| atheism.davidrand.ca: Living Without Religion | |
|---|---|
| > Table of Contents | |
| > > News Archive | en français |
| Previous page | Next page |
| |
Globe and Mail — Toronto, Ontario, Canada, 2004-12-10
VANCOUVER -- There may be no atheists in foxholes, as a U.S. Army chaplain said in a famous Second World War field sermon.
But there are sailors in the Canadian military who are prepared to confront death without belief in God, and the Canadian
Forces has been ordered to change its regulations to accommodate them.
In a precedent-setting decision forcing the military to reassess its procedures, the Court Martial Appeal Court of Canada
also set aside the conviction of Lieutenant (N)Darryl Scott for refusing to obey a lawful order. Lt. (N) Scott, who joined
the military in 1978, had been court-martialled for refusing to take off his hat while the unit's chaplain recited a prayer
during a military parade at Canadian Forces Base Esquimalt.
"Obedience to lawful orders is essential to maintaining necessary discipline in the military. Here, however, there was
no clearly military purpose," the court ruled. The order required Lt. (N) Scott to make a public gesture of approval
for a religious ceremony in which he did not believe, the three-judge panel stated. "The order was not lawful, and
[Lt. (N) Scott's] disobedience of it was justified."
The Canadian Forces allows those whose religious beliefs require head coverings to keep their head covered during prayers.
However, the regulations make no provision for those who reject religion.
...
Lt. (N) Scott...recalled being deployed in harm's way during the Cold War.
But he does not agree with U.S. Army chaplain William Thomas Cummings, who said there were no atheists in foxholes.
"You are there as a unit. It has nothing to do with religion," Lt. he said. Sailors think about their
close relationship with their shipmates, who they are willing to die for, not about religion, he said.
"Religion is not relevant."
In light of the appeal court decision, the military is reassessing its manuals for drills and ceremonies, said Major
Laurie Kannegiesser, a Canadian Forces media official in Ottawa. The military has not decided whether to appeal.
The manuals will be changed to reflect the ruling if no appeal is launched, she said.
The Guardian — United Kingdom, 2004-12-06
A week in the United States, such as I have just spent, is enough to make anybody feel a trifle fed up with God, or rather
with the relentless invocation of the deity by American politicians, led by their president. No public occasion would be
complete without the blessing of the Almighty being besought for whatever endeavour tops the agenda, most prominently the
war in Iraq. The appeal to faith, seldom mere ritual, is usually founded upon conviction.
There is an attractive rationalist case for insisting that candidates for election anywhere in the world are required to sign
a declaration forswearing religious affiliation. Had this been done in Ireland a couple of generations ago, think what we
would have been spared.
Few modern political careers are compatible with religious principle. Government by atheists would relieve us of the irksome
moral conceit that impels George Bush and Tony Blair to do deplorable things while remaining convinced that slots are kept
open for them in heaven.
...
Some of us would feel more comfortable today if American and allied foreign policy could be discussed solely in temporal terms,
without bringing God into the deal at all. One of the more grotesque landmarks of the Bush presidency was established this time
last year, when the Los Angeles Times revealed that a top general was touring Christian fundamentalist churches assuring
congregations that he knew "our side" would prevail in the struggle with Muslim extremism "because our God
is a real God" and the other side's is a phoney. Now, every army has its share of lunatics. The litmus test is how their
political masters treat them. The world waited in vain for Rumsfeld to sack this grotesque Strangelovian, whose words seemed to
undermine every possibility of constructive engagement with Islam. It never happened, of course. I was in Washington while the
little drama was being played out. A defence academic said to me sardonically: "This administration will never sack a
general for saying things that every senior figure in the cabinet believes," and so it proved.
Bob Woodward vividly records in his book Plan of Attack an exchange with Bush, in which he asked whether the president had
discussed the Iraq invasion with his father before making the decision to act. No, said Bush. He preferred to consult his
"higher father". Many of us at the mercy of America's president, which means most of the world, tremble in the
face of this sort of thing. Even in the darkest days of 1940, Churchill never seriously invoked the deity, though he had
vastly better reason to do so than either Bush or Blair. Nor did Margaret Thatcher.
Today, the distortion of biblical teaching by American Christian fundamentalists, almost all allies of Bush, to support
Israeli imperialist claims on the West Bank, significantly increases the difficulties of achieving a settlement in the
Middle East. The political leverage exerted by the fundamentalists in the US against any surrender of biblical territory
to Muslims is likely to grow greater, not less. Most of us recognise that constructive action to rescue the Palestinians
would do far more for the west's long-term security than the draconian anti-terrorist legislation introduced by Bush and
now by Blair. Yet no prominent western statesman dares publicly to question the role that God's American hijackers play
in making the world more dangerous.
I am not making a case for the appeasement of the west's Islamic critics and enemies, but merely for policies likely to
diminish the fertility of terrorist recruiting prairies, based upon treating their religion with common respect. Christian
Crusaders were a menace to international peace in the 12th and 13th centuries, Christian missionaries in the 19th. God
spare us from assertively Christian - or Muslim or Jewish - national leaders in the 21st, if that request is not blasphemous.
| XHTML CSS |