a big one relevant to this case being that many Muslims believe there is no separation of church and state.

Given that the military is a state apparatus, some might argue the state apparatus, it seems quite apparent that many Christians believe there is no separation of church and state, either. Are you saying that those with good reason to be anti-Muslim have good reason to be anti-Christian?

It is easy to buy small plaster models of what you think life is like.

Of course there are other reasons to be anti-Muslim.  The religion is antiquated, reflecting an obsolete world view; it is homophobic, misogynistic, and generally a waste of time even when it is not being actively destructive by fostering terrorism.  However, much the same can be said of many other religions.  Furthermore it's not all bad.  To a large extent, religion is what you make of it.  Religion, including Islam, can be an inspiration for either good or bad actions, depending upon how you choose to interpret it.

Despite the fact that there are many reasons for which we can legitimately criticize Islam, these other reasons are not the concern of the US government, which is concerned only with the war on terror.  Therefore the only apparent reason for the US military to hold a meeting with anti-Muslim activists is for the reason I gave, which is that the war on terror is being presented to the soldiers as a religious war between Christianity and Islam.  In reality, the war is nothing more than an effort to deal with terrorists who happen to be Muslim, it is not a religious war on the part of the US even if it is a religious war on the part of the terrorists.  And even they doubtlessly have additional motivations, although religion is certainly among their concerns.

I can't imagine that the motive to whip up anti-Muslim sentiment is the concern that Muslims often fail to separate church and state (incidentally, a failure to separate mosque and state would be a more accurate description with respect to Muslims).  How often does President George W. Bush invoke a religious basis for his own policies?   It hardly seems that church and state are separated in the US.  And if Sarah Palin should ever become President, we will have a full-blown theocracy.  Praise the lord.  

Therefore the only apparent reason for the US military to hold a meeting with anti-Muslim activists is for the reason I gave, which is that the war on terror is being presented to the soldiers as a religious war between Christianity and Islam

How do you judge something to be "apparent"? It seems to mean that you haven't bothered to read the materials linked in the writeup.

The reason for the presentation by the "anti-Muslim activists" (they weren't brought in because they were "anti-Muslim activists," of course - that's something invented by the MRFF) was explained and is plausible - perhaps even a valid and valuable use of the military's time.

This is a somewhat mysterious complaint for you to make, that I haven't read the materials linked in the write-up concerning the anti-Muslim activists.  I do not find such a link.  There are several links, but they refer to other aspects of the story.  As for your question of how I judge something to be apparent, that is a problem in your case because nothing that is apparent to me has ever been apparent to you, judging by your comments.  We apparently do not have enough common ground upon which to base any discussion of anything.  Other participants in this site seem to understand why some things are apparent to me.  You are the only one who seems to live in another universe entirely.  If you want to give me a link to the material that you want me to read about the anti-Muslim activists, and I'll read it and I'll see if it sheds any light on the situation.

This is a somewhat mysterious complaint for you to make, that I haven't read the materials linked in the write-up concerning the anti-Muslim activists.  I do not find such a link

The link is in the writeup. It says,

In February, 2008, a group calling itself the "3 ex-terrorists" appeared at the U.S. Air Force Academy's 50th Annual Academy Assembly, on the topic "Dismantling Terrorism: Developing Actionable Solutions for Today's Plague of Violence." The three members of this group, Walid Shoebat, Zachariah Anani, and Kamal Saleem, all claim to have been Islamic terrorists before converting to evangelical Christianity. Attendance was mandatory for some cadets. The presentations were virulently anti-Muslim screeds during which Christianity is promoted

If you cannot understand why it would be useful for future military leaders to hear what "ex-terrorists" have to say about their motivations, then I suppose you may be correct that "[w]e apparently do not have enough common ground upon which to base any discussion of anything." But I don't think that's the case - I think you merely did not read the linked materials on the case.

Please Help!  Regardless whether they were actually terrorists or not, they're at least descended from "The Grand Wazir of Islam".  Please send cash.

Any relation to Wooldoor Sockbat?

Please help!.

Does you disengenuousity know no bounds?!

The presentations were virulently anti-Muslim screeds during which Christianity is promoted

Did you get that...not anti-terrorist, but anti-Muslim?  Did you also get "Christianity is promoted".  This is not finding about a terrorists motivations.  If I were in the military I would want to know why a terrorist does what he does...not why he converted to Christianity.

