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.

Just for the record, I disagree with Jihadin's statement that there is "no substance of god in the military."




Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Ahtman wrote:

 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.

As for how a Satanist and Fundamentalist would feel, I can't speak for either of them. But a chaplain would be expected to provide the same services. A Christian chaplain wouldn't have to oversee a Satanic ritual, but he would have to provide books or contact information or something to meet the spiritual and religious needs of the service member.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
I would expect there might be some level of discomfort for either or both of the parties, but if you became a chaplain in the military because you wanted to stay in your comfort zone, you probably made the wrong decision.

Show me in AR165-1 where the word "God" is mention and/or defined. Show me where in AR165-1 does it mention any specific religion. The various religions you pointed out in your post shows me different Chaplains who are there to provide a Spiritual Need for the Service Members

 Hordini wrote:
I would expect there might be some level of discomfort for either or both of the parties

That was what I was trying to get at and was parenthetical to the main point; no FM is going to remove that discomfort. I wasn't meaning to say the Chaplain would be incapable of doing their job, but I can't imagine their heart would be in it the same was as giving the Lord's Prayer.

I don't care if the word "God" is mentioned in a field manual or not. That doesn't have anything to do with whether or not there is "any substance of god in the military."

(In response to Jihadin's last post)


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Ahtman wrote:

 Hordini wrote:
I would expect there might be some level of discomfort for either or both of the parties

That was what I was trying to get at and was parenthetical to the main point; no FM is going to remove that discomfort. I wasn't meaning to say the Chaplain would be incapable of doing their job, but I can't imagine their heart would be in it the same was as giving the Lord's Prayer.

That's likely true, but as long as the chaplain provides the service member with the proper referral to local congregations (if they exist) and access to religious items or books, it doesn't really matter if his heart is in it on the same level.

 Jihadin wrote:
Show me in AR165-1 where the word "God" is mention and/or defined.

Right, because it doesn't say the word god suddenly the chaplains are not member of their clergy, whatever faith it is? Considering we have a definition of chaplain and chart showing that almost everyone single one has some religious affiliation it seems odd to deny that they have any religious context.

 Jihadin wrote:
Show me where in AR165-1 does it mention any specific religion.

See above.

 Jihadin wrote:
The various religions you pointed out in your post shows me different Chaplains who are there to provide a Spiritual Need for the Service Members

If they are fulfilling spiritual needs then there is a substance there, not a complete lack of one. Pretending what we are seeing isn't religious in nature because a FM doesn't mention God or specific faith is a bit feckless.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Hordini wrote:
That's likely true, but as long as the chaplain provides the service member with the proper referral to local congregations (if they exist) and access to religious items or books, it doesn't really matter if his heart is in it on the same level.

Agreed.

The Word "God". Not "God" as define in any religion.


Edit

All I can say is read though AR165-1 and you can see how it stands If not then your on your own

It does also say army rather a lot. I was given to understand this specifies a particular branch of the military as opposed to the entire thing...
Was I wrong?

 purplefood wrote:
It does also say army rather a lot. I was given to understand this specifies a particular branch of the military as opposed to the entire thing...
Was I wrong?

Need someone from the USAF to post the AR concerning their "Chaplains". Pretty sure its the same as the US Army.

 Jihadin wrote:

 purplefood wrote:
It does also say army rather a lot. I was given to understand this specifies a particular branch of the military as opposed to the entire thing...
Was I wrong?

Need someone from the USAF to post the AR concerning their "Chaplains". Pretty sure its the same as the US Army.

Well seeing as only the air force appears to be doing this oath the way they are how do you know they do chaplains the same way?

 purplefood wrote:

 Jihadin wrote:

 purplefood wrote:
It does also say army rather a lot. I was given to understand this specifies a particular branch of the military as opposed to the entire thing...
Was I wrong?

Need someone from the USAF to post the AR concerning their "Chaplains". Pretty sure its the same as the US Army.

