This site is not maintained. Click here for the new website of Richard Dawkins.

← Army disinvites Graham to Pentagon Prayer Day

Army disinvites Graham to Pentagon Prayer Day - Comments

Pete.K's Avatar Comment 1 by Pete.K

Why waste taxpayers money on prayer at all? If Prayer is as effective as the numpties would have us believe, why spend millions on cruise missiles and bullets?

Fri, 23 Apr 2010 12:16:00 UTC | #462088

wonderer*'s Avatar Comment 2 by wonderer*

Just noticed that Richard is the Richard. (The first suggestion Google popped up when I typed in "Richard", though I was intending to continue with "Feynman".)

I think that's wonderful.

Now back to discussing the article which I haven't even looked at yet.

Fri, 23 Apr 2010 12:18:00 UTC | #462089

Dr. Strangegod's Avatar Comment 3 by Dr. Strangegod

That's right. Despite what people (violent Muslim extremists, angry lefty atheists, etc.) might think, we have a secular goddamn military. Many thanks to the Military Religious Freedom Foundation for helping to keep it that way, against all assaults from those who think it should be otherwise.

Fri, 23 Apr 2010 12:29:00 UTC | #462090

stanleygarden's Avatar Comment 4 by stanleygarden

Another failed attempt at ecumenicalism. It is just so disingenious to believe that all faiths can get along and prentend that they're not mutually exclusive. Like,

"Hi, well although I know you're bound to roast in hell for eternity, I still think can be friends until the hereafter :)"

Fri, 23 Apr 2010 12:40:00 UTC | #462092

Luke_B's Avatar Comment 5 by Luke_B

Sorry to be completely off topic but in response to wonderer* if you type 'nato' into google (in the uk anyway) the first suggestion is 'natonal lottery'. Which just goes to show the mentality of people who play the national lottery ;-)

Fri, 23 Apr 2010 12:50:00 UTC | #462093

Tyler Durden's Avatar Comment 6 by Tyler Durden

Graham, the son of famed evangelist Billy Graham, in 2001 described Islam as evil. More recently, he has said he finds Islam offensive and wants Muslims to know that Jesus Christ died for their sins.
Fight! Fight! Fight!

Good grief, buy that man a history book, has he learned nothing from the past 2,000 years of sectarian violence?

Fri, 23 Apr 2010 13:16:00 UTC | #462096

Ludo's Avatar Comment 7 by Ludo

I find incredibly funny how all these zealots call each other evil. They're all very naughty boys...

Fri, 23 Apr 2010 13:23:00 UTC | #462100

Danno Davis's Avatar Comment 8 by Danno Davis

That might be affected by your previous search history. Because when I type in "Tom," the first suggestion that comes up is Tom Skerritt.

Fri, 23 Apr 2010 13:47:00 UTC | #462106

at3p's Avatar Comment 9 by at3p

It's hard to fight chauvinism and jingoism. The best weapon is ridicule and laughter. We need a Laughter Day!

Fri, 23 Apr 2010 13:50:00 UTC | #462109

Ron Millam's Avatar Comment 10 by Ron Millam

3. Comment #482849 by Lucas on April 23, 2010 at 1:29 pm
That's right. Despite what people (violent Muslim extremists, angry lefty atheists, etc.) might think, we have a secular goddamn military.

Actually, under the First Amendment to the US Constitution, we certainly should have a "secular goddam military" -- but we don't. Not as long as we have military preachers/priests/imams/reverends/etc., who are on the military payroll -- with all salaries coming from US tax monies. Until these military chaplains are forced to turn in their uniforms, we cannot claim a secular military.

One compromise (and I don't really whole-heartedly support compromises on religion, but -- you know -- baby steps) which may solve the Constitutionality issue would be to require that each religion with a desire to minister to (i.e., "lie to") our troops must provide its own shaman and have all expenses covered by that religion. The Southern Baptist Convention would have to pay salaries and all living expenses for preachers they want to "imbed" with our troops, the Vatican would pay all costs associated with building its chapels near (not on) Army bases, etc. Not one penny would come out of the US Treasury, and NONE of these religulous (thanks to Bill Maher for this word) people would be allowed to wear a US Military uniform.

...... just a little food for thought.

edited because it sounded kinda creepy when I originally wrote that one solution might be "to require that each religion provide its own shaman" -- the clarity of that statement was woefully inadequate.

Fri, 23 Apr 2010 13:56:00 UTC | #462111

Pseudoniempje's Avatar Comment 11 by Pseudoniempje

8. Comment #482865 That might be affected by your previous search history. Because when I type in "Tom," the first suggestion that comes up is Tom Skerritt.

Nope, I checked. I never use and richard dawkins is
the richard.

But only in the UK

Fri, 23 Apr 2010 15:06:00 UTC | #462139

sara g's Avatar Comment 12 by sara g

I get Richard Nixon. Dawkins isn't even on the first page.

Fri, 23 Apr 2010 15:45:00 UTC | #462154

Steven Mading's Avatar Comment 13 by Steven Mading

The MRFF mentioned the comments about Islam, but they ALSO spent a great deal of time in their letter talking about the entire concept of military participation in a national day of prayer *at all*, and how it's wrong no matter what.

