Freethought & Rationalism Archive

joedad · 10-19-2002, 04:38 PM

Quote:

enrious:
In fact, I'd think having "No Preference" would make you stand out less than "Atheist."

Indeed, that is the point. The less personal information these tags contain, the better.

<a href="http://www.geocities.com/Pentagon/Bunker/2629/29letsgoarc2.html" target="_blank">http://www.geocities.com/Pentagon/Bunker/2629/29letsgoarc2.html</a>

Quote:

Each tag contained duplicate information about the soldier to help the medics - or Graves Registration Service - depending on the severity of the soldier's injury. During the early days of the war, the wearer's next of kin and address appeared on the third, fourth and fifth lines. However, this was abandoned when it was claimed this information could be used psychologically against the soldier and his family back home. Indeed, it has been documented that one captured GI's family kept getting anonymously sent Nazi propaganda, presumably from the details taken from his tags! In mid 1943, the format of the tags changed so that any information about the soldier was strictly medical.

my emphasis.

Sure wish I could read the current regs, for all the branches. The above information must obviously be dated because a person's religious beliefs are as personal as it gets.

Also, the kind of mass slaughter and loss of life that has characterized war in the past for American soldiers, and from which the very need for tags arose, is no longer the case for today's servicemember. Hopefully that will not change. So I think in some degree a religious designation on a tag is living in a time where armies bludgeoned each other on the ground with units advancing and lines shifting, Civil War and WWI stuff. This is clearly no longer the case.

joe

[ October 19, 2002: Message edited by: joedad ]</p>

enrious · 10-19-2002, 05:42 PM

*sigh* I give up.

Obviously there are some who refuse to consider that there are medical or other legitimate reasons for having such information there and would like to continue hacking the dead horse.

And it's really great to know that we can never have a situation where there are mass casualties like something out of Verdun. Someone should let the Pentagon know that they don't have to worry about the worst case.

It's a really great to know also that we've outlived the need for quickly identifying dead or wounded - after all, every medic runs around with a portable DNA identifier. Good thing we live in the 21st century and no military equipment breaks down in the field.

[ October 19, 2002: Message edited by: enrious ]</p>

Cipher Girl · 10-19-2002, 08:42 PM

Hi joedad

I got my dog tags in 1984 when I went into the Air Force. I still have the tags and they have NONE in the religion category. Since I have NO religion for me its perfectly accurate.

Sabine, I think the point is that someone may be more likely to be killed or tortured if they indicate they don't have any religion over someone who is part of a religious group. Also when I used to travel overseas on official buisness, I bought my own passport over carrying a government one. Also I never carried a uniform as carry on baggage. I always checked in anything that indicated my military status so that I would not have it on my person.

Sabine Grant · 10-19-2002, 09:28 PM

Hello Cypher Girl : my point was that I could not see how the absence of religious mention could result in any persecution.

History has shown that unfortunatly people have been persecuted tortured and killed for expressing any religious belief. Most main stream religions have been affected by that trend such as Armenian Christians by the Turks, Jews throughout their history, Protestants in France,muslims by the Serbs and buddhists in Tibet live under the threat of the Chinese at their border.

It would be interesting to see if the Geneva Convention differenciates between religious and non religious prisonners.

I can tell you for example that as you read the list of prisonners by categories at Dachau, the listing mentions how many jews and evangelicals were killed. The listing resumes with nationalities, communists and homosexuals. Probably atheists were included among communists as most marxists in Europe were agnostics or atheists.

In my opinion a US soldier whose tags indicate "jewish" will stand more chances to be tortured or executed in an Iraki prisonner camp than a US soldier who has no religious affiliation on his tag.( I mention that possibility as it may become a reality that US troops will be engaged in combat in the near future).

never been there · 10-20-2002, 04:21 AM

Well, the Iraqi government is not particularly Muslim, but they do like to pretend to be, so the concern over sending soldiers to the Middle East with "Atheist" on dog tags is valid.

Maybe "Seeker" [after truth] could be made an option. It's a code word for non-believer that is supposed to get respect from Muslims.

