Armed forces; how many are christian?

[The Atheist]

Being foremost an atheist, I feel it necessary to have a deep understanding of the bible - without necessarily having to translate the original Hebrew or Oolon Colluphid - and accordingly my own studies make me believe I have a pretty good grasp on what the fuss is all about.

For christians, to whom Jesus apparently gave his name, his life and a raison d'etre for christendom, it seems to me that the armed forces would be the last place a good one should be.

"Turn the other cheek", "love your enemies", "do not kill" and good Samaritans hardly abound in any army, yet my unmistakable anecdotal evidence shows that an overwhelming preponderance of today's, and past, Western armed forces personnel are and have long been, christian.

Among the very limited resources I can find on this are:http://www.cnn.com/2005/US/05/03/airforce.religion/ with christianity noted at 90% and other religions making up the other 10, atheists not mentioned.

The old two-pronged adage - "there are no atheists in foxholes" - firstly assumes that all atheists, as Bertrand Russell was, are prepared to stand up and be conscientious objectors, and secondly merely implies that given being a target for incoming shells and bullets isn't high on most atheists' agenda and they would be more likely to be in less stressful occupations, such as being a cook or general. Either way, one would not expect to find many atheists in the armed forces, and conversely to christians, one doesn't!

Why then, is being licenced to shoot people such an attractive option for people who pray to a god who has clearly been placed on their own records as being the author of so many anti-violence parables?

I know, from my father's WWII, and earlier, experiences that in his entire 22 years in the Royal Navy, he knew of no atheists, although they were not officially persecuted, unlike homosexuals, of whom he knew several.

Is it because when their leaders vocally espouse their approval by their gods, Bush/Blair in particular, that these killers feel better about the bloodshed in the illogical belief that has been legitimised by a deity?

It is true that in the late, unlamented (outside of Voortrekkerdom) apartheid regime of South Africa that atheism was viewed as a deviency sufficient to warrant BOSS's attention, as it is almost impossible to conceieve how one race of people could claim domination over another without divine approval.

Armed forces personnel seem to be of a similar mind-set. An interesting sideline here would be to assess the religious beliefs or otherwise of those charged, and those about to be charged, with war crimes.

Be very surprised if they were atheists.

[and just a wee linguistic note to finish; while Rastafarian, Zoroastran and Roman Catholics are entitled to a capital letter, I cannot dignify christianity with the same, since there is no genuine evidence of Mr Christ's existence, and even less of his miraculous deeds.]

[Tricky]

Do you mean true Christians?

[The Atheist]

Fair point.

I am using the term generically to describe people who pray to or worship Jesus Christ and his dad.

I realise that many different interpretations are put on the term "christian", from those who consider only those baptised in a certain religion as "true" christians, to those who believe that submitting 10% of their income to a specified P O Box number makes them a "true" christian. No doubt the citizens of Jonestown, Guyana considered themselves "true" christians as well, but I am sticking to a nomenclature which is generally seen as being people who believe in the christian ideal of god as represented in most christian culture.

I had not bothered differentiating as I see little difference between holding a god in any kind of reverence and shaving one's head and flagellating to show one's love for it.

[l0rca]

(Edited-in note: I began writing this unbeknownst to your reply, Atheist dude)

Originally Posted by Tricky

Do you mean true Christians?

Tricky brang in the zinger right there. I'll be his number one guy here and explain a bit further:

Most christians are passively religious. It's what they were brought up to believe in, and their idea of their god is rather malleable.

After combat, however, things tend to get more radical.

I know a Marine doc here on base that has told us he truely believes he's a celtic warrior sent back to prepare those in the American military for the Apocolapse. His views may sound dangerous, but what he's doing, and done, for the country is good.

[Azure]

Jesus also gave the government the arm to use the military as a "sword" therefore he gave the soldier the right to kill.

Besides, our soldiers try to not kill innocent people, so yes, I do believe they can be "true" Christians and serve in the military.

[JamesDillon]

Originally Posted by Azure

Jesus also gave the government the arm to use the military as a "sword" therefore he gave the soldier the right to kill.

Besides, our soldiers do not kill innocent people, so yes, I do believe they can be "true" Christians and serve in the military.

Wow. I think that was serious.

[Azure]

Originally Posted by JamesDillon

Wow. I think that was serious.

Oh shutup James.

Just because everything is a CT in your world, doesn't mean our soldiers conspire to kill innocent civilians on purpose.

If you think they do, then you're comparing them to the terrorists; or is that another one of your CT's?

[JamesDillon]

Is it just me, or does Godwin's Law need to be updated to include references to 9/11?

