The Army Fights "With God on Our Side"

Thomas,

In an earlier post you posited ... "so as you can see this country was founded on a belief in God but that belief was not to be forced on anyone but was to be freely exercised if one wished to."

I wondered what makes you so sure the "Creator" is even a god at all much less the one in which you believe?

You answered: "God happens to be a very ambiguous term in and of itself which means various things to various people but I think that at least some consider the word God as being the Creator and Supreme Being whereas we are the created."

Precisely, some do and some don't! And those that don't (or that disagree with the chaplain's opinion and/or the majority opinion) shouldn't be told by a commanding officer or by any other government official that they should agree! That's the problem with a mandatory prayer. In a military environment, it is unavoidably coercive. It usually endorses, promotes or favors the majority religious opinion while minority opinions are restricted or ignored altogether.

Why must prayer be formal and mandatory? Why can't cadets just pray voluntarily if they wish, quietly at their tables or in an informal group setting with their chaplain prior to the mandatory mealtime? Cadets are adults after all and I'm certain those who wish to pray before eating will be able to find a way to do so freely without making it into an official us versus them exercise.

MICHAEL JAQUISH

You wrote, "But before this can happen, we simply must all stop killing each other in the name of God."

One thing that I would like to say is that there are many people that kill for reasons other than "in the name of God".

There is a lot of evil in this world that might not be the physical taking of another's life.

You can live your life and I can live my life but neither one of us can live anyone else's life and this is one of the very basic things of this life, is it not?

I wish you well on your spiritual journey but we are all also on a physical journey, we are not just spiritual beings and we are not just physical beings but we are a combination of the two, you may not agree with this and from what I have read on these posts some of those that consider themselves atheists would not agree either but probably for different reasons.

I have met God and God is a Being of Pure Love, God is also a Trinity which I will not even attempt to explain since I can't, but I have met the whole Trinity.

It may come as a surprise to some or many but God is a searcher of hearts and minds, not of religious affiliations or lack thereof.

We are ALL brothers and sisters no matter what "label" we either put on ourselves or others.

Take care, be ready.

Sincerely, Thomas Paul Moses Baum.

I appreciate Mr. Chopra's comments and I deeply admire him and his effort to address this very delicate issue. As an American Buddhist, I find myself vastly outnumbered by Christian ethos but because America is generally the refuge of diversity and tolerance I have never felt threatened by my minority stance on spirituality. However, at the risk of rocking the Christian majority, I feel compelled to carry Mr. Chopra's dialogue a bit further on this important issue than his apparent comfort zone allowed.

Despite the need for soldiers on both sides to justify their actions through their religion, the truth is, War and spirituality are now, always have been and will forever more, be at odds with one another. All religions have at their very center, the desire to live a life based on love and compassion. Killing one another will never be a path to that goal. World peace will never arrive until each and every one of us learns how to discover inner peace and that journey always involves learning to experience love and compassion for ourselves before we can extend the same to those around us. When we learn how to do that as a species, we will no longer have any need to go to war and we will be at peace with one another regardless of our individual religious attachments because we will respect each person’s value as an individual on a spiritual journey.

But before this can happen, we simply must all stop killing each other in the name of God.

Namaste,

Michael James Jaquish
Gig Harbor, WA, USA

FREESTINKER

You wrote, " I am curious how you jump to the conclusion that the "Creator" mentioned in the Declaration is your god?", actually, you are the one jumping to that conclusion, I have no idea exactly what they thought of as God or as Creator but it seems pretty evident that they did mention a "Creator", did they not?

God happens to be a very ambiguous term in and of itself which means various things to various people but I think that at least some consider the word God as being the Creator and Supreme Being whereas we are the created.

Whether or not someone believes that God is Real, I think that the above definition is adequate.

I happened to have met God and God is a Trinity and God is a Being of Pure Love, I try to write things very plainly and simply.

God is the God of ALL, He is not just my God, He is our God. Also, God is not a He, a She or an It but I use the pronoun He because it comes in handy.

Take care, be ready.

Sincerely, Thomas Paul Moses Baum.

Yonkers, New York
30 July 2008

It is quite perplexing how the armed forces on both sides of a conflict can enlist "God"--god of the Hebrews, god of the Christians, god of the Muslims, god of the Shintos, the god of Communism and the god of Animists--and expect to come out equally victorious.

One would normally assume that any "god" would be perfectly neutral in a conflict where one side and the other side enlist him in their gory business of slaughtering as many of their enemies as possible.

