(In response to this post.)

The motto is “Opus Dei Cum Pecunia Alienum Efficemus,” Latin for “Doing God’s Work with Other People’s Money.”

Except they’re not doing “God’s work.” I’ll be honest; I read the description of what the RCO does and it still doesn’t make much sense to me, but it’s pretty evident God is nowhere to be found in that office. So there’s no reason for the patch to say that.

The Military Association of Atheists and Freethinkers pointed that out to Air Force officials and — surprisingly — they changed the logo!

Here’s the new patch:

In Latin, it reads “Miraculi Cum Pecunia Alienum Efficemus.” In English: “Doing Miracles with Other People’s Money.”

It’s not really any better. The RCO isn’t performing miracles any more than it’s doing God’s work — but if you see the word as a metaphor, I suppose it’s a small step up.

In any case, it’s probably a net positive since Republican Congressperson Randy Forbes is irate:

‘It is most egregious,’ Virginia Rep. Randy Forbes told Fox News. ‘The Air Force is taking the tone that you can’t even use the word “God”.’

‘(It is a) bridge too far in terms of the rights of men and women who serve in our services and their ability to express their faith.’

Right. Because we all know how hard Christians have it in this country when they want to express their faith…

Forbes sent a letter (PDF) to Air Force officials, co-signed by 35 other members of Congress, asking them to reverse their decision. If the officials are interested in doing the right thing, they’ll toss that letter right in the trash where it belongs.

No one is taking away any rights from religious military personnel. They’re simply removing an unnecessary reference to God in a logo that’s meant to be a symbol for everyone in the Air Force, not just the religious people.

The military, however, doesn’t recognize the difference. They allow soldiers to wear dog tags that say “Atheist” but not “Humanist.” Why not? Who knows. But Bradley is trying to fix that.

Maj. Ray Bradley is applying to be the first humanist recognized as a “distinctive faith group leader” by the Army. In the meantime, he can’t be designated as a humanist on his official records or dog tags, although he can be classified as an atheist.

…

Bradley said he applied for the change to his record after learning that “atheist” was now an officially recognized choice for soldiers. His request was ultimately rejected by the Army Chaplain Corps, he said, which didn’t respond to a request for comment. Bradley believes some of the resistance comes from a lack of familiarity with humanism.

“I don’t think the chaplaincy really understands the difference between atheism and humanism,” he said.

…

The Army currently has no humanist chaplains or laypersons authorized to perform limited chaplain duties, a position roughly equivalent to a deacon or elder in a Christian church. A soldier at Fort Meade, Md., has also filed the paperwork seeking the designation, which is a more formal process in the Army and Navy than in the Air Force, where a humanist lay leader is stationed at MacDill Air Force Base, Fla., according to Torpy.

Incidentally, that Fort Meade soldier is Cpt. Ryan Jean, whom I mentioned here.

I’d love to hear a good reason from military officials as to why they won’t allow the label, but there really isn’t one. It’s just ignorance on their part. It ought to be a quick fix. And yet, when it comes to non-religious people in the military, there’s always some sort of resistance when they try to assert themselves.

Thankfully, he’s an excellent spokesperson, too: an activist who risks his life for our country, knowing that there’s no afterlife awaiting him:

Scheduled for 31 March, Rock Beyond Belief comes two years after another controversial concert at Fort Bragg, “Rock The Fort”.

Sponsored by the Billy Graham Evangelical Association, Rock the Fort was billed as an “evangelical event” with Christian bands, family activities, and an emphasis on spreading the gospel to the entire community.

Despite attracting criticism for hosting the event, the top brass at Fort Bragg said they would be willing do the same for an event thrown by a different religious group.

“So the next day, I raised my hand and said, ‘Fort Bragg, I’ve got an event’,” says Mr Griffith.

The concert was originally scheduled for 2011, but was postponed until his group could secure the same location as Rock The Fort: an outdoor field capable of hosting thousands of people, in view of the Main Post Chapel.

Though the Rock Beyond Belief concert is the most public of Mr Griffith’ s efforts to make the military more accepting of atheists, it is not his only one.

“We have a lot of work to do,” he says.

…

He’s also working to ensure that servicemembers can have “atheist” listed on their official military records.

“It took me a year and a half to get my records changed to atheist. When I told them I was atheist, they put ‘no religious preference’,” he says. “I told them that’s unacceptable. I do have a preference, and that’s atheism.”

I’m honored to be one of the speakers at the event. I plan to spend my time on stage screaming, “I’m not worthy! I’m nooooot wooooooorthy!”

But if there are any other messages you’d like me to pass along to the troops, please leave them in the comments.

