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.

LordofHats wrote:

atheist chaplains

That's an oxymoron if I've ever seen one. What are they gonna do?

Soldier walks into office. "Sir, I've been really nervous lately. A body of mine got shot and it got me thinking of how quickly it can all end."

"It's okay Bob. Whatever happens there is no God, so when you die it'll just be over and we'll bury you in the ground, say some nice words, and be done with it."

Very encouraging

Then, logically, why would an atheist perform any duty that could jeopardize his or her only existence? I think there is an ability to reconcile the possibility of an afterlife without needing a deity.

I would think an 'atheist chaplain' would probably just be a philosopher/therapist of some sort who makes appeals to logic and reason. But then again, I think that there's equal chances of 'reality' being something a giant turtle is dreaming as there is of a bearded guy in a cloud watching over us. Since it's not something I can prove, I just smirk about it and go on with life.

Electro wrote:The problem people with religious belifes with Atheists (a militant identity with much in commen with a relgion, as apposed to atheists, people who just don't beleive in a higher deity) have is that they attack, insult and seem to have no more motive than to spread hate.

The asumption that all christians are creationists or young earthers people, or the idea that any philisophical system can be baised in fact, or that being an atheist makes you better of more intelegent. This is what angers people. Just live and let live.

Most of the arguments people make against christianity, other than "There is no proof, I only belive what i can see" are baised on incorrect assumptions. For a belife system that claims to be interested in facts its amazing how many athists base hate on fiction & lies.

Its hard to live and let live when you have liars like GG constantly labeling atheism as a religion. Its not, so just drop it and live and let live.

See you have these religious nutters who hate on and attack atheists for no other reason than, they don't believe in a god. Then when they start to lose the argument at hand the always fall back with "live and let live"

as an atheist I don't hate on fiction, just lies, I just refuse to believe in some god like creature who's imagined properties disproves him. Or people who point to a book and go here's the proof of my god, a holy book is not proof of the god, No more than harry potter books are proof of hogwarts and dragons. Then when you look at the claims of these books, they are often demonstrably wrong has to the nature of the universe and the history of the earth.

but once again for everyone. My understanding of things, lead me to reject all notions of gods, unless suitable proof for them can be provided. Even if atheism gets labeled as a religion (which is wrong), then I would still not be a theist and not belong to the atheist religion. see I'm not a theist or atheist. but you have to wonder, if theists really just want to live and let live, why are they so eager to proclaim atheism as a religion?

If you really want to live and let live, then stop trying to tell others who they can and can not marry, Quit trying to push your morals into our secular laws, and quit attacking well founded science, that rationally explain what can be proved to be true. Because religions in the US are doing this based solely on how they interpret a book written 1862ish years go, it opens up the bible for criticism.

Manchu wrote:

Hordini wrote:

Manchu wrote:Nope. Those symbols reflect the religious affiliation of the individual buried there (at least theoretically) and do not promote or privilege any religion.

Then theoretically, how would a cross erected to memorialize four Christian Marines be a violation of the establishment clause?

I realize it might not be confirmed that they were all four Christians, but for the sake of argument, let's assume for a moment that they were.

Okay, we will assume they were all Christians. The problem is that the memorial is not the same thing as a tombstone. It does not only speak to and about the individual Marines specifically memorialized but to all Marines as an example of the dignity of dying in the service of one's country. The issue is conflating service to the country with service to some religion.

In the case of a tombstone at Arlington National Cemetery, the government is still spending taxpayer money on religious symbols placed on public property. Why does the religious affiliation of the individuals buried there matter? If the majority of tombstones there have crosses on them, that could still be construed as promoting Christianity over other religions, even if that wasn't the intention.

If we're not okay with religious symbols on public property, why are religious symbols all over Arlington okay?

streamdragon wrote:
Let us not pretend that all sides are not guilty of this, please?

I'm not. Christians demonstrateing at funerals of gay aids victims, Muslims calling for the death of Americans, Hindus attacking christians in india, Budist monks encouraging the attacking of Tamils etc etc. all groups will use there belife system to justify the human propensity to tribalistic violence.

It also amazes me how many religous people forget the basic tenant of love and peace.