That assumption rests on the general consensus of true believers that all such "gods" are fair and objective and just and benevolent and wise and incapable of discrimination.

If that consensus is valid, then those who "pray" for their god to assist them in any and all ways to achieve victory over their enemies, are in reality engaging in a quixotic exercise in futility.

Mariano Patalinjug
MarPatalinjug@aol.com

Thomas Baum said:
"In this country, in the Declaration of Independence, it is written: "We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable rights, that among these are life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness.", so as you can see this country was founded on a belief in God but that belief was not to be forced on anyone but was to be freely exercised if one wished to."

Thomas Baum,

As a matter of law, the Constitution trumps the Declaration but regardless I am curious how you jump to the conclusion that the "Creator" mentioned in the Declaration is your god? Maybe it's the Deist god of nature rather than the Christian god. Or maybe "Creator" refers to our mothers, who literally created us. Or maybe Jefferson intentionally chose the ambiguous term "Creator" instead of the word "God" in order to leave any religious implications of his message intentionally vague. Isn't it interesting how people with different religious opinions interpret the word "Creator" so differently?

Deepak Chopra proves again what an idiot he is:

"Speaking realistically, patriotism can't be divorced from religion"

Really? Because I am a pacifist, an athiest and a patriot.

"That said, it is disturbing to know how deeply fundamentalist Christianity has sunk into the ethos of the armed forces. First noticed with alarm at the Air Force Academy, hard-core proselytizing is apparently rampant."

I think that fairness aside, it should be noted that long since, these guys have been attracted to the nukes like flies on... tuna salad sandwiches.

It's a nervous circumstance.

The writer begins by arguing that religion, epitomized by the concept of "God is on our side", is integral to the military ethos. (Whose religion, and whose God, apparently isn't of particular concern to the writer, although it's one of the key issues in this controversy.)

Then the writer concludes that "American militarism is a serious problem that needs radical solutions. Pulling God out of the mess hall is beside the point."

I certainly concur with that first sentence. But the second appears to contradict the entirety of the argument that preceded it, leaving the logic of the essay hopelessly muddled.

BGONE

You wrote, "The Soviet Union was not atheists. It was a-religion.", as far as I know with the Soviet Union, the state was supreme or at least the state considered itself supreme, call it what you like but semantics does not change the truth.

I am not saying that the people of the Soviet Union were atheists but officially the government was and as I said above, semantics does not change that.

In this country, in the Declaration of Independence, it is written: "We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable rights, that among these are life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness.", so as you can see this country was founded on a belief in God but that belief was not to be forced on anyone but was to be freely exercised if one wished to.

You also wrote, "Like most everyone you don't know the difference between faith in God and faith in religion operators.", as I have said many times before, I have met God, the whole Trinity, so I guess you could say that my faith in God was rewarded with some knowledge of God.

Take care, be ready.

Sincerely, Thomas Paul Moses Baum.

This is what happens when someone who has an illogical set of ideas tries to explain something.

Deepak is a relativist, like many Americans. And this article is an absolute disaster.

Wrong, wrong, wrong. To say "The armed forces should be left to develop their own ethos" is asking for trouble. On the contrary, the battle should be one that denies those in the government any say at all about religion. We need a Constitutional admendment that bans all religion from politics in both public speech and in all governmental words, actions, and physical manifestations. The status quo is a disaster. No one who commits violence has God on their side. To say so is to undermine the entire basis of religion. God did not create the human race to fight and kill each other, even if he gave us free will. To say otherwise is to say that I can run around killing my fellow man without fear of God's retribution, only the fear of man's laws. Stupid human laws. Stupid human beliefs. We are no more than animals, and we will end up wiping ourselves out. We are breeding and polluting ourselves to the point at which our planet will no longer be able to support us. Do we think we would be able to just keep multiplying indefinitely? Stupid! Of all the animals on this earth, only man engages in wholesale slaughter of his fellow man. The whole discussion is digusting. The idea that right-wing fundamentalists should take over our military is alarming and could end up being a repeat of what happened in Nazi Germany. The right wing conservatives are getting more and more scary, and more and more embedded in our government. Stupid Americans!

To L. Kurt:

Atheism is not a religion. It is a lack of belief in a god.

Is lack of belief in Santa or the Tooth Fairy a religion? Do we all belong to the Church of Not Believing in Zeus?