Well seeing as only the air force appears to be doing this oath the way they are how do you know they do chaplains the same way?

All of the services do chaplains pretty much the same way as far as I know. And chaplains don't really have anything to do with the oath of enlistment and oath of office.

 Hordini wrote:

 purplefood wrote:

 Jihadin wrote:

 purplefood wrote:
It does also say army rather a lot. I was given to understand this specifies a particular branch of the military as opposed to the entire thing...
Was I wrong?

Need someone from the USAF to post the AR concerning their "Chaplains". Pretty sure its the same as the US Army.

Well seeing as only the air force appears to be doing this oath the way they are how do you know they do chaplains the same way?

All of the services do chaplains pretty much the same way as far as I know. And chaplains don't really have anything to do with the oath of enlistment and oath of office.

This chaplain business is not helping the matter.

 purplefood wrote:

 Jihadin wrote:

 purplefood wrote:
It does also say army rather a lot. I was given to understand this specifies a particular branch of the military as opposed to the entire thing...
Was I wrong?

Need someone from the USAF to post the AR concerning their "Chaplains". Pretty sure its the same as the US Army.

Well seeing as only the air force appears to be doing this oath the way they are how do you know they do chaplains the same way?

Because I have dealt with Air Force and Navy Chaplains. Also I was a EOA. I've dealt with this subject before. The word "God" is generic as also the word "Chaplain" is generic

 Hordini wrote:

chocmushroom wrote:
The problem I see is that the Atheists, just by being, are saying 'We don't believe in a sky daddy'.'

I would posit that disrespectful, condescending language like this is also something that prevents many of the more thoughtful among the religious population from engaging with atheists as well, including people who might otherwise be quite supportive of them.

Just to make sure I understand. You are saying some atheists are disrespectful and condescending toward a belief system that says they will be tortured forever for not believing in it, is that it? I personally find many of the tenets of this faith to be very insulting, disrespectful, and basically morally corrupt to the highest degree.

 Jihadin wrote:

 purplefood wrote:

 Jihadin wrote:

 purplefood wrote:
It does also say army rather a lot. I was given to understand this specifies a particular branch of the military as opposed to the entire thing...
Was I wrong?

Need someone from the USAF to post the AR concerning their "Chaplains". Pretty sure its the same as the US Army.

Well seeing as only the air force appears to be doing this oath the way they are how do you know they do chaplains the same way?

Because I have dealt with Air Force and Navy Chaplains. Also I was a EOA. I've dealt with this subject before. The word "God" is generic as also the word "Chaplain" is generic

Well that's just dandy.
Are we all kinda agreed with the oath thing?

 purplefood wrote:

 Jihadin wrote:

 purplefood wrote:

 Jihadin wrote:

 purplefood wrote:
It does also say army rather a lot. I was given to understand this specifies a particular branch of the military as opposed to the entire thing...
Was I wrong?

Need someone from the USAF to post the AR concerning their "Chaplains". Pretty sure its the same as the US Army.

Well seeing as only the air force appears to be doing this oath the way they are how do you know they do chaplains the same way?

Because I have dealt with Air Force and Navy Chaplains. Also I was a EOA. I've dealt with this subject before. The word "God" is generic as also the word "Chaplain" is generic

Well that's just dandy.
Are we all kinda agreed with the oath thing?

The NCO from the AIr Force is not agreeing to it but its a battle he wants to fight. Though I wished he did not alter that document by scratching out the "So help me God". Since he is 90 days plus or minus from ETS and made known now he had issues with the Oath might make re-enlisting him not becoming a priority being his slot in the unit personnel roster is made open to get a replacement in. Basically he screwing around with a bar of re-enlistment of jacking up a official document.

As for Hybrid post......

Thread getting jumpy again

Edit

Sentence structure

I'm not saying we agree to the "God etc etc" chunk being left in. I'm saying do we support there being an atheist version he can say?