How many believe it’s time for America to quit pretending we’re not Christian. And if there’s people in King, North Carolina who don’t like that, then there’s lots of places you can move to. — David Gibbs III of the Christian Law Center speaking at a rally to enshrine the Christian flag at a municipal war memorial.

Steven Hewett, Afghanistan veteran, Bronze star honoree, and atheist in King, North Carolina, issued a complaint against the city when he saw that Christianity was being promoted by the City Council at a war memorial. Flags flew for each of the military services, along with a Christian flag. Atheists, Buddhists, Muslims, and Christians who value secular government were invited to leave the city.

With pressure from the ACLU, the city decided to hold a lottery, during which, residents could request that a flag of their choice, or no flag at all, be flown in honor of a veteran they chose. The symbol on the flag had to be listed on the VA-approved emblems for burial markers. So, in a predominantly Christian area, supported by a threatening majority of Christian-nation enthusiasts, Christianity now has a permanent place on a municipal war memorial.

This issue in King is one of a long line of efforts to enshrine Christianity in government. There can be little confusion in this instance, as this is no non-denominational prayer or general religious activity. The compromise the city council chose, to hold a lottery and fly flags of choice, privileges the majority without accounting for the strong prejudice against those who would dare oppose the de-facto government religion. No flag other than the Christian flag has ever flown.

The quality and composition of the documentary are excellent, and with the variety of coverage, both of the flag issue and local beliefs, it keeps the viewer’s attention. Below is a topical timeline of the documentary for reference.

• :00-:20 minutes: Introducing the flag issue.
• :20-:53 minutes: Problems with Christian nation theology and Christian beliefs.
• :53–1:08 Council decision to institute a lottery, more on Christian nation and problems with faith-based initiatives, debunking of David Barton.
• 1:09-1:13 Rapture; 1:12 Con Man highlighting the profiteering behind the Family Radio Rapture.
• 1:14-1:19 Issues of fear and boycotting in King NC; one interviewee opens their heart at 1:16)
• 1:20-1:27 Inalienable rights, theocracy and theology
• 1:27 Issue regarding the need for a light on flag
• 1:28–1:36 religious violence and religions laughing and religions, origins
• 1:36-1:39 submission of blank/atheist flags; George, presented often as a violent Christian, puts in submission for to commemorate his step-father. He talks about his father as a role model, and a hard worker, who adopted George, but he believes his father is in hell despite those good works. George also submitted the flag to show that the policy was too liberal in that it might allow non-Christian flags.
• 1:39-1:43 Historicity of Jesus and the Bible. (142 stop in here for commentary from “freethinker Thor”).
• 1:43 Video of the actual lottery selection. One Nation Under God displayed in selection room. Hewett chose to opt out of flying a Muslim flag on 9-11 and flew no flag at all for each of his 4 weeks.
• 1:44-1:50 Krishna beliefs and prayers
• 1:50-2:00 Christian flag goes up, victory celebration and No Flag Week. (and a Biblical justification delivered for slavery)
• 2:01 Christmas Burlesque, conclusion

A writer at the Burn Pit, a blog at the American Legion website, took issue with the proposal. Well, they took issue with the idea that “Atheist group seeks to ban religious preference from military documentation.” There are good reasons to make that change as well as good reasons why such a change would be infeasible. Whatever those reasons may be, the MAAF proposal suggests nothing of the sort. The blog’s author and I are in communication and hope to resolve any misunderstandings. In the meantime, the Legion also posted a poll to gather reader input on the issue.

Should the military be banned from asking servicemembers their religious affiliations?

• Yes, it creates a situation where people will only claim to be a particular faith to avoid being ostracized by peers.
• Yes, under the principle of separation of church and state, the government should not be allowed to ask.
• No, if someone dies on active duty, the military needs to know what religious customs and practices to afford the deceased.
• No, it’s not compulsory, so if you don’t want to answer the question, you just claim no religious affiliation.

The first option implies that people will ONLY choose a faith not their own. No one has claimed that.

Option two brings up separation of church and state. That is a relevant consideration, but the option seems more intended for shock value to imply that separation of church and state (a concept some Burn Pit readers seem to reject) is being abused. The intended purpose is to gather better data and to improve team cohesiveness, not to be strict about church-state separation.

Number 4 is factually incorrect for two reasons. It is in fact compulsory to have an answer to the question. And the default option for those not wanting to answer is “no preference” not “no affiliation.” Those are very different options. The former implies any old religion will do, and the latter implies no religion is preferred.

Option 3 rightfully points out a benefit of knowing a service member’s religious preference, but the reason given is incorrect. The military does not have a need to know what religious customs and practices to afford the deceased. The service member has an interest in informing the military what religious customs and practices are preferred in the event of death. The option to make one’s religious preference known is in no way infringed by MAAF’s suggested reforms.

