That was by communists who wanted their religion to be the only one - they did not kill those deists because they thought atheism was splendid. Atheism was not responsible for that crime - a person who rejects religion is philosophically just as prone to respect the sanctity of human life.

"Something that makes life matter, even if people, planets, and ultimately whole universes die?"

Happiness. The fact that man can’t cognitively appreciate the complete lack of significance to his life is beautiful and prevents nihilism.

"f you don’t believe in something transcendent than you have to conclude that ultimately there is no meaning in life, something that atheist Bertrand Russell pointed out."

Does it need a meaning? If all people felt constantly miserable no matter what we would perish. Happiness is the only self-sustaining reason in a universe of value-inert matter.

"Because in theory, an atheist will not believe in the war against Islamic terror as much as a Christian may, thus making him or her a less effective soldier."

In fact, that theory is sick in the head.

All of this for me is evidence of the "Clash of Civilization" mentality purposefully propagated by both sides, both Christian or Muslim, because a perpetuation of this conflict is a reason for the existence as well as survival of both polar opposites - Christian and Islamic Fundamentalists.

In fact, the same kind of "religious perpetration" has been the ultimate goal of Fundamentalist Muslims into the Turkish military, but almost all of it thus far has failed.

In fact, the Turkish military is so vigilant to any such "Islamization" that the moment they see a clue that somebody praying heavily or connecting with some religious groups, this person is OUT the door no matter how good of a soldier they may be. Of course, you have the exact polar opposites in Turkey who ask whether you pray five times a day during a job interview, or who will give you a promotion only if you have a "covered" wife, which is what AKP at the helm of government does nowadays.

So THAT’s what happens when religion is a big deal.

Coming to the U.S. foreign policy, in order to combat Communism during the Cold War era, the Pentagon has encouraged the heavy Islamization of the Middle East because religion was seen as an antidote to Communist philosophy and ideals. Via such Islamization of Central Asia as well as the Middle East, Communism could be more easily contained.

Thus I "religiously" subscribe to the story that Pentagon is NOW undertaking a Christianization of the military to combat Islamic Terrorism or Islamofascism. According to this idea, an atheist soldier will not be able to fight or cooperate as well as his Christian brothers, much less have the capacity to "lead" them during times of dire need. Because in theory, an atheist will not believe in the war against Islamic terror as much as a Christian may, thus making him or her a less effective soldier.

This is not my idea, I’m just breaking the hard-line Pentagon thought process to many who seem to be so puzzled by this story and thus find it very difficult to believe.

Sorry to break this to everyone, but America is and remains a Christian country in many ways. The reason why we don’t see much coverage about this may just be that people don’t really want to face up to it.

And yes, there are many types of atheists and they aren’t all nihilists.  But if you don’t believe in God, what do you believe in that transcends this limited life of ours?  Something that makes life matter, even if people, planets, and ultimately whole universes die?  If you don’t believe in something transcendent than you have to conclude that ultimately there is no meaning in life, something that atheist Bertrand Russell pointed out.  If you do believe in something transcendent then you’re not an atheist.

The truth is that this is irrelevant since there is no science behind it and a military should only draw from empiricism or betray its purpose. Also, I would much rather have a squad leader that fights excellently beside me than someone who makes me feel war and fuzzy inside. Seriously - unit cohesion? If you can’t fight perfectly well as a unit because you haven’t mumbled together then your training fails. True there are psychological factors to account for, but why introduce factors like "This guy here is similar to me in these respects" in the first place?! From what I hear having a person of faith next to me is dangerous in combat - fear of death can be as energizing and focusing as it can be destabilizing, and thinking of heaven and not focusing solely on the material world seems like escapism when you really should be there in the moment.

Maybe we should have a DADT on religious matters instead - keep it to the dogtags - unlike being gay it’s a choice.

"Jefferson knew that the Judea-Christian ethic was essential for the country as a whole."

In that case Jefferson settled for a flawed system of overarching morality and philosophy and I want to smack him with a rolled-up newspaper for damning another nation to something as inadequate as that.

"So that means if you need to suck up your pride and lead your men in prayer you do it and you make it darn convincing, to do otherwise is selfish, foolish and dangerous."

So prayer makes people fight wars better. Wow. Show your work. If I was an atheist who was forced to do that I would feel resentment and disrespect for my fellows, who need such silly rituals to fight for their survival. I thought conservatives cared for unintended consequences, but I guess if mores and the tried-and-tested is old enough they can’t have unexpected consequences.

Well guess what, conservatives, here it is - sometimes, what you got may be something you know you got, but it may contain a kernel of evil that mankind was previously too dumb to see, and a flawed solution to evil that does not contain any evil is the only viable alternative, because waiting for a better solution is to harm the world. Sometimes, worrying about the unintended consequences of change makes you blind or prone to censorship of the unintended consequences of the status quo, of the evil that is DADT, our deeply flawed perversion of decent capitalism or the gender roles of our society. I am a conservative about what works, and a liberal about what doesn’t - different degrees of scepticism and patience depending on the problem and investigations into which solutions have worked before, and why.

No, I haven’t been a unit commander, and understand where you’re coming from, I just don’t think it’s right that a unit commander needs to be of or pretend to be of a certain faith to prove their ability to improve morale and provide unit cohesion.  I don’t know the ratio of members of other religions in command positions, but are we to expect a person of the Jewish or Muslim faith to lead prayer to Jesus?  Or can a commander get away with doing a non-denominational prayer?  I tend to think not.  Yet, I would no more demand that an atheist need to lead in prayer than I would a Christian lead in prayer to Allah.

I just would wish for a culture of looking to the commander for other leadership qualities and keeping prayer and religious activities to one’s own private space.

I can see where you’re coming from when you speak of keeping up troop morale and cohesion when times are tough on the battlefield, I just wish it didn’t have to be that way.

Tell me Chuck, does this mean that if a Muslim commander were in charge of a majority Christian troop he or she would have to suppress their beliefs and lead the soldiers in praying to Jesus? Would you, in the case of being in charge of a majority Muslim group, be willing to get on your knees and pray to Allah, and naturally pretend to be Muslim, since prayer won’t sound convincing if it’s known you aren’t really of that religion?

So according to you, religious diversity is bad for the military, certainly bad in command posts. Pity about that darned Constitution eh?