| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Many religions consider consider religious services a duty, whether it's prayers 5 times a day or confession & mass once a week. Obviously there will be times when it's not feasible: no stopping to pray in the middle of a firefight, but we should make what accommodations we can.
Why? Does the military also ship prostitutes to bases to meet the sexual desires of the troops? I dare say if I invented a religion that said I had a duty to have a prostitute delivered to me every Sunday morning, I'd have a lot of trouble getting the military to ship one out. So much for accommodation.
Sure they know it up front, but are you really suggesting religious people shouldn't join the military?
I am entirely indifferent to whether or not the religious find the military a religiously satisfying career. I really am saying that they should not expect any special treatment or services because of their religion from any government agency, ever. If religious professionals want to fly over on their own dime, get all the normal clearances a civilian would have to have to be in a war zone and get the access to the troops that they want, then they are free to do so. If they want to go in as just another soldier/sailor/airman/whatever and minister to their coreligionists in their free time, they are also free to do so.
We ask a lot of our military. They expect to get shot at. They expect not to have many amenities.
Not offering them the support they need is not negotiable.
I have already expressed my support for people in the military having access to mental health professionals. I am also in favor of the military feeding soldiers and sheltering them because soldiers are, after all, human beings. As far as state policy goes, in my book the only religious need is the need to be free from the state endorsing, accommodating, supporting, or preferring religion in any form.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I think he's saying that if you are going to make an issue of religion, then don't be surprised when one of the least politically powerful religions (atheism) gets snubbed.
Honestly, the references to Romney's religion that I hear from atheists are exactly along the lines of "Wow, for all the fundies gripe about Mormonism supposedly being a 'perversion' of their faith, at least a LDS can get nomionated -- unlike an atheist." So, yeah, keeping religion out of it would be great, but it isn't something that the U.S. electorate will do.
I don't know what you guys are talking about. I certainly wouldn't vote for a Mormon. Or any kind of Christian, come to think of it. Maybe a Christian Socialist. Actually,
Voting is for ninnies!
Not one man, not one penny, not one chaplain for the imperialist armies!
No war but the class war!
|
The way the founders intended it: The government may not support or oppose any religion in any way - whether financially, legislatively, or symbolically.
The way five Supreme court members have applied it in recent cases: The government may not openly support any specific major monotheistic religion above the others nor openly oppose any of the other religions.
"In God we trust"? - Yes, it is implicitly promoting a Christian 'God' rather than Yahweh, Jehovah, or Allah... but since it doesn't 'openly' do so it is alright. The fact that it clearly promotes monotheism over other beliefs is all good too.
Adding "under God" to the pledge of allegiance? - See above, same rationale... but we get out of calling it opposition to all other religions by saying kids are not required to recite the pledge. They can just sit there and listen to everyone else doing so. Though if teachers tell them they DO have to recite it, oh well.
Using funds from all taxpayers to create religious themed holiday displays? - Perfectly alright so long as the displays are monotheistic only. If that happens to be Christian only, close enough.
'Faith based' organizations? - Yes, these funnel money from people of all faiths to promote Christianity vastly more than any other religion, but other monotheistic faiths get small percentages too so it's kosher (see, we can even use the Jewish term to be 'fair'). The recent stink about 'forcing' Christian organizations to comply with government regulations on birth control just because they are acting as agents of the government is a wonderful new advancement of this policy to show that Christian religious positions trump government equal protection requirements.
Religious bigotry in the military? Must be stomped out immediately if directed towards any major monotheistic faith. For bigotry against all other faiths a slap on the wrist should be offered if the press starts reporting on the story.
Note, these are only the current positions. Efforts are underway to make it required to follow 'Christian law' by citing the ten commandments as the basis for all our laws, but illegal to follow 'Sharia law'. This would violate the 'rule' against openly supporting any monotheistic religion over the others, but let's be real... that was only ever a fig leaf to begin with. The 'we are a Christian nation' folks are just getting started. The whole 'Mormons are not Christian' thing is an additional wrinkle that could get ugly very quickly, but fortunately Romney is going to be the nominee of the people who would push this... so they'll have to put it on hold for the time being.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I also don't really care whether the religious find the military a religiously satisfying career, except that they make up a large part of the recruitment pool and if we drive them away we'll have an awful lot of trouble meeting enlistment goals. And/or we'll have serious morale problems with those that remain.
While it's not the goal of my position here, I would take less people joining the military as a nice benefit in itself. US foreign policy is far too belligerent for my tastes.