It's the end of the world as we know it, and I feel fine

If I were in the military I would want to know why a terrorist does what he does...not why he converted to Christianity

Why do you suppose the two are unrelated? I think it would be an excellent addition to an officer's education to have some insight into the psychology of a terrorist.

This quote confirms what I had understood to be the case, which is that the presentation by the ex-terrorists consisted of "virulently anti-Muslim screeds".  While it would be useful for the military or its members to learn about the motivations of terrorists as explained by ex-terrorists, that wasn't the topic under discussion.

Why is it necessary for soldiers in the US military to be subjected to virulently anti-Muslim screeds?  This doesn't help them to deal with the Muslims whom they will encounter in Iraq or Afghanistan, because the presumption that all Muslims are necessarily enemies leads only to more conflict.  If the US is going to accomplish anything in either of those countries, this can happen only by creating new alliances and friendships with the Muslim population, not by fighting with all Muslims.

This quote confirms what I had understood to be the case, which is that the presentation by the ex-terrorists consisted of "virulently anti-Muslim screeds"

The quote is a claim made by the MRFF. It confirms nothing at all except that the MRFF made a claim.

This entire discussion has you (and MAYORBOB and James Havok) reading one side of an improbable story and accepting it as gospel. Maybe you should change your name to "unskeptic."

Oh boy, now you are disavowing your own quote, that you were so anxious for me to read.

As always, your comments are not making any sense.  But that is to be expected from a philotroll.

...now you are disavowing your own quote...

I'm putting it in context - something I wouldn't have to do if you bothered to read the links in the writeup. My comments make perfect sense if you know the facts of the story.

You clearly did disavow your own quote, but now you tell me that you were just trying to put it in context, a context which I ought to know if I had just read the links that I was obligated to read.  But I had already asked you just exactly what it was that you wanted me to read, and this was the quote you came up with for me to read.  I read it and commented accordingly.  Now you are AGAIN accusing me of not having read the necessary links, even though I read exactly what you had asked me to read.  This is an obvious evasion on your part.  You can't handle the truth.

So why do you post all this nonsense?  It's easy enough to say that you are a troll, or even a philotroll - which you clearly are - but there are interesting questions as to exactly what kind of mental disorder causes you to behave that way.  You could be having honest, informative, interesting, and even friendly conversations here on treesandthings, but you prefer to post insulting nonsense.  Well, to paraphrase a famous old hair color commercial, "Only your psychiatrist knows for sure!"  I hope that you can find the right kind of medication with which to straighten yourself out.

Meanwhile, I do not intend to continue to have pointless arguments with you.  And this time I mean it.

Now you are AGAIN accusing me of not having read the necessary links, even though I read exactly what you had asked me to read

If you read it then why didn't you know that it is the plaintiffs in the lawsuit who are the only ones making the claim that the Air Force sponsored a "presentation by the ex-terrorists consisted of 'virulently anti-Muslim screeds'"? If you read the links then why didn't it occur to you to inquire whether the MRFF is telling the truth?

More evasions.  You're still a troll.

You're still a troll

You still haven't read the links.

To review:  you accused me of having failed to read something that I needed to read, so I said fine, what do you want me to read (I am paraphrasing) and you said here, read this, and I then read it, and commented accordingly since the material you gave me did not make the point that you seemed to think it would make, and your response amazingly enough is to now accuse me, once again, of having failed to read the necessary material.  I could ask you just what it is that you want me to read.  But of course, I already did that.  And here we are, back where we started.

If you were engaged in an honest discussion, which I realize is not your style, you would have already given me, or directed me via a link to the material that you wanted me to read, the first time I asked for it.  Instead you gave me something which you are now claiming to be an unreliable source of information which I am foolish to accept at face value.  OK, so why did you quote it?  You had every opportunity to tell me whatever it was that you thought I needed to know, but you preferred to tell me something that you actually think I shouldn't believe.  I suppose that this makes sense to you.

The really weird thing is, even though I have given you a completely clear and explicit explanation of how we have come to this sorry state of affairs, I fully expect that you will still fail to understand what I am saying.  No explanation that I have given you has ever been sufficient.  That's because, as far as I can tell, it is not your objective to understand anything or to engage in an honest discussion.  You're just here to waste people's time.  Exactly what you get out of wasting people's time would be hard to say, but as I mentioned before, it does look like some form of mental illness.  And there is nothing I can do about that.

