Mandatory Army Survey Discriminates Against Atheists

[Kim]

Whelp (http://rockbeyondbelief.com/2010/12/22/mandatory-army-survey-says-atheists-are-unfit-to-be-soldiers/)

Spiritual fitness is an area of possible difficulty for you. You may lack a sense of meaning and purpose in your life. At times, it is hard for you to make sense of what is happening to you and others around you. You may not feel connected to something larger than yourself. You may question your beliefs, principles, and values. Nevertheless, who you are and what you do matter. There are things to do to provide more meaning and purpose in your life. Improving your spiritual fitness should be an important goal. Change is possible, and the relevant self-development training modules will be helpful. If you need further help, please do not hesitate to seek out help from the people you care about and trust – strong people always do. Be patient in your development as it will take time to improve in this area. Still, persistence is key and you will improve here if you make this area a priority.So, the military is becoming less awful, but it's still pretty fucked. I look forward to the inevitable Christian backlash against the people complaining, because obviously not wanting to be treated inferior for not being religious is a ~wAr On ChRiStIaNiTy~. Anyone want to take bets on whether the coverage goes to "atheists attacking Christianity" or "AMERICA IS A CHRISTIAN NATION" first?

As far as I can tell, it's an anonymous survey, and they don't take any actual action based on it, but it's still pretty offensive, and something really needs to be done about it.

[Yrcrazypa]

Yeah, I've known about the whole "Atheists are inferior beings" thing for a good 2 and a half years now. It's stupid, and just another reason why I can't wait to get out. Three and a half years to go.

[Professor Smarmiarty]

I'ts t he fucking military- they go out and murder children and torture people for a living. Like what the shit do people expect. It is a fundamentally evil institution- that is itsjob description- are we really surprised.

[Wigmund]

You forgot about accusing them of drinking blood and littering.

[Professor Smarmiarty]

News shock: Nazi Wermacht discriminates against Jewish soldiers.

[Fenris]

News shock: Nazi Wermacht discriminates against Jewish soldiers.

http://editorial.sidereel.com/Images/Pages/jump_the_shark.jpg

[Professor Smarmiarty]

Well I'm just thinking if you going to bitch about the army and try to change things you could
A) Try and stop civilain massacres and rapes and profiteering and torture
or
B) Atheist volunteers getting bad marks on tests and having to do spiritual seminars.
Like one of these things kind of outweighs the others.

[Fenris]

Man, Nazis!

[Fenris]

Okay okay I mean I get where you're coming from that those terrible things do totally happen and that should stop but that 1) is definitely not the normal thing that happens with our military and 2) doesn't change the fact that the athiest thing is totally fucked up and needs to stop also.

Just like, say, abortion and gay marriage, while issues that need to be addressed, aren't as important as, say, the top .1% of wealthiest Americans getting 23% (something like that?) of the money in the nation, because things like abortion and gay marriage are important and DO NEED TO BE ADDRESSED, the increasing gap between classes and the rising national debt are a bit more important on the grand scale of things.

What I'm trying to get at with a poor analogy is that both the AMERIKANZ R NAZI angle that you're coming from and the fact that athiests are required to take spirituality seminars need to be addressed and focusing on just one is dumb and negligent.

[Fenris]

Okay okay another thing that I'm trying to get at is that immediately comparing the US Army to Nazis is going a bit far and kind of off topic so yeah

[A Zarkin' Frood]

You forgot about accusing them of drinking blood and littering.

That's Atheists, silly. Smarty was going on about the military.

Personally, how people could actually want to join an institution that's all about bullying other nations is way beyond me, the more people they discriminate against the fewer will join, and the less of a shitstain we'll have on this world.

On the other hand, what's even more beyond me is that an institution with the purpose of killing and stealing from one's neighbor would attract Christians at all. I'm not Christian, but from what I learned about the religion there is something like the ten commandments which apparently are a real big deal in a (stereotypically) Christian nation like the US.

Furthermore, why would the military want to make a difference between religious and non-religious cannon fodder? Wouldn't increasing their numbers by welcoming everyone with open arms be better for them?

Conclusion: The U.S. military (like all others, really) is stupid, and should be avoided at any cost.

Note: Please don't make me say it.

[Nique]

I think this might be overstating the problem in a lot of ways. Then again I am basically anti-war/ military so any survey the army would give I would interpret as bullcrap anyway.

[Kim]

Okay, so basically, the US doesn't have a very good support net for the poor class. From what I understand, many join the military because they don't have much choice if they want to have a life that isn't complete shit, plus pretty much EVERY media source in the US is constantly selling the idea that AMERICA IS THE BESTEST PATRIOTISM YEAH YEAH. So while I might hate nationalism/patriotism, it's unavoidable in American culture, and I can at least understand why people fall victim to it. Smarty's right that military is pretty much inherently evil work, but the US isn't getting rid of theirs anytime soon. I'd like us to, because I think at this point we've lost military privileges, but it's not going to happen.

Even if it did, that gets rid of what little support the poor have in some regard, meaning that even if we want to get rid of our military, we need to focus on better supporting the poor class, first. Given the spinelessness of our liberal politicians, and the what-the-fuck-is-wrong-with-these-"people" of the conservative politicians, that too will probably not happen anytime soon. These are changes that need to happen, and I plan on supporting a third political party that might advance that agenda, but they're not going to happen for a long time. That's just speaking realistically.

So, since we don't have/aren't getting a better system for supporting and protecting the poor, and since we can't get rid of our military, we can at least try to make the military ever-so-slightly less awful in the meanwhile, while pushing towards the bigger changes. Get the small changes we can when we can, work towards the bigger changes. This is being realistic, and acting on that realism.

[Professor Smarmiarty]

Okay okay I mean I get where you're coming from that those terrible things do totally happen and that should stop but that 1) is definitely not the normal thing that happens with our military
They're a pretty consistent thread in pretty much every military ever. And the US military has the most documentated cases. Any year you choose to name in the last like 100 years I could fnd some outrageous shit the US military pulled because that is what it is predicated upon. These are not rare occurences.

and 2) doesn't change the fact that the athiest thing is totally fucked up and needs to stop also.
[
Just like, say, abortion and gay marriage, while issues that need to be addressed, aren't as important as, say, the top .1% of wealthiest Americans getting 23% (something like that?) of the money in the nation, because things like abortion and gay marriage are important and DO NEED TO BE ADDRESSED, the increasing gap between classes and the rising national debt are a bit more important on the grand scale of things.

My problem is that while it would be nice to address all the issues in the world we can't. And if you focus on the small issues the big issues ge forgetten about. Look at the media and their focus on the trivial small issues because that way you can find the small things.
Look at people geting excited over the repeal of DADT- you're conditioning people to seek out tiny litle vicories while ignoring hte real, much bigger problems.
The small problems will get sorted out when you sort ou he big problems bu focusing on the small problems jus fucks everyone over.
I mean that is pretty much how such an unstable system as we have has managed to sustain itself for so long- because you can coddle the underclass with unimportant trivialities.


