Atheists contest treatment from Camp Pendleton

[rug]

By Gidget Fuentes - Staff writer
Posted : Monday Aug 13, 2012 8:22:48 EDT

Two national atheist groups, and one advocating religious freedom, have complained to Navy Secretary Ray Mabus that officials at Camp Pendleton, Calif., continue to deny them access to the base while giving “preferential treatment” to Christian religious organizations, including a controversial church they say is steeped in “doomsday theology” and embroiled in sexual-abuse scandals.

American Atheists Inc., the Freedom from Religion Foundation and the Military Religious Freedom Foundation, in an Aug. 6 letter to Mabus and Chief of Naval Operations Adm. Jonathan Greenert, argued the Marine Corps base has denied them equal treatment by first stalling and then denying their requests for access. At the same time, the three groups claim, Camp Pendleton officials, including those at Marine Corps Community Services, repeatedly have allowed religious groups to hold events there.

They single out the Calvary Chapel Costa Mesa in Southern California, the mother church in a network of roughly 1,300 Calvary Chapel congregations nationwide. Its head pastor, Chuck Smith, has been mired in controversy for years, with critics blasting his teachings that center on predictions the apocalypse is near. He and other leaders within the congregation also have been accused of not doing enough to prevent the alleged molestation of several children.

“We are disturbed that the government is giving such extensive support, including assets, resources and personnel, to a single sect of Christianity,” the three groups wrote in their letter to Mabus. “Even more troubling is the ‘doomsday’ nature of the CCCM. … The last thing Camp Pendleton needs is a large group of well-armed Marines convinced of an imminent doomsday crisis.”

http://www.marinecorpstimes.com/news/2012/08/marine-atheists-pendleton-access-complaint-081312/

[pscot]

1. They're pissing upwind

But I'm glad they're willing to do it.

[rug]

2. Me too.

Just my opinion, but this seems to be a far more important, and difficult, fight than church bulletin discounts.

[trotsky]

3. Is it not reasonable to fight against discrimination at the personal level...

as well as the institutional one?

At the same time MLK and other civil rights leaders were fighting for voting rights and against desegregation, they also spoke out against individual racism. Should they have ignored the latter because the former was far more important, and difficult?

Institutional discrimination flows from and begins with the individuals involved, I think. But perhaps you disagree.

[rug]

4. Yes.

But remember, institutional discrimination always affects individuals, often many, many individuals.

In the case of organizations focused primarily on fighting discrimination, it's usually a case of targeting scarce resources where they will do the most good.

Individuals, for the most part, must resist the individual discrimination individually. Speak up.

Sometimes the two fights come together. R.I.P. Rosa.

[trotsky]

5. So you say:

"Individuals, for the most part, must resist the individual discrimination individually. Speak up."

Yet you mocked the atheist who spoke up against the church bulletin discount.

What gives?

[rug]

6. I mocked the FFRF for going after the restaurant.

As to John Wolff, I said I'd like to talk to him, a Holocaust survivor, convert to Catholicism, and then atheist. A fascinating life. He should have gone on down to Prudhomme's, sat at the counter and talked to the woman who owned it.

[trotsky]

7. Yet you say both struggles are important.

You are saying one thing, but doing another.

What is wrong with Mr. Wolff enlisting help from an organization that fights discrimination against non-believers? Why do you need to mock anyone for any of this?

[rug]

8. My cats are important.

My children are more important.

We do not live in a flat world.

"Why do you need to mock anyone for any of this?"

I don't need to. Neither do you.

[trotsky]

9. I have done no mocking in this thread.

But you did. Perhaps you could edit post #2 to remove the snark and show your sincerity.

[rug]

10. That is neither snark nor mockery.

I agree you have done no mocking - in this thread. Neither have I.

But that's not really the point of this thread. The point is the weaponizing of Christianity. That is a serious enough problem for everyone to put down the snark, sniping and mockery.

[trotsky]

11. It is both.

It is sad and disappointing you refuse to admit it, or failing that, just edit your post out of good faith anyway.

I agree that the weaponization of Christianity is a critical issue. We agree that it should be fought at the institutional and individual level. Your disparaging comment about the church bulletin discount issue is not helpful and many find it insulting. It distracts from the fight against a problem we agree exists.

But if you still refuse, so be it. You choose to be the person you are.

[rug]

12. Ok, I see which path you've taken.

Enjoy your stroll. I have other things to do.

[trotsky]

13. And it's clear which one you're on.

But at least I'm on the record for trying again.

[rug]

14. Surprisingly, I don't come on here to talk about me.

You should try it.

[trotsky]

15. When your behavior distracts from the issues, it's a problem.

I asked you nicely to edit something that included unnecessary snark and was irrelevant to the topic. Something that referred to a previous issue that you then agreed was actually valid. You declined while simultaneously condemning the snark and division in this group - something you just perpetuated.

Given the chance to make a difference yourself, you steadfastly refused. When you're part of the problem, you're going to be talked about. Sorry you don't like that. Now that the spotlight is once again uncomfortably shining on your poor behavior, you move to attack me once again. No shock there.

[rug]

17. When you consistently try to make the issue the poster and not the post, it's a problem.

Knock it off.

[trotsky]

19. Then quit being a problem, rug.

There was absolutely no need for your snarky comment. You could have expressed your agreement with just the subject line of your post #2. Instead you had to throw in a dig about the irrelevance of the church bulletin issue - not even the topic of this thread.

I'll knock off pointing out your bad behavior when you stop behaving badly.

[rug]

21. There was no snarky comment there.

Stop performing for your imagined audience. <=== I admit that is snarky though. Mea culpa.

[trotsky]

22. Your defensiveness tells all.

The audience knows the score, no matter how much you squirm and deny the obvious. The funny part is, though, that you could gain the upper hand at any time if you just admitted your comment about the church bulletins was unnecessary and intended to mock and inflame. You'd be the hero. The adult. The person taking charge of the situation and working to resolve the conflict instead of escalating it.

But you just can't. Evidently for you to admit error or even unprovoked misbehavior toward atheists is too difficult for you to bear. So you throw more snarky comments, more childish attacks, more lame one-liners, until everyone gives up and you "win," sitting in the pile of shit you created.

Turn the other cheek? Hello no!

Love your enemy? Fuck that!

Fling shit and deny, deny, deny. Yeah, that's what Jesus told you to do! Way to go, rug! What exemplary Christian behavior!

[Goblinmonger]

23. At least he's consistent.

Just thought I'd chime in so that it was clear there wasn't an "imagined audience."

[trotsky]

27. Consistent and transparent.

So that's helpful!

[rug]

24. To be defensive there must be a threat.

All I see is stupid erroneous quibbling over a nonexistent offense - and no comment on substance.

I will be happy to give you real mocking if you insist.

[trotsky]

25. "no comment on substance"?

Kinda like throwing in a totally unnecessary and unrelated comment about the church bulletin issue?

Practice what you preach, rug. Like Jesus would want you to do. Or get madder and fling more shit at me. Your choice.

[rug]

26. None at all.

[cbayer]

16. Glad they are challenging this, particularly as a coalition.

That Chuck Smith guy sounds like a real loose cannon.

[rug]

18. He's worse than a loose cannon.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chuck_Smith_(pastor)

[cbayer]

20. Yikes! How did this get so much sway within the military establishment?

Looks like the atheist organizations have a strong case here.