It is obviously a waste of time talking to you.  Don't expect any more explanations from me.  If you are perplexed and bewildered by my perverse comments, too bad.  Everyone else understands them.

Instead you gave me something which you are now claiming to be an unreliable source of information which I am foolish to accept at face value.  OK, so why did you quote it?

See comments #73 & #81 above.

My position all along has been that I think Chalker and the MRFF are disingenuous and that their claims are overblown. In this particular example, the MRFF is attempting to paint the presence of "anti-Muslim" speakers as evidence of the Air Force promoting Christian beliefs. In order for one to believe that one must ignore the details left out by the MRFF and reject the context in which the speakers were invited to participate. (The details were that the pro-Christian/anti-Muslim statements were incidental to the speakers' broader message and the context was that the speakers were but a single part of a seminar conducted by the Air Force Academy that had a perfectly valid and secular purpose.) Whether you are ignorant of the details and context or simply reject both out of hand is unclear to me. Since you have not given any reasons to reject the details or context I have assumed it is the former, and that's why I said you have not bothered to read the relevant links.

I assume that you are not posting these comments from Iraq (maybe you are, and if so, I wouldn't presume to guess which side you are on, the US forces or the insurgency).  Personally I am not in Iraq (and have never been there) nor have I ever served in the armed forces of any country, so I have only second or third hand reports to go on, in trying to understand the existing situation.  But from what I have been able to learn, it does seem to me that the US and its military have succumbed to a certain degree of religious mania which is contrary to the ideal of separation of church and state.  It is easily believable to me that Chalker and the MRFF are correct in their complaints.  If I were a judge, asked to issue a legal decision on the case, then of course I would have to look into it more closely, but for the much less weighty purposes of this discussion, I have investigated the matter to my satisfaction.

The fact remains that you had the opportunity to refer me to absolutely ANYTHING which you think would assist me in understanding the truth about this situation, and the one quote which you chose to offer me in your comment turns out to be something which you now tell me I shouldn't believe.  When asked why you would do such a thing, you merely refer me to your previous comments, but those comments were notably unhelpful - not that you have ever been known to make helpful comments.  That is not your style.

Anyway, I find the MRFF to be more believable than you.  You referred me to them yourself, and I have accepted that as an informative reference, one which leads me to conclusions other than yours.  

Even now, at this late period in our overly protracted discussion, you could still refer me to the other, unspecified reference that you think I need to read in order to understand this situation.  Theoretically, there could be something of crucial importance that I missed.  Of course if there is, you should have brought it up the first time I asked you just what it was that you wanted me to read, instead of referring me to something which you now claim to be unreliable information from a suspect source.

Personally, I think you are just engaged in deliberate obfuscation.  Your argument makes no sense and never did.

The fact remains that you had the opportunity to refer me to absolutely ANYTHING which you think would assist me in understanding the truth about this situation

You might start with the Justice Department's motion to dismiss a similar suit brought by the MRFF. It is chock-full of information. Probably the most fundamental is that the Department of Defense has a far-ranging equal opportunity program that is the proper forum in which to handle the sort of complaints that the MRFF has taken it upon itself to burden the courts with. (There is no indication that Chalker made any attempt at resolving his issues in the proper forum before contacting the MRFF.) I don't necessarily feel the need to spoon feed that sort of information to people like you and Jimmy Havok - if you think it is reasonable to wallow in your own (admitted) ignorance and take the MRFF at its word, then go right ahead.

Well, after our long fruitless exchange, you have finally deigned to explain what you are arguing about, with the added explanation that you do not wish to spoon feed information to me.  You would rather post a dozen comments vociferously complaining about my (supposed) ignorance and failure to read necessary information, than divulge such information or refer me to it.  This is one of the reasons why all discussions with you are so needlessly protracted and so difficult to bring to any meaningful result.  In a debate, if you can produce some relevant information which can be used to make your point, that is not spoon-feeding, that is how debates are conducted.  What would you think if I were to argue that I am in possession of information which proves you wrong, but I won't say what it is, on the grounds that it is your responsibility to find out for yourself?  Is that a good debating technique?  Since I can in theory do my own research with which to find out everything for myself anyway, why would I even bother to talk to you or anyone else?  I still don't know why you bother to post comments at all.