[Azure]

Originally Posted by JamesDillon

Is it just me, or does Godwin's Law need to be updated to include references to 9/11?

Why? You think the Holocaust is a CT too?

[The Atheist]

Originally Posted by Azure

our soldiers do not kill innocent people

No comment required

[JamesDillon]

Originally Posted by The Atheist

No comment required

If they were innocent, they wouldn't have been born brown.

[Azure]

Originally Posted by The Atheist

No comment required

Gee whiz, I'm going to have to go back and edit that comment, since everyone here believes our soldiers "try" to kill innocent people.

[slingblade]

Originally Posted by The Atheist

The old two-pronged adage - "there are no atheists in foxholes" - firstly assumes that all atheists, as Bertrand Russell was, are prepared to stand up and be conscientious objectors, and secondly merely implies that given being a target for incoming shells and bullets isn't high on most atheists' agenda and they would be more likely to be in less stressful occupations, such as being a cook or general. Either way, one would not expect to find many atheists in the armed forces, and conversely to christians, one doesn't!

Funny, I always thought it meant that when people are lobbing artillery shells at you, you might be likely to bargain for your life with god, whether you believed in him or not.

[JamesDillon]

Originally Posted by slingblade

Funny, I always thought it meant that when people are lobbing artillery shells at you, you might be likely to bargain for your life with god, whether you believed in him or not.

That's how I always interpreted it, too.

[fuelair]

Originally Posted by JamesDillon

That's how I always interpreted it, too.

Absolutely correct (not true, but correct).

[The Atheist]

Azure, I understand your attitude to civilian deaths - it's fine to cause a few as long as "our" soldiers didn't MEAN to kill them.

What is confusing me a little is the "our soldiers". You are flying an Israeli flag, but can't mean them because you are talking about "our soldiers" being true christians, and most of the Israeli army aren't. You are living in Canada, so you could mean Canadian soldiers, and if so, you are probably right as I haven't [yet] heard of any atrocities or charges against Canadian soldiers in the Middle East.

Or, you could be using a generic "our" for the "Coalition of the Billing" involved in the current invasion/occupation forces. Accordingly, and going by charges of murder and rape brought against some US and UK soldiers, some of them have indeed intended to kill civilians.Just out of interest let me know which "our" you mean.

[The Atheist]

Originally Posted by slingblade

Funny, I always thought it meant that when people are lobbing artillery shells at you, you might be likely to bargain for your life with god, whether you believed in him or not.

Of course it does, I was being facetious.

I do, however, believe that atheists would be smart enough not to be front-line fodder in any case.

[Azure]

Quote:

Azure, I understand your attitude to civilian deaths - it's fine to cause a few as long as "our" soldiers didn't MEAN to kill them.

I never said it was fine, did I?

It happens? What should I do about it? More importantly, what should our soldiers do about it?

Quote:

What is confusing me a little is the "our soldiers". You are flying an Israeli flag, but can't mean them because you are talking about "our soldiers" being true christians, and most of the Israeli army aren't. You are living in Canada, so you could mean Canadian soldiers, and if so, you are probably right as I haven't [yet] heard of any atrocities or charges against Canadian soldiers in the Middle East.

I am referring to American and Canadian soldiers together. Even Israeli if you want to put it that way.

Unless they run a mental nightmare, I seriously believe our soldiers do not go out of their way to kill innocent civilians.

Sadly, it still happens, just like it happened in Bible times, and just like it has happened throughout history.

Quote:

Or, you could be using a generic "our" for the "Coalition of the Billing" involved in the current invasion/occupation forces. Accordingly, and going by charges of murder and rape brought against some US and UK soldiers, some of them have indeed intended to kill civilians.Just out of interest let me know which "our" you mean.

Like I said, once in a while you might get a couple mental cases that feel the need to lash out. That to me is the exception, and the thing which allows our soldiers to remain Christians and stay on the front lines.

Millions upon millions of people have died in numerous wars throughout the whole world; are you trying to tell me, "none" of them have any chance of "salvation" or that their belief in God was flawed because of their actions?

[ARubberChickenWithAPulley]

FYI, here is the 2005 breakdown for the U.S. Army. You can see the statistics for the rest of the services here.

Active National Guard Reserve
Protestant 51% 46% 44%
Catholic 21% 20% 21%
No Preference 26% 32% 33%
Other 2% 2% 2%

So in answer to the question in the OP, between 66%-72% of US Army Soldiers are some form of Christian, at least in name.

[slingblade]

Originally Posted by The Atheist

Of course it does, I was being facetious.

The core of your argument was a joke? Great. Thanks for wasting my time.