What I'm trying to get at with a poor analogy is that both the AMERIKANZ R NAZI angle that you're coming from and the fact that athiests are required to take spirituality seminars need to be addressed and focusing on just one is dumb and negligent.

I wasn't saying Americans are nazis, I was just saying making a ridiculous analogy to go with the ridiculous premise.
It is not dumb and negligent to focus on the MASSIVE problem tha tis destroying people raher than he problem that mildly inconveinces well-off people. It's a waste of time, attention-space and money to fix these problems when if you apply the same resources o he b igger problems you will sort out much more.

As for joing he army- it's mostly just poor people wihou other opions. Which is why I am an adament we should put in as many discriminatory regulations in the army as possible till eentually here is only one old white guy left.

[Krylo]

Smarty's right that military is pretty much inherently evil work, but the US isn't getting rid of theirs anytime soon. I'd like us to, because I think at this point we've lost military privileges, but it's not going to happen.Because leaving 'Communist'* China, the country that hates Japan (which has no military), still thinks it owns Taiwan (which has no chance of standing up to China without US backing), and which supports North Korea, as the only country with a 'super power' level military organization in the world is a good idea.

BECAUSE THAT WILL END WELL... and not with like, Kim Jong Il's kid murdering the shit out of South Koreans, while China conquers Taiwan, Thailand, and Japan, and fuck knows if they'll stop there.

They're a pretty consistent thread in pretty much every military ever. And the US military has the most documentated cases. Any year you choose to name in the last like 100 years I could fnd some outrageous shit the US military pulled because that is what it is predicated upon. These are not rare occurences.That's like saying that murder and rape are pretty consistent thread in pretty much every society ever, and more happens in New York. Any year you choose to name in the last like 100 years I could find some outrageous shit that has gone down in the streets of New York.

Of course, that MIGHT be because New York is one of the most densely populated urban centers of the world and there's a shit ton of people there, and pays no attention to whether or not the per capita crime rate is higher in New York than anywhere else.

The US has one of/the biggest Military in the world. We make up the majority of the UN's peace keeping missions, and have had our fingers in every war in the last century at some point or another.

There's the most US soldiers out there doing things, there's obviously going to be a greater number of them out there fucking things up. Combined with the fact that people are just going to give more of a shit over the US, being the monolithic thing that we are, doing terrible shit than say, Turkey, yes, you're going to have more documented cases of American soldiers doing things than you would have of Kazakhstan soldiers.

This doesn't mean that every soldier is an evil baby raping sociopath. This doesn't even mean the majority of them are.

I'll be right there with you on the idea that the military makes people into killers. I'll be right there with you that it's even their job to kill people. I'm not, however, going to be right there with you when you compare a soldier following orders to pure evil or what the fuck ever.

Until we live in some kind of perfect one world nation utopia of love and peace we are going to need militaries in nearly every country. The only exceptions being cases like Japan, where they are provided their military force by their allies.

The US is not such a case, and while, yes, the people in charge fuck up and send the US military to places it shouldn't be, and yes, the military breaks people down and teaches them to kill, that's absolutely no reason to insult every man and woman who has ever served in the military. It's no reason to call the entire organization evil.

The military is a gun (or a billy club, if you like) in a dystopian future with no police. Sure, you can use a gun to murder the shit out of innocent people and commit evil acts (and yes, it happens), but it's also pretty necessary if you don't want evil people with their own guns to rape, murder, and eat you. In that order, if you're lucky.


*Communist in 'air quotes' because China is about as communist as my left ass cheek.

[Kim]

Because leaving 'Communist'* China, the country that hates Japan (which has no military), still thinks it owns Taiwan (which has no chance of standing up to China without US backing), and which supports North Korea, as the only country with a 'super power' level military organization in the world is a good idea.

BECAUSE THAT WILL END WELL... and not with like, Kim Jong Il's kid murdering the shit out of South Koreans, while China conquers Taiwan, Thailand, and Japan, and fuck knows if they'll stop there.

blugh blugh

This is probably true, but doesn't really contradict my point that the US deserves to lose our military. It's not feasible, I said as much and I focused on the internal reasons for why it isn't feasible rather than the external ones, but that doesn't mean we don't deserve to lose ours.

Your police-free dystopia analogy is also flawed in that a more apt description would be the US declaring themselves the police, saying they're going to protect the world, breaking into people's houses "for their own good" and then murdering a bunch of their family members and calling it collateral damage. Yes, they keep some bad people from doing some really bad things, but it's still an incredibly fucked situation.

[Krylo]

Your police-free dystopia analogy is also flawed in that a more apt description would be the US declaring themselves the police, saying they're going to protect the world, breaking into people's houses "for their own good" and then murdering a bunch of their family members and calling it collateral damage. Yes, they keep some bad people from doing some really bad things, but it's still an incredibly fucked situation.

And if the US wasn't doing it, you don't think Russia, or China, or North Korea would be doing it? Or any number of African dictatorships?

The world is in a Mexican Stand Off and has been since the beginning of time. Since the first group of cave men formed a tribe and met with another tribe.

Whoever puts down their guns just gets shot, unless they get that guy with the even bigger guns to cover them.

I'm not saying it's not fucked, but, again, that's the people in charge pulling the trigger. Not the soldiers--they're just tools, they get no say in who they shoot--and Smarty's rampant "All soldiers and all military is EVVVVVILLLLLLLLL" is not helping anything. All it's doing is insulting a lot of good people because there's a few genuinely bad people there. Just like there's a few genuinely bad people everywhere else.

Which is why I compared them to a gun, not the police. The people with the gun right now, are, yes, claiming to be the cops and busting down doors, but if they just threw their gun out, someone would just do it to them.

The solution isn't to throw it away while everyone else keeps theirs. Its to stop using it to be a jack ass.

Edit: IF you want to go with the police analogy, though, then the US military is a corrupt as fuck police force, but the solution still isn't to dissolve them, because then you have no police and the actual criminals can do whatever they want and you've fixed nothing. If you're lucky maybe nothing has gotten worse, but that's unlikely. The solution is to put stricter restrictions on what they can do, and to enforce them more harshly.

Basically getting rid of the military isn't the answer. The answer is to draw up a charter of how it can be used, to take commanding power of the military away from the president, and to force all military deployments to go through congress until war has been declared (which should also go through Congress), except for in the case of clear and present danger to out allies (as defined by an actual attack taking place). And MAYBE UN peace keeping shit (but the UN is pretty terrible, so take or leave it there).

The problem isn't that we have a military, it's that our presidents can just deploy our troops willy nilly all over the damn place for however long without war being declared, and once the troops are already there doing shit, well, it's basically war already. May as well declare it.

Going back to my own analogy, it's about not waving the gun in everyone's face and firing it at anyone who looks at you funny like a drunk bandito or some shit, but rather keeping it holstered until you absolutely have to draw it.

[Aerozord]

You forgot about accusing them of drinking blood and littering.

That's Atheists, silly. Smarty was going on about the military.
no no no, christians are the ones that drink blood and consume flesh every sunday. Haven't you ever been to mass?