It's sad that the media ignore that part and only report it as if the story was: because the speaker insulted Islam, that's why he isn't allowed to speak - and because the media report it as if that was all there was to the MRFF's complaint if gives the false impression that the MRFF are a group with a dhimmi attitude.

The sad thing is, that even though the MRFF made the bulk of their complaint be about the very correct idea that the military is barred from promoting religion, it's probably true that the real reason the chaplain was dis-invited was probably the less important reason that he said somthing against a particular religion.

They (the media and the people running this show) don't seem to get the fact that Grahm's "Jesus died for your sins" statements are JUST AS MUCH IF NOT MORE of a constitutional problem than his "Islam is evil" statements.

They seem to think the only problem is that you can't say something against a religion. They forget it's also not allowed to say something that promotes a religion and therefore inviting a pastor to speak for the military at a religious function was already wrong right there regardless of his anti-islam statements.

Fri, 23 Apr 2010 15:53:00 UTC | #462157

TIKI AL's Avatar Comment 14 by TIKI AL

I googlefied "richard" here in Tempe, Az, and got:
1. dawkins
2. nixon
3. simmons
4. gere

Fri, 23 Apr 2010 17:15:00 UTC | #462177

Chris Roberts's Avatar Comment 15 by Chris Roberts


I got Richard I !!

Then Richard Stallman, Branson, then Hammond x3.

But hey yeah, a government free from religion should have a military that it also free of religion.
It's the 21st century for Thor's sake.

Fri, 23 Apr 2010 18:24:00 UTC | #462200

Jeff (HandyGeek) Handy's Avatar Comment 16 by Jeff (HandyGeek) Handy

Everyone should sign the FFRF petition now. Remind Obama he's on the wrong side of the US Constitution!

Fri, 23 Apr 2010 18:37:00 UTC | #462205

Rosbif's Avatar Comment 17 by Rosbif

He was uninvited for his comments on Islam.

It is a shame that he was not uninvited because he is a penicious spiritual fascist who would gladly remove the constituional right of free speech for the non-deluded.

Instead he's not invited for describing the result of islamic scripture interpretation and for suggesting that Jesus died for the immoral reason of removing people's resonsibility for the sins they commit

Fri, 23 Apr 2010 18:52:00 UTC | #462210

AFTER's Avatar Comment 18 by AFTER

"We're an all-inclusive military," Collins said. "We honor all faiths. ... “

Exactly! And what about respecting all PEOPLE? What about respecting rational thinking? What about respecting the constitution?

Fri, 23 Apr 2010 19:36:00 UTC | #462221

TIKI AL's Avatar Comment 19 by TIKI AL

I guess Graham never studied the Crusades.

Fri, 23 Apr 2010 22:56:00 UTC | #462236

Mayhemm's Avatar Comment 20 by Mayhemm

I'm torn about this. While I think it's great than Graham was disinvited, it's a real shame that it was because he offended Muslims rather than for violating Church/State separation.

Fri, 23 Apr 2010 23:15:00 UTC | #462241

HolyPinkUnicorn's Avatar Comment 21 by HolyPinkUnicorn

Graham already lead a Good Friday prayer at the Pentagon back in 2003 (as well as a prayer at Bush 2's first inauguration), so he's already had a chance to spew his vitriol to military leaders before, how 'bout giving other bigots a chance to rant and rave?

I spent three years in the American military in the mid 2000s and one of the things that made me most uncomfortable was there were always a few soldiers (usually high ranking officers, go figure) who would insist on invoking 'god' or the power of prayer. Anyone who's spent time in combat or even in a reasonably stressful job should know that praying for something is about as effective as simply wishing it was so. And as president and commander in chief, W would infuriate me for just praying instead of making real decisions that could have actually helped the military and its veterans--but I guess his gut told him otherwise.

Sat, 24 Apr 2010 05:27:00 UTC | #462327

Stafford Gordon's Avatar Comment 22 by Stafford Gordon

When ever I hear the mention of prayer I'm reminded of Daniel Dennet's comment about sacrificing a goat.

Sat, 24 Apr 2010 07:51:00 UTC | #462353

rod-the-farmer's Avatar Comment 23 by rod-the-farmer

What if had said he finds Roman Catholicism offensive ? Would they kick him off the agenda for that ?

Sat, 24 Apr 2010 08:55:00 UTC | #462364

tyga's Avatar Comment 24 by tyga

So we only take action when Muslims might be insulted? Insulting everyone else then is open slather?

Why on Earth there are even any Muslims in the US military to start with, is quite simply mind boggling to say the least.

I wonder if during WW2, the US military would have had Nazis and Samurai in the military, respecting their version of ideology over their own?

Nope, didn't think so.

Mon, 26 Apr 2010 04:32:00 UTC | #462918

gtcc's Avatar Comment 25 by gtcc

Is history repeating itself? For the first 300 years of the existence of christianity, christians embraced idiotic ideas and behaved then like muslims do today, so the Romans threw them to the lions. In 311 christianity was decriminalised, at first tolerated then within a few decades enforced, in some cases on pain of death.

Are we now in a process of moving from christianity being the main world religion to islam being the dominant religion?

Thu, 29 Apr 2010 12:50:00 UTC | #463912