Those who claim that atheism is a religion obviously don't know what atheism is.

Thomas Baum:

The Soviet Union was not atheists. It was a-religion. No one can stop anyone from believing anything and especially there are supernatural beings, angels, ghosts, demons and gods/Gods. The Soviets didn't try to do that. What they did was make missionary a crime. Still is in religion-less China.

If you took the time to look at the situation in eastern Europe at the time of the revolution you might understand. The Orthodox church literally ran the country. The parish priest was the law of the land, judge, jury, confessor and above all rule maker getting his orders from his bishop. In order to change that, give the revolution a chance they had to remove the government that was in place, the church. No government not even the US government tolerates a competing government.

Even the evangelicals only dream of having puppets like Bush on a continuing basis. Well, Pat Robertson did declare his candidacy for president. Dreamer. But then we have three separate and equally powerful branches of government so even if he had been successful he would have been throttled. The most powerful man on earth does nothing without congressional and court approval.

Like most everyone you don't know the difference between faith in God and faith in religion operators.

How to keep the religious fervor in the miliary, while not allowing the majority to abuse the minority?

True this is an issue...

but Deepak sides with the former only because he reasons he himself is not in the military.

How self serving. Then let the other non-Christians out of the military. Do you at least agree with that, Deepak?

And let's officially make the Iraq War a CRUSADE -- THAT'S WHAT THE MUSLIM FUNDIES ARE ACCUSING US OF DOING ANYWAY....

Lu Franklin:

Things are all different now. 1956 we became a Christian nation with "under God" being added to the pledge. 1956 was the year Billy Graham started saving sinners. 1960 pope John 23rd decreed ecumenical and the first ever Catholic, JFK was elected president.

The younger generation has never experienced what it's like to live in a "mind your own religion" world. It was understood that no candidate for any public office would use "faith" as a vote getter. Even the word faith is new. Used to be religion.

The first ever mention of religion I can recall was Kennedy and then it was very low key. Him addressing a congregation of ministers to "calm their concerns" seems to be the kick-off of "faith required." The islands of Matsu and Kemoy were a lot more important to most voters than religion, 1960. And above all was the economy. No one said Nixon would wreck religion but too many said he would wreck the economy for him to win that time.

You know, I think things were different before they all changed,, and became traditional, an integral part of the American culture going all the way back to 1956.

DEEPAK CHOPRA

You wrote, "Speaking realistically, patriotism can't be divorced from religion. Every war is fought with God on our side -- on both sides.", this is not true, case in point when the USSR fought a was in Afganistan, considering that the USSR was an officially atheistic country, how is that possible?

This is not the only example, there are many, but this one should be pretty obvious.

You also wrote, ". The ACLU's lawsuit will antagonize anyone on the inside -- besides the "us versus them" mentality about the enemy; there is an "us versus them" attitude toward the civilian public.", I suppose that you are talking about the "ones in charge" as opposed to everyone else. This is such a blanket statement that I cannot fathom it to be true, maybe for some but not for all.

When I was in the army, I did not have an "us versus them" attitude toward the civilian public and I would think that plenty of other people didn't either and I would think that some of the people "in charge", so to speak, did not have that attitude either, is that your attitude and is that why you seem to think that way?

Then you wrote, "Since Vietnam, an additional element has entered the situation: the resentment by soldiers that nobody appreciates their sacrifice.", some might feel that way but again not all, that can be the problem when people try to generalize and say to the effect that "this group", whatever label someone wishes to place upon them; thinks this, believes that, when what they should do is notice that each and every human being is an individual.

There are some from all "labels" of life that tend to do this at times, don't you think so?

You also wrote, " Soldiers pray as they go into training exercises as well as into battle.", I would imagine that some soldiers, but probably not all, pray going into training exercises as well as into battle but again, how would I or anyone else know this?

Then you wrote, "Atheist and Jewish soldiers are ostracized or hit hard with pressure to convert.", again, is this true for all Atheist and Jewish soldiers or is this an oversimplication?

Have you ever been in the service?

Maybe things have changed since I was in but there was no coersion one way or the other when I was in the service.

Sometimes it seems as if the militant, fundamentalist atheist and the militant, fundamentalist theist take offense where there really is no offense being put forth.

Then you wrote, "The Army and Navy are adult institutions, not grade schools, and the admission or exclusion of prayer can be handled by each soldier as he or she sees fit.", very well put and as some people have mentioned, a moment of silence, to be used however one wishes to use it.