Mental health professionals and religious chaplains don't fill the same roles, though there is overlap. And the military already has problems with mental health treatment and with a culture that denigrates anyone who seeks it.
To the degree chaplains don't fill the same role as mental health professionals, I don't see it as the state's job to have that role filled. (Quite the opposite, in a sense it's the state's job to ensure it's not filling that role.) I don't view the religious as categorically disabled or anything like that where they would warrant special accommodation on account of special needs just because they're religious. If they have mental health problems, then the best solution is to be found with a mental health professional just like it is for anyone else.
It is unfortunate that military culture is hostile to those who are seeking help for real problems, of course. I don't know that going to a chaplain really solves that problem though. Untrained or haphazardly trained people trying to provide mental health services can do an incredible amount of real harm. So the better solution is still to bring in the real experts.
Out of curiosity, would your opinion be the same when there was a draft?
The same. I oppose conscription categorically, but even were it reinstated I don't think it would be sufficient cause to justify the state spending a single penny on religious accommodation. In a way, it would intensify my opposition as now it's not just a self-selected band of people being subjected to state-subsidized preaching but rather a much larger group of people who didn't choose any part of it.
The same position on state secularity leads me to insist that were conscription to resume, there would be no exemption for any religious person which was not also available to anyone who wanted to claim it based on their personal politics, whim, or coin flip. If this makes effective conscription impossible, I'd consider that pretty cool. :)
It's a bit of a leap from assuming that supplying an army with chaplains is an automatic and mandatory progression to absolute theocratic operation.We ask a lot of our military. They expect to get shot at. They expect not to have many amenities. Not offering them the support they need is not negotiable.I have no problem with military chaplains.
I have a problem with "there are no atheists in foxholes, so you'd best see the chaplain now!"
I have a big problem with "if you choose not to attend this Christian rock concert and prayer session, you can always clean the latrines instead."
I have a huge problem with mandatory "spiritual fitness evaluations" for all soldiers.
I have a massive problem with the whole "We're God's army doing God's will, and if you're not a part of that, you're with the enemy!" thing.I think you're missing his point. He has no problem with chaplains.
He (and I) have a problem with the other things. They are not theoretical possibilities. All of these have happened.
ARE happening. This is in no way a thing of the past.
I frequent a website where this kind of (US) military religious abuse crops up in stories rather frequently.Some of the stories are rather frightening, while others are more... "normal" stories of exclusion, forced attendance, discrimination etc.
It's a bit of a leap from assuming that supplying an army with chaplains is an automatic and mandatory progression to absolute theocratic operation.
I personally saw everything I listed. Again, of the things I listed, chaplains are the one that didn't bother me.
What's a 'spiritual fitness evaluation'?
THIS might or might not be current. During the admittedly brief time I was in, there was no written survey yet; we were just ordered to attend chapel, and told we couldn't possibly serve well if we didn't seem devout enough about it.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I think he's saying that if you are going to make an issue of religion, then don't be surprised when one of the least politically powerful religions (atheism) gets snubbed.1. Atheism. is. not. a. religion.
2. I don't care that Romney is a Mormon. No way I'd vote for him, whatever his religion.
3. The Republicans were fools to reject Huntsman...but that's another thread.
1. Atheism. is. not. a. religion.
Calling Atheism a religion is like calling someone that doesn't drink alcohol an alcoholic.
What's a 'spiritual fitness evaluation'?
Do they throw you into a swimming pool and see if you can walk?
That would be a good one and I wouldn't even have an objection. It's got obvious on the job uses for the Navy and Marines. And the hot guys that starred in that porno- Erm, the brave people who I saw undergo grueling training to become what amounts to EMTs that parachute into the ocean to save people. They starred in a documentary on the National Geographic channel some years ago.
Which I totally used only for its intended purpose.
|
|
The practical effects of this are extensive: No chaplains for any government agency or in the military.
I'm going to take issue with this, mainly because as badly as we screw with our soldiers, we should not deprive them of a service that's vital to the bulk of them. On the other hand, I think that all faiths with a population should be represented including atheist counselors as well.
I have no objection to the military hiring psychiatrists and other therapists. If a clergyperson wants to go to college and get their therapy license, I'm quite fine with having them take a job with the military's social services.
If a clergyperson just wants to go preach to the troops, said clergyperson is free to enlist like any other person and do whatever said clergyperson cares to do with his free time.
As a senior active officer (Lieutenant Colonel) in the US Army, I feel qualified to weigh in on this one (though, caveat, I'm speaking personally not officially).