A poll with the wording below would better represent the options and issues:

Should military personnel be required to state their religious affiliation?

• No, it creates a situation where people may pick a faith not their own to avoid being ostracized and that reduces the quality of the data.
• No, under the principle of separation of church and state, the government should not be allowed to ask.
• No, if a service member wants last rites or special religious burial, they always have the option to do that.
• Yes, it is compulsory, but you can just claim no religious affiliation.

Polls of this nature aren’t meant to be scientific. These alternate options resolve some of the issues of the original poll, but still aren’t comprehensive or scientific. Polls guide readers about what options are available on an issue. In this case, the Legion poll has provided bad options that confuse the issue, possibly with the intent of guiding reader opinion against MAAF’s recommended changes. I’m confident that with more dialogue, Burn Pit writers and Legion leaders will become more open to reforms for atheists and humanists. But it has been a rocky start.

Resist, for a moment, your urge to pummel this guy in the face

A Seventh Day Adventist Chaplain at Robins Air Force Base recently lamented a divorce rate that has risen from 2.5% in 2001 to 3.9% in 2011. Is that a lot? Is there a solution? Have divorces really even increased? A religious perspective (as well as most of society) says any divorce is bad no matter what, but that might not be a healthy perspective on relationships.

The fact is that many* (but not most) marriages do not last “till death do us part.” Especially in a military context, pressure to marry young is higher because people want to stay together as one person ships off to training or to war. In addition, the military affords private housing and extra pay to married couples, so marriages of convenience are not uncommon. It can do more damage to try to push these types of couples to stay together after they mature and realize it might not have been the best choice. Coaching couples to an amicable divorce is an option many religious counselors may overlook.

In addition, the frequent separations and deployments can put great strain on marriages. A religious perspective does not allow for “open” marriages where wives or husbands are given permission to seek other partners during a long deployment. And, to be fair, the macho and patriarchal nature of the military can exacerbate the territorial instinct especially for men and “their” women. Coaching about safe and honest open marriage might provide couples an option to extend and improve relationships suffering long separation due to combat deployments.

It’s impossible to confirm whether military divorce rates are high or low relative to the general population because the military uses total divorces divided by total marriages. “There is no comparable system for tracking civilian divorces,” said an Air Force Times report. Civilian statistics are measured in divorces per capita (PDF). Honestly, the military metric is probably better, but it is odd that there is no comparative demographic.

Whatever the metric, the perception that all divorce is bad combined with an expectation of an exclusive, closed marriage may be hurting the military. A religious bias of chaplains who often do marriage counseling may be hurting military families in some cases. This is not to say that chaplains don’t recommend divorce in extreme cases of physical or mental abuse. A perspective of “right-sizing” the divorce rate to ensure that couples marry for the right reasons, stay married for the right reasons, and get divorced for the right reasons would be preferable to a “make it work at all costs” approach.

*As of 2009, the Census reported more than 10% of first marriages don’t reach their 5th anniversary and about 25% don’t reach their 10th anniversary. These statistics are in addition to the cultural pressure to enter young marriages, to marry solely because of pregnancy, or to stay in unhappy marriages. There is also a ubiquitous media stereotype of unhappy, controlling, sexless marriages.

• Godless Rallies — The Reason Rally will take place on March 24^th in Washington, D.C.  This will be the biggest nontheist event in history, with the Military Association of Atheists and Freethinkers (MAAF) as a sponsor.  Bad Religion and Tim Minchin are already confirmed, with many more on the roster.  Rock Beyond Belief at Ft. Bragg is scheduled for the following weekend, March 31^st. That’s just down the road, and features six bands and major speakers from throughout the atheist community.  This and other events are listed at the national events calendar at MAAF.
• Godless Groups — Watch for greater proliferation of local groups on military installations and ships.  MAAF has gotten limited support from the military. Neverthless, we still help local groups to form and that shows the increasing need for recognition and support of atheists and humanists.
• Leaders Step Up — Humanist chaplaincies are forming around the country, and MAAF continues to certify military lay leaders (again, with limited military recognition). Maybe 2012 will see the first humanist chaplain in the military. There will definitely be more local leaders to support humanists in ways religious chaplains cannot. Will chaplains help humanists?
• Christmas Miracles — As they often do, Christians were overstepping the law during the Christmas season. Military leaders want to declare a Christmas miracle rather than resolving these issues.  They are still out there, and we must keep up the pressure. First is a large Christian shrine at Camp Pendleton posted without authorization and being used for forced Christian prayer.  A second issue relates to Walter Reed National Medical center.  Visitors are rightfully prohibited from foisting unsolicited Bibles on patients, and we should see if officials backpeddle and open the door to proselytizing.
• Academy Reforms — The US Air Force Academy invited MAAF to collaborate on training throughout 2011 with positive results.  However, the Academy has a long way to go in its reforms. All three Academies allowed for atheist/humanist meetings during cadet summer training. The Army (West Point) and Naval Academies have vibrant student groups, but they have yet to extend official recognition or support to them.  Will Academies continue their progress or backslide?
• Coming Out 2012 — Don’t Ask Don’t Tell was repealed at the end of 2010 and was implemented in September 2011. From the start, I’ve been dubious about the speed of implementation; it will take years. Same sex family services, state National Guard implementation, residual anti-gay sentiment, and fabricated* controversies will all complicate implementation. The secular community should continue to be vigilant against sectarian bias in military policy. (*Like the fabricated danger of chaplains being forced to do a gay marriage. There are explicit protections that will protect chaplains from such a situation.)

