Don't Go Into The Light

Dropped out of use? Really? Just a few months ago the news anchors were saying there were no atheists in hurricane zones!

Check out these links:

GOOD MORNING AMERICA WEEKEND HOST GIVES "MY APOLOGIES," PROMISES ON AIR RETRACTION FOR "NO ATHEISTS IN FOXHOLES OR HURRICANE ZONES" REMARK
http://www.atheists.org/flash.line/weir2.htm

BROKAW REPEATS CANARD, "THERE ARE NO ATHEISTS IN FOXHOLES" DURING NBC EVENING NEWS http://www.atheists.org/flash.line/atheist9.htm

Plus, you might want to read what else Torpy said about the canard "there are no atheists in foxholes":

"Retired U.S. Army Captain Torpy also noted that the saying is not only insulting to atheists but to those who follow a religion, as well, because 'it implies that fear, rather than belief or love, is a legitimate basis for faith.' (From http://humaniststudies.org/enews/?id=216#n1)

Yes, you are right, it has been used recently. But it is an old adage, and not as used today as it once was. However, any offense taken at an old expression is just plain silly. The post isn't just about Capt. Torpy. It's also about Master Sgt. Johnson, who said:

"It's about debunking the pernicious myth that patriotic and courageous military service requires religious faith"

Again, just plain silly. In 20 years I never saw any evidence of that.

If someone wants to honor atheists in the military, that's fine. My point is that they should have something more than being offended by others to base it on.

And by the way, the phrase doesn't insult me a bit.

You wrote: "any offense taken at an old expression is just plain silly"

You seem to imply that because the expression is old it is no longer offensive. Even though you admit that "Yes, you are right, it has been used recently."

I can think of quite a few "old expressions" about, say, Jews, Catholics, various races and ethnic groups, etc. that are rather offensive to most people today.

Now, let's say the most respected news anchor in America, were to state one of these "old expressions" on NBC Nightly News with no preference or indication that the "old expression" is an old bigoted canard. According to you, the people who get offended are just plain silly, right?

Take the expression "there are no atheists in foxholes" and replace "atheist" with "Jews" or "Muslims" or "Catholics". Say that were the wording of the "old expression" that is still in use today.

Would you respect Jews or Catholics or Muslims who protested the "old expression"? Or would they be just plain silly, too?

In response to what Master Sgt. Johnson said (see above), you wrote: "In 20 years I never saw any evidence of that."

Are you aware of this, for example?

Air Force probes religious bias charges at academy
http://www.cnn.com/2005/US/05/03/airforce.religion/

To quote: "Some 55 complaints of religious discrimination have been filed going back to 2001"

You wrote: "And by the way, the phrase doesn't insult me a bit."

Are you an atheist? Even if you are, can't you understand why other atheists in the military would be offended by the "old expression" that denies the fact that they are serving their country? Wouldn't you be able to understand if a Baptist in the military took offense to an expression stating that "There are no Baptists in foxholes"?

There ARE atheists in the military and to say there are not is offensive to atheists.

Here's another quote that may help you to understand this situation a little better:

"When someone says there are no atheists in foxholes, or in hurricanes, they are saying there are no true atheists," Cherry said. "When the media describe me as a 'self-declared atheist' -- but don't call the Pope a 'self-declared Christian' -- they are saying that I am deluded and he is for real. They are saying 'atheism' isn't for real." (From: http://humaniststudies.org/enews/?id=216#n1)

First, an apology. I have Movable Type set to automatically publish comments (I can always delete spam or offensive matter later) but for some reason roughly half the comments are held for approval anyway. I have asked Six Apart about it, but have not gotten a fix yet. The good news (for me, anyway) is that I have so few commenters that it doesn't require around the clock monitoring. So I'm sorry you're post didn't show up sooner.

Update: It might be the email address you used - I'm still looking into it. If so, I'll email you privately and let you know why.

Update 2: Nope, wasn't your address. It was the number of links. It was set low (presumably to prevent spam). I'll change it.

Second, a reply.

Any implication that an expression's age was the only criteria for offensiveness was its age was unintentional. I agree that there are other factors to consider. For instance, context.

Do you think that Mr. Brokaw intended to disparage atheists? Or was he just repeating a famous line from wars past that refers more to man's introspective nature during times of trial than to religion? Brokaw's not a preacher, nor does he have a history of bashing atheists(as far as I can tell), so I kinda think it was the latter. To suggest, as the "Cherry" you quoted, that Brokaw was really saying that there is no such thing as a "true atheist" is nothing short of fantasy.

This is why your Baptist analogy doesn't work. "There are no Baptists in foxholes" doesn't refer to looking inward, just to the absence of, well, Baptists.

As for the comments made by Bill Weir, I checked the link you provided - it didn't provide context. A transcript was mentioned but there was no link to it. However, I suspect that his remark, like Brokaw's, was not intended to be a shot fired at atheists.

While you may have some genuine issues with the way society treats atheists, the examples you give appear to me to be over-sensitivity - one of the byproducts of our political-correctness-replacing-common-sense-and-civility society. And this undermines any legitimate grievances you wish addressed. You would interpret nearly anything I say about Atheism to be intolerant of you and your beliefs, but your goal of getting me to change what I say simply exposes your intolerance of mine.

For example, if I mentioned that Joseph Stalin was a bad guy, you would probably agree. If I had said, quite separately, that he was an atheist, would you assume that I was somehow equating all atheists with Stalin? I hope not. But there are examples of that very kind of relativism on the atheists.org website. This passes issues of tolerance and delves into an insistance for revisionism. "Shhh - Can't mention Hitler might have been an atheist. Someone might be offended." Just imagine if every Catholic felt the way you do in light of the molestation scandals. "Catholic" might become a flag word getting you sued if you dare use it in polite conversation. "He called me a molester, your Honor!"

As to my statement about seeing no evidence in 20 years. True. The link you gave is for problems at the Air Force Academy, which I did not attend and I don't consider to be the regular Air Force. Regardless, I'm not well studied in the scandals generated by the butterbar farm, and I'll concede you the point.

I hear this old canard frequently.

I wrote a post on this topic today as well.