Chaplains are members of Special Staff to commanders. As such, they're used extensively as nonreligious, philosophical, moral, and ethical educators to units (and commanders).
They're the experts in the realm of military ethics and, for example, the 'Army Values.'
They're also, usually, the most knowledgeable people a unit has with regard to the religious and cultural customs of the various places we find ourselves training and fighting.
90% of a chaplain's time is spent in nonreligious counseling; 9% in guidance to warfighting, and 1% serving as a religious leader (priests, pastors, what have you).
Also, the US Army has chaplains from all major recognized religions, which goes toward both servicing the diversity of personnel and toward an official policy of non-preferential treatment of any religious group over another. While I entered the Army as a Roman Catholic, my ORB and OMPF officially recognize me as 'Atheist; No Religious Preference', and I have never experienced any harassment.
It's important to note that despite statistics showing some 61% of enlisted service members (US Army 2011 stats) who claim a faith, and 39% of officers (that's right, only 39% of officers claim a faith on their official OMPF), chapel attendance is miniscule. In my own unit, our chaplain briefs chapel attendance numbers each week at our Command and Staff (a kind of administrative reporting get together), and the numbers are around 2% of available personnel in attendance. I won't go into my unit numbers, but let me assure you that 2% is a very small number.
Nonetheless, I value the service my chaplain (and chaplains in general) provides to the service members, both as a confidential counselor and as a religious leader to those who desire such.
It should also be mentioned that Army chaplains are all university educated (most with at least six years of school), and specially-trained as nondenominational counselors with APA certified credentials for general counseling (through the Chaplains School and the USUHS). Naturally, the Army has a bevy of MDs (psychiatrists) ready to facilitate to personnel in greater medical need.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
As a senior active officer (Lieutenant Colonel) in the US Army, I feel qualified to weigh in on this one (though, caveat, I'm speaking personally not officially).[and lots more stuff]
Having read all of that, I must ask: why need they be chaplains? It sounds like the duties to which they're tasked are irrelevant to their religious training. So how about firing the lot and getting some 100% therapists, ethicists, etc instead of some 90% guys? All the same services and none of the church-state issues. Sounds like everyone wins.
Well I do find the notion that they spend 9% of their time giving guidance on warfighting, but I'll assume that wasn't meant to evoke images of Urban II.
Of course I'm assuming that the certificate mentioned as their therapy credential entails essentially identical education to what a civilian therapist would have to have to work professionally. I've heard both ways in the past about quality of medical doctors. If they are literally identical, then no reason not to abolish chaplains immediately and re-classify the existing lot as standard therapists. If not and they're educated as priests with a therapy sideline, all the religious training is time taken away from the infinitely more serious mental health training. Unqualified people trying to treat the mentally ill are dangerous to their patients, who may in turn present a danger to others.
|
1st "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances."
14th "Section 1. All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside. No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws."
and to this what is sometimes forgotten"
Religious Freedom Restoration Act
Now I suggest we all stop feeding the trolls.
As a senior active officer (Lieutenant Colonel) in the US Army, I feel qualified to weigh in on this one (though, caveat, I'm speaking personally not officially).[and lots more stuff]
Having read all of that, I must ask: why need they be chaplains? It sounds like the duties to which they're tasked are irrelevant to their religious training. So how about firing the lot and getting some 100% therapists, ethicists, etc instead of some 90% guys? All the same services and none of the church-state issues. Sounds like everyone wins.
Well I do find the notion that they spend 9% of their time giving guidance on warfighting, but I'll assume that wasn't meant to evoke images of Urban II.
Of course I'm assuming that the certificate mentioned as their therapy credential entails essentially identical education to what a civilian therapist would have to have to work professionally. I've heard both ways in the past about quality of medical doctors. If they are literally identical, then no reason not to abolish chaplains immediately and re-classify the existing lot as standard therapists. If not and they're educated as priests with a therapy sideline, all the religious training is time taken away from the infinitely more serious mental health training. Unqualified people trying to treat the mentally ill are dangerous to their patients, who may in turn present a danger to others.
Maybe you are just getting hung up on the title? I mean we still have cavalry and sappers but I doubt you'll see them riding horses or digging under castle walls. Job titles stick around even when the job itself has evolved beyond its original duties.
(personal opinion here as a future service member) I don't mind the Chaplains being there -- it's an available service to me, not something I have to attend. I find it to be just one of a series of nice touches to try and help people in the service. The fact that I can go see the chaplain and it have nothing to do with religion is an added bonus in my opinion. The fact that they can offer council in religious matters as well is of little worry to me as I'm not too worried about what others do with on such matters.