 Jihadin wrote:
The word "God" is generic as also the word "Chaplain" is generic

Chaplain is generic in that it can refer to other faiths, but it is still a religiously oriented title. Saying "God" is completely generic on the other hands seems more like a hope and dream from a Christian perspective. Non-Christians and atheists probably won't see it as all that generic, but that is ok, they are probably are forced to. "A god" is generic, "God" is the Christian way of referring to the Christian God. Jews use another term, as do Muslims, and Hinduism doesn't use that word either, nor do atheists. I suppose some Satanists would, though.

 Hybrid Son Of Oxayotl wrote:

 Hordini wrote:

chocmushroom wrote:
The problem I see is that the Atheists, just by being, are saying 'We don't believe in a sky daddy'.'

I would posit that disrespectful, condescending language like this is also something that prevents many of the more thoughtful among the religious population from engaging with atheists as well, including people who might otherwise be quite supportive of them.

Just to make sure I understand. You are saying some atheists are disrespectful and condescending toward a belief system that says they will be tortured forever for not believing in it, is that it? I personally find many of the tenets of this faith to be very insulting, disrespectful, and basically morally corrupt to the highest degree.

A belief system can't say anything because a belief system is not a person - in addition, even in a belief system like Christianity there is a very large amount of diversity as to what people actually believe. As to what happens to non-believers, that is the subject of some debate even within the faith. If you want to argue and have a debate about whatever faith, that's fine, but throwing around terms like "sky daddy" isn't going to help your cause in any way whatsoever. The bottom line is, if someone wants to be respected, they need to show some respect in return - that goes for both atheists and believers.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Ahtman wrote:

 Jihadin wrote:
The word "God" is generic as also the word "Chaplain" is generic

Chaplain is generic in that it can refer to other faiths, but it is still a religiously oriented title. Saying "God" is completely generic on the other hands seems more like a hope and dream from a Christian perspective. Non-Christians and atheists probably won't see it as all that generic, but that is ok, they are probably are forced to. "A god" is generic, "God" is the Christian way of referring to the Christian God. Jews use another term, as do Muslims, and Hinduism doesn't use that word either, nor do atheists. I suppose some Satanists would, though.

Some Hindus do use the word God in English. Jews and Muslims also use the word God in certain contexts. It's not the only word they use, but they do use it.

 purplefood wrote:
I'm not saying we agree to the "God etc etc" chunk being left in. I'm saying do we support there being an atheist version he can say?

Now here is where I'm not sure how the USAF does their updates, correction, and changes to their manuals.
I interpret as the Oath must be read Verbatim by the one giving the Oath. Yet "Reference to 5.6" had the portion of "can be omitted" is there. Yet above the correction that was to made to the reference that 5.6 is cancelled.

 Jihadin wrote:

 purplefood wrote:
I'm not saying we agree to the "God etc etc" chunk being left in. I'm saying do we support there being an atheist version he can say?

Now here is where I'm not sure how the USAF does their updates, correction, and changes to their manuals.
I interpret as the Oath must be read Verbatim by the one giving the Oath. Yet "Reference to 5.6" had the portion of "can be omitted" is there. Yet above the correction that was to made to the reference that 5.6 is cancelled.

Can you not just have a fill in the blanks?
I BLANK agree to do whatever i am told as long as it's chill, or may BLANK strike me down.
Fill in as required.

 purplefood wrote:

 Jihadin wrote:

 purplefood wrote:
I'm not saying we agree to the "God etc etc" chunk being left in. I'm saying do we support there being an atheist version he can say?

Now here is where I'm not sure how the USAF does their updates, correction, and changes to their manuals.
I interpret as the Oath must be read Verbatim by the one giving the Oath. Yet "Reference to 5.6" had the portion of "can be omitted" is there. Yet above the correction that was to made to the reference that 5.6 is cancelled.

Can you not just have a fill in the blanks?
I BLANK agree to do whatever i am told as long as it's chill, or may BLANK strike me down.
Fill in as required.

