athiest sues US military

[xsecx]

http://www.cnn.com/2008/US/07/08/atheist.soldier/index.html

pretty interesting stuff. It's a really hard thing to think about including faith as a motivator and then at the same time try and not push one over another.

[straightXed]

http://www.cnn.com/2008/US/07/08/atheist.soldier/index.html

pretty interesting stuff. It's a really hard thing to think about including faith as a motivator and then at the same time try and not push one over another.

To me it just seems so messed up.

[xsecx]

To me it just seems so messed up.

I don't disagree with you. It's just weird when you think about trying to take into account everyone's opinions and feelings. this is one of the main reasons why as a general rule I don't talk about my religious beliefs at work.

[mouseman004]

This might sound really terrible, but I sort of agree with the idea that if you can't put aside your personal beleifs sometimes for the sake of others you wouldnt make a good leader. Let me just clarify that before I come across as a huge asshole. If you are leading a team into a dangerous situation and everybody on your team is a devoted Christian and it would mean alot to the team if the leader of the team prayed with them, would it really kill you to at least pretend to pray to make them feel more secure?

I am not saying that everybody should give up their beleifs for the sake of others, but I am saying there are times where its not really necesary to take a stand against other beleifs. For instance, I am an agnostic but I am not going to refuse to go to a friend's wedding because it is being held in a Catholic Church. I am going to go because it would mean alot to my friend that I am there. I hope you guys understand what I am saying, because if I am being misinterpreted I just seem like a tool.

That being said, I think it is really shitty the way this guy was treated simply because he was an athiest.

[straightXed]

I don't disagree with you. It's just weird when you think about trying to take into account everyone's opinions and feelings. this is one of the main reasons why as a general rule I don't talk about my religious beliefs at work.

I don't think i have ever really spoke about my beliefs at work either but then no one else has spoke about theirs, which is fine. I mean for a work place the stance on religion really should be neutral in my eyes with no one faith being adhered to by the company, at least not publicly. People should never involve religious beleifs in hiring, firing or promoting if its not inherently relative to the position. I agree that the motivating force should be patriotism over religion, i mean you are fighting for the good of the whole country and that means embracing all faiths and the freedom to choose faith or non faith - so i think its great that they are sueing.

[straightXed]

This might sound really terrible, but I sort of agree with the idea that if you can't put aside your personal beleifs sometimes for the sake of others you wouldnt make a good leader. Let me just clarify that before I come across as a huge asshole. If you are leading a team into a dangerous situation and everybody on your team is a devoted Christian and it would mean alot to the team if the leader of the team prayed with them, would it really kill you to at least pretend to pray to make them feel more secure?

Why should they pray with them, what about the one athiest there, why are their beliefs not being pandered to, even if they are actions that are insincere they would need to be ready to pander to all beleifs. If its a highly mixed group of hindus, sikhism, christians, jews, buddhists, athiests, agnostics, islam etc. should the leader of the group pray to all gods, because logically thats what you are asking unless you are asking that christian faith be held up above all others. Which is the obvious problem at the moment, christianity is overshadowing other peoples beliefs to the point where lives are at risk.

I am not saying that everybody should give up their beleifs for the sake of others, but I am saying there are times where its not really necesary to take a stand against other beleifs. For instance, I am an agnostic but I am not going to refuse to go to a friend's wedding because it is being held in a Catholic Church. I am going to go because it would mean alot to my friend that I am there. I hope you guys understand what I am saying, because if I am being misinterpreted I just seem like a tool.

But you are saying they should put their beliefs aside, theres no way around that. If you are asking them to pray just to make others feel good and just to get promoted then you are saying exactly what you say you aren't.

Its completely different from you choosing to go to friends wedding as a mark of respect for them and to show that you are open enough to walk into a catholic church. I mean i would walk into a mosque a church or anything but it doesn't infringe my beliefs, its a personal choice and i don't have to do it if i don't want. I mean would you have a pretend wedding at a catholic church because others would feel better about it, thats a better analogy to the situtaion.