It's important to note that despite statistics showing some 61% of enlisted service members (US Army 2011 stats) who claim a faith, and 39% of officers (that's right, only 39% of officers claim a faith on their official OMPF), chapel attendance is miniscule. In my own unit, our chaplain briefs chapel attendance numbers each week at our Command and Staff (a kind of administrative reporting get together), and the numbers are around 2% of available personnel in attendance. I won't go into my unit numbers, but let me assure you that 2% is a very small number.
Either things have changed a lot in 20 years (quite possible, and good news if so), or else they vary wildly between commands. At the academy, for example, our attendance at chapel was "unofficially" mandated at the squad level for every cadet.
Does intent matter?
I think 9/10 a gov't official give money and or lip service to a religion simply to get votes. They don't want to establish a state religion, they want a religion's members to vote for them.
It's lobbying 101.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Does intent matter? I think 9/10 a gov't official give money and or lip service to a religion simply to get votes. They don't want to establish a state religion, they want a religion's members to vote for them. It's lobbying 101.
I worry about the results more than the intent, frankly. I don't care if they're trolling for votes, looking to usher in Christ's return, or just smoking weed -- if the end result is the establishment of a state religion, I'm against it.
When I read that, I thought of counselor Deana Troi. She wasn't a chaplain, either.No, she was closed captioning for the empathically impaired. They got better with her as the series progressed but for the beginning, she was nothing much more than point out the obvious.
I've read that at one point Troi delivered a line like that and Patrick Stewart rounded on her and chewed her out for being Captain Obvious to everyone's amusement.
Maybe you are just getting hung up on the title? I mean we still have cavalry and sappers but I doubt you'll see them riding horses or digging under castle walls. Job titles stick around even when the job itself has evolved beyond its original duties.
No, it's the religious stuff specifically that causes the problem. It doesn't matter if those constitute 100% of the job or 0.001% of the job. It still amounts to the state paying preachers to preach.
Why? Does the military also ship prostitutes to bases to meet the sexual desires of the troops?
If prostitution was legal I'd probably consider it. Would definitely improve moral and make long tour after tour after tour away from home more bearable.
Basically, if I'm asking someone to go half way around the world, shoot people, get shot, and spend months never know what moment a sniper's going to shoot you out of nowhere or the very ground in front of you is going to explode in a shower of shrapmetal and what used to be their left foot then I feel obligated to get them just about anything they want.
The problem i have with the chaplaincy isn't that they're there, its that they're there in a capacity where they have power over the troops not in their flock.
How do these conversations end up here anyway....
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
omitted for the sake of space.
Speaking as an atheist, I couldn't care less whether the military calls its counselors chaplains or imams or anything else. It does worry me that military personnel are discouraged from admitting to suffering from PTSD in various ways, ditto on sexual assault. Simply put, anyone serving should have someone to talk to, regardless of religious affiliation; I think the confluence of military training and evangelical christianity has been more hinderance than help with that.
Basically, if I'm asking someone to go half way around the world, shoot people, get shot, and spend months never know what moment a sniper's going to shoot you out of nowhere or the very ground in front of you is going to explode in a shower of shrapmetal and what used to be their left foot then I feel obligated to get them just about anything they want.
They are paid for their work. They can pay for their own entertainment when it comes to the one form the state is constitutionally barred from providing.
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
But religious needs should be met as well as mental health ones.
There is no such thing as a religious need. We know because non-religious people don't drop dead when they cease being religious.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
...Does the military also ship prostitutes to bases to meet the sexual desires of the troops? I dare say if I invented a religion that said I had a duty to have a prostitute delivered to me every Sunday morning, I'd have a lot of trouble getting the military to ship one out. So much for accommodation.
You'd have to join the Secret Service.
They are paid for their work. They can pay for their own entertainment when it comes to the one form the state is constitutionally barred from providing.
Well thats just it. There's two ways of looking at it.
1) Is that providing chaplains would be promoting religion, which is functionally the same as establishing it.
2) The second is that when the troops want X you get the troops X. Treating X differently just because its religious in nature seems to be discriminating against it, which is also not allowed.
The arguments are close enough in my mind that I don't have an overwhelming reason to push for no.
They are paid for their work. They can pay for their own entertainment when it comes to the one form the state is constitutionally barred from providing.
Well thats just it. There's two ways of looking at it.