Air Force changed it last year where it seems both the one taking the Oath and the One giving the Oath has to say it verbatim. Air Force change it to fall in compliance of what Congress approved in Title 10 thingofwhatthehelleverlikeIcarebecauseyouenlisted. The other four branches (Coast Guard) lets one able to omit "So help me God" being the rule "One can never take away but one can only add" is kept in play. Also we do not want to lag of dealing with personnel issues before re-enlistment because we do not want the individual to change their mind.

Example being
The US Army use to give the discharge paper right before the Service Member Re-Enlist.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Jihadin wrote:

 purplefood wrote:

 Jihadin wrote:

 purplefood wrote:
I'm not saying we agree to the "God etc etc" chunk being left in. I'm saying do we support there being an atheist version he can say?

Now here is where I'm not sure how the USAF does their updates, correction, and changes to their manuals.
I interpret as the Oath must be read Verbatim by the one giving the Oath. Yet "Reference to 5.6" had the portion of "can be omitted" is there. Yet above the correction that was to made to the reference that 5.6 is cancelled.

Can you not just have a fill in the blanks?
I BLANK agree to do whatever i am told as long as it's chill, or may BLANK strike me down.
Fill in as required.

Air Force changed it last year where it seems both the one taking the Oath and the One giving the Oath has to say it verbatim. Air Force change it to fall in compliance of what Congress approved in Title 10 thingofwhatthehelleverlikeIcarebecauseyouenlisted. The other four branches (Coast Guard) lets one able to omit "So help me God" being the rule "One can never take away but one can only add" is kept in play. Also we do not want lag dealing with personnel issues before re-enlistment because we do not want the individual to change their mind.

Example being
The US Army use to give the discharge paper right before the Service Member Re-Enlist.

 Hordini wrote:

 Hybrid Son Of Oxayotl wrote:

 Hordini wrote:

chocmushroom wrote:
The problem I see is that the Atheists, just by being, are saying 'We don't believe in a sky daddy'.'

I would posit that disrespectful, condescending language like this is also something that prevents many of the more thoughtful among the religious population from engaging with atheists as well, including people who might otherwise be quite supportive of them.

Just to make sure I understand. You are saying some atheists are disrespectful and condescending toward a belief system that says they will be tortured forever for not believing in it, is that it? I personally find many of the tenets of this faith to be very insulting, disrespectful, and basically morally corrupt to the highest degree.

A belief system can't say anything because a belief system is not a person - in addition, even in a belief system like Christianity there is a very large amount of diversity as to what people actually believe. As to what happens to non-believers, that is the subject of some debate even within the faith. If you want to argue and have a debate about whatever faith, that's fine, but throwing around terms like "sky daddy" isn't going to help your cause in any way whatsoever. The bottom line is, if someone wants to be respected, they need to show some respect in return - that goes for both atheists and believers.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Ahtman wrote:

 Jihadin wrote:
The word "God" is generic as also the word "Chaplain" is generic

Chaplain is generic in that it can refer to other faiths, but it is still a religiously oriented title. Saying "God" is completely generic on the other hands seems more like a hope and dream from a Christian perspective. Non-Christians and atheists probably won't see it as all that generic, but that is ok, they are probably are forced to. "A god" is generic, "God" is the Christian way of referring to the Christian God. Jews use another term, as do Muslims, and Hinduism doesn't use that word either, nor do atheists. I suppose some Satanists would, though.

Some Hindus do use the word God in English. Jews and Muslims also use the word God in certain contexts. It's not the only word they use, but they do use it.

I'm not sure I made myself crystal clear in my first post.
I did not say that Atheists are going around saying to everyone they meet that their belief is false, and their sky daddy is just made up.
I was saying that 'I Think' that when some religious people hear that people are of a different religion, they think they are wrong and confused, but it does not cause the same reaction as when people say they are Atheists. Personally 'I Think that this is due to the basic fact of Atheism to them (some religious people) is not saying they may have the wrong god, or aspect of god they are following, but it's saying 'Your whole world view is wrong'

The Atheist does not even need to voice this, all they need do is say they don't follow any religion. This means the Atheist does not need to be disrespectful in any way, as to some religious people just being is disrespectful.

