Atheists object to Christmas toy drive on Air Force base – and win

a reply to: dawnstar

You bring up a good point. How much tax dollars are waisted in government/we the people, ..spending? $18 trill in dept? There has never been that many $1 bills printed. ..please talk to me about E-mails and waist....I'll wait.

a reply to: dawnstar

Dogma? Define dogma. Who is not inundated with "dogma"? You get it all the time..everyday. You're being "preached" at all the time. And it ain't just the "Christians" trying to get in your head. .. I love that word, "dogma". It's like that word "homophobia",... it only means something to them that use it. Sounds all "educated" and stuff.

a reply to: Gryphon66

Then I'd think you'd be more "liberal" about the COTUS than you appear. Or is it just "freedom" for your "dogma" and nobody else?

a reply to: murphy22

gee, how much was wasted on bush's "crusades"??
but of course, the point that I've been making has completely flew over your head, or did you duck to avoid it??
I have yet to have an employer that didn't have rules I had to go by in order to stay employed...some of which, I didn't agree with....
why should the gov't not have the ability to enforce their rules on their employees?

by dogma, I mean doctrines, religious teaching and beliefs, the "Good News", the "Path to Salvation" ect. the gov't shouldn't be spreading this kind information, be it christian based, muslim, or any other. and the military has rules concerning this, and the constitution forbids any gov't to do it.

a reply to: buster2010

holy shi^^^ just let them collect toyS for children and not make it about adult BS all the time. this could make some kids whole month maybe even year.

just change the name, don't make it about Christmas or something and give these kids some toys

originally posted by: Azryael
Atheists are funny, even high end scientists within a good percentage agrees in a higher power.

NO

hmm the thing about denying the existence of something is that you have to give way to the possibility that it exists in the first place to claim disbelief in it.

NO

Lack of belief is not disbelief. If you could prove God to me, then I would not lack belief.

I do not disbelieve in God. I simply have no evidence of God.

I am an agnostic atheist. I believe it is very possible that there is a "God," but I'm not of the opinion that humanity is in any way capable of quantifying or knowing it. I'm not vocal about my beliefs, but I will not lie or obfuscate if I am asked. I don't agree with proselytizing or championing religion at all.

That said, those who do things like this disgust me. What the hell is wrong with being a Christian? Or a Jew? A Muslim? A Wiccan? Most religious Japanese people subscribe to Shintoism and/or Buddhism, and even they celebrate Christmas as a holiday (although it is non-religious for them). Whoopity effing doo, some people are Christians. The email was posed in a way that suggested everyone receiving it was a Christian. While ignorant, it is not some grand insult to those who aren't.

I apologise, but I've lost the point I was originally attempting to make when starting this post. I'm just at a loss because of this stupidity.

There's a church nearby that is a part of this charity. I guess tomorrow before I go to work I'm gonna fill a shoe box with toys and such and drop it off.

Just to recap:

No one involved in this case has advocated cancelling the toy drive. No one has said kids shouldn't get toys at Christmas.

This is about the squadron commander's secretary who had a long history of proselytizing both by email and on the job with nothing being done. This involved FOURTEEN airmen who went to the MRFF rather than the commander because they feared reprisal.

This wasn't a lone atheist scrooge upset about merely seeing the word Christmas somewhere. This is about an evangelical fundamentalist repeatedly using the power of her position in a government institution to push her religious beliefs on subordinates.

a reply to: DelMarvel

Thank you for the clarification. I still stand by my statements, though. If this secretary had a long history of proselytizing, though, efforts should have been made before now to rectify things. Choosing this particular incident was not the right choice. Public opinion will undoubtedly and understandingly side with this "evangelical fundamentalist."

Interesting. The Huffington Post article is pretty funny, BTW.

When contacted by Military.com, Ms. Branch "expressed surprise at the proselytizing language of the message she forwarded. She also said she did not know where the email originated and that old emails had been deleted for space reasons."

OK, this claim of "surprise" by Ms. Branch at what the email said would only be remotely believable had she not added her own message to the email when she forwarded it. www.huffingtonpost.com...

a reply to: MateoVeritas

It doesn't matter who "public opinion" sides with.