1) Is that providing chaplains would be promoting religion, which is functionally the same as establishing it.
2) The second is that when the troops want X you get the troops X. Treating X differently just because its religious in nature seems to be discriminating against it, which is also not allowed.
The arguments are close enough in my mind that I don't have an overwhelming reason to push for no.
If the answer to the first is yes, we can stop right there. It is, and very obviously is since we'd say the same thing about any civilian program that employed preachers to preach, so that's that. Do not pass go. Do not collect free Jesus bucks.
I can't think of any class of humanity where I would assent to their getting something based simply on their desire for it, no questions asked. Aside that, the military wouldn't top of the list of careers that I'd pick for such treatment even if I thought it was a good idea.
Improvements in how the Army addresses atheists?Sounds like a train wreck.
That's the problem when a group of people are only defined by what they aren't. It gets pretty ridiculous.
There are many forms of atheism which actually believe in something (for example, Buddhism, Taoism, etc.), but when all you can shout out is "Creationism is dead wrong!" you kinda need to spend more time figuring out what you do believe rather than what you don't.
I kind of agree. This event sounds like kind of pointless. And like kind of a flop. Atheist aren't particularly good at the revival meeting shtick.
OTOH, the event was planned in response to military supported evangelical concert events and I can see the desire to claim equal time & support if you can't shut those down.
It was indeed mostly a reaction to the evangelical concerts (which you had to attend or you'd be "volunteering" for toilet cleaning duty).
It was also opposed at pretty much every step of the way and it's taken quite a long time getting it through. So yes, there's definitely a huge evangelical opposing force within the military.On the other hand the military also promotes other kinds of woo (like acupuncture), but that's another thread. ;-)
You can find several blog posts about some of the issues that has arisen in the various branches of the (US) military over the mixing of religion and state (but also some of the progress that has taken place in becoming more accommodating to all faiths and non-faith) at The Friendly Atheist.
(The Patheos search function is acting up, so I can't find and link to a whole slew of articles right now about the various issues)
If the answer to the first is yes, we can stop right there. It is, and very obviously is since we'd say the same thing about any civilian program that employed preachers to preach, so that's that. Do not pass go. Do not collect free Jesus bucks.
We could do the second one first and hit the same impasse.
Troops want to see Carlos Mencia we ship them Carlos Mencia.
The troops want Spiritual advice we send them spiritual advice. Treating a troops desire for religion less valid than their desire for entertainment discriminates against religion... which is something that isn't allowed either.
If the answer to the first is yes, we can stop right there. It is, and very obviously is since we'd say the same thing about any civilian program that employed preachers to preach, so that's that. Do not pass go. Do not collect free Jesus bucks.
We could do the second one first and hit the same impasse.
Troops want to see Carlos Mencia we ship them Carlos Mencia.
The troops want Spiritual advice we send them spiritual advice. Treating a troops desire for religion less valid than their desire for entertainment discriminates against religion... which is something that isn't allowed either.
On the contrary, I think there are many cases where discrimination against religion is not only allowed but required. Specifically every case where doing otherwise results in establishment. State-salaried preachers are obviously establishment, just like putting creationism into science classes is. It doesn't matter who wants it or even why.
First, I have not served. I also imagine many folks opining on chaplains haven't served, either.
That said, as I understand it, the US Armed Forces employ chaplains from a wide variety of faiths, and all of them are trained, as part of being a chaplain, about ministering to people of faith's other than the chaplain's own. Essentially, it's an ecuminical service that should not favor one faith over another. Individual worship services might have a particular denominational bent, but the chaplain should be able to minister to any soldier who wants spiritual guidance, whether that soldier is Catholic, Protestant, Muslim, Hindu, Mormon, or whatever.
Of course, they're human. No system that involves humans is infalliable, and we frequently hear about the problems and mistakes. We don't hear about it when it works properly. So, for me, even though I don't belong to any faith, I'm absolutely 100% fine with providing the chaplain service to the men and women in our Armed Forces. No system is perfect, but this one tries to be.
Going back to the previous page... there are some people who have a very flawed understanding of the First Amendment and how the courts in the United States work. It's interpretations like those that make me realize why so many white, straight Christians (particularly men) feel oppressed. They're not... they're just put on equal footing, and sometimes when you're used to being on top, being equal sucks. And instead of looking at our Constitution to understand why that is -- really looking and studying -- you choose to read it in a way that fits your world view, supports your original premise that you're being oppressed, and argue that it's unconstitutional.