My boss drinks, another boss of mine smokes, should they pretend they don't to pander to my beliefs? Or if i want to be promoted should i pretend to drink and smoke because most people in my company do? I would attend a friends wedding regardless of faith or location but i don't think i should have to adhere to religious actions that i don't believe in to do my job especially if it directly contradicts my own beliefs.

That being said, I think it is really shitty the way this guy was treated simply because he was an athiest.

So he should pretend he isn't athiest right?

[mouseman004]

Why should they pray with them, what about the one athiest there, why are their beliefs not being pandered to, even if they are actions that are insincere they would need to be ready to pander to all beleifs. If its a highly mixed group of hindus, sikhism, christians, jews, buddhists, athiests, agnostics, islam etc. should the leader of the group pray to all gods, because logically thats what you are asking unless you are asking that christian faith be held up above all others. Which is the obvious problem at the moment, christianity is overshadowing other peoples beliefs to the point where lives are at risk.

That is a very good point that I do not have a response to.



Its completely different from you choosing to go to friends wedding as a mark of respect for them and to show that you are open enough to walk into a catholic church. I mean i would walk into a mosque a church or anything but it doesn't infringe my beliefs, its a personal choice and i don't have to do it if i don't want. I mean would you have a pretend wedding at a catholic church because others would feel better about it, thats a better analogy to the situtaion.

What about if you are asked to take part in the wedding, for example to be a best man? If that is the case you would be actively participating in the catholic ceremony which is directly against your beleifs as an athiest. Would you refuse to do it? Or as another example, I was asked to be somebody's godfather, so I was at the Christening and I had to actively participate in the ceremony despite my agnostic beleifs. I was honoured to be asked and I knew it would mean alot to the couple that asked me if I would do it, so I did.


My boss drinks, another boss of mine smokes, should they pretend they don't to pander to my beliefs? Or if i want to be promoted should i pretend to drink and smoke because most people in my company do?

No, they should not pretend not to do it to pander to your beleifs. But in a position of authority they have to be open to other sets of beleifs or moral standards. For instance they would not be able to successfully run the company if they only hired those who drank and smoked would they?

To illustrate my point, look at what it takes to be the president of the United States or the leader of any nation for that matter. If Mitt Romney became president, he is a Mormon, he would not have been able to successfully run the United States if every policy idea he enacted adhered only to his Mormon beleifs. He has to be willing to accomodate a very diverse population even if that means sacrificing some of his personal beleifs. Or we can look at Stephen Harper here in Canada. He was a member of the Reform party which means that he is very much right wing, however as the Prime Minister his party has created a policy agenda that is closer to right-centre. To be a leader he must be willing to accomodate to others at times.



So he should pretend he isn't athiest rights?

No, I am not arguing that somebody has to pretend to be something that they are not, or hide their beleifs. I am simply stating that I beleive that when somebody is in a leadership role, or a position of power, at times they need to be willing to accomodate others or sometimes in rare situations set aside their own beleifs for the sake of others.

[straightXed]

That is a very good point that I do not have a response to.

ok then.





What about if you are asked to take part in the wedding, for example to be a best man? If that is the case you would be actively participating in the catholic ceremony which is directly against your beleifs as an athiest. Would you refuse to do it? Or as another example, I was asked to be somebody's godfather, so I was at the Christening and I had to actively participate in the ceremony despite my agnostic beleifs. I was honoured to be asked and I knew it would mean alot to the couple that asked me if I would do it, so I did.