Even if it is true that Chalker failed to use the established procedure which the military wanted him to use, I don't think that he is the one at fault, if the military is engaged in blatantly unconstitutional religious indoctrination.  If every school child in America learns about the constitutional guarantee of freedom of religion, why does the military not know about it?  Or if they know, they choose to ignore it.

Many abuses take place in the name of religion.  Indeed, one could argue that the entire war on terror came about only because of the religious fanaticism of Muslim terrorists.  It would seem that some people in the military believe in fighting fire with fire, and religion with religion, but the solution to America's problems does not lie in adopting the same irrationality and repression  which characterize the enemies that America is fighting.  I am reminded of the cold war anti-communist witch-hunt, in which some Americans eagerly gave up their freedom in order to protect it.  This is not a good idea.  And we will not preserve our religious freedom either, but defending it with theocratic methods.

What would you think if I were to argue that I am in possession of information which proves you wrong, but I won't say what it is, on the grounds that it is your responsibility to find out for yourself?

I would think you were lying, or grossly mistaken. But then I don't usually make arguments about subjects I know nothing about.

Even if it is true that Chalker failed to use the established procedure which the military wanted him to use, I don't think that he is the one at fault, if the military is engaged in blatantly unconstitutional religious indoctrination.  If every school child in America learns about the constitutional guarantee of freedom of religion, why does the military not know about it?  Or if they know, they choose to ignore it

Seriously, skeptic, what the hell is wrong with you? The military is not "engaged in blatantly unconstitutional religious indoctrination." The military does know about the constitutional of its members; that's why there is an equal opportunity program in the first place. Chalker didn't use established procedure because he hasn't got a leg to stand on; he is not being discriminated against at all. This story is nothing but hype and unsubstantiated accusations.

Many abuses take place in the name of religion

That is completely, utterly irrelevant to anything being discussed here. It's a total red herring.

It would seem that some people in the military believe in fighting fire with fire, and religion with religion...

You believe things that are not true. You believe things for which there is no reasonable evidence. (Unless by "some" you are referring to an insignificant number of people in the military, in which case that statement is another red herring.)

As expected, nothing that I say makes any sense to you, and nothing that you say makes any sense to me.  We have no basis for communication.  I won't attempt it again.  Goodbye.

The quote is a claim made by the MRFF.

We should take your word over the word of someone who was there.

OK.

We should take your word over the word of someone who was there

Of course not. The Air Force was there; the MRFF was not.

The Air Force was there

All of them!

the MRFF was not

None of them!

In reality, the war is nothing more than an effort to deal with terrorists who happen to be Muslim

Hmmm...I think I've called you naive before.  I guess I have to do it again.

The War on Some Terrorists is a scare tactic intended to keep the right wing in power, and slip some tax money to their friends in the Military-Industrial Complex.  They had to find something to replace the Cold War, and WoST works quite well.

Of course the war on terror has other elements besides being an actual war against terrorism.  It has been exploited for political and economic gain.  But if you think that this is ALL that the war on terror is, a complete fabrication having nothing to do with actually combating terrorism, then you are paranoid.  I might as well make that observation, as long as this discussion is to be framed in terms of the personal defects of its participants.  

But if you think that this is ALL that the war on terror is, a complete fabrication having nothing to do with actually combating terrorism, then you are paranoid.

Sometimes they are out to get you.  But the War on Some Terrorists shows no sign of actually being about getting any terrorists, and all the signs of being about keeping the country afraid in order to maintain political power.  Do you really think the increased "terror alert" levels before elections were due to intelligence about possible terror attacks?  Do you really think the TSA is protecting us from terrorists sneaking onto airplanes? Then you are completely naive.

There is no logical connection between what I said (which is that the war on terror is, at least in part, actually about combating terrorism, even though it has also been used for political and economic advantage) and your inference, which is that I believe in the accuracy of terror alert levels and that the TSA is protecting us from terrorists sneaking onto airplanes.

Does terrorism actually exist?  Or did George W. Bush personally order the destruction of the World Trade Center for his own political convenience?  Because if that's what you believe, you really are paranoid.  If you believe that there actually is such a thing as terrorism, then it is reasonable to believe that the US does need to protect itself from terrorism, even if some people are also using the war on terror as a convenient pretext for other, less honorable objectives.  If this strikes you as a completely naive conclusion, then you are completely paranoid.

