do not find the kind of religious freedom we have in America anywhere else that does not have that Christian history. When you go to the Far East, parts of Africa, and the Middle East you don't find religious dissension like you do in the West. This is because the religious dissension has grown up through the Christian Worldview.
Simply go to Iran, Saudi Arabia, India and places like that and try to promote your own religion and see how it is received. In India today there is war being waged from time to time still between the Hindus and Muslims. In Saudi Arabia and Syria and places like that there is no such thing as freedom of religion.
No, it is in the West which had Christian Worldview that has allowed religious dissension to grow and thrive because the Christian Worldview allows it.
So, for the orthodox Christian, when he sees a Muslim prayer on his menu during Ramadan he would simply set it aside and eat. If he begins to get upset or whatever then he leaving his faith and operating in anger or whatever. The very fact that we're having this discussion is evidence that the Christian Worldview demands tolerance and TRUE inherent value for all human life.
So, there's your answer.
Pages