Anyways, really, who cares? Its a blind survey, no actual penalty, and frankly if you have a problem with beings insulted then you probably didn't make it through boot camp in the first place.

[Kim]

And if the US wasn't doing it, you don't think Russia, or China, or North Korea would be doing it? Or any number of African dictatorships?

...So? What's your point? I know it isn't that this makes what our military does somehow okay, so I really do want to know what your point here is.

My point has been this whole time, and I've been trying really hard to be clear about on this, that I wish the US didn't have a military and that we don't deserve one. That I say that doesn't mean I don't realize that there would be consequences to that that currently prevent that from being a reasonable course of action to take. We should lose our military, but right now we really can't.

The world is in a Mexican Stand Off and has been since the beginning of time. Since the first group of cave men formed a tribe and met with another tribe.

Whoever puts down their guns just gets shot, unless they get that guy with the even bigger guns to cover them.

I feel like you're trying to convince it's not feasible to get rid of the military, which I've admitted twice already, including the first post you responded to to tell me it isn't feasible. I mean, you can tell me that "Just getting rid of the military won't work" all you want, but it doesn't mean jack because I said that two posts ago. Not for the same reasons, but I never said your reasons were invalid either.

I'm not saying it's not fucked, but, again, that's the people in charge pulling the trigger. Not the soldiers--they're just tools, they get no say in who they shoot--and Smarty's rampant "All soldiers and all military is EVVVVVILLLLLLLLL" is not helping anything.

I figure this is probably more directed at Smarty than me, but my second post in this thread was to tell Smarty that joining the military doesn't automatically make a person evil, since there are economic reasons that lead to many people feeling forced to join the military, along with a few others I really can't hate on people for doing. I may think military is inherently evil, but that's not the same as thinking the soldiers are, and I've tried to be clear about that. As for your arguments that the military is necessary, that doesn't mean it isn't evil. Just evil and necessary.

The solution isn't to throw it away while everyone else keeps theirs. Its to stop using it to be a jack ass.

Actually, my point that the US deserves, notice how I keep using the word deserves fully aware of the implications of using that word over others, to lose their military was more that we need to be in Japan's situation. Leave it to our allies to take care of things, since we've clearly proven we're not a mature enough nation to own a gun yet, keeping with the analogy, and before you nitpick this, as I've admitted three posts now, I am aware that just because I think that should happen doesn't mean it is a course we can actually follow.

Maybe I'm missing something here, but I feel like you read my posts, ran with what you thought I meant, and despite the fact that I've tried to explain exactly what I mean several times, keep responding as though your interpretation of my post overrides what my posts actually mean.

[Krylo]

...So? What's your point? I know it isn't that this makes what our military does somehow okay, so I really do want to know what your point here is.My point is that if you can't select a non-evil option, then you should select the least evil option. Or the least non-good, if we want to be optimists.

And:

Actually, my point that the US deserves, notice how I keep using the word deserves fully aware of the implications of using that word over others, to lose their military was more that we need to be in Japan's situation. Leave it to our allies to take care of things, since we've clearly proven we're not a mature enough nation to own a gun yet, keeping with the analogy, and before you nitpick this, as I've admitted three posts now, I am aware that just because I think that should happen doesn't mean it is a course we can actually follow.

Maybe I'm missing something here, but I feel like you read my posts, ran with what you thought I meant, and despite the fact that I've tried to explain exactly what I mean several times, keep responding as though your interpretation of my post overrides what my posts actually mean.The thing is that your first post here:

Okay, so basically, the US doesn't have a very good support net for the poor class. From what I understand, many join the military because they don't have much choice if they want to have a life that isn't complete shit, plus pretty much EVERY media source in the US is constantly selling the idea that AMERICA IS THE BESTEST PATRIOTISM YEAH YEAH. So while I might hate nationalism/patriotism, it's unavoidable in American culture, and I can at least understand why people fall victim to it. Smarty's right that military is pretty much inherently evil work, but the US isn't getting rid of theirs anytime soon. I'd like us to, because I think at this point we've lost military privileges, but it's not going to happen.

Even if it did, that gets rid of what little support the poor have in some regard, meaning that even if we want to get rid of our military, we need to focus on better supporting the poor class, first. Given the spinelessness of our liberal politicians, and the what-the-fuck-is-wrong-with-these-"people" of the conservative politicians, that too will probably not happen anytime soon. These are changes that need to happen, and I plan on supporting a third political party that might advance that agenda, but they're not going to happen for a long time. That's just speaking realistically.

So, since we don't have/aren't getting a better system for supporting and protecting the poor, and since we can't get rid of our military, we can at least try to make the military ever-so-slightly less awful in the meanwhile, while pushing towards the bigger changes. Get the small changes we can when we can, work towards the bigger changes. This is being realistic, and acting on that realism.

Makes it sound like some kind of feasible long term thing that we can maybe do once we get the social issues sorted out.

And even that much of a concession is more harm than good. As we've both said, losing the military isn't a feasible option, so instead talking about how we should lose our military lets talk about how we should fix our military, INCLUDING the ways it is used.

Fixing the military is, after all, entirely feasible, while getting rid of it is not, and is, thus, a more productive line of conversation.

Also: Kind of the point of the thread, I thought?

Smarty and his derails.

[Loyal]

...So? What's your point? I know it isn't that this makes what our military does somehow okay, so I really do want to know what your point here is.
Given that you recognize the military is a necessary evil, I'm afraid I have to ask you the same thing.

I don't know how a nation can "deserve" to lose its military, and I don't see the point in arguing for a nation (or a world) that doesn't require some form of military presence for protection when such a thing simply cannot ever happen.

[edit]I just noticed this.

Anyways, really, who cares? Its a blind survey, no actual penalty, and frankly if you have a problem with beings insulted then you probably didn't make it through boot camp in the first place.
The problem is that the insult in question is that these people who enlisted in the military, risk their lives, and serve their country are being told, in no uncertain terms, that they're less fit to serve based on their spirituality or lack thereof. As opposed to anything substantial like physical wellness or mental stability. These people are being told that the people who follow a religion (presumably Christianity in particular) are better soldiers than the people who don't or the people who reject it.

Besides which, having someone preach at you, uninvited, is annoying under any circumstances and really has no place in the military.

I'm going to leave alone that "if you have problems being insulted" bit because I don't think I can quite articulate how utterly ridiculous that sentence is.

[Hanuman]

Thou Shall Not Kill

I Win

[Marc v4.0]

Cheater

[Aldurin]

Thou Shall Not Kill

I Win

Cheater

No, it actually sounds like he loses, given that it closes off a possible venue for releasing stress.

And this kind of stuff is what you get for joining the military of a generally Christian-founded country. It's probably like the whole problem about the fact that many online forms lack an "other" option under "Please specify gender".

[BitVyper]

So I'm reading the leaked questions here, and I gotta say... they don't really seem all that religiously charged. I think everyone just sees the word "spirituality" and jumps to organized religion. Like, is he getting kicked out of the military over this? 'Cause it looks like it's totally anonymous and just offering help to people who say, feel disconnected with humanity.