By the way, Catholics are Christians, both Roman and Greek Orthodox. They do believe in Jesus Christ as the son of god, in case you missed all the artwork and statues in the cathedrals....

I don't understand why so many people seem to think that only Protestants are Christians. It's just a schism. The core is still the same.

[The Atheist]

Couple of quick replies here - first, Rubber Chicken, thanks for that, it does show a little less disproportion than in the past, I feel.

Azure also, thanks for clarifying that point.

War is hell, civilians get killed, tough. Quite right; after all, they're only the kids of the filth which spawn all the terrorists.

Never mind that these people hate the terrorists even more than you do - they know why Israel and USA chooses to attack their countries; these people are not some illiterate savages bereft of intelligence.

Never mind that these same unarmed civilians are considered acceptable casualties because they were unable to disarm a rabid gang of well-armed murderers.

Glad we have that out of the way.

Slingblade - that wasn't the central point at all, and I'm sure you know that. The subject is not about what atheists do in wartime, but about how christians reconcile their belief and love for Jesus, whose most apposite parable for the current situation, to me, is the woman to be stoned for adultery where Jesus invites "he who is without sin" to cast the first stone, and, of course, none are thrown.

By their very name christians adhere to the teachings of Jesus as they appear in christian bibles.

Also, most christians are highly anti-abortion, yet an overwhelming majority seem to have no problem with living children being blown apart by their friends, acquaintances, family members, and in some cases, themselves.

Aside from Rowan Williams, Archbishop of Canterbury, I haven't heard serious opposition to the Middle East situation from any major church figures. The Pope, as most popes have been, has stayed more or less silent on the "war", continuing a long tradition of the Vatican not minding terribly much about wars as long as one of their sides is winning.

I can only conclude that the prevailing attitude amongst christian within the military makes their obeisance to a god a fraud.

[slingblade]

Originally Posted by The Atheist

Slingblade - that wasn't the central point at all, and I'm sure you know that.

You are wrong to be sure about it. Do not tell me what I know; I will tell you. If I am mistaken, you have every right to correct me, but you do not have the right to claim what I know.

I quoted the paragraph from your OP in which you explained the adage. You said it meant three things, from which we could draw a conclusion. I then said I thought it meant something different from what you thought it meant.

And your reply was that you were being facetious in that paragraph.

Let's look at it again:

Quote:

The old two-pronged adage - "there are no atheists in foxholes" - firstly assumes that all atheists, as Bertrand Russell was, are prepared to stand up and be conscientious objectors, and secondly merely implies that given being a target for incoming shells and bullets isn't high on most atheists' agenda and they would be more likely to be in less stressful occupations, such as being a cook or general. Either way, one would not expect to find many atheists in the armed forces, and conversely to christians, one doesn't!

Now I will simplify this, to show you what I read.

The adage assumes that all atheists are conscientious objectors.
The adage implies that all atheists don't want to be targets.
The adage implies all atheists would rather have "safe" occupations.
Therefore, we do not expect to find many atheists in the armed forces, because of the above assumptions and implications generated by the adage.
When we compare the numbers, we find that there are far more Christians in the military than atheists.
Thus, the adage is correct.


This is not central to your post and your point? Really?

I then replied:
"Funny, I always thought it meant that when people are lobbing artillery shells at you, you might be likely to bargain for your life with god, whether you believed in him or not."

And your reply was that you were joking. That's what "facetious" means, you know: "Playfully jocular; humorous."

You have points here, but I do not believe they are contained in that adage, nor do I believe the adage was meant to assume or imply anything more than "Maybe praying to a god is silly, but I bet if a few hundred people were actively trying to kill you, you'd be praying right along with everyone else."

And no matter what you meant, the quoted paragraph wasn't funny. Wasn't even jocular. So it wasn't facetious. Sarcastic, maybe. Funny, no.

Use a little parsimony. The reason there aren't many atheists in the military, is because there aren't many atheists. Proportionately, they're going to show up anywhere in smaller numbers, because they comprise smaller numbers.

But don't tell me what I know, unless you plan to share the million dollars with me.





edit for more accurate phrasing.

[Azure]

Quote:

Azure also, thanks for clarifying that point.

Obviously you never got the point.

Quote:

War is hell, civilians get killed, tough. Quite right; after all, they're only the kids of the filth which spawn all the terrorists.

Now where did I say that? Yes, War is hell, and yes, these civilians are killed in the way of collateral damage, just like the 32 million innocent civilians were killed during WW2. Are you saying all of them were the kids of filth?

Quote:

Never mind that these people hate the terrorists even more than you do - they know why Israel and USA chooses to attack their countries; these people are not some illiterate savages bereft of intelligence.