Hordini wrote:I'm comparing the two because they're both involve religious symbolism, and both involve the use of either government funding or property. I realize that the chaplaincy includes chaplains that serve people of many/all faiths, but that doesn't change the fact that it still involves the government sponsoring religious services and training. If the government started giving funding to civilian religious leaders, even if it was funding all religious equally, it would clearly be a violation of the establishment clause. Why is it that when the government provides funding and training for religious leaders in the military, it's suddenly okay? There's nothing stopping service members from attending civilian churches, temples, mosques, or whatever else, but why should the government pay for these services?

To the underlined, if the government gave money to all religious groups and to comparable nonreligious groups for atheists, there would theoretically be no issue with the establishment clause. This is similar to how churches enjoy a tax-free status, as do other non-religious non-profit organizations.

To the bolded: Yes, there is. Often times soldiers are deployed in areas or stationed in areas that can not meet their religious needs. A soldier in the middle of Iraq/Afghanistan (to use a modern example) may not necessarily have access to a christian church, Jewish synagogue, or a Shinto temple while in the field. Having a chaplain present, on the other hand, can meet those needs despite their locality. Chaplains are like any other service member in that they can and will be called to duty stations far from their actual home.

Hordini wrote:In the case of a tombstone at Arlington National Cemetery, the government is still spending taxpayer money on religious symbols placed on public property. Why does the religious affiliation of the individuals buried there matter? If the majority of tombstones there have crosses on them, that could still be construed as promoting Christianity over other religions, even if that wasn't the intention.

If we're not okay with religious symbols on public property, why are religious symbols all over Arlington okay?

I think I have already answered all of these questions, actually. Could you be more specific about what part of my answers you did not understand.

it's not exactly a legal doctrine, but the courts have always respected a certain "secular religiosity." Meaning that we, as a culture, understand that certain aspects of relgion have meaning in culture beyond the practice of that religion. Crosses are a christian symbol, but when you see a field of white crosses nearly everybody thinks "cemetary." Christmas is a very religious holiday for some people, but it's hard to call it even mostly a religious event.

It's why our coins say "In God We Trust" (because we have faith in the divine, rather than in the soveriegn). It's why we can have miliatry chaplains.

Nobody is ever perfectly happy with where the line is drawn. Lots of folks really, really want school prayer, but that's seen as too religious. Some folks really, really want to get rid of crosses on public land, but that's not seen as too religious.

sirlynchmob wrote:

Electro wrote:The problem people with religious belifes with Atheists (a militant identity with much in commen with a relgion, as apposed to atheists, people who just don't beleive in a higher deity) have is that they attack, insult and seem to have no more motive than to spread hate.

The asumption that all christians are creationists or young earthers people, or the idea that any philisophical system can be baised in fact, or that being an atheist makes you better of more intelegent. This is what angers people. Just live and let live.

Most of the arguments people make against christianity, other than "There is no proof, I only belive what i can see" are baised on incorrect assumptions. For a belife system that claims to be interested in facts its amazing how many athists base hate on fiction & lies.

Its hard to live and let live when you have liars like GG constantly labeling atheism as a religion. Its not, so just drop it and live and let live.

See you have these religious nutters who hate on and attack atheists for no other reason than, they don't believe in a god. Then when they start to lose the argument at hand the always fall back with "live and let live"

as an atheist I don't hate on fiction, just lies, I just refuse to believe in some god like creature who's imagined properties disproves him. Or people who point to a book and go here's the proof of my god, a holy book is not proof of the god, No more than harry potter books are proof of hogwarts and dragons. Then when you look at the claims of these books, they are often demonstrably wrong has to the nature of the universe and the history of the earth.

but once again for everyone. My understanding of things, lead me to reject all notions of gods, unless suitable proof for them can be provided. Even if atheism gets labeled as a religion (which is wrong), then I would still not be a theist and not belong to the atheist religion. see I'm not a theist or atheist. but you have to wonder, if theists really just want to live and let live, why are they so eager to proclaim atheism as a religion?

If you really want to live and let live, then stop trying to tell others who they can and can not marry, Quit trying to push your morals into our secular laws, and quit attacking well founded science, that rationally explain what can be proved to be true. Because religions in the US are doing this based solely on how they interpret a book written 1862ish years go, it opens up the bible for criticism.