None of these are pointed religious, or even very offensive questions, and none of it appears to be affecting his military career. I'm failing to see the discrimination.

The biggest problem I see is that the number they provided for help wasn't helpful, and that has dick all to do with religion.

[Hanuman]

No, it actually sounds like he loses, given that it closes off a possible venue for releasing stress.
Jesus said his way is the only way, and corpses and books don't respond to constructive criticism.

[Aerozord]

Jesus said his way is the only way

what? no he didnt

[Archbio]

I think everyone just sees the word "spirituality" and jumps to organized religion.

And that's all the religious charge the survey needs (and I suspect is allowed) to have. I'm fairly confident that a lot of people who don't object to their Army endorsing religion all jumped to "this means religion in a vague, unspecified way." I think insinuation is the idea there.

But yes, the charge is greatly overstated by the original article. It's all quite ambiguous and suggestive of alternate interpretations... but not to the point that they aren't making a judgment call on some people based on five questions (one which means practically nothing at face value,) religion or no religion. Even personality tests on the internet aren't that bold.

[Kim]

I don't know how a nation can "deserve" to lose its military

Probably by not being responsible with their military. Returning to the gun analogy, if a guy runs around shooting people, killing plenty of innocents in the process, because he's convinced they're all out to get him, you do not let him keep the gun.

and I don't see the point in arguing for a nation (or a world) that doesn't require some form of military presence for protection when such a thing simply cannot ever happen.Can happen. Not yet. All I'm saying is we should lose ours, even though we realistically speaking can't.

Makes it sound like some kind of feasible long term thing that we can maybe do once we get the social issues sorted out.

And even that much of a concession is more harm than good. As we've both said, losing the military isn't a feasible option, so instead talking about how we should lose our military lets talk about how we should fix our military, INCLUDING the ways it is used.

Fixing the military is, after all, entirely feasible, while getting rid of it is not, and is, thus, a more productive line of conversation.

Also: Kind of the point of the thread, I thought?

Smarty and his derails.

So, since we don't have/aren't getting a better system for supporting and protecting the poor, and since we can't get rid of our military, we can at least try to make the military ever-so-slightly less awful in the meanwhile, while pushing towards the bigger changes. Get the small changes we can when we can, work towards the bigger changes. This is being realistic, and acting on that realism.

.

[Aerozord]

Probably by not being responsible with their military. Returning to the gun analogy, if a guy runs around shooting people, killing plenty of innocents in the process, because he's convinced they're all out to get him, you do not let him keep the gun.

but by that logic no nation deserves a military. War is hell, and the US isn't doing anything that the other aren't doing too. What you are basically saying is that no nation should have a military and we should never have wars. Which while that would be nice, is also so unrealistic that we are probably a few hundred years, atleast until this is even remotely possible.

[Krylo]

.
Get the small changes we can when we can, work towards the bigger changes. This is being realistic, and acting on that realism.

Makes it sound like some kind of feasible long term thing that we can maybe do once we get the social issues sorted out.

...

And why are we still going on about semantics?

[Kim]

I mean, I figured your point was that we should focus on improving the stuff we can, which was my point, I just thought we could have long-term goals, too. You know, long-term goals like fixing the fuck out of our economy so there aren't tons of poor people in our military who joined because they feel like they have no reasonable alternative if they want to have a good life. Or long-term goals like getting our populace to get over the AMERICA IS DA BEST idiocy that plagues them so. Because, hey, at some point it might actually be feasible to get rid of or at least drastically minimize the role our military plays, but if we don't do the first, it's going to hurt poor people a fuck of a lot when we actually do, and, if nothing else, we should try and make sure that the people who are there aren't there because they're convinced we're better than everyone else.

So, you're saying it's bad to have long-term goals at all?

Well that's ridiculous.


And why are we still going on about semantics?That's a very good question, Krylo.

I mean, the quote of mine I used basically said EXACTLY WHAT YOU SAID, that whole "let's focus on what we can do and improve our military," and so I was basically saying, "Yes, let's do what you said like I said originally" but at this point it seems like you're saying that improving our military means having no long-term goals about its removal at all never ever ever, otherwise why would you go out of your way to keep arguing with me about it and why would you claim that having long-term goals does more harm than good?

[Krylo]

Because the only way that removing the army will ever be feasible will be when a) The entire world lives under one single government, or b) magical pixies come down from pixie space and bless us all with eternal wisdom and happiness and peace on earth.

As that neither of those are likely to ever happen within the next few hundred generations talking about getting rid of the military is, yes, a waste of time, and yes, does more harm than good by distracting from the more pertinent goals of making the military not suck--which if it is accomplished would eliminate the need to remove it.

It's not having long-term goals at ALL that's bad, it's having long-term goals that are so long term that you may as well be planning on how to survive universal heat death that is bad.

[Kim]

Well, if you say so it must be true~

Just as it is apparently impossible to have these long-term goals and still work on the current problems at the same time.

[Krylo]

Well, if you say so it must be true~

Just as it is apparently impossible to have these long-term goals and still work on the current problems at the same time.

A few things.

Thing 1: Every step along the way of fixing the military is, itself, a long term goal, with many short term and long term goals and steps necessary to complete them.

Taking away deployment power from the president? Long term goal. Which is going to require another long term goal of creating a political movement, which will require the short term goal of organizing and performing rallies, drumming up interest with fliers, ads, and other things. Then once the movement is created you have another slew of steps to take.

Creating stricter guidelines on when we can enter a war? Same thing.


Thing 2: When choosing goals you're supposed to choose goals that are, you know, plausible. You've yet to list any single plausible scenario wherein, within the next, let's say, three hundred years, actually removing the US Military (or all world militaries) would be a plausible idea. There are rogue nations all over Africa, the Middle East, the Gaza Strip, East Asia, North Asia, etc. etc.

And even without the rogue nations, you still have countries like China and Russia who, while not rogue nations themselves, could easily become dangerous without checks and balances, and which show little in the way of backing off on their particular dysfunctions (just as the US shows little in the way of backing off on ours, and they, probably rightly, most likely assume they need their militaries if for no other reason than to defend against ours).

It's a completely non-plausible goal in any kind of forseeable future, and working toward something with no idea how to actually work towards it? Well that's not having a goal. That's having a fantasy.

Thing the Third: The goal of fixing the military is completely separate from the goal of removing the military. In fact, one could say the two goals are some what opposed.

Let's say we manage to complete the long term goal of deshitting the military. We have given the poor better education, better social programs, so they aren't joining just because they are poor. We have put countless checks and balances on the military machine to keep it from going off willy nilly. We have eliminated discrimination amongst its ranks to the same level as that in the civilian populace. At this point in time the military exists purely as a peace keeping force that is only deployed when ourselves or our allies are directly under attack.

Why does it now need to go?

ON THE OTHER HAND, let's say that doesn't happen, but instead all the rogue nations are eliminated/'fixed', China and Russia sign treaties with the western world, every is rolling in the world peace thing, seemingly forever, so we can disband the military.