I am not interested in endless mud-slinging matches, I have already had enough of those with zyxwvutsr.  I should probably just stop posting comments, as I have already threatened to do.  It's becoming too pointless.

Certainly terrorism exists.  But the War on Some Terrorists has been entirely ineffectual in combating it, since the known terrorists still are free to plot, and are even in a better position to get their hands on nukes, for example, than they were when the "war" started.  It has managed to round up a few hapless kooks and some guys who went to a "terrorist training camp," meanwhile destroying a country that wasn't a part of any terror network and filling it with people who now have a genuine motive to hate America.

When something fails so spectacularly to do what it claims it is intended to do, maybe we should look at what it actually did, (it scared enough of the country to keep in power, and it made sure that its friends got government money) and consider that just maybe that was the actual purpose it was intended to serve.  The proof is in the pudding, and the pudding here doesn't look at all like a program to combat terror.

We have more than enough reason to believe that the US government has used the war on terror as a convenient pretext for profiteering, fear-mongering, and other abuses.  But they also must have at least some actual interest in combating terrorism.  However selfish and dishonest they may be, it seems unlikely that they actually do not care at all about the welfare or survival of the country which they have been elected to govern.  I can be cynical and suspicious, but there are some limits to my cynicism and suspicion.

In terms of judging the war on terror by its results, admittedly the results to date are not as good as they should have been, but they have not been negligible either.  The taliban was removed from power in Afghanistan and remains out of power, Saddam Hussein (who, I believe, was in some way a threat to the US despite having no connection either to 9/11 or to nuclear weapons) is out of power and executed, and most significantly of all, there have been no new terrorist attacks on US soil since 9/11, which is now over 7 years.  There are, therefore, at least some indications of success.  Of course, the fact that the US is still fighting in both Iraq and Afghanistan, and that the international Muslim community seems more bent upon harming the US than ever, are unfavorable results.  So it's a mixed situation.  It may still work out well.  It isn't entirely a vast charade to fool the American public - although it has been used to fool the American public to some extent.  It's a multi-purpose war.

But they also must have at least some actual interest in combating terrorism.  However selfish and dishonest they may be, it seems unlikely that they actually do not care at all about the welfare or survival of the country which they have been elected to govern.

The evidence suggests otherwise.

I can certainly see SOME dishonesty as well as quite a bit of incompetence in the US government; but to imagine that they actually have no concern at all for the welfare or survival of the US seems an unnecessarily harsh judgment.  But if the government really is that bad, this speaks very badly of the American voters who elected them (and in the case of George W. Bush, even re-elected him).  It probably means that democracy in America is a failure.  Democracy was a nice idea, but in the end, the voters were just too stupid to make even remotely workable choices.  By now it is probably impossible to set things on the right track.  If your analysis is correct, we are all doomed.  But admittedly, even if the government is well-meaning but incompetent, we are still probably doomed.  The world is a mess, and as far as I can see, it is getting progressively worse in many respects.

Do you have any hopes that Barack Obama, if he is elected, will set things right?  Or is he too bent solely upon selfish and unworthy ends?

Doomed how?

It is easy to buy small plaster models of what you think life is like.

I already indicated, at least in a very sketchy fashion, the nature of the doom which threatens us, when I noted that the world is a mess and it seems to be getting worse.  I could be more detailed.  There appear to be basically 3 types of very dangerous problems which the world currently faces, and all of these act together to make the resulting situation even more dangerous.  We have:

Political problems - Muslim terrorism and American anti-terrorism, nuclear proliferation (particularly in North Korea, Iran, and Pakistan, all of which are dangerous countries), worsening relations with Russia as a result of the recent invasion of Georgia, and the likelihood that these problems will eventually lead to nuclear war.

Economic problems -  The growing population of the world needs ever-increasing amounts of food, petroleum, and other resources, the supply of which is not ever-increasing, and which is at some point going to decrease.  Global fish populations are in trouble.  Then there's the current financial crisis which may become an actual depression.  And desperate people do desperate things.  

Environmental problems - Especially global warming, but also global pollution of the air, water, and soil; soil depletion and erosion and salination and desertification.  We are messing up our world.   And so far we really don't have any other worlds to which we can go, if this one is completely ruined.  

These problems are not insoluble (at least in principle) but we will need much better leadership than we presently have or are likely to get.  So I am not optimistic.