Shake · 10-20-2002, 12:04 PM

For USAF instructions (formerly known as regulations), go <a href="http://www.e-publishing.af.mil/pubs/publist.asp?puborg=AF&series=36" target="_blank">here</a> and scroll down to AFI36-3103. In part it says:

Quote:

If member does not wish to designate a preference or make a statement, emboss NO RELIGIOUS PREF.

Sabine Grant · 10-20-2002, 01:32 PM

NeverBeen: were you being ironical about Irak not being particularly muslim or serious about it?

I would agree that Saddam is far from representing Islam as a whole. Do you have any documentation to present that islam may not be the main stream religion in Irak?

Thread Tools	Search this Thread
Show Printable Version	Search this Thread: Advanced Search

10-19-2002, 05:42 PM	#22
enrious Senior Member Join Date: Oct 2001 Location: Home Posts: 895	sigh I give up. Obviously there are some who refuse to consider that there are medical or other legitimate reasons for having such information there and would like to continue hacking the dead horse. And it's really great to know that we can never have a situation where there are mass casualties like something out of Verdun. Someone should let the Pentagon know that they don't have to worry about the worst case. It's a really great to know also that we've outlived the need for quickly identifying dead or wounded - after all, every medic runs around with a portable DNA identifier. Good thing we live in the 21st century and no military equipment breaks down in the field. [ October 19, 2002: Message edited by: enrious ]</p>

10-19-2002, 08:42 PM	#23
Cipher Girl Senior Member Join Date: Oct 2001 Location: Sunny Southern California Posts: 657	Hi joedad I got my dog tags in 1984 when I went into the Air Force. I still have the tags and they have NONE in the religion category. Since I have NO religion for me its perfectly accurate. Sabine, I think the point is that someone may be more likely to be killed or tortured if they indicate they don't have any religion over someone who is part of a religious group. Also when I used to travel overseas on official buisness, I bought my own passport over carrying a government one. Also I never carried a uniform as carry on baggage. I always checked in anything that indicated my military status so that I would not have it on my person.

10-19-2002, 09:28 PM	#24
Sabine Grant Talk Freethought Staff Join Date: Aug 2002 Location: Florida Posts: 32,364	Hello Cypher Girl : my point was that I could not see how the absence of religious mention could result in any persecution. History has shown that unfortunatly people have been persecuted tortured and killed for expressing any religious belief. Most main stream religions have been affected by that trend such as Armenian Christians by the Turks, Jews throughout their history, Protestants in France,muslims by the Serbs and buddhists in Tibet live under the threat of the Chinese at their border. It would be interesting to see if the Geneva Convention differenciates between religious and non religious prisonners. I can tell you for example that as you read the list of prisonners by categories at Dachau, the listing mentions how many jews and evangelicals were killed. The listing resumes with nationalities, communists and homosexuals. Probably atheists were included among communists as most marxists in Europe were agnostics or atheists. In my opinion a US soldier whose tags indicate "jewish" will stand more chances to be tortured or executed in an Iraki prisonner camp than a US soldier who has no religious affiliation on his tag.( I mention that possibility as it may become a reality that US troops will be engaged in combat in the near future).

10-20-2002, 04:21 AM	#25
never been there Veteran Member Join Date: Mar 2002 Location: Winnipeg, MB Posts: 2,144	Well, the Iraqi government is not particularly Muslim, but they do like to pretend to be, so the concern over sending soldiers to the Middle East with "Atheist" on dog tags is valid. Maybe "Seeker" [after truth] could be made an option. It's a code word for non-believer that is supposed to get respect from Muslims.

10-20-2002, 01:32 PM	#27
Sabine Grant Talk Freethought Staff Join Date: Aug 2002 Location: Florida Posts: 32,364	NeverBeen: were you being ironical about Irak not being particularly muslim or serious about it? I would agree that Saddam is far from representing Islam as a whole. Do you have any documentation to present that islam may not be the main stream religion in Irak?

Freethought & Rationalism Archive

The archives are read only.