About a month from now, on March 31^st (a week after the Reason Rally), there is going to be a huge event for military atheists at Fort Bragg, North Carolina called Rock Beyond Belief:

I was fortunate enough to be invited as a speaker there and I’m wondering what messages you’d like me to deliver to the Foxhole Atheists who will be in attendance.

Any suggestions would be appreciated!

This is what happens when atheists in the military become more aware of their rights and aren’t afraid to speak up.

Air Force Lt. Gen. Ronnie Hawkins, also the head of the Defense Information Systems Agency (DISA), recently gave a talk to all employees in the DISA department and he included the following slides in his presentation:

Why #1 and #18 are on the list, I don’t know. Even if they’re personal “rules” he uses, they don’t belong in a presentation he’s giving as military leader.

Thankfully, someone was alert and aware that this was improper behavior:

A DISA employee who witnessed the presentation spoke with Air Force Times under condition of anonymity. He said he was shocked that a senior leader would include such direct references to God in a commander’s call that in his opinion was held to say “I’m your new commander and this is what I expect of you.”

The employee said that he provided the presentation to the Military Religious Freedom Foundation, a nonprofit advocacy group, “in hopes of saving lives.”

MRFF’s founder and president, Mikey Weinstein, is calling for Hawkins to be court-martialed for violating his oath to the Constitution. He said he is representing 21 employees at DISA.

The employee said what might seem like an ordinary presentation to Air Force employees can be easily obtained and used as propaganda in other countries — something he said a commander should know. People in Arab nations for example, might see Hawkins’ comments as a show of support toward one religion by the U.S. government, he said.

There’s no word on any punishment for Hawkins yet, but this is what we need to keep doing in any public line of work. No commanding officer or government official or public school administrator should be using their positions as a pulpit for preaching their religious beliefs. It doesn’t matter what the intent is or how innocuous it may be — until they get called out on it, they won’t learn their lesson.

(Thanks to Justin, a Foxhole Atheist, for the link)

U.S Army Major Ray Bradley calls himself a Humanist. There’s nothing wrong with that, but we know that’s not synonymous with “atheist.” It’s atheism + ethics. It’s what you’re for instead of what you’re against. And people who use the “Humanism” label feel it’s a more thorough description of who they are — atheist just isn’t enough. (Dave Silverman, on the other hand, is an atheist, not a “Humanist.”)

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.

In anticipation of the Rock Beyond Belief event taking place at the end of March at Fort Bragg, North Carolina, Sgt Justin Griffith is in the spotlight as the organizer.

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.

Scott Burdick has published In God We Trust, free on YouTube, a fascinating two-hour documentary on the town of King, North Carolina, its secular minority, its Christian majority, its religious diversity, a war memorial with one too many flags. Throughout the documentary are in-depth interviews with non-Christians in the area, including Hare Krishnas, Muslims, and “dancers.” These interviews cover not just the flag issue but general questions of faith. Many might find these parts to be most interesting.

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

Recently, I posted a White House Petition (on the intolerably slow whitehouse.gov site) to remove the requirement for service members to choose a religious preference. Military personnel could always state a preference on their records if they felt strongly about the issue, but it wouldn’t be a requirement to state a preference. As part of this, there’s also a recommendation to add “humanist,” which isn’t currently an option.

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.