The problem is that our problems don't separate nicely into these three categories.  Most of our political problems stem ultimately from a need for energy.  Energy wouldn't be nearly the problem it is if we didn't need to worry about global warming, and could just use enormous amounts of coal.  Water availability is one of the main causes of wars.  Etc, etc.

The world's problems are all inter-related, each making it more difficult to solve the others.  It would be possible to argue that all problems are really political problems, since bad political decisions have either caused, or at least have failed to solve them.  One could also argue that all problems are really economic problems since the underlying motive for the bad political decisions is one of economic greed.  One could argue that all problems are really environmental since in the end, all bad political and economic strategies will harm the environment, and the resulting collapse of the environment will make all political or economic issues irrelevant since the world will become uninhabitable.  And one could argue, as you have, that it's really all about energy.  All human activities require energy of some sort, and energy is the limiting factor on what we can accomplish.  (Well, energy and the intelligence or stupidity with which we use it.)  So, there are lots of ways to talk about or to think about our problems.  But the problems remain the same.  And they are pretty much as I described them in my previous comment.

the US government; but to imagine that they actually have no concern at all for the welfare or survival of the US seems an unnecessarily harsh judgment.

"They:" the Bush administration is not the entire US government, they are merely the upper levels of the executive branch.  However, nothing they have done betrays any concern for anyone outside of their own circle of cronies.

Their interest in the welfare of the US seems to be based on its usefulness to their cronies, since they have squandered its lives, riches, and reputation in their interest.  Even the "bailout" they offered seemed tailored to rescue their cronies at the expense of the rest of the country.

But if the government really is that bad, this speaks very badly of the American voters who elected them (and in the case of George W. Bush, even re-elected him).

Are you completely unaware of Bush v. Gore?  I suppose you are unaware of the extremely hackable voting systems sold by Bush cronies, and the curious differences between the exit polls and the vote totals in the battleground states of 2004, or you wouldn't be talking about Bush's "re-election."

I am not unaware of the peculiarities of the 2000 election.  Nonetheless, Bush did somehow become President.  Most people consider that to have been an election (however poorly conducted) but if you prefer, you can call it a coup-d'etat.  If that is your interpretation, then the US ceased to be a democracy 8 years ago, and just doesn't realize it.

The problem with that theory is that if Bush were really a military dictator rather than a President, we would not now be having another election.  Bush is still expected to leave office in early 2009, as constitutionally required.  Maybe he still has another surprise for us, up his sleeve.

Your definition of "democracy" is rather idiosyncratic.  Pinochet left office voluntarily: did that make his regime democratic?  Zimbabwe held an election: does that make it a democracy?

If the outcome of an election is counter to the actual number of votes cast, then it isn't really an election, and you don't really have democracy, no matter how the usurper behaves once he has power.

I think that we can make a meaningful distinction between a corrupted or flawed democracy and a non-democratic form of government.  What is clear about the Bush Presidency is that Bush still needs at least the APPEARANCE of democracy to gain the necessary support of the existing mechanism of government; he does have to hold elections and he can't just arbitrarily announce, as Saddam Hussein once did, that he won with 100% of the vote.  The election fraud has to be within certain limits, or it will be stopped by the courts.

Pinochet is in another category, since he didn't even bother with elections and ruled openly as a military dictator.

I do believe that there was a serious failure of democracy in America in the 2000 election and again in the 2004 election.  But that doesn't mean that democracy is now extinct in America.  The 2008 election may actually be legitimate, and I certainly hope that it will be.  After the election next month, let's see what we think about democracy in America then.

For a civilian, Jimmy seems to have an accurate idea of how many military promotions do work

Ooooh, so bitter.

Well, then count to ten until you calm down.

- derumi (del-me)
"Bobby Fischer? Man, that guy is crazy!" - Mike Tyson

Dude, you've never met someone as calm as I.

usmilitary.about.com confirms everything I said above

I dunno, Jiminy. I checked that webpage and it doesn't seem to say anything at all about "fundies...working to take over the military." I'm pretty sure you simply imagined that.

Jesus Ken...is there a monolithic power anywhere that you don't adore?  You slap Jimmy because you refuse to acknowledge his information and you try to use "humor" to slap down any person who disagrees with your skewed worldview.  No problem with religion in the military?  No fundy takeover?  This  Air Force Academy graduate, Vietnam Veteran, and retired colonel disagrees with you.