Other than the social programs... what up there was at all necessary?

Basically I'm taking issue not that you have this long term goal of eliminating the military, but rather with the fact that it's both unrealistic, and unnecessary if we can complete the, ever so slightly, less unrealistic goal of deshitting the military.

Especially when all the things that would be preparation for eliminating the military would also be involved in deshitting it.

But in all seriousness, I don't care if you want to eliminate the military. It's honestly a side tangent we got off onto because, wee semantics, and wee Smarty. Probably mostly me being pissed at Smarty and you getting caught in the blast radius because you just responded faster/more and seemed, at first, to be agreeing with him.

Mostly I just think the goal is silly, and you could better use your energies elsewhere, and that just turned into a THING. (And I briefly pondered erasing most of the stuff above the last two paragraphs, but decided to leave it because meh)

What I do care about, however, is the rampant hate on for everything military that's been rolling on these boards for awhile, just because a few people in charge have used it to do extremely shitty things lately.

Last I checked there's a few of our members in the military, and while I get that you don't think all/most of the soldiers are evil, you have to realize that it's STILL insulting for to you talk about it the way you do.

I mean, it'd be like me saying that it's NOT THAT ALL THE LIBERALS ARE STUPID, it's just that the liberal movement is stupid!*

It comes off as entirely disingenuous and self-righteous, in the same way as saying that the military is an evil organization does. People choose to join the military, and some of them are proud to do so. I don't quite get the whole idea myself, but I'm not going to denigrate them or their choice by calling the organization they joined by their own will evil.

And hey, maybe no one else should?

Because, seriously, the military is no more evil than an axe or a bow or a machete or a club. It's an object, inert and unmoving until it is grasped by a higher thinking being and directed against something else--the morality of which is dependent entirely upon that which it is directed upon.

It is not the military that is an evil organization. It is the US government, and the US populace that allowed themselves to be so easily goaded into allowing the government to get away with using the military in such a manner.

If you want to call something evil, call the system evil. Not its tool.

*Ignoring for a moment that I am pretty liberal. Like Green Party levels of liberal up in here.

[Professor Smarmiarty]

Holy shit lots of posts. It's Christmas, should b e brandy time not post time.

Because leaving 'Communist'* China, the country that hates Japan (which has no military), still thinks it owns Taiwan (which has no chance of standing up to China without US backing), and which supports North Korea, as the only country with a 'super power' level military organization in the world is a good idea.

BECAUSE THAT WILL END WELL... and not with like, Kim Jong Il's kid murdering the shit out of South Koreans, while China conquers Taiwan, Thailand, and Japan, and fuck knows if they'll stop there.
Balance of power strategies worked real well every other time they have been tried?
You are overstating the threat- a massively dominant military does not automatically mean you set out to conquest your enemies. The US didn't.
China's anti-taiwan sentiments are political bluster born out of political capital to maintain the illusion that the CCP are China, they have difvine right to their lands. They have no reason to conquer Taiwan
as the economic blockades the rest of the world would impose would easily outweigh anything that could come from Taiwan. There are few natural resources, Taiwanese electronics money all flow through chinese factories. It would be worthless.
As for North Korea, they are so poor they could barely afford an invasion.
More importantly- What about right now? What about Iraqis, Pakistanis, Afghanis? Are they less important than our Asian cousins?


That's like saying that murder and rape are pretty consistent thread in pretty much every society ever, and more happens in New York. Any year you choose to name in the last like 100 years I could find some outrageous shit that has gone down in the streets of New York.

Of course, that MIGHT be because New York is one of the most densely populated urban centers of the world and there's a shit ton of people there, and pays no attention to whether or not the per capita crime rate is higher in New York than anywhere else.

I'm pretty sure civilain torture of foreign nationals is pretty small. I don't see your point?
Civilain on civilain violence is random, unorganised. Military on civilain violence is systematic organised- it is planned out.
I just don't see how you can compare an insitution which is designed to commit crime with random civilains who only commit crime on random occasions- it is not their reason for existing.

The US has one of/the biggest Military in the world. We make up the majority of the UN's peace keeping missions, and have had our fingers in every war in the last century at some point or another.

There's the most US soldiers out there doing things, there's obviously going to be a greater number of them out there fucking things up. Combined with the fact that people are just going to give more of a shit over the US, being the monolithic thing that we are, doing terrible shit than say, Turkey, yes, you're going to have more documented cases of American soldiers doing things than you would have of Kazakhstan soldiers.
I'm not disagreeing with you here, I'm not saying hte US army is extra evil compared to other armies, I'm saying they are all evil but the US being ht ebiggest can obviously be the most evil.


This doesn't mean that every soldier is an evil baby raping sociopath. This doesn't even mean the majority of them are.

I'll be right there with you on the idea that the military makes people into killers. I'll be right there with you that it's even their job to kill people. I'm not, however, going to be right there with you when you compare a soldier following orders to pure evil or what the fuck ever.
I know that most of the army are poor people, wiht no choice but to join but you can't get away with tha forever. It's classic Milgram experiment- throw in someone else to blame and people just do what the fuck they want.
Supervisors, officers are more to blame but soldiers played their part. I'm not going to imprison them or anyhing (I don't bleieve in prison anyway) and it's not really their fault becuas eof their conditioning but we can't ignore the problem- they should be told it's wrong, it's evil, given help to stop it.
You can't give them a blank slate because it's their orders.

Until we live in some kind of perfect one world nation utopia of love and peace we are going to need militaries in nearly every country. The only exceptions being cases like Japan, where they are provided their military force by their allies.
Eh I don't agree but that will deviate the discussion massively and I don't really need to push it.

The US is not such a case, and while, yes, the people in charge fuck up and send the US military to places it shouldn't be, and yes, the military breaks people down and teaches them to kill, that's absolutely no reason to insult every man and woman who has ever served in the military. It's no reason to call the entire organization evil.
Calling the organisation evil not the people who served. If they get offended to be honest I don't t care because fixing the military is SO SO important that it's not something that should be pussyfooted around.

The military is a gun (or a billy club, if you like) in a dystopian future with no police. Sure, you can use a gun to murder the shit out of innocent people and commit evil acts (and yes, it happens), but it's also pretty necessary if you don't want evil people with their own guns to rape, murder, and eat you. In that order, if you're lucky.

Here is my problem with this- your analogy is more like we are going to use the gun to shoot everybody if they look a bit suspicious, or foreign, or they have things we want. This is how militaries are used. This is how they have always been used.
They do not protect anybody. They never have, they never will.
Wars simply divide the poor against each other. Militaries are used to enforce the world wide club of rich people. You claim that having no militaries doesn' twork except in a utopia- Do you not what prevents utopia? It's militaries. Get rid off them and guess what, everyone is fine.
"Oh no China will kill everyone"- but hey remove the distractions of hte military, everyone fighing each other the articfical barriers that seperate us, oh shit- China doesn't need to/can't war anymore. Get rid of the militaries, you go a long way to geing countries together.