They do? Is that why they hide out in terrorist strongholds?

Don't you think common sense would tell you, that if Hezbollah has a base right next to your house, your best bet would be to get away from that base?

I guess all the innocent civilians killed by the Allies in WW2 also hated the Nazis. They hated them so much they ended up electing Hitler and his party to power.

Quote:

Never mind that these same unarmed civilians are considered acceptable casualties because they were unable to disarm a rabid gang of well-armed murderers.

I doubt that Israel/US is calling for the civilians for disarm anyone. Rather, they give them 48 hours to get out of the terrorist areas.

Quote:

Glad we have that out of the way.

We would, if you wouldn't be so damn sarcastic.

[Cleon]

Originally Posted by Azure

Gee whiz, I'm going to have to go back and edit that comment, since everyone here believes our soldiers "try" to kill innocent people.

No, you didn't say anything about "trying" originally. You said "our soldiers do not kill innocent people," which--let's be honest--is patently ridiculous. Whether you think they try to or not, the fact is that they do.

[The Atheist]

Ok, slingblade, I'll accept that I'm not at all sure what you think; my humble apologies for crediting you with enough intelligence to distinguish between the point of the post - the conundrum of christians in the military, and a little side snippet - atheists in foxholes.

I had felt that the title of the piece and the tone may have given it away, but each to their own.

I won't suggest that you know the difference between humour and sarcasm, so I'll let you figure out all alone that not everyone laughs at the same jokes.

I will, however, pass on a quick tip for you - as Azure noticed, my comments to his reply were in fact sarcastic. I know of several people who found my offbeat interpretation of atheists in foxholes quite amusing, so I'll stick with facetious on that one. I will also admit to being totally confused as to what point, if any, that you are trying to make.

And, Azure, just clarifying one thing, I didn't mean the US/Israel calling for disarmament, I was referring to UNR 1955 (I think) which demanded that Lebanon disarm Hizbollah.

As to Hizbollah's next door neighbours, where do you suggest they move to?

[Tricky]

The whole point of war is to kill more of them than they do of us. (Yes, I know this overly simplistic, but this is a lot of what it boils down to.) Over the centuries, this has meant developing technologies to kill from long range. This minimizes the number of "us" that get killed. But the longer the range of a weapon, the wider it must spread it's area of destruction. It wouldn't make any difference if you could fire a bullet fifty miles, you couldn't hit anything with it. Artillery greatly increases the spread of potential lethality. Missiles even more. But for areal coverage, you can't beat bombs, with nuclear weapons being the ultimate (so far). One shot and thousands or millions of "them" are dead.

So as technology increases, we become increasingly tolerant of "collateral damage" among non-combatants. Does Christianity even address this? No, I don't believe it does, at least not New Testament Christianity. Even if you look at all the sword and rider stuff in Revelations (which reads like a bad acid trip) you still don't see all out carnage.

In the Old Testement, the good guys, including God, routinely wipe out whole cities or even kill just children (the plagues of Egypt). Jesus, though, does not seem the type to do this though, and it is Jesus that is central to being Christian. Still, many Christians, especially fundamentalists, place great store in the Old Testament.

So the short answer is, you can do anything you want and still be able to claim, with Biblical support, that you are a Christian. This is because there is no clear moral message in the Bible. A Christian finds that God is on his side, whatever side that is. That's why I posted the terse "True Christians" comment at the beginning of this thread. A True Christian is anyone who says he is.

Onward, Christian Soldiers.

[The Atheist]

Originally Posted by Tricky

In the Old Testement, the good guys, including God, routinely wipe out whole cities or even kill just children (the plagues of Egypt). Jesus, though, does not seem the type to do this though, and it is Jesus that is central to being Christian. Still, many Christians, especially fundamentalists, place great store in the Old Testament.

So the short answer is, you can do anything you want and still be able to claim, with Biblical support, that you are a Christian. This is because there is no clear moral message in the Bible. A Christian finds that God is on his side, whatever side that is. That's why I posted the terse "True Christians" comment at the beginning of this thread. A True Christian is anyone who says he is.

Onward, Christian Soldiers.

Hear, Hear.

[ceo_esq]

Originally Posted by Tricky

So as technology increases, we become increasingly tolerant of "collateral damage" among non-combatants. Does Christianity even address this?

Well, protecting the interests of non-combatants is one of the preoccupations of so-called Just War Theory, which is overwhelmingly the product of Christianity.

[Katana]

Originally Posted by The Atheist

Of course it does, I was being facetious.

I do, however, believe that atheists would be smart enough not to be front-line fodder in any case.

