All I have to say is that Martin Hyde has surpassed Clothahump and New Iskander as the most despicable poster on this board. Compared to him those two are downright reasonable. As a veteran of the Army and a combat vet it saddens me that Martin Hyde claims to be a former member of the military. I do not believe he really served, but if he did he is a discredit to the military and the country.
As a former servicemember (although I didn’t serve a full tour or really do anything useful at all) I concur wholeheartedly.
I also agree with you. Clothahump I understand and I find fine in non pit threads. I don’t really know new Iskander.
Jim
While the Constitution does provide the establishment clause, and is silent on the subject of the fundamental human right to dessert (;>) there IS the free exercise clause. If we in this country must have a professional military, wherein you may be drafted to serve and then be required to serve in foreign lands or locales where your access to the religious counsel of your choice is severely limited or non existent then the government should provide you with reasonable access to religious services in order to protect your Constitutional right to the free exercise of religion. Our Constitution recognizes the existence of the powerful force religion has in our citizen’s lives so much so that the right to free exercise is preserved in our first amendment. Chaplains are by and large good for morale, and no way violate the Lemon test… I believe there was a recent case that hit on or near this called Cutter v. Wilkinson.
The ones that get me are the whores, skunk pussies, buggers, queens, fairies, dopers, junkies: sick, venal.
I’ve been thinking lately that someday a real rain would… Nah, probably not.
Guess you did. At Ft. Leonard Wood in 1980, where I was sent as a 12B, Drill Sgt. Staten & the rest of the training cadre gave us no such options. The exact words screamed at us by one or another of them were “There ain’t no fucking Atheists in MY Army!” Yeah, one of the Atheists in the group, me for example, could have made a complaint. He’d also have received a blanket party from the other recruits and been a real favorite of the Drills. It seemed better judgement at the time to just accept the no preference label and go to service. After basic, that foolishness was over anyway.
Can’t tell you about the Army, but in Air Force BMT, which I attended pretty recently, some of the Training Instructors (AF equivalent to drill sergeants) will give you hassles about going to a non-Protestant service or no service, but there are comment boxes and comment forms everywhere, and were you to fill out one of those forms and put it in one of same boxes, the TI would definitely get what’s coming to them. I knew some folks who got hell from both TI and rest-of-trainee-flight for putting in a complaint and then getting scared and withdrawing it, but if a TI pulls something on a complaint you stand behind, they’re liable to lose a stripe.
As for blanket parties as a result of standing up for yourself on Sunday, all of the trainees I was with had a pretty laissez-faire attitude as to religious preference. Any that tried to push others into going to a particular service–in my flights, anyway–would more likely end up on the receiving end of the blanket party.
Finally, the chaplains at the smaller services (Jewish, at least) are Captains and have clout (compared to the TIs, at least). They’re happy to hear complaints about TIs who are overbearing on religion, and they’re also take care of the problem.
The word “endorse” does not appear in the Lemon test.
Making religious soldiers happy is not secular. “Religious” would be the opposite of “secular.” And frankly I don’t accept your assertion that the primary effect of religious services is “making soldiers happy” anyway.
Making religious soldiers happy is not secular. You keep using the word “religious” (except when you conveniently leave it out) while at the same time apparently not understanding that meeting peoples’ religious desires is not secular. And again, I disagree that either the purpose or the primary effect of religious rituals is “making soldiers happy.” In point of fact, the primary job responsibilities of an Army chaplain make absolutely no mention of “keeping soldiers happy.”
The Army seems to understand that the purpose of providing chaplains is decidedly non-secular…
You left out “sodomites”? I’m insulted.
Well, the general term “degenerates” encompasses a multitude of more specific perversions. 
Martin, you left my question unanswered:
Although we disagree about the source of funding, I offered my question in a respectful manner and it is a straightforward question.
If it will be helpful to you in your accessment of me, I will provide some additional information:
I was an English teacher in the inner-city for twenty years, now the grandmother of four, a member of Amnesty International, a former editorial assistant for the United Methodist Publishing House, as politically liberal as most here, a Christian and a continuing survivor of mental illness.
Does my view on chaplains as stated above sound to you like I am an anti-religious bigot?
[call of the mermaids]
The First Parish Church in Concord was a Unitarian Church at the time, I believe. (Now Unitarian Universalist) I don’t think that Thoreau went to jail for that one, but I could be mistaken. The tax was called a “ministerial tax”! Good heavens! Here’s a little more information:
[/call of the mermaids]
As a hard atheist myself I’m in full agreement with Q.E.D. but allow me a quibble on this point. The U.S. would still be a sovereign nation today even had it not fought a revolutionary war against the British. (Witness Canada, Australia, New Zealand, etc). In all probability the U.S. would be a far larger sovereign nation had it bided its time as there would have been no cause for separation between Canada and the U.S. Thus I would argue that, in all likelihood, war was not strictly necessary for the eventual establishment of the U.S. as a sovereign nation.
You had it tough. I was Navy Boot camp in '85 in Great Lakes. There was pressure to attend services but when I refused they accepted it.
No pressure from the other boots however.
As a concession I went to the Jewish services twice just to see what they were like and because as a midweek service I felt like I was getting over on the CCs.
They were ok with this dodge that myself and one lapsed Jewish guy used as it got them their precious Chaplain’s Flag for reviews. 
BTW: I am agnostic, lapsed Roman Catholic.
JIm
I expressed despair at the appearance of what I consider a state sponsored religious activity when I am clearly an Athiest. Are you saying all people who express themselves in this way are “a tool” ? And, what is “a tool” exactly? Please clarify your position.
Oh, and yes, I was a nerd in elementary school who got picked on all the time. I always react this way to these cave man type comments directed my way.
I should clarify that the blanket party would have been for stirring up the Drills rather than specifically for being an atheist. Anything that irritated Sgt. Staten inevitablty resulted in a shower of shit that drenched an entire platoon.
So tell me the truth, you must have privately called this idiot Sgt. Satan right?
We did have one blanket party in Boot Camp, the guy refused to shower for some reason. I didn’t participate in the barbaric ritual but I also didn’t try to stop it. He wasn’t hurt badly though and he did shower daily after that night, so maybe violence does work occasionally.
Jim
As an upstanding atheist neoplasm, I would just like to state that arguments ad populum are literally attacking the very DNA of the entire Christian world.
Incidentally, can one wish for a less religious world without being a bigot? I think the church-funded chaplain idea has merit, purely in the interests of fairness with respect to those soldiers who don’t find much use for a chaplain (or imam, rabbi or L. Ron Hubbard doll). Perhaps they could they get togther and demand a government-salaried stand-up comedian or lap dancer instead: one could even test the popularity of their choice relative to the chaplain by holding a religious service at the same time as their suggested means of fulfilling soldiers’ social and emotional needs and seeing how big the crowd was for each. If substantial numbers of soldiers chose the alternative over the chaplain, then that suggests that the chaplain’s salary might be better spent in other ways, and leave the church to pay it instead.
But if merely suggesting this is carcinogenic bigotry (and I admit the possibility that I am wrong, in everything), so be it.
What the hell is a “blanket party?”
For the Navy at least, I know the Lap dancers would triumph in such a poll.