Religious freedom in the military

[elchivito]

Tit for tat. Good for the goose. No double standards should be allowed. If Sikhs can wear their turbans and mohammedans their beards, why can't Norse Gods followers wear feathered helmets?

Marines Convert To Norse Paganism, Demand Horns And Wings On Helmets

[davidmash]

I have no comment on the veracity or practicality of the soldiers claims but I would think Sgt. Maj. Mike Brooks is going to be facing some questions about how he speaks about the beliefs of others.

I think these clowns have been reading too many comic books,” said battalion Sgt. Maj. Mike Brooks. “There’s no actual historical evidence Vikings or any Northern European groups wore that garbage into battle.”

I think the claim of religious intolerance definitely has legs in light of the comment made by Brooks

[Botnst]

Originally Posted by elchivito

Tit for tat. Good for the goose. No double standards should be allowed. If Sikhs can wear their turbans and mohammedans their beards, why can't Norse Gods followers wear feathered helmets?

Marines Convert To Norse Paganism, Demand Horns And Wings On Helmets

That's ****** hilarious!

This is why the military should be tolerant of religion, not accepting or promoting. The military should be (little 's') spartan -- discipline and self-denial, demanding training, insane dedication to the battle buddy, focus on unit cohesion, dedication to mission, idealization of civilian rights and life -- this is why you fight.

At every juncture, choosing the weaker path accommodates more warriors but lowers effectiveness. This is fundamentally why a military democracy is an oxymoron. Military effectiveness is directly proportional to shared sacrifice and effective tools and effective leadership.

Open the gate, expect flotsam.

[tjts1]

Religious people are stupid.

[Botnst]

Intolerant people, are.

[kerry]

If military people are going to worship any gods, I think the Viking gods have to be near the top of the list. Lots of testosterone, violence and bloodshed. Plus, I don't think any Norse gods have predilections to prefer contested pieces of land in the Middle East.

[Botnst]

My knowledge of Norse theology is right up there with String Theory.

Did they have geographically prohibited from plunder and colonization? I don't know.

My impression is that the religion was more concerned with valor and honor than with conquest. But see the first sentence.

[MTI]

Every Viking "Fact" Is Wrong

[kerry]

I bought one of the Teaching Company's Great Courses on the Vikings. Strictly lecture, not much multi-media but interesting nonetheless. My wife's family is from Yorkshire and I lived in Yorkshire in my youth. York was one of their conquests. And I've been to L'Anse aux Meadows.

[MS Fowler]

Originally Posted by kerry

If military people are going to worship any gods, I think the Viking gods have to be near the top of the list. Lots of testosterone, violence and bloodshed. Plus, I don't think any Norse gods have predilections to prefer contested pieces of land in the Middle East.

There was a time in history when the testosterone-driven Berserker was top man, until, weaponology overtook him, and the cool-thinking tactician reigned supreme.

[Txjake]

Originally Posted by davidmash

I have no comment on the veracity or practicality of the soldiers claims but I would think Sgt. Maj. Mike Brooks is going to be facing some questions about how he speaks about the beliefs of others.



I think the claim of religious intolerance definitely has legs in light of the comment made by Brooks

the rifle squad believes in their gods as much as you believe in god. its pushback against what they consider invasive meddling and different standards for a few. The military is about uniformity, it has to be. they are making a point. The SGTMAJ is not going to be in trouble; in fact, that was a fairly calm and tolerant statement from a USMC SGTMAJ.... Its obvious that you know nothing about the military culture

[INSIDIOUS]

Originally Posted by Botnst

My knowledge of Norse theology is right up there with String Theory.

Did they have geographically prohibited from plunder and colonization? I don't know.

My impression is that the religion was more concerned with valor and honor than with conquest. But see the first sentence.

Wow. Just wow. wtf???

[elchivito]

I just thought it was purty funny.

[John Galt]

Originally Posted by MTI

Every Viking "Fact" Is Wrong

Correct.

Norse colonial expansion was actually mostly non violent according to the historical record, vs legends. It occurred during the Medieval warm period when it was hotter than now. They maintained a peaceful trade of iron for walrus ivory with the Inuit across the Baffin straight, until it got cold again and they abandoned their colonies in western Greenland.

It's often easy, but also rather ignorant, to characterize groups of people with stereotypical generalizations. A people might interact with some groups much differently than with others. The Norse, or Vikings as they're sometimes known, are a good example. The legends of English speaking people characterize the Vikings as brutal, barbaric, conquers. However, the fact remains that the Norse and the Inuit maintained a relatively peaceful co-existence on either side of Davis Strait between Baffin Island and western Greenland between 900 and 1200. They maintained a mutually beneficial trade for hundreds of years, and did not seek to conquer each other. People living in harsh climates usually find that it's much better for mutual survival to cooperate and trade rather than conquer and enslave.

[Air&Road]

Originally Posted by Botnst

Intolerant people, are.

Yeah and calling a group of people "stupid" is pretty darn intolerant.