The above is the exact reason militant atheists exist. When your religion expects you to proselytize to those who have no interest in it and trying to work your beliefs into schools and laws, expect some push back. If you're not doing it on behalf of your religion, then perhaps you need to try to get the ones who are under control.

streamdragon wrote:To the underlined, if the government gave money to all religious groups and to comparable nonreligious groups for atheists, there would theoretically be no issue with the establishment clause.

Chaplains are provided to meet a religious need. Atheists have no religious needs and thus should not be provided with chaplains.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

daedalus wrote:If you're not doing it on behalf of your religion, then perhaps you need to try to get the ones who are under control.

No atheist is responsible for the actions of any other. Atheism alone is not the basis for any association. Maybe I misunderstood what you posted?

Chaplains in the Australian army don't just cover Christianity, they do every type of prayer and service for all jewish, muslim, buddhist, etc. members. Also when you fill out paper work you point out your faith or lack therefor of and also as to whether you want a military funeral dedicated to your faith anyway.

The reason they have chaplains in the defence force is because you are not always going to be within reach of civilian priests/churches etc. when deployed overseas. So everyone is being looked after, whats the problem?

Private_Joker wrote:Chaplains in the Australian army don't just cover Christianity, they do every type of prayer and service for all jewish, muslim, buddhist, etc. members.

It seems like you are saying one person does all of this. Do you meant that there are Christian chaplains as well as chaplains of other faiths? If so, that is also what we have in the US military.

Manchu wrote:

streamdragon wrote:To the underlined, if the government gave money to all religious groups and to comparable nonreligious groups for atheists, there would theoretically be no issue with the establishment clause.

Chaplains are provided to meet a religious need. Atheists have no religious needs and thus should not be provided with chaplains.

Well, this isn't true. Chaplains aren't there to minister solely to members of their faith. They're counselors as much as anything, and Catholic chaplains can and do give "non-Catholic" advice and aid to Jews, Protestants, Muslims, atheists, and so forth.

An atheist chaplain doesn't make a lot of sense to me, largely because the religious chaplaincy has everything an atheist would need to go to them for covered.

Who an individual chaplain happens to talk with on a given day has nothing to do with why the chaplaincy does not violate the Establishment Clause.

streamdragon wrote:

Hordini wrote:I'm comparing the two because they're both involve religious symbolism, and both involve the use of either government funding or property. I realize that the chaplaincy includes chaplains that serve people of many/all faiths, but that doesn't change the fact that it still involves the government sponsoring religious services and training. If the government started giving funding to civilian religious leaders, even if it was funding all religious equally, it would clearly be a violation of the establishment clause. Why is it that when the government provides funding and training for religious leaders in the military, it's suddenly okay? There's nothing stopping service members from attending civilian churches, temples, mosques, or whatever else, but why should the government pay for these services?

To the underlined, if the government gave money to all religious groups and to comparable nonreligious groups for atheists, there would theoretically be no issue with the establishment clause. This is similar to how churches enjoy a tax-free status, as do other non-religious non-profit organizations.

Okay. I agree with you on this, I thought about it after I posted, and yeah, it seems like there wouldn't be an issue.

streamdragon wrote:
To the bolded: Yes, there is. Often times soldiers are deployed in areas or stationed in areas that can not meet their religious needs. A soldier in the middle of Iraq/Afghanistan (to use a modern example) may not necessarily have access to a christian church, Jewish synagogue, or a Shinto temple while in the field. Having a chaplain present, on the other hand, can meet those needs despite their locality. Chaplains are like any other service member in that they can and will be called to duty stations far from their actual home.

I get the logistical issues, but why isn't lack of religious amenities considered one of the other (many) hardships that military personnel have to face when deployed? Why is it the government's role to fund and provide religious services to anyone? Wouldn't this role be better served by non-government volunteer groups or something?

The government accommodates the religious need because the government otherwise obstructs the fulfillment of the need.

Well most of the army chaplains use to be Christian priests, but you do have people who are of really no particular faith who are trained rather than believe in the services and rituals they perform. You don't have to have faith in order to comfort someone else spiritually. Lets just say if you didn't provide these services moral and decipline would plummet amongst religous soldiers.

