Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you: No adverts like this in the forums anymore. Times and dates in your local timezone. Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance. Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely. Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net. If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

 Hordini wrote:

 Kilkrazy wrote:
I have some difficulty in disassociating the phrase "So help me God" from religion.

If it is nothing to do with religion why is an atheist objecting to the compulsion to recite it?

Who is saying it has nothing to do with religion?

According to what I understand of your earlier post, you did.

Hordini wrote:Have you read the oath? It's not an oath to God. Even religious service members who choose to say the "so help me God" part aren't swearing an oath to God.

Exactly.

Boom!

KK bringing THE THUNDER!





(He's the dinosaur I guess...)

 Hordini wrote:

What is ambiguous about "atheists shouldn't have to say the "so help me God" part"?

Nothing, it was what came after. Here I'll bold it for you.

 Hordini wrote:



I agree with you in the sense that atheists shouldn't have to say the "so help me God" part (and they don't have to in the other branches), but I would like to point out that by saying the oath, the person isn't making a promise to God that they will uphold their oath. Rather, they are imploring him for assistance in upholding the oath that they have just sworn.

Typically when people offer a statement immediately followed with "but", they are arguing something opposite to their original statement.

 DarkTraveler777 wrote:


Typically when people offer a statement immediately followed with "but", they are arguing something opposite to their original statement.

Such as "I'm not racist but...."

or "I'm not homophobic but..."

or "Now I'm no conspiracy theorist but..."

 Kilkrazy wrote:

 Hordini wrote:

 Kilkrazy wrote:
I have some difficulty in disassociating the phrase "So help me God" from religion.

If it is nothing to do with religion why is an atheist objecting to the compulsion to recite it?

Who is saying it has nothing to do with religion?

According to what I understand of your earlier post, you did.

Hordini wrote:Have you read the oath? It's not an oath to God. Even religious service members who choose to say the "so help me God" part aren't swearing an oath to God.

Exactly.

I have read the oath. It ends with the phrase "So help me God," and everyone is compelled to read that out as part of the oath.

If you mean that the oath in its traditional form, which does not include "So help me God", is non-religious, I entirely agree.

I absolutely never said it had nothing to do with religion. I said that the oath isn't being made to God, regardless of whether or not it ends with "so help me God."

 Jihadin wrote:
God has no substance in the military

So there are no Chaplains in the military anymore? When did that happen?

 DarkTraveler777 wrote:

 Hordini wrote:

What is ambiguous about "atheists shouldn't have to say the "so help me God" part"?

Nothing, it was what came after. Here I'll bold it for you.

 Hordini wrote:



I agree with you in the sense that atheists shouldn't have to say the "so help me God" part (and they don't have to in the other branches), but I would like to point out that by saying the oath, the person isn't making a promise to God that they will uphold their oath. Rather, they are imploring him for assistance in upholding the oath that they have just sworn.

Typically when people offer a statement immediately followed with "but", they are arguing something opposite to their original statement.

Yes, I was arguing the part of his statement that claimed that the person swearing the oath was making a promise to God (they aren't), but not the part of his statement saying that atheists shouldn't have to say the "so help me God" part. I'm not sure what's so confusing about that.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
So you're saying what you took from that was that I was basically saying, "Atheists shouldn't have to say "so help me God, but they should have to say "so help me God."

That's a pretty impressive interpretation, actually.

 Ahtman wrote:

 Jihadin wrote:
God has no substance in the military

So there are no Chaplains in the military anymore? When did that happen?

AR165-1

 dogma wrote:

 Ketara wrote:

And that's the crux of it. Your ability to get a job should not be reliant upon your willingness to swear an oath to a religious personage/deity. It's pure discrimination against non-religious people who are not willing to comply with what is essentially religious act. The oath to God is not tradition, it's new, and unconstitutional.

The objection being mounted is that the phrase "So help me God." requires nonbelievers to affirm the existence of God, and arguably a monotheistic one at that. Not that anyone is being required to swear an oath to God.

Okay. Allow me to rephrase in such a way that continues to make my point whilst removing that as an issue for everyone.

And that's the crux of it. Your ability to get a job should not be reliant upon your willingness to swear an oath involving a religious personage/deity. It's pure discrimination against non-religious people who are not willing to comply with what is essentially religious act. The oath involving God is not tradition, it's new, and unconstitutional.