Take care, be ready.

Sincerely, Thomas Paul Moses Baum.

Of the 24 young men in our platoon at OCS Newport, RI, several were Roman Catholics, at least one was Jewish, one Greek Orthidox, at least one agnostic, and the rest simply didn't say anthing about their personal beliefs. IN FACT, none of us ever discussed religion, or even brought the topic up. On Sunday mornings (if you didn't have duty) you went to the service of your choice IF you wanted to.
Because every minute of sleep was precious in our routine, some of us grumbled as our Catholic buddies woke us with their electric razors every morning as they prepared to attend Mass. We grumbled at the racket, but NEVER felt or voiced objections about their religion, and they were always our comrades. We were addressed twice by Chaplins, one Catholic Priest; one Protestant Minister. Both addressed our psychological needs, how to adapt to our new lives in the military, etc. They didn't belabor us with any evangelism.
In fact, I don't recall ANY NAVY SERVICEMAN delving into religion as a topic or proselytizing during my four years on active duty (Nov., 1953 - Nov., 1957), or later in the reserve.
That HEALTHY mental environment is apparently, and sadly extinct.

To those fixated on Chopra's opening line:

Please take a deep breath and stop spinning sound bites as fast as you can spit.

The first line is not a sound bite.
It's a sentence. The first of a paragraph.

Try reading the paragraph. (I know. I know. Reading is so passe, such an antiquated concept.)

What Chopra means by "patriotism can't be divorced from religion" is rather clear in context.

There is a preceding qualifier, "Speaking realistically," and succeeding sentences, especially the immediate two, that pin down what he means as firmly as most reasoned discourse demands:

"Every war is fought with God on our side -- on both sides. And the prevailing notion is always that the enemy is godless."

Do those of you fixated on the first sentence (Mr Mark and his remarkable belief that Communism actually extinguished religious faith among its peoples and soldiers aside) have any problem with either of these as generic observations about human history and human cultures' inclinations? Rather commonplace and uncontroversial, aren't they?

Chopra is not asserting that there are, as a matter of fact, "no atheists in foxholes."

Indeed, the saying "there are no atheists in foxholes" is, itself, not really a factual contention at all. It is not an assertion that there are, as a matter of fact, no atheists in foxholes.

The saying "there are no atheists in foxholes" is, rather, a rhetorical statement, much like Chopra's opening line and pointing to much the same: That human history is replete with examples of "the entanglement of personal duty, troop morale, patriotism, and religion," to quote from Chopra's second paragraph.

The saying "there are no atheists in foxholes" is no more refuted nor its import in any significant way lessened by pointing to individual cases of actual atheists in actual foxholes than Chopra's statement "patriotism can't be divorced from religion" is refuted or lessened by citing cases of individuals who are perfectly willing to kill and be killed without needing to think "god is on their side."

Reasoned, civil, public discourse in a democracy depends upon a willingness on all sides to make at least some effort to comprehend the positions of others, even and especially those who use familiar words and phrases in unexpected ways. It requires an effort to read, comprehend and respond in context.

Reasoned public discourse is precluded by the prevailing tendency, too pervasively modeled by talking-head professional propagandists and our press-pack fighting the 24/7 global news cycle, to respond with mad, frenzied scratching and clawing at the first phrase that rubs so much as the least bit differently.

Remarkably, due to this sound-bite fixation upon misunderstanding and spinning Chopra's first sentence, no one has yet responded, in agreement or disagreement, to his three main contentions:

1) That though it is "disturbing to know how deeply fundamentalist Christianity has sunk into the ethos of the armed forces [...] the solution isn't clear."

2) "The Army and Navy are adult institutions, not grade schools, and the admission or exclusion of prayer can be handled by each soldier as he or she sees fit."

3) "American militarism is a serious problem that needs radical solutions. Pulling God out of the mess hall is beside the point."

-----------

FYI: I write not as a fan of Mr. Chopra but as one who more or less shares Magpie's view that "Chopra is nothing but an opportunistic huckster with a flair for self-promotion."

But as I am an atheist who views all religious figures as one variety of charlatan or another, I see no reason to hold his profession against Mr. Chopra and refuse to attend what this otherwise reasonable, intelligent man has to say on this or any issue.

Abraham Lincoln was once told by a northern minister that he was glad that "God was on our side". Mr. Lincoln replied: "Sir, I am not concerned with whose side God is on, but whether we are on God's side." Well said, Mr. Lincoln.