Not the soldiers--they're just tools, they get no say in who they shoot--and Smarty's rampant "All soldiers and all military is EVVVVVILLLLLLLLL" is not helping anything.
I never blamed the soldiers, they fuckers but they not evil.

Basically getting rid of the military isn't the answer. The answer is to draw up a charter of how it can be used, to take commanding power of the military away from the president, and to force all military deployments to go through congress until war has been declared (which should also go through Congress), except for in the case of clear and present danger to out allies (as defined by an actual attack taking place). And MAYBE UN peace keeping shit (but the UN is pretty terrible, so take or leave it there).
I find this even less likely than utopia peace scenario. Militaries are about strategic resource gathering not about defence.


My point is that if you can't select a non-evil option, then you should select the least evil option. Or the least non-good, if we want to be optimists.

And:

The thing is that your first post here:



Because the only way that removing the army will ever be feasible will be when a) The entire world lives under one single government, or b) magical pixies come down from pixie space and bless us all with eternal wisdom and happiness and peace on earth.

Still more likely than a military being used for peaceful defence of homeland.

As that neither of those are likely to ever happen within the next few hundred generations talking about getting rid of the military is, yes, a waste of time, and yes, does more harm than good by distracting from the more pertinent goals of making the military not suck--which if it is accomplished would eliminate the need to remove it.

It's not having long-term goals at ALL that's bad, it's having long-term goals that are so long term that you may as well be planning on how to survive universal heat death that is bad.


Because, seriously, the military is no more evil than an axe or a bow or a machete or a club. It's an object, inert and unmoving until it is grasped by a higher thinking being and directed against something else--the morality of which is dependent entirely upon that which it is directed upon.

More like a murdering stick- specifically designed to murder as efficiently as possible. It's not evil in itself but it leads you to evil. You could do non evil things with it but that would be super inefficen.

[Krylo]

You are overstating the threat- a massively dominant military does not automatically mean you set out to conquest your enemies. The US didn't.
Just going to let you argue your own point:

More importantly- What about right now? What about Iraqis, Pakistanis, Afghanis? Are they less important than our Asian cousins?And no, they are just as important, but I'm not saying that we should convince China and Russia and NK to disassemble their militaries either. I mean, it'd be pretty nice if they did, and hey, maybe if they did that, and the various African and Middle Eastern countries did it, then yeah, we could.

But there's basically 0 chance of that ever happening.

ALSO: In so much as we totally fucked up, and need to get out of the Middle East and need to stop killing brown people, there is something to be said about the fact that Saddam did gas his own people, and Afghanistan was run by genocidal despots who did shit like destroying centuries old art and slaughtering people due to their religion.

You can't really compare a country attacking them to a country gearing up to attack Taiwan.

China's anti-taiwan sentiments are political bluster born out of political capital to maintain the illusion that the CCP are China, they have difvine right to their lands. They have no reason to conquer Taiwan
as the economic blockades the rest of the world would impose would easily outweigh anything that could come from Taiwan. There are few natural resources, Taiwanese electronics money all flow through chinese factories. It would be worthless.This would make sense if not for the fact that Chinese, US, and independent military analysts all spend a lot of time trying to figure out if China can take Taiwan, and if China hasn't been building up fast strike weapons and strategies whose range and main tactical uses all seem to dictate that they're still trying to figure out how to take Taiwan before the US can mobilize to assist. However, military analysts do this, China has been doing this, and there's some folks that worry they actually could take Taiwan.

This is the country that pulled off Tiananmen Square. It didn't make sense to roll tanks over a bunch of protesters either. They still did it.

P.S. No one is going to blockade China for more than like a year or two. They're too valuable to world economics. Such a blockade wouldn't hold water and China knows it.



I'm pretty sure civilain torture of foreign nationals is pretty small. I don't see your point?
Civilain on civilain violence is random, unorganised. Military on civilain violence is systematic organised- it is planned out.
I just don't see how you can compare an insitution which is designed to commit crime with random civilains who only commit crime on random occasions- it is not their reason for existing.Except that Soldier on Civilian violence IS random and unorganized because the vast majority of modern militaries (outside of 'rogue' nations) are taught NOT to attack civilians. Those cases of it happening are, yes, random, unorganized, unintentional effects for the most part.

Just like civilian on civilian violence.

When they get orders to bomb a house and find out there were civilians inside that's one thing, and not the soldiers' faults. That's an intelligence failure. When we have things like civilians being tossed in prison? That's, again, the governing body's fault. Not the military's. You're placing the blame on the tool, not the people actively deciding to use it to kill and torture innocent people.

However, when we have stories filtering through of things happening like the squad that was killing Iraqis for fun? That's random and unorganized.



Here is my problem with this- your analogy is more like we are going to use the gun to shoot everybody if they look a bit suspicious, or foreign, or they have things we want. This is how militaries are used. This is how they have always been used.
They do not protect anybody. They never have, they never will.Really? Because nearly every war ever has had both an aggressor and a defender. Let's take World War II. What were the Allied forces doing?

Because I seem to remember them being attacked.

Oh hey, how about when South Korea scrambled its fighter jets and military just, what, two weeks ago? Yeah. That wasn't a defensive manuever against North Korean hostilities.

SPEAKING OF WHICH:

As for North Korea, they are so poor they could barely afford an invasion. They aren't that poor. Their populace is, but their military and government officials all live very lavish and well off life styles.

Wars simply divide the poor against each other. Militaries are used to enforce the world wide club of rich people. You claim that having no militaries doesn' twork except in a utopia- Do you not what prevents utopia? It's militaries. Get rid off them and guess what, everyone is fine.
"Oh no China will kill everyone"- but hey remove the distractions of hte military, everyone fighing each other the articfical barriers that seperate us, oh shit- China doesn't need to/can't war anymore. Get rid of the militaries, you go a long way to geing countries together.Except you'd need to convince everyone to remove their militaries near simultaneously, then.

And if you think that China, Russia, Georgia, Darfur, North Korea, South Korea, Israel, Palestine, Iraq, Taiwan, India, Pakistan, the UK, France, or basically any country in the world will ever agree to that, you need to stop drinking.

Every country either wants to take another country (or group of countries that used to be part of them in Russia's case), sees themselves at threat from one of the aforementioned countries, or sees themselves as protection for the countries afraid of other countries... or all of the above in some cases.

And, for the most part, they aren't wrong.

I find this even less likely than utopia peace scenario. Militaries are about strategic resource gathering not about defence. So if this is true... then let me ask you this:
They have no reason to conquer Taiwan
as the economic blockades the rest of the world would impose would easily outweigh anything that could come from Taiwan.If most of the civilized world started eliminating their militaries, why would they care about economic blockades? Even putting aside that they aren't going to NOW because no one is going to keep up an economic blockade against them for long.

Why wouldn't they just be like "Welp, Europe doesn't want to give us their cars and cheeses? Guess they're next!"



More like a murdering stick- specifically designed to murder as efficiently as possible. It's not evil in itself but it leads you to evil. You could do non evil things with it but that would be super inefficen.How is a murder stick different from an axe, club, bow, gun, sword, etc.? That is actually exactly what those things are.