Staff Sergeant Dan Rawlings had to fight to get that sign up there, despite there already being a Nativity Scene and a Jewish Menorah on the premises. And a day hadn’t even gone by before someone tampered with the setup, moving the light illuminating the atheist message so that it lit up the sign next to it.

(Because, apparently, telling people to have a safe holiday season is blasphemous…)

One other interesting point: California Church IMPACT, “the legislative advocacy arm of the California Council of Churches,” is mad about the displays. Not at the atheists, but at military officials.

Why? Because they’re placing the Nativity Scene alongside displays from non-Christian faiths:

The Nativity is a key symbol for the Christian community. Submerged into a putative “secular holiday display” and surrounded it with generic, not religious, icons, means that the Nativity has become no more valuable than Rudolph as part of Christmas.

…

We do not wish to relinquish the Nativity as something meaningful to us as a specifically religious symbol. It is not décor, it is not a designer motif, it is not a greeting card image, and it should not become a political football. It is important to a lot of us as a critical part of our faith.

Paraphrased: Why are you not giving us more privilege? Don’t you know that we’re Christians, dammit?!

US Troops Pushing Christianity on Muslim Children

By now, you’ve heard plenty about Denver Broncos quarterback Tim Tebow and his public displays of faith. Maybe it’s not a big deal to you and you turn up your intellectual nose at professional sports, but this guy, for all intents and purposes, is preaching to tens of millions of Americans every week, whether they like it or not.

One result of his efforts is “Tebowing” which essentially means assuming a “bowing thinker” pose to emulate Tim Tebow’s pre/in-game prayers.  This meme has its own website, complete with “patriotic” sections and a Vs. mode.  Ingenious, really.

So what’s the problem? It turns out military personnel are taking pictures “Tebowing,” which is to say they are associating the US military with Christianity.   Free speech and free exercise should extend to certain personalized pictures in the workplace, but there should be a line, it’s arguably being crossed many times over. Check out these examples:

AP Photo/Barry Gutierrez

• Tebowing with the children of Afghanistan (5)
• Part of NFL game (3)
• F-16 Tebowing (1)
• In uniform (1)
• Tebowing in MOPP 4 (1)
• USAFA Tebowing, football and the terrazzo (1)
• Predator Tebowing (1)
• Tebowing the Marine combat fitness test (1)

Given that these are clearly optional activities, and that Tebowing is the basest, most diluted kind of religious activity I can think of, I see no reason to object in most cases. Similarly, “atheists in foxholes” photos in uniform or similar pro-humanist / pro-atheist pics would be ok in similar circumstances.

However, the Tebowing with Afghan kids is clearly an evangelical activity that must be pulled from the site with reprimands for the troop involved.  The NFL game is misappropriation of government resources — and any Marine will tell you his body is a government resource.

While there should be wide latitude, there is a point at which personal expressions are too closely wrapped up in one’s military persona.

update 12/17:

• Thanks for the comments so far.  I wanted to post some responses here as well as those in the comments.
• Those declaring ‘Christian-bashing’ or ‘choose your battles’ should note that this post is a question not a policy statement.
• Many commenters pointed out that Tebowing is often mocking.  None of the examples here are mocking, and tebowing.com is about revering the activity, not mocking it.  From the website:  ”What is Tebowing?
  (verb) to get down on a knee and start praying.”
• Many pointed out that the activity is voluntary, which is the case in most of the examples, but not all.
• Some seem to have missed that the Afghan child is being taught to tebow/pray by the soldier (with the gun on patrol).  I should also point out that evangelizing is explicitly prohibited by regulations.  Similarly, the Marines at the game were part of the official program of events, clearly acting with command direction, not simply in the crowd.