Atheists Want Guard to Stop Bible Handouts. What is your opinion?

That is what the complaint brings to the fore. If a complaint is substantiated, then the action is stopped, and those responsible are held accountable. If a complaint is found without grounds, that information is provided to the complainant. If a false accusation is made, then that person can also be held accountable.

However, you have a gross misunderstanding of something. Not handing out bibles, by a gov't is not stifling anyone's religion. Bibles are frequently available in many locations. You are free to obtain one at a church, a store, or any place else that has them. You, however, cannot require the gov't to support your religion at the expense of others.

Also, remember that remaining secular (neutral) is NOT the same thing as espousing atheism. So, on, it is not non-religion. After all, I would bet you have never heard any gov't entity stating "there is no god."

Secular isn't neutral at all, it is anti-religion. And again, I understand this perfectly. Atheists want to the military to disregard religions to accommodate their belief system. This isn't just about the availability of receiving a pocket bible but a pocket Koran or Torah or whatever religious book because atheists don't like it. You are right, you can get them at other places but think real hard about where these are handed out. Typically deployed locations or the base worship center or a USO, places where people might seek this if available. A recruitment station, a place troops are sent to before BMT, could you rationalize why a religious person might take solace in having a bible available?

This is offered, not forced.

I think "offering" should be in the form of a known place I can go pick up something should I want it...and not having to need to discuss a thing about it from the handed from a person situation. The problem is that most folks who would physically pass something around do not just simply offer, they usually also want to "sell you on it."

Cpl Bishop, maybe we have had different experiences in the military but I get offered plenty in the forms of things I want and things I don't and any time I have said "no", it hasn't been met with anything but a simple "okay". Maybe it is my self-assured answering of questions but it has honestly never been a problem whether it is a chaplain or someone from our fitness centers. A chaplain's job is to be there for military members that want help, religion honestly doesn't matter when it comes to that.

Additionally, some christians need to understand that their religion is not the only belief system in existence. No religious group gets a free pass to be the only one distributing their books/tracts.

Furthermore, if you will re-read the article, it states that the new recruit felt coerced into taking a copy. That should not occur either. If literature is being made available, of multiple beliefs, it should be of a passive nature where the service member can take it, if desired, without feeling compelled.

Can't tell you how many times in my 40+ years of going through this that I have been given material I did not want. When I left for Iraq in 2006 I was given a bag from several different groups. One of the groups was the Chaplain and the nice "Church Ladies". As I was given each of the bags, I thanked everyone and smiled. After we got on the bus, I went through the several bags I was given and kept what I wanted and threw away the rest away.

SSG Daron Williams, anybody going through the line can say no and go on or they can do like I do. Be polite, and discard what I didn't want later out of their sight. Why should I be mean to a group of nice ladies who wanted to do the "Christian Thing"? I appreciated their efforts, but threw away most of what they had given me. Same thing for the Veterans Group that give out little care packages (a bag) with playing cards, a small US flag, some reading material, etc. I gave away the cards, kept the flag, and tossed all the reading material except the Reader's Digest. I did this on the bus and not in front of them.

A sensible person doesn't have to feel pressure. Just take it, make the people feel good, say thank you, and throw it away later. He, or anybody, only feels pressured if you try to make a big deal out of nothing. I therefore cannot find sympathy for anyone in that situation because they are making the wrong choices. IMO

I will say that I agree that people who are handing out the material should not "push" their material on to others. If the person passing by the table shakes their head no or says no thank you, then that should end it. I am just saying that that young person could have handled it if they had given it a moment of thought instead just immediately rejecting it. I have a friend who went through the same line with me and when we got to the Chaplin s table he looked right at the ladies and said, no thanks I am an atheist. It worked for him, but I didn't think the rudeness was necessary. By the way, he was not an atheists, he just didn't want to mess with the stuff. Some people's humor.

While I understand your sentiment, why should ANY group get access to the troops to distribute their literature on an exclusive basis? If desired, make all the literature available on a table, without anyone pressuring someone to take it. As for the "Christian thing" that is open for interpretation. Many groups feel that it is a hostile environment to be continually proselytized to by others. By the above solution, it eliminates that perception. The literature can consist of religious tracts/books, non-fiction, fiction, or whatever, but without the individuals to hand it out. No pressure by anyone to take the literature.

As for your statement "a sensible person doesn't have to feel pressure," try remembering when you were a brand new recruit. If a high ranking person were to hand you something, would you not feel pressure to take it? Many do, and that is a problem. The wrong choice, is to give any group/person the exclusive access to troops to disseminate their literature, either ignoring other groups/people or actively prohibiting it. Plus, making a "big deal out of nothing" is up for interpretation. If only one group is given access, then it is a big deal in that it violates several court rulings against establishing a preference for one belief.

No, a person does not have to be rude about refusing anything. However, neither do some people have to be rude when handing their literature out - which is the case with some (not all). That is a two-way street, not just one-sided.

Your statement "we people of faith don't trample on your rights" while it may be true for your, is not true for the group as a whole. There are multiple scenarios that have been in the news where the exact opposite is true. The right for same-sex marriage is a prominent one, where religious groups have argued against it based on their religious views. That is trampling the rights of others.

However, if you truly wish to assist others, then ensure that the bible is not the only literature being distributed. Several courts have ruled against providing sole access to any one group. If that is the case, then it is an untenable situation. However, it can easily be rectified by allowing other religious/non-religious groups to also distribute their literature.

SSG (Join to see) There is a big difference between providing sole access to any one group, and only one group actually taking the initiative and using its funds to publish and distribute materials.

So how many different religious organizations have applied for the ability to distribute materials at this site? How many have been denied? If Gideon Bibles are the only religious literature being distributed, is it because the installation commander is a pro-Christian zealot who is "trampling" everybody's religious rights, or is it because the Gideons are the only ones so far who have asked permission to distribute materials? If it's the former, I agree with you that is definitely a problem that should get dealt with immediately and severely. But I'm thinking the latter is a little more likely...

At this particular site, at that particular time, I do not have that particular information - do you? However, there has been other sites where it has been prohibited. That is the problem, when different groups are treated differently based on dislike for differing beliefs.

However, based on the updated regulations other groups are now taking advantage of the ability to offer their literature. It becomes an issue when/if other literature is refused, based on that differing belief. As such, I agree with you on that issue. The reality of this particular situation lacks enough information to make a fully informed opinion, leading to conjecture. That is the reason I approach this from a "make all or none available" eliminating any bias.

The issue, as I have previously stated, comes if/when a governmental body is only allowing one group the opportunity to distribute their literature. IF that is done, it is establishing a preference for a particular belief by a government agent, even if unintentional, which has been ruled against in many courts. So, if the distribution of literature is allowed, then it cannot discriminate based on viewpoint. Which means that if other groups wish to distribute their literature it must also be allowed. This has been a point of conflict, in some government agencies, where those deciding what is allowed did not wish to allow other viewpoints - resulting in lawsuits filed, and rulings against that behavior.

This particular article does not address that issue, however, it has been the case in other situations with unequal representation.