And while, yes, it's true if someone was shooting people you could limit his harm by taking his gun and throwing it in a furnace (hopefully unloaded), but chances are he's just going to start stabbing people, or punching people, or go and buy a new gun the next time he has an excuse to do so (that is to say recreate the military), and will probably be just as bad as before.

It's a more viable long term solution to teach him not to use the gun unless absolutely necessary.

[Hanuman]

what? no he didnt
I'm pretty sure the bible said it, and the general circle is:
If the bible said it then god said it, and jesus is god and a spirit, and they are all infallible and amazing and cool.

Same dif?

[Karrrrrrrrrrrresche]

I'm pretty sure the bible said it, and the general circle is:
If the bible said it then god said it, and jesus is god and a spirit, and they are all infallible and amazing and cool.

Same dif?

No, he didn't.
At least I don't think he said it in the sense that you're trying to say he said it, at best what you're talking about was that he said that the only way into the kingdom of heaven was through him.

Even then I recall some book or another making mention of the righteous unfaithful being given a chance to accept him as their savior once they'd died or somesuch.

[BitVyper]

I'm pretty sure the bible said it, and the general circle is:
If the bible said it then god said it, and jesus is god and a spirit, and they are all infallible and amazing and cool.

Yes, because all Christians are literal interpretation fundamentalists.

[Karrrrrrrrrrrresche]

Yes, because all Christians are literal interpretation fundamentalists.

What's really funny if you think about it is the same book that calls homosexuality an abomination (Leviticus) also says:

"...do not plant your field with two kinds of seed. Do not wear material woven of two kinds of material."

"For everyone who curses his father or his mother shall surely be put to death. He has cursed his father or his mother. His blood shall be upon him."

"But all in the seas or in the rivers that do not have fins and scales, all that move in the water or any living thing which is in the water, they are an abomination to you."

Leviticus is without a doubt the most insane doctrine of beliefs and regulations documented.

[Bob The Mercenary]

"...do not plant your field with two kinds of seed. Do not wear material woven of two kinds of material."

A continual emphasizing of not mixing with the Canaanites to avoid corruption by using daily tangible lessons throughout the book of Leviticus.

"But all in the seas or in the rivers that do not have fins and scales, all that move in the water or any living thing which is in the water, they are an abomination to you."

Because most fish that were missing fins or scales in their area were poisonous.

Leviticus is without a doubt the most insane doctrine of beliefs and regulations documented.

Not really.

[Kim]

A continual emphasizing of not mixing with the Canaanites to avoid corruption by using daily tangible lessons throughout the book of Leviticus.

Racism!

But naw fuck Leviticus. Any book/person/alien-space-god that thinks homosexuality is bad can fuck off.

[Krylo]

A continual emphasizing of not mixing with the Canaanites to avoid corruption by using daily tangible lessons throughout the book of Leviticus.
[...]
Not really [the most insane doctrine of beliefs and regulations documented].

Racism!

But naw fuck Leviticus. Any book/person/alien-space-god that thinks homosexuality is bad can fuck off.

Yeah, gotta say, not helpin' your case much there, Bob.

[Kim]

Also, tread lightly wherein this is going, guys.

I tread like a herd of buffalo in a minefield.

[Hanuman]

No, he didn't.
At least I don't think he said it in the sense that you're trying to say he said it, at best what you're talking about was that he said that the only way into the kingdom of heaven was through him.

Even then I recall some book or another making mention of the righteous unfaithful being given a chance to accept him as their savior once they'd died or somesuch.
http://www.nerdsonsports.com/wp-content/uploads/2008/04/pic_morpheus.jpg
They are guarding all the doors, they are holding all the keys--

Yes, because all Christians are literal interpretation fundamentalists.
I would make the analogy that not all musicians do drugs and drink, but if you work as a road crew you kinda get a different message.

Leviticus is without a doubt the most insane doctrine of beliefs and regulations documented.
Disagreed. Like nearly all antiquated traditions and practices, it's just a horribly clunky and obsolete format for practices we upgraded to today's model of common sense, ethics and education.

It's not insane, it's just obscure and poetic.

[BitVyper]

I would make the analogy that not all musicians do drugs and drink, but if you work as a road crew you kinda get a different message.

Not exactly sure what that has to do with lumping all of Christianity in one extremely narrow group to suit your purposes.

[Marc v4.0]

Not exactly sure what that has to do with lumping all of Christianity in one extremely narrow group to suit your purposes.

We seem to live in a never-ending river of "All blank are blank because I disagree with some of them"

[Amake]

Spirituality gets a bad rep for its connection to organized religion, but chances are you’re a spiritual being even if you give it another word. The survey for example asks if you “feel any connection to humanity” or words to that effect, and I’d be afraid to meet any person who says no to that. Admitting that you exist in a social context with other people in it isn’t exactly bowing down to God because the Man tells you you have to.

And if you believe there’s any meaning, any point, any ghost of an idea to anything in this world, I’d say you have a healthy, growing consciousness, and that you’re showing a degree of spirituality.

I’ll say it’s a poorly thought out survey that assumes a Judeo-Christian ideal as the standard measure of spiritual awareness, though.

[DFM]

Maybe we're thinking of different things when we say "point" but I dunno man I don't think there's actually a point.

[Amake]

I'm thinking of something that makes you go through the motions of living, something that feels good, something that indicates there's more to things than empty shells; some form of substance.

[BitVyper]

I’ll say it’s a poorly thought out survey that assumes a Judeo-Christian ideal as the standard measure of spiritual awareness, though.

I am really not seeing how. For anyone who hasn't followed the links, these are the questions:


I am a spiritual person.

My life has lasting meaning.

I believe that in some way my life is closely connected to all humanity and all the world.

The job I am doing in the military has lasting meaning.

I believe there is a purpose for my life.

The only one I can see maybe having some religious undertone is the last one (I guess the first one too if you insist on defining spirituality as religion), and even then, there's nothing there that isn't in most religions. Like, you gotta do some work to turn these into "ARE YOU A STRONG CHRISTIAN" questions. The survey itself "defines spiritual fitness as strengthening a set of beliefs, principles, or values that sustain a person beyond family, institutional, and societal sources of support." They want you to have some drive and conscience beyond just doing things because it's the law/what your family wants/the rules. Which is pretty much just "we want you to have reached a mature stage of moral development."

[Amake]

I guess I just read some Christianity into it myself. >_>

Also "morality" might be a good word if you're allergic to "spirituality".

[Karrrrrrrrrrrresche]

I am a spiritual person.

My life has lasting meaning.

I believe that in some way my life is closely connected to all humanity and all the world.

The job I am doing in the military has lasting meaning.

I believe there is a purpose for my life.

Wait, that's it? Really?

[DFM]

I believe that in some way my life is closely connected to all humanity and all the world.

Is kinda confusing but the rest of them seem like standard "Yo, how you doin', buddy?" questions.

[BitVyper]

Wait, that's it? Really?

Yep.

