What, secularists & atheists can't hold meetings & discuss philosophy, ethics, morality, etc.?

__________________
Censorship reflects society's lack of confidence in itself. It is a hallmark of an authoritarian regime. ~Potter Stewart

I s'pose they can. Just noting that there's not really any sort of equivalence between churchgoing, and any sort of meeting atheists would have.

That's why I find it odd. Every atheist I know considers that sort of stuff rather obvious, and doesn't feel much of a need for external validation.

__________________
Unfortunately, the Founders did not address the possibility of this nation becoming populated with obnoxious twits.

How is holding a meeting of freethinkers somehow the equivalent of going to church? I think you might be mistaken in your base assumption.

Also, I attend, from time to time, a Unitarian "church" & periodically attend meetings of "freethinkers." I attend such meetings not for validation, but rather to learn. Sometimes, these groups have an interesting speaker delivering an informative speech or paper. Sometimes, these groups meet to discuss literature. Sometimes, these groups meet to organize against faith-based campaigns. There are plenty of reasons for freethinkers to meet, none of which have anything to do with "validation." It seems the only ones crying out for validation is the overly churched, what with their campaigns to enact Biblical law in place of our secular laws.

__________________
Censorship reflects society's lack of confidence in itself. It is a hallmark of an authoritarian regime. ~Potter Stewart

I don't consider it equivalent, but many do, seeking to define atheism as a religion itself, with taught dogma, etc. So, yeah, I'm definitely projecting some former arguments I have heard along this same vein, here.

You're absolutely right that atheists/freethinkers get together for all those reasons in your post, and not to self-reinforce their own beliefs (which I see as a central function of churches). Probably a poor choice of words on my part.

This particular guy seems to want to be simply left alone. But, like that Newdow guy, that make a big stink over the Pledge/motto, I think he's going about it wrong.

__________________
Unfortunately, the Founders did not address the possibility of this nation becoming populated with obnoxious twits.

Are you avoiding my question Skerlnik? In an earlier post you made the following statement:

I asked you to explain this. So don't be coy. Please explain why my view of the world should be any different from that of anyone else. I would like to know what the defined, black/white worldview that I am supposed to have is.

__________________
Brotherhood does for your brother what you would do for yourself

Sorry, must have missed that request, earlier.

In my experience/understanding of the military, there is little room for deviation from norms. Uniformity, cohesiveness and singularity of purpose is the entire point, is it not? With us/against us style rhetoric. Ally/enemy.

Given that, I don't find it remarkable that this soldier would get no small amount of crap from his peers. Considering that out current conflict has to do with religious/cultural differences, it doesn't surprise me that his peers would have serious problems with his atheism, in much the same way I imagine homosexuality goes over likea lead balloon.

Generically speaking, the military isn't about individualism. (If I am wrong, then I must speak to some mighty odd ducks around here.....)

__________________
Unfortunately, the Founders did not address the possibility of this nation becoming populated with obnoxious twits.

OK, now I see what you mean, and thanks for responding. But your use of the word worldview is perhaps the wrong terminology. You are talking of military ethos and culture. Of course, you are right in saying there is little deviation from the norms, but this can also apply just as readily to many corporations and organisations, as can uniformity, cohesiveness and singularity of purpose. What I believe you refer to is what is known as the Warrior Ethos which embraces five distinct traits: discipline, sacrifice, cohesion, strength and authority.

The essential basis of military life is the ordered application of force under an unlimited liability. It is the unlimited liability which sets the man who embraces this life somewhat apart.

The concept of unlimited liability in defence of national interests distinguishes members of the military profession from other professions. Furthermore, the military allows for the lawful killing of others in the performance of duty. Moreover, the responsibility of military leadership permits the sacrifice of soldiers' lives in order to achieve military objectives. The stark reality of these differences from normal society has traditionally been a distinguishing feature of military life, contributing to a sense of separateness in relation to the civilian population.

It's what we do, not who we are.

My previous post covers the religious aspect of this thread, so I hope you have read it.

__________________
Brotherhood does for your brother what you would do for yourself