I certainly hope it goes over well. Shouldn't atheist soldiers have as much right to express their beliefs as Christian soldiers?

Then please do not attend. I think this is a great thing and a step forward towards tolerance for every American. Atheist and Christian alike.

And I don't see attending churches and tent revivals going well. Funny, from what we'er seeing of the religious, it looks like that's a valid concern.

Or do you think it's people who aren't religious driving us back to the stone ages? Teaching creationism in school; attacking women's right to contraception; hating on gays; demonizing liberals, embracing the most vicious forms of greed and selfishness; sticking their noses so far in other people's business that they're crawling up women's vaginas; shooting people, bombing clinics and even the Olympics, stockpiling weapons of mass destruction; and organized and systemic coverup of child abuse up to and including rape--

These things aren't coming from atheists, in case you hadn't noticed.

We have undeniable evidence that going to church creates utter monsters, and we see examples of that every single day in America and around the world, but idiots like you conveniently ignore all that.

Ok, in a Democracy, 51% dictate to the other 49%. In the case of just christinsanity, it's about 80% christian to 20% non-religion at best. So, if you want Democracy, you will have to do what the majority says you will do.

Ray Gilbert has a poor grasp of democracy. And should perhaps get a browser with built in spell check. It is a great American notion (albeit not always fulfilled) that the rights of the minority should be protected from the tyranny of the majority. Also, I do believe the constitution is rather clear about what governments role in religion should be.

Also, Christians are only in the majority because we lump them all together despite having very different belief systems. Baptists, Mormon's, Jehovah's Witnesses, Catholics, all have VERY different ideas. When you don't put them together atheist and secular are actually in the majority. Nonetheless, I would find it abhorrent to not allow my fellow countrymen to worship/celebrate as they wanted.

Gilbert: "Ok, in a Democracy, 51% dictate to the other 49%."

All right, that's an F in civics for you. A constitutional republic like the United States does *not* in fact allow "51% [to] dictate to the other 49%." That's precisely why the Bill of Rights exists--and, not incidentally, the Bill of Rights is what prevents the government (including its military) from preventing Rock Beyond Belief from taking place.

It takes a frankly shocking level of ignorance of the Constitution and the government it creates for any American to think that "51% dictate to the other 49%," and therefore all religious minorities "have to do what the [Christian] majority says." What kind of willfully blind dictator-wannabe could argue something so mindless?

Let's see, I get ad hom from Bexi and moving the goal post from Rieux. First Bexi, I meant to spell christianity as "christinsanity" Read it again s l o w l y. christ-insanity, christinsanity.

Second, Rieux, Moving the goal post, tisk, tisk. Nothing was said about a "constitutional republic. Mary Jane said simply DEMOCRACY.

You got reality from both of them, and you're too stupid and sniveling to understand it.

Just because you don't understand basic government doesn't mean that YOU get to move the goalposts. The reality is that the majority does NOT get to dictate the rights of the minorities in this country, or black people would still be slaves.

And if you want further proof of it, if majorities did rule, there wouldn't be any men in office or positions of power.

we have a broken system and it's far from the dreamy democracy described below...the rights of the civilians that are disproportionately killed in our wars have no say...our congress is exactly as gilbert states - majority rules...there's no accountability for our representatives to actually represent us instead of special interests and/or their own interests.....there's no prevention for the majority to pass laws that do trample on the inherent rights of our citizens (civil rights struggles...still going on)...or adherence to facts = evolution and global warming.

You are incorrect Ray, but others have already chimed in. You also forgot Jews, Muslims, Hindus, Jainists, Buddhists, and about 10,000 other religions in the USA.

You goofballs need to lay off Ray Gilbert - all he did was point out that mary jane's statement was factually incorrect: The US is NOT a democracy! It's a constitutional republic! He pointed out the repercussions of a pure democracy.

Why is everybody else jumping down his throat for pointing this out? He's entirely correct.

It's very simple Bill, Ray was being willfully obtuse and provocative OR he really doesn't understand how Americas government works. He either had to know that mary jane was referring to our form of Democracy not the idealized definition of Democracy and decided to 'pretend' he didn't understand that so he could construct a strawman argument OR he is unable to understand that America does operate under a Democracy but one that overlaps with that which could conceivably be understood to be a Republic. Just because you and Ray and the rest of the Republican party want to redefine America as something OTHER than a Democracy so you can deny the protection and benefits of that Democracy to those you feel are unworthy does not in any way mean that your belief we are a Republic is any more valid than marys belief that we are a Democracy. As a matter of fact, mary has a better foundation for her belief since the founding fathers also believed that this country was founded as a Democracy and wrote that into the founding documents. Your belief that the country is and always was a Republic is the same rank revisionism that allows the Fundies to keep on squawking that we were founded as a Christo-centric religious theocracy. You can't change history just because you rewrite it. Nobody can.

Um, the US IS a Constitutional Republic. The purpose of which was to create rules that cannot be denied because of a simple democracy. If you honestly think that the US is a straight up democracy, then why is Prop 8 being challenged? It was passed by a simple majority vote. A democracy says that the majority rules. Prop 8 is being looked at because we are a Constitutional Republic that says even though the majority was in favor of limiting a certain group's rights, the majority is wrong. Laws cannot be passed to limit individual rights. Ray and Billy are correct.

de·moc·ra·cy   [dih-mok-ruh-see] noun, plural -cies.
1.government by the people; a form of government in which the supreme power is vested in the people and exercised directly by them or by their elected agents under a free electoral system.

re·pub·lic   [ri-puhb-lik] noun
1.a state in which the supreme power rests in the body of citizens entitled to vote and is exercised by representatives chosen directly or indirectly by them.
2.any body of persons viewed as a commonwealth.
3.a state in which the head of government is not a monarch or other hereditary head of state.

Given that a Democracy and a Republic can be virtually identical forms of government either you take the founders at their word that they were governing this country as a Democracy or you don't. I do. Your insistence, as Ray and Billy before you, that 'Democracy' always refers to an idealized and completely impossible to achieve standard not withstanding. Should I have prefaced this reply with a condescending um?

absolutely agreed.

While I understand the point you are making regarding equal representation, I really don't get the whole concept of Atheist chaplains. There is a need for community and support but rather than a chaplain I would suggest an ombudsman or council to interact with the brass where 1st amendment rights come into play.

There is such a thing as a Humanist chaplain. He is qualified to do everything a chaplain does without the spiritual guidance part. Unfortunately, the military hasn't recognized this fact yet.

An Atheist chaplain is a contradiction. The primary distinction of a chaplain is that they are religious functionaries. Now let's say that you ask for and get your Atheist chaplain, by adopting their title you are accepting their definition of a chaplain and must have no qualm in agreeing that Atheism is in fact a religion? Why else would it need or have a chaplain? Secular groups need secular representation or why even bother? Unless you decide to join a very bizarre group of Atheists who plan on having prayer breakfasts and prayer meetings you really don't need a CHAPLAIN, you merely need solid representation.

Kevin, there was never any question about the concert being stopped. Where are you getting that false information. I attended a media brief a few months back and it was on the calendar then - Bragg is supporting it, just not $ponsoring it.