Is kinda confusing

I think it's just a bit too complex a question for a 1-5 rating.

[Marc v4.0]

Ok, so, wait...What the fuck was this thread about then?

Not. As. Advertised.

[BitVyper]

Incase anyone thinks I'm full of shit. (http://www.maaf.info/resources/gatspirituality.jpg)

[Amake]

Well, you could take "closely" to mean "as closely as I'm comfortable with", ranging from hypothetical scientific or Buddhistic interconnectedness between every single particle with every other particle in the universe to admitting you exist in a social context with other people. Actually they should probably have left out that word entirely.

[DFM]

I'd probably end up rating everything a 1 going "That doesn't sound like something I'd say at all."

[DarkDrgon]

I would make the analogy that not all musicians do drugs and drink, but if you work as a road crew you kinda get a different message.



..................
http://i12.photobucket.com/albums/a246/our_dying_grace6969/StraightEdge.jpg

[POS Industries]

I think he means all cool musicians.

[Kim]

I think he means all cool musicians.

Word.

[DFM]

Well, you could take "closely" to mean "as closely as I'm comfortable with", ranging from hypothetical scientific or Buddhistic interconnectedness between every single particle with every other particle in the universe to admitting you exist in a social context with other people. Actually they should probably have left out that word entirely.

That still doesn't fit a one to five rating at all. "I believe that in some way my life is connected to all humanity and all the world."

Seems like it's looking for either a True/False or an essay response.

[Amake]

Maybe it's a test to see who's willing to break the form and scribble in an essay. :O

[POS Industries]

That would mean they are unfit to serve because of their insubordinate attitude.

[DFM]

I give this question a rating of Chair.

[BitVyper]

I give this question a rating of Chair.

If you were really qualified for military service, you'd at least rate it Backwards 2.

[Archbio]

Especially when one of the question for measuring X is "how X are you?"

I do think there's some insinuation in the questions themselves, where they aren't actually as general and unspecific as they could be.

Two questions insist on "lasting meaning" where "meaning" would adequately cover all of the bases. And not screw existentialists.

Do all principled worldviews allow people to feel connected to "humanity and the world"? Or aren't some types of worldviews just somewhat more likely to strenghten that impression? Such as worldviews implying design and set places in the cosmological order?

They're just nudges toward religion (and friends,) really.

I'm working on the assumption that the people who created this survey have expectations that acting as though the US Army endorsed religion (or any specific type of worldview) would be problematic, and therefore had cause to go easy on it. Maybe I'm wrong on that.

So that's where I think the original author's impression came from. He does overstating the issue even after posting the questions. Personally I just file this under "mildly suspect."

Edit: But really, this sort of thing might be unavoidable when one tries to make judgment call on people anonymously based on four questions.

[BitVyper]

Ok, so, wait...What the fuck was this thread about then?

Doing your homework.

[Marc v4.0]

OH FUCK I CAN'T FAIL THIS CLASS WHERE ARE MY PANTS OH GOD

[Karrrrrrrrrrrresche]

OH FUCK I CAN'T FAIL THIS CLASS WHERE ARE MY PANTS OH GOD

THEY'RE UNDERNEATH THE MASSIVE PILE OF OVERREACTION.

[Magus]

All these "spiritual well-being" questions read more like one of those touchy-feely agnostic-biased self-esteem questions than straight-up fundamentalist religion. I mean let's look at them:

I am a spiritual person.

Okay a true atheist would put a 0 on this one, I would suppose.


My life has lasting meaning.

The guy put a 2 on this one, out of 5.. Really it is more that he has low self-esteem I guess? It is not necessary to believe in a higher being to feel your life has meaning. Terming it "spiritual" is probably the main problem. I mean he has a wife, he might have kids--it's kind of being nihilistic to say that your life will have no meaning. I mean, I'm totally nihilistic so I would put 0! But not really, I would probably put a 4 or a 5 like everybody else. This guy is just down on his life for some reason (maybe a well-thought out nihilism, or he's just like "dude life sucks I put a 2"). So his "spiritual" health would be low on this aspect. Obviously "spirit" is the wrong word since it implies belief in an immortal soul or something but like I said this is being all touchy-feely and shit anyway.

I believe that in some way my life is closely connected to all humanity and all the world.

Again, this is basically one of those touchy-feely questions. Probably to catch the Buddhists who slip through the first two questions, if they take it literally. I guess they should rephrase it. "My life effects the lives of others and the future of the world" or something like that.

The job I am doing in the military has lasting meaning.

Again, this has nothing to do with atheism, it is asking him if he believes in the job he is doing. An atheist can still believe in a cause (the military, for instance).

I believe there is a purpose for my life.

Again not necessary to be religious to think your life has a purpose. Only if you are turned-off by the "spiritual" category.

I agree these questions probably shouldn't be asked since they seem awkwardly phrased and couched in categorical words like "spiritual" but to say they are overly religious is false. They are overly touchy-feely but then again if they're going to give him a psychiatric evaluation and quiz him on why he feels his life is meaningless, his purpose in the army is pointless, and his life will have no lasting effect...well that's probably worth knowing, I guess, to those army doctors.

Nowhere in the suggestions does it say "Praise Jebus" or whatever, either, it sounds like the shit they used to cover in health class during the self-esteem module:

Spiritual fitness is an area of possible difficulty for you. You may lack a sense of meaning and purpose in your life. At times, it is hard for you to make sense of what is happening to you and others around you. You may not feel connected to something larger than yourself. You may question your beliefs, principles, and values. Nevertheless, who you are and what you do matter. There are things to do to provide more meaning and purpose in your life. Improving your spiritual fitness should be an important goal. Change is possible, and the relevant self-development training modules will be helpful. If you need further help, please do not hesitate to seek out help from the people you care about and trust – strong people always do. Be patient in your development as it will take time to improve in this area. Still, persistence is key and you will improve here if you make this area a priority.

Basically it is touchy-feely crap, not particularly religious. It's one of those kind of "lame" mildly-religious surveys they feel is as watered down as they can get away with and still cover the "spiritual" dimension of human health. I mean, if I was gonna do a blatant religious survey I would go:

Do you believe in God?
Do you believe in the immortal soul which survives the body?
Do your life will have an everlasting meaning in the afterlife?
Do you believe your actions impact the spiritual lives of others on the world?
Do you believe your work for God has a meaning?
Do you believe God has a purpose for you life?

If you said no to any of these questions, YOU ARE GOING TO HELL. BURN IN HELL FIRE BLASPHEMER.

[Hanuman]

Do you believe in God?
Do you believe in the immortal soul which survives the body?
Do your life will have an everlasting meaning in the afterlife?
Do you believe your actions impact the spiritual lives of others on the world?
Do you believe your work for God has a meaning?
Do you believe God has a purpose for you life?

If you said no to any of these questions, YOU ARE GOING TO HELL. BURN IN HELL FIRE BLASPHEMER.
No
No
No
No
No
No

Fire? Check
Blasphemy? Check

[Magus]

Clearly unfit for service in GOD'S army.