You seem to have missed how this analogy doesn't relate to being expected to hide your beliefs and act like you believe something else in situation where your personal beliefs should not even be an issue. I mean if your boss said "i'll promote you if you start being christian" you'd think thats a bit off right? And a courtesy to your family and their beliefs is different to being expected to forgo your own beleifs in the workplace, if however you felt the courtesy you were doing for your family was too much of an infringement of your own beliefs then surely you would say you aren't prepared to do that? And if they were decent they would understand. Like if they expected you to drink alcohol, would you? I mean it would make them feel good so are you saying you would for them? You have to understand this man obviously felt it was making a mockery of his personal beliefs if he were to pray and thats something that shouldn't be expected of him, its his right to choose not to pray and not be vindicated for that. You choosing to honor your family is different, if they were prepared to force you against your will to forsake your beliefs (for instance on drinking) surely you would feel very different.




No, they should not pretend not to do it to pander to your beleifs. But in a position of authority they have to be open to other sets of beleifs or moral standards. For instance they would not be able to successfully run the company if they only hired those who drank and smoked would they?

But you are asking him to pray, thats going beyond being open to other beliefs thats asking them to actively participate in beliefs that go against his own which is against his constituional rights. Praying isn't part of the job, he had a near perfect record and not wanting to pray should not reflect upon his oppertunities for promotion. Further more if people in a position of authority are supposed to be open to other sets of beliefs why were they not open to his beleifs? It seems you are coming at this from their angle and in doing so playing down the importance of the athiests beleifs to those of the christians.

And if my company were to use the fact that i don't drink and smoke as a reason for not promoting me i would sue them so damn quick and i'd make a right fuss. And the truth is to some extent that can happen, the management at my company is very young and cliquey, they all go out on the town and socialise with the members of staff that also do that and they build up an in crowd that subtley seems to get preference over others, this however is monitered as people have complained about it before - and why is it monitered? Because its unlawful and wrong.

To illustrate my point, look at what it takes to be the president of the United States or the leader of any nation for that matter. If Mitt Romney became president, he is a Mormon, he would not have been able to successfully run the United States if every policy idea he enacted adhered only to his Mormon beleifs. He has to be willing to accomodate a very diverse population even if that means sacrificing some of his personal beleifs. Or we can look at Stephen Harper here in Canada. He was a member of the Reform party which means that he is very much right wing, however as the Prime Minister his party has created a policy agenda that is closer to right-centre. To be a leader he must be willing to accomodate to others at times.

You seem to have completely missed the point, somehow you have missed how they weren't open to Halls beliefs. Or that my personal beliefs on drinking should not hinder me, i like hall, are open to other peoples beliefs but don't expect to have to partake in them as a course of my job when its completely non related. Accomadation is fine, i'm all for being accomadative of other beliefs, and thats exactly what Hall is sueing for. Now what beliefs have been sacraficed and was it a legitimate course of the job? Is he having to follow the koran as a part of his job just to appease a certain demographic? Is he now avoiding pork to appease a certain demographic? Is he praying falsely to a god he does not follow to appease a certain demographic? Or is he just open and accepting of all these stances and not acting like a clown for trying to be everything he's not to please others. Next you will want the president to sleep with both men and woman to show open and accepting stances on same sex relations!





No, I am not arguing that somebody has to pretend to be something that they are not, or hide their beleifs. I am simply stating that I beleive that when somebody is in a leadership role, or a position of power, at times they need to be willing to accomodate others or sometimes in rare situations set aside their own beleifs for the sake of others.

You can accomodate without partaking, he's not saying they can't pray or that its wrong, just that he doesn't personally do it. If you expect him to pray then you are asking him to pretend to believe in god and thats expecting him to be something he's not, and if thats how he has to get a promotion then you are also asking him to hide his beliefs...so thats is exactly what you are arguing. As the leader and authority figure he should abide by the law and the constitution and do what is right for everyone not just the christian majority. For instance say he is in the authorative position and commands a large group of mainly christians, although among them is one athiest who feels he has to pray because everyone else is even the athiest leader prays. It just snowballs into everyone having to pray and to not do so is unacceptable...thats wrong. If the man in charge is athiest then that should be respected, the postion of authority doesn't change his constituional rights and furthermore it allows others the freedom to follow their own personal beleifs instead of feeling obliged to kowtow to something they don't believe. I personally would respect a person in authority to exercise their personal rights and set an example to everyone else that they are free to do the same - after all thats being accomadating of everyone and not making anyone feel left out.