Of course they wouldn't be on the frontlines if they could help it. There's no afterlife for them, so they'd better keep the one they've got.

What I think would be interesting is to look at how many soldiers went into the military without religious beliefs but came out with them and vice versa. And why.

[Ryokan]

Originally Posted by The Atheist

I do, however, believe that atheists would be smart enough not to be front-line fodder in any case.

Since I've been a soldier, and a grunt at that, I guess that would mean that either:

1. I'm one of those really rare stupid atheists.

or:

2. I've been lying my entire life, because I'm obviously not an atheist.

In any case, there's no way I would've been admitted to the armed forces of the True Scotsmen.

[UndercoverElephant]

Originally Posted by Tricky

The whole point of war is to kill more of them than they do of us.

The point of the war is to win the war. The US probably killed more north vietnamese than they lost men of their own, but they still lost the war.

And in response to the OP, the pacificism involved in the teachings are, IMO, one of the single most important parts of Christian doctrine. It is the pacifism of Christianity which sets it apart from the other two major theistic religions, both of which advocate all sorts of violence against transgressors and enemies. Without "turn the other cheek" and "love your enemies", Christianity becomes rather pointless, IMO. George Bush is the opposite of what a Christian should be - and not just in this respect.

[CP489]

As an atheist in the military the rough breakdown where I am:

75% Christian
5% Other (mostly Wiccan, believe it or not)
20% Atheist/agnostic.

ETA: Air Force, and serving in Oklahoma City, if it matters.

[Huntster]

Originally Posted by The Atheist

...I do, however, believe that atheists would be smart enough not to be front-line fodder in any case.

I'm impressed that atheists are able to dictate whether or not they will serve in a military, or where that might take place.

[slingblade]

Originally Posted by The Atheist

Ok, slingblade, I'll accept that I'm not at all sure what you think; my humble apologies for crediting you with enough intelligence to distinguish between the point of the post - the conundrum of christians in the military, and a little side snippet - atheists in foxholes.

Oh, goodie. You just made my list. Congrats.

[ImaginalDisc]

Originally Posted by Azure

I doubt that Israel/US is calling for the civilians for disarm anyone. Rather, they give them 48 hours to get out of the terrorist areas.

How? How can Israel blow up the bridges, highways and airports, and then insist people evacuate? That's like shooting someone in the leg and then demanding they run away.

[The Atheist]

Rather than have a dozen quotes, I'll just add the following:

Huntster. Since almost all Western military is volunteer-based rather than conscripted, I'd say atheists have a 100% career choice.

Which leads neatly into, Ryokan

If you've been an atheist in the front line, I salute you, which segues even more nicely into:

CP489. Thanks, agrees very much with the other survey. Certainly very different from WWII.

Undercover Elephant also gets a "Hear, hear!" It amuses the hell out of me that all the christians I know have a personal relationship with, and love, Jesus Christ, despite his dead status, yet they all also support the ongoing wars/invasions.

[Foster Zygote]

Originally Posted by Huntster

I'm impressed that atheists are able to dictate whether or not they will serve in a military, or where that might take place.

You mean like the U.S.A.?

Who else out there on this forum lives in a country where military service is voluntary?

Steven

[Azure]

Originally Posted by The Atheist

And, Azure, just clarifying one thing, I didn't mean the US/Israel calling for disarmament, I was referring to UNR 1955 (I think) which demanded that Lebanon disarm Hizbollah.

As to Hizbollah's next door neighbours, where do you suggest they move to?

I guess it doesn't matter as the Lebanese PM was caught saying he supports Hezbollah.

Who exactly do you call Hezbollah's next door neighbors?

[Azure]

Originally Posted by ImaginalDisc

How? How can Israel blow up the bridges, highways and airports, and then insist people evacuate? That's like shooting someone in the leg and then demanding they run away.

You don't think those people knew they were going to shot in the leg?

Its like pointing a gun at someone and telling them to leave, instead they don't, but then start complaining when they get shot by the gun they didn't run from.

[The Atheist]

Originally Posted by Foster Zygote

You mean like the U.S.A.?

Who else out there on this forum lives in a country where military service is voluntary?

Steven

You mean places like:

Australia, Italy, Great Britain, France, Canada, Japan, Spain, India.... etc.

Someone else can work out what percentage of the Western World's armed personnel are conscripted, but it's a very, very small one.

And Azure, I meant genuine next-door neighbours. Someone raised the point about what to do if Hizbollah moves in - literally - next door and I am taking that path. A troop of insane terrorists armed with late-model weapons moves into the house next to mine. All means of escape from the city are blocked. No agency, government, UN or alien is available to teleport me and my family away from this very obvious target. Where DO I go?