Hordini. I don't want to drag this discussion any further OT. You wrote something that I read and responded to, and there was a miscommunication. If you want to believe that is because I have a reading comprehension problem that is fine. I'll continue thinking you wrote an ambiguously worded post that stated something other than what you were trying to say. We can both go on agreeing with each other while thinking the other person is a moron. Are we good or would you like to discuss this through PM?

 DarkTraveler777 wrote:
Hordini. I don't want to drag this discussion any further OT. You wrote something that I read and responded to, and there was a miscommunication. If you want to believe that is because I have a reading comprehension problem that is fine. I'll continue thinking you wrote an ambiguously worded post that stated something other than what you were trying to say. We can both go on agreeing with each other while thinking the other person is a moron. Are we good or would you like to discuss this through PM?

Oh fine, have it your way then! We'll all just do what you want to do!





My recommendation:

 Jihadin wrote:

 Ahtman wrote:

 Jihadin wrote:
God has no substance in the military

So there are no Chaplains in the military anymore? When did that happen?

AR165-1

So there are still Chaplains.

 Ahtman wrote:

 Jihadin wrote:

 Ahtman wrote:

 Jihadin wrote:
God has no substance in the military

So there are no Chaplains in the military anymore? When did that happen?

AR165-1

So there are still Chaplains.

Yes, there are.

I agree, he was utterly incorrect.

Well i'm glad we cleared that up...

 Hordini wrote:

 Ahtman wrote:

 Jihadin wrote:

 Ahtman wrote:

 Jihadin wrote:
God has no substance in the military

So there are no Chaplains in the military anymore? When did that happen?

AR165-1

So there are still Chaplains.

Yes, there are.

How many religions follow under Chaplains.

Chaplains are there for
Spiritual need
Moral need
Ethical Need
and whatever needs one is comfortable talking to a Chaplain.

There is no mention of God in AR165-1. The AR outlines the duty of responsibilities of the Chaplain at all levels of Command

I'll be honest, I don't think that first sentence made much sense.
Also, are spiritual needs not a religious thing?

 Jihadin wrote:

How many religions follow under Chaplains.

About as many as there are among service members.

 Hordini wrote:

 Jihadin wrote:

How many religions follow under Chaplains.

About as many as there are among service members.

I'm still willing to bet the majority would fall under the umbrella of "Christian". My issue isn't with Champlains though, as I know a few and they are good guys, but with the idea that there is no "substance of god in the military" when there is, however small. If there wasn't this Oath issue wouldn't be happening, the Air Force Academy issue wouldn't have popped off, and there wouldn't be any Chaplains either. Of course there is some substance, as the soldiers themselves would have some if nothing. It isn't a religious organization, thus the problem with the oath, but to pretend there is no faith in the service is dishonest.

 Hordini wrote:

 Jihadin wrote:

How many religions follow under Chaplains.

About as many as there are among service members.

You be suprise. We do not have a Satanist Chaplain yet. Nor a Wicca Chaplain to name a few. Both of these religions are recognize by the US Military.

Yet any individual regardless of faith or view can meet with a unit Chaplain for whatever support the individual needs.

 Jihadin wrote:
Yet any individual regardless of faith or view can meet with a unit Chaplain for whatever support the individual needs.

I'm sure the Fundamentalist Christian Chaplain and the Satanist will get along quite well, while the Fundamentalist Christian Chaplain fulfills all the Satanist's spiritual needs. Religion is just that easy!

 Jihadin wrote:

 Hordini wrote:

 Jihadin wrote:

How many religions follow under Chaplains.

About as many as there are among service members.

You be suprise. We do not have a Satanist Chaplain yet. Nor a Wicca Chaplain to name a few. Both of these religions are recognize by the US Military.

Yet any individual regardless of faith or view can meet with a unit Chaplain for whatever support the individual needs.

I thought there was like one Wiccan chaplain or something?


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Ahtman wrote:

 Jihadin wrote:
Yet any individual regardless of faith or view can meet with a unit Chaplain for whatever support the individual needs.

I'm sure the Fundamentalist Christian Chaplain and the Satanist will get along quite well, while the Fundamentalist Christian Chaplain fulfills all the Satanist's spiritual needs. Religion is just that easy!

If the chaplain maintains the level of professionalism expected of an officer and leader in whatever service he is in, then he or she absolutely will.