One of my favorite parts that proves that Evangelical Christianity is not making inroads into the military:

When Dobson's Focus on the Family "campus" was completed, the academy skydiving team, with great ceremony, delivered the "keys from heaven" to Dobson.

It's the end of the world as we know it, and I feel fine

You slap Jimmy because you refuse to acknowledge his information...

I accept the information he provided, but it does not support his idea. If you think it does can you explain why?

This  Air Force Academy graduate, Vietnam Veteran, and retired colonel disagrees with you

So does the MRFF. So does the knucklehead gadfly discussed in the writeup. The colonel you cited is, I suppose, part of the .0025% of the military who have a major problem with living and working with some religious people.

part of the .0025% of the military who have a major problem with living and working with some religious people.

Ken, you disingenuous bag.  Only you would describe someone's concern that the most powerful and potentially destructive organization was being taking over a group of people who are making time until the Rapture and "having a major problem living and working with some religious people".  Ken, are you one of those people who are eagerly waiting for the endtimes?

It's the end of the world as we know it, and I feel fine

Only you would describe someone's concern that the most powerful and potentially destructive organization was being taking over a group of people who are making time until the Rapture and "having a major problem living and working with some religious people"

Actually I would probably refer to that concern as "paranoid fantasy." From what I read in Chalker's complaint I wouldn't suppose he thinks the military is being taken over by rapturists.

Move along, nothing to see.

Oh, and you know the Army doesn't have any reason to desire a promotion system that rewards competence, so of course they don't bother to have procedures that would discourage promotions based on religion. (Alternately, they do wish to promote based on competence but are too stupid to come up with a system that would reduce the chances of promotions based on religion.)

Best to accept your assertion, given without a shred of evidence, that "[t]he fundies have been working to take over the military for quite some time."

you know the Army doesn't have any reason to desire a promotion system that rewards competence, so of course they don't bother to have procedures that would discourage promotions based on religion.

What are those procedures?  Am I supposed to take your word for that, over, say, usmilitary.about.com?

The reports I have gotten of the military promotion system from people who live in it is that it is essentially arbitrary, that as a junior officer, you are entirely subject to the biases and quirks of your senior officer.  And those are people who like the military, and are making a career of it.

What are those procedures?

Do I have to look up everything for you, James? You're the one who believes that "[t]he fundies have been working to take over the military for quite some time."  Upon what do you base that belief?

Am I supposed to take your word for that, over, say, usmilitary.about.com?

Again, that webpage does not support your claim. (You were also incorrect about the details of the process: promotion authority does not belong to a superior officer in the chain of command. I suggest you read that webpage more carefully.) US Army regulations and federal law prohibit discrimination based on religious affiliation, but that fact enters not into your thoughts it seems.

This whole discussion is nonsense. Nearly everyone here appears to uncritically accept\ the version of reality promulgated by Chalker's lawyer. (And the other .0025% of the military making similar complaints.)

Do I have to look up everything for you, James?

No, you just have to support your statements.  The research I have done supports my statements, but it hasn't shut you up.

promotion authority does not belong to a superior officer in the chain of command

If your superior officer doesn't recommend you for promotion, what are your chances of getting one?

US Army regulations and federal law prohibit discrimination based on religious affiliation, but that fact enters not into your thoughts it seems.

Yes, they also prohibit witch hunts against gay soldiers.  Funny how well that works.

Is there a Christian movement which believes that the US should be ruled as a Christian nation?  Are they represented in the military?  Do they believe that their goal is above the law?  Should we worry about the possibility that there are mechanisms which make their goal distinctly possible?

Or should we move along, since there's nothing to see?

I didn't find a lot of those fundy types there, not in the officers, anyway

That was my only point: Havok assumes a loose conspiracy of fundamentalist officers who wish to take over the institution, but he makes that assumption based on no experience and no corroborating information.

That loose conspiracy speaks in public about its desire to take over the country.  That loose conspiracy encourages its members to join the military.  That loose conspiracy forces its ideology onto new recruits.  That loose conspiracy has the necessary tools to achieve its goals.

And you say we should ignore it.

That loose conspiracy forces its ideology onto new recruits...And you say we should ignore it

No, I'm saying it doesn't exist. I'm saying it is a figment of your imagination.

Members of the Dominionist movement speak publicly about their intention to take over the government....and you say they don't exist.

Move along, nothing to see.