I will also say it works the same the other way round, and it's not all from one side to the other, my comment was about the findings that Atheist have the same respect as rapists.

 Hybrid Son Of Oxayotl wrote:

Just to make sure I understand. You are saying some atheists are disrespectful and condescending toward a belief system that says they will be tortured forever for not believing in it, is that it? I personally find many of the tenets of this faith to be very insulting, disrespectful, and basically morally corrupt to the highest degree.

What does that matter to any non-Christian? If you aren't seeking heaven, and don't believe that there's a hell headed up by a devil just waiting to shred anybody who hasn't given their life to Christ, is it a threat? Atheist tend to believe there's nothing after- so while Christianity would send the non-believers to hell, atheist would destroy heaven and slay god, if they are for some reason anti-Christian.

Or we could simply accept that we believe different things and carry on with our lives. When you talk about issues rather than sources for them, it tends to work better. This definitely sounds like one for the courts, and someone who set out to make themselves a test case. Not that there's anything wrong with that, but it seems far easier to ignore some language you don't care for in the oath than to make an issue of it.

 Gitzbitah wrote:
What does that matter to any non-Christian?

What does someone saying “Sky daddy” matter to a Christian?

 Gitzbitah wrote:
but it seems far easier to ignore some language you don't care for in the oath than to make an issue of it.

It is an oath. Of course the language matter.

 Hybrid Son Of Oxayotl wrote:

 Gitzbitah wrote:
What does that matter to any non-Christian?

What does someone saying “Sky daddy” matter to a Christian?

It's condescending and disrespectful.

 Hordini wrote:
It's condescending and disrespectful.

But still way less disrespectful than saying “You will suffer an eternity of torture if you do not agree with me”, right?

 Hordini wrote:

 Hybrid Son Of Oxayotl wrote:

 Gitzbitah wrote:
What does that matter to any non-Christian?

What does someone saying “Sky daddy” matter to a Christian?

It's condescending and disrespectful.

And I could say that to me, Christianity is condescending and disrespectful to my intellect and reason.
And I could say that being informed that a five year old girl is an evil person who deserves eternal damnation is condescending and disrespectful to my values how to treat human.
And I could say that the concept that a person is due punishment due to something their ancestor did is condescending and disrespectful to my sense of justice.
And I could say that being told that your own word is not good enough if it's not backed up by an eternal punishment by a god is condescending and disrespectful to my personal integrity.

So, if a person gets upset that I mentioned "Sky daddy" should I care if their whole concept of how the world works in their view, is condescending and disrespectful to myself?

You are getting rather off the point there.

If someone wants to tag a post with the Yellow Alert because they think it is rude, the moderators will look into it.

I believe Sky Father is a name for Odin in the Norse pantheon.

Had an atheist friend post this picture to his FB wall:




To which one of our mutual, uber-religious friends basically said "You need jesus no matter what, because only jesus has the power to save"

To my point of view, that is also rude, because it ignored the basic fact of the picture: being of one religion or another does not make one "good" or "evil"

I had also responded with "Or you can believe that Thor gives you all the strength you need, because you already have it. And then there's also the universal, unaligned power, The Power of Greyskull "

Which started off fairly serious enough (until I start talking about Greyskull of course)



@KK, I don't recall ever seeing Odin/Wotan as the "Sky Father", I do know for sure that he's sometimes referred to/named as "All-Father" though.

Well if that happens again then ask why Hitler has a better chance of getting into heaven (if he repented his sins, then Jesus would forgive him according to the Bible) than Bill Gates, despite Hitler causing the deaths of millions whilst Bill Gates has likely saved millions due to his philanthropy.

Though Bill Gates has caused untold suffering with Windows Millenium Edition...