[mouseman004]

ok then.







You seem to have missed how this analogy doesn't relate to being expected to hide your beliefs and act like you believe something else in situation where your personal beliefs should not even be an issue. I mean if your boss said "i'll promote you if you start being christian" you'd think thats a bit off right? And a courtesy to your family and their beliefs is different to being expected to forgo your own beleifs in the workplace, if however you felt the courtesy you were doing for your family was too much of an infringement of your own beliefs then surely you would say you aren't prepared to do that? And if they were decent they would understand. Like if they expected you to drink alcohol, would you? I mean it would make them feel good so are you saying you would for them? You have to understand this man obviously felt it was making a mockery of his personal beliefs if he were to pray and thats something that shouldn't be expected of him, its his right to choose not to pray and not be vindicated for that. You choosing to honor your family is different, if they were prepared to force you against your will to forsake your beliefs (for instance on drinking) surely you would feel very different.






But you are asking him to pray, thats going beyond being open to other beliefs thats asking them to actively participate in beliefs that go against his own which is against his constituional rights. Praying isn't part of the job, he had a near perfect record and not wanting to pray should not reflect upon his oppertunities for promotion. Further more if people in a position of authority are supposed to be open to other sets of beliefs why were they not open to his beleifs? It seems you are coming at this from their angle and in doing so playing down the importance of the athiests beleifs to those of the christians.

And if my company were to use the fact that i don't drink and smoke as a reason for not promoting me i would sue them so damn quick and i'd make a right fuss. And the truth is to some extent that can happen, the management at my company is very young and cliquey, they all go out on the town and socialise with the members of staff that also do that and they build up an in crowd that subtley seems to get preference over others, this however is monitered as people have complained about it before - and why is it monitered? Because its unlawful and wrong.



You seem to have completely missed the point, somehow you have missed how they weren't open to Halls beliefs. Or that my personal beliefs on drinking should not hinder me, i like hall, are open to other peoples beliefs but don't expect to have to partake in them as a course of my job when its completely non related. Accomadation is fine, i'm all for being accomadative of other beliefs, and thats exactly what Hall is sueing for. Now what beliefs have been sacraficed and was it a legitimate course of the job? Is he having to follow the koran as a part of his job just to appease a certain demographic? Is he now avoiding pork to appease a certain demographic? Is he praying falsely to a god he does not follow to appease a certain demographic? Or is he just open and accepting of all these stances and not acting like a clown for trying to be everything he's not to please others. Next you will want the president to sleep with both men and woman to show open and accepting stances on same sex relations!







You can accomodate without partaking, he's not saying they can't pray or that its wrong, just that he doesn't personally do it. If you expect him to pray then you are asking him to pretend to believe in god and thats expecting him to be something he's not, and if thats how he has to get a promotion then you are also asking him to hide his beliefs...so thats is exactly what you are arguing. As the leader and authority figure he should abide by the law and the constitution and do what is right for everyone not just the christian majority. For instance say he is in the authorative position and commands a large group of mainly christians, although among them is one athiest who feels he has to pray because everyone else is even the athiest leader prays. It just snowballs into everyone having to pray and to not do so is unacceptable...thats wrong. If the man in charge is athiest then that should be respected, the postion of authority doesn't change his constituional rights and furthermore it allows others the freedom to follow their own personal beleifs instead of feeling obliged to kowtow to something they don't believe. I personally would respect a person in authority to exercise their personal rights and set an example to everyone else that they are free to do the same - after all thats being accomadating of everyone and not making anyone feel left out.

I suppose I was mixing up the concepts of being accomodating to other beliefs and being forced to practice other beleifs.