Gen. William Boykin like Mike Huckabee believe in a neochristian theocracy for America including the military. Boykin swore to uphold and defend the Constitution but instead ignored the part about freedom of religion among the troops, using his rank to jam his religious ideas down the troops throats.

Both are seditionists no less than those who would ignore the Constitution and prohibit Christianity.
Boykin is especially culpable because he violated his oath.

I'm sure the Nazis thought God was on their side, too.

Yvonne: "My husband is currently serving, and is an atheist, so he serving without god on his side. Odd, how he manages to be patriotic without being religious."

Yvonne, You are clearly one of those people who still believes that atheism is not a religion.

"Gen. William Boykin says why he fought, and was willing to kill, for Christ and country"

How is this different from your ordinary terrorist?

When I was a young Marine Corps officer three decades ago, I never had a religious or political discussion with my commanding officer, nor with the troops under my command. My senior officers considered religion and politics to be personal, something not within their purview to impose upon subordinates, and I treated those I led with the same consideration.

A few months ago I spoke to a newly commissioned Air Force lieutenant, a member of my liberal Protestant congregation, who expressed reservations that his own tolerant brand of Christianity might impede his career when he is evaluated by senior officers who adhere to more rigid, fundamentalist dogma.

I'm glad I served my country thirty years ago, when one's religion was one's own business.

I beg to differ.

My husband is currently serving, and is an atheist, so he serving without god on his side.

Odd, how he manages to be patriotic without being religious.

Seems they can be divorced, after all. Maybe they were never actually as married as you'd like to think.

>Speaking realistically, patriotism can't be divorced from religion
nothing like starting with an outright lie.

Apocalyptic belief is a function of faith - that luminous inner conviction that needs no recourse to evidence. It is customary to pose against immovable faith the engines of reason, but in this instance I would prefer that delightful human impulse - curiosity, the hallmark of mental freedom.

Organized religion has always had - and I put this mildly - a troubled relationship with curiosity. Islam's distrust, at least in the past two hundred years, is best expressed by it's attitude to those whose faith falls away, to apostates who are drawn to other religions or to none at all.

In recent times, in 1975, the mufti of Saudi Arabia, Bin Baz, in a fatwa, quoted by Shmuel Bar, ruled as followed "Those who claim that the earth is round and moving around the sun are apostates and their blood can be shed and their property can be taken in the name of God." Bin Baz rescinded this judgment ten years later.

Mainstream Islam routinely prescribes punishment for apostates that ranges from ostracism to beatings to death. To enter one of the many websites where Muslim apostates anonymously exchange views is to encounter a world of brave and terrified men and women who have succumbed to their disaffection and intellectual curiosity.

And Christians should not feel smug. The first commandment - on pain of death if we were to take the matter literally - is Thou shalt have no other Gods before me.
In the fourth century, St. Augustine put the matter well for Christianity, and his view prevailed for a long time: "There is another form of temptation, even more fraught with danger. This is the disease of curiosity. It is this which drives us to try and discover the secrets of nature which are beyond our understanding, which can avail us nothing, and which man should not wish to learn."

And yet it is curiosity, scientific curiosity, that has delivered us genuine, testable knowledge of the world and contributed to our understanding of our place within it and of our nature and condition. This knowledge has a beauty of its own, and it can be terrifying. We are barely beginning to grasp the implications of what we have recently learned.
And what exactly have we learned?

I draw here from a Stephen Pinker essay on his ideal of a university: Among other things we have learned that our planet is a minute speck in an inconceivably vast cosmos; that
our species has existed for a tiny fraction of the history of the earth; that humans are primates; that the mind is the activity of an organ that runs by physiological processes; that there are methods of ascertaining the truth that can force us to conclusions which violate common sense, sometimes radically so at scales very large and very small; that precious and widely held beliefs, when subjected to empirical tests, are often cruelly falsified, that we cannot create energy or use it without loss.

Ian McEwan. "End of The World Blues."

OK, I'll go along with that, we're all Zoroastrianism. Now can we please get those Zoroastrianism preachers to put down their bull horns and go home. We're converted already.

Zoroastrianism is an ideological triumph.

You're getting there. The whole idea behind the invention of hell is to create a place one can believe in to hold at bay the enemy one has killed. Without hell the dead enemy will be there in the next world waiting for their killers. Before hell was invented they cut up the dead bodies on the grounds they would arrive in the next life in that condition. It was assumed the fight would go on in the next life. Jesus use the "common knowledge" of hacking up the body to make points at least 6 times on the Gospels.