The commander in question has already sent out a statement saying he had nothing to do with the email in question and that it was a clear violation of the Joint Ethics Regulation.

So that pretty much settles that portion of the debate.

its christmas!! let the toys flow!!
i dont even see why this is an issue.

a reply to: dawnstar

Bush? "Bush" A politician, is what you slap leather with? I'm glad you get my point. The "government" is not a person. It's made up of, "we the people" I "feel" so bad, that doesn't fit your "dogma" . "Christians" pay "taxes". What views do they express that offends you?

originally posted by: murphy22
a reply to: Gryphon66

Then I'd think you'd be more "liberal" about the COTUS than you appear. Or is it just "freedom" for your "dogma" and nobody else?

You seem to be attempting to appear to strike at some deep metaphorical meaning here.

The situation is simple; such blatant religious proselytizing by government representatives on government facilities utilizing government resources is expressly prohibited by the US Constitution.

That is the fact regardless of what you might "think."

originally posted by: Xcathdra
a reply to: Gryphon66

I dont deny the groups intent is to promote Christian Evangelism.. I don't agree with the mindset that the Us air force is acting as an extension of that group by collecting donations and handing them out. As I stated already the US Post Office is doing the same thing, taking their packages via US mail and passing them onto people they are intended for.

I know you realize the difference, but I'll make it overt.

In your hackneyed example, the Post Office is performing its primary function of receiving and delivering goods and information.

No one at the Post Office is promoting, providing, supporting, or condoning the religious nature of what is being received or delivered.

The Air Force's primary (secondary, tertiary, etc.) function is NOT to serve as a distribution point for tools of Christian proselytizing.

Everson v. Board of Education of the Township of Ewing (1947)

The "establishment of religion" clause of the First Amendment means at least this: Neither a state nor the federal government can set up a church. Neither can pass laws which aid one religion, aid all religions, or prefer one religion over another. Neither can force nor influence a person to go to or to remain away from church against his will or force him to profess a belief or disbelief in any religion. No person can be punished for entertaining or professing religious beliefs or disbeliefs, for church attendance or non-attendance. No tax in any amount, large or small, can be levied to support any religious activities or institutions, whatever they may be called, or whatever form they may adopt to teach or practice religion. Neither a state nor the Federal Government can, openly or secretly, participate in the affairs of any religious organizations or groups and vice versa. In the words of Jefferson, the clause against establishment of religion by law was intended to erect "a wall of separation between church and State."

a reply to: Gryphon66

I think it is clear here that the moral of the story is
the government is the end all do all of any charity,
and therefore so saith the government...

"No good deeds shall be done in the name of Christ"
As far from the Founding Fathers intent as one can get.

If I were a child, I would see you, and the Government
as a large green jealous monster.

Your a mean one, Mr. Grinch!

Have we fallen so far that we are legally seeking refuse to stop actions of one human being to others; that may contain religious overtones; to denying other human beings? Am I gathering this whole thread correctly?

Both sides of this damnable argument need to grow up. Its charity...its goodwill (regardless of the intent)...its humans caring for other humans. But because it has a label and from the Government, we should squash.

God indeed save us; whomever you may be.

Going by the Joint Ethics Regulation an employee of the DoD cannot even appear to endorse religion in their official capacity including in any official email communication.

Not only that, they cannot even endorse ANY non-federal entity or activity.

That's according to the Air Force commander of the squadron involved in this dispute.

The email violated military regulations. End of story.

originally posted by: Annee
Christmas is specific to one faith.

You better get on that hotline from the Ice Cave
and call the White House, inform them that
Christmas with Michelle and Barack has been
cancelled, because...well you know..Its Christmas!

Story on Whitehouse .gov
www.whitehouse.gov...

originally posted by: ownbestenemy
Have we fallen so far that we are legally seeking refuse to stop actions of one human being to others; that may contain religious overtones; to denying other human beings? Am I gathering this whole thread correctly?.

No, you are not.

No one is trying to stop the toy drive.

But this particular toy drive has the ulterior motive of evangelizing children into one type of Christianity and military employees were being solicited to participate as "missionaries" by the office of their superior.

Government employees were objecting to being solicited by their superiors to participate in evangelical activities they did not necessarily believe in.