 Ahtman wrote:

 Jihadin wrote:
Yet any individual regardless of faith or view can meet with a unit Chaplain for whatever support the individual needs.

I'm sure the Fundamentalist Christian Chaplain and the Satanist will get along quite well, while the Fundamentalist Christian Chaplain fulfills all the Satanist's spiritual needs. Religion is just that easy!

Then they would not join the US Military at all. Or they can resign their commissions. They must adhere to AR165-1 regardless of faith or view.

Edit

Ninja by Hordini

I checked, I guess there was one (Wiccan chaplain that is). That's disappointing. link

 Hordini wrote:
I checked, I guess there was one (Wiccan chaplain that is). That's disappointing. link

Breach of Contract

 Hordini wrote:
If the chaplain maintains the level of professionalism expected of an officer and leader in whatever service he is in, then he or she absolutely will.

I have no doubt they could actually get along as people, but no book/FM can make someone believe something they do not, or go against there core beliefs. The idea that all religious views are disposable, interchangeable, or agreeable is a bit daft. Though were are moving away from the original point that there is "no substance of god" in the military when there is. Unless soldiers suddenly all become athiests and the Chaplaincy is removed there will be some substance.

 Jihadin wrote:

 Hordini wrote:
I checked, I guess there was one (Wiccan chaplain that is). That's disappointing. link

Breach of Contract

Edit

Its tricky position

US chaplain became a trained tank gunner and was removed from the military for this "entirely illegal, not to mention imprudent" action

Also

Captured chaplains are not considered prisoners of war and must be returned to their home nation unless retained to minister to prisoners of war.

Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Ahtman wrote:

 Hordini wrote:
If the chaplain maintains the level of professionalism expected of an officer and leader in whatever service he is in, then he or she absolutely will.

I have no doubt they could actually get along as people, but no book/FM can make someone believe something they do not, or go against there core beliefs. The idea that all religious views are disposable, interchangeable, or agreeable is a bit daft. Though were are moving away from the original point that there is "no substance of god" in the military when there is. Unless soldiers suddenly all become athiests and the Chaplaincy is removed there will be some substance.

If a soldier who is a Christian has guard duty on Sunday and wish to go to Mass and my only replacement for him/her is a Atheist I will not make the switch nor would I even ask the Atheist. If a detail comes down to set chairs for a Spiritual Event to be giving by a Chaplain later then I would detail off anybody that I deem is needed regardless of faith/view.

 Ahtman wrote:

 Hordini wrote:
If the chaplain maintains the level of professionalism expected of an officer and leader in whatever service he is in, then he or she absolutely will.

I have no doubt they could actually get along as people, but no book/FM can make someone believe something they do not, or go against there core beliefs. The idea that all religious views are disposable, interchangeable, or agreeable is a bit daft. Though were are moving away from the original point that there is "no substance of god" in the military when there is. Unless soldiers suddenly all become athiests and the Chaplaincy is removed there will be some substance.

A big part of what chaplains do is refer service personnel to clergy and lay leaders of other faiths. A lot of bases have civilian clergy who will contract with the base to minister to service members of other faiths. So for example, if a base or a unit has a Protestant chaplain and no Catholic, Jewish, or Muslim chaplain, they will have a local clergy member actually on base for those service members or will have contact information for congregations and clergy in the local area. If no local clergy exists, the chaplain will make sure the service member has access to any texts or other religious items they may require, and a space to practice their faith. So yes, a chaplain of one faith can (and does) absolutely provide chaplain services to a service member of another faith.

Or to point the Service Member to where that Service Member can go and/or see for the Spiritual need (or to any other entity they need to talk to)


Edit

Their NCO's need to know where they are going for accountability. Their NCO's do not need to know why they are going.

It'll be like;

"The Chaplain suggested I need to go to soandso place."
"When? Where? Here is the directory and my cell if you need it"

 Hordini wrote:
So yes, a chaplain of one faith can (and does) absolutely provide chaplain services to a service member of another faith.

The question isn't whether it is possible, because just about anything is possible, but would a Satanist feel a Fundamentalist pastor can actually fulfill their spiritual needs and vice versa. Either way it still doesn't say there is no substance of god in the military. Let me present some images showing no substance.



Having some substance of god isn't the same as saying it is the majority or somehow a theocratic institution, I just disagree with the idea that it isn't there at all, which is what was said.