During WW2 the US Army issued condoms to all the troops and had training films on how and why to use them. No one protested out loud. At that time there wasn't a field commander that wanted a chaplain near his troops. The standing order was kill the enemy any way you can.

Admiral Halsey said, "I have three orders. Kill Japs, kill Japs and kill more Japs" official orders to the fleet. Notice he didn't say Jap soldiers or sailors. Things have changed radically in 60 years. What if the order, kill Iraqi, kill Iraqi and kill more Iraqi was given? Maybe we could actually win a war? The Japanese actually won you know. The, "kill Japs" order was withdrawn.

mr mark: "as long as that religion is Zoroastrianism, we'll all be very happy"

Works for me!

DC says, "Speaking realistically, patriotism can't be divorced from religion."

I think what he means to say is that governments exploit the religiosity of their troops as a means of fostering self-sacrifice and hatred of the enemy. He certainly can't be saying that patriotism implies religiosity - the presence of "atheists in foxholes" is a concrete refutation of that assertion.

But religiosity is not a necessary attribute of the human condition, and when enough people shake the bonds of religion, government will have to find some other psychological hook.

L.Kurt Engelhart writes:

"hen we are all one country, we will all have a common religion. And we will not have a united world UNTIL we have a common religion."

And I'm sure you'll agree with me that as long as that religion is Zoroastrianism, we'll all be very happy.

I have to agree with Mr.Mark. Dr.Chopra, equating religion to patriotism or vice-versa is just plain ridiculous!

"patriotism can't be divorced from religion"

Again, Choprah has it exactly right. It may be some time before this understanding permeates the culture of dogma we currently suffer with. Many people specifically fear the "one world" concept, because they assume the world will then be governed, and policed, by their enemies. The corollary to his statement is that when we are all one country, we will all have a common religion. And we will not have a united world UNTIL we have a common religion.

It seems to me that religious systems boil down to a few fairly simple common components. I use the term religious systems somewhat loosely, because this is just as true of groups as large as nations down to groups as small as mafia families.

You have a leadership who claims to have a direct line to the "higher authority," either literally (as with messianic leaders), figuratively (where the higher authority is a particular ideological, tribal, or racial/ethnic identity), or both.

Next you have a faux moral system where a few common sense truisms are intermingled with far more dubious claims that equate morality with group/ideological fealty.

Then you have a dehumanizing of members of competing tribes, ideologies, races, and so on which is cemented by an indoctrinated persecution complex intended to create fear of the "others," and equate them with the opposites of the faux moral system. Non-believers become heretics, liberal become commies, war opponents become traitors. All of which points to how easily led people become when their sense of self and their relationship to others is wrapped up in their tribal identity.

Then you have ritual and symbols designed to both reinforce the group identity and the link between the pseudo-moral system and group identity, like worship, ritual prayer, ceremonies, pledges of allegiance, rites of passage, flags, crosses, and so on.

Put those all together and apply them on a population and what you get are loyal drones ready to do the bidding of the tribe or nation without much critical thought and who'll feel good about doing it. They'll be able to do incredibly immoral things while feeling that doing them obediently makes them more moral.

I'm not sure I believe that people are smart enough to have designed religious systems (in which I include nationalism) with these things in mind, but I think it's inarguable that this is how they've come to be applied. It's also why I have no love of them and believe that humanity must work towards dismantling them, and must teach our children a morality and ethical system based on rationalism, critical thinking, and humanism, and individualism.

There are atheists in foxholes, and religion, while it gives many soldiers comfort, which should never be denied, must never, ever go against the first amendment. Ever.

As to 'God on our side', Lincoln said it best: "I don't know if God is on our side, but I sincerely hope that I am on His side."

Choprah writes:

"Speaking realistically, patriotism can't be divorced from religion. Every war is fought with God on our side -- on both sides. And the prevailing notion is always that the enemy is godless."

Really? Then who was manning the foxholes of those "godless communists" we fought during the Cold War? Are you saying they weren't godless?

And, "patriotism can't be divorced from religion?" Are you serious? You've just labeled as unpatriotic every non-religious person on the planet, including the patriots who founded this country.

What a strange opinion. Surely there's something in those 50+ books you've written that can inform you about just how wrong you are in this column.