Manchu wrote:

Hordini wrote:In the case of a tombstone at Arlington National Cemetery, the government is still spending taxpayer money on religious symbols placed on public property. Why does the religious affiliation of the individuals buried there matter? If the majority of tombstones there have crosses on them, that could still be construed as promoting Christianity over other religions, even if that wasn't the intention.

If we're not okay with religious symbols on public property, why are religious symbols all over Arlington okay?

I think I have already answered all of these questions, actually. Could you be more specific about what part of my answers you did not understand.

I guess to be more clear, it's not that I didn't understand your answers, it's just that I thought the arguments were poor.

Hordini wrote:In the case of a tombstone at Arlington National Cemetery, the government is still spending taxpayer money on religious symbols placed on public property. Why does the religious affiliation of the individuals buried there matter? If the majority of tombstones there have crosses on them, that could still be construed as promoting Christianity over other religions, even if that wasn't the intention.

If we're not okay with religious symbols on public property, why are religious symbols all over Arlington okay?

The rule is that the governmetn cannot "establish" a religion. This originally meant that there could not be a Church of the United States, like there was in England. Keep in mind that barring a few exceptions, nearly all early Americans were Christians, but often from sects persecuted somewhere in Europe.

This has been broadened considerably, most notably due to rising numbers of non-christians. The rule is generally interpreted to mean that the government cannot favor one religion, encourage or promote one (or even several) religions, and increasingly, cannot promote even religiosity. That does not mean that the government cannot spend any money on religion, or acknowledge that religion exists.

Having a large christian cross, or the 10 commandments, on the wall of a public building is pretty generally accepted to be too close to promoting that religion. Placing such a symbol on an invidual grave marker, particulalry since grave markers are traditionally marked with such, is very hard to see as an attempt to promote or mandate religion.

Also, constituional restraints on government power are always lessened in military matters.

Manchu wrote:The government accommodates the religious need because the government otherwise obstructs the fulfillment of the need.

Yes, but joining the military is a voluntary act, which entails many hardships that are voluntarily accepted. The government obstructs many other needs that often don't get provided for during deployments, so I don't see why religious needs would be provided for, especially when the government isn't supposed to be funding or supporting religious things.

Hordini wrote:In the case of a tombstone at Arlington National Cemetery, the government is still spending taxpayer money on religious symbols placed on public property. Why does the religious affiliation of the individuals buried there matter? If the majority of tombstones there have crosses on them, that could still be construed as promoting Christianity over other religions, even if that wasn't the intention.

If we're not okay with religious symbols on public property, why are religious symbols all over Arlington okay?

The religious affiliation of the person matters for no more simpler reason than it is their grave. The majority of tombstones having a cross is immaterial to the fact that each grave marker can have its own symbol. It's important to note that there are several non-religious memorials scattered around Arlington Cemetery.

Electro wrote:

streamdragon wrote:
Let us not pretend that all sides are not guilty of this, please?

I'm not. Christians demonstrateing at funerals of gay aids victims, Muslims calling for the death of Americans, Hindus attacking christians in india, Budist monks encouraging the attacking of Tamils etc etc. all groups will use there belife system to justify the human propensity to tribalistic violence.

It also amazes me how many religous people forget the basic tenant of love and peace.

My apologies. Your first post sounded very one sided "Christians vs Atheists (not atheists as you pointed out)", so I misread it as only referring to such.

daedalus wrote:
The above is the exact reason militant atheists exist. When your religion expects you to proselytize to those who have no interest in it and trying to work your beliefs into schools and laws, expect some push back. If you're not doing it on behalf of your religion, then perhaps you need to try to get the ones who are under control.

Fight hate with hate? Attack all christions for the actions of a few. Sounds like a few groups i can think of.

Hordini the government is going to do everything it can to make its soldiers comfortable in a very hostile and stressful enviroment. Why would you want to take away that little bit of comfort?

Hordini wrote:

Manchu wrote:The government accommodates the religious need because the government otherwise obstructs the fulfillment of the need.

Yes, but joining the military is a voluntary act, which entails many hardships that are voluntarily accepted. The government obstructs many other needs that often don't get provided for during deployments, so I don't see why religious needs would be provided for, especially when the government isn't supposed to be funding or supporting religious things.

I think as long as you think that the legal standard is simply "the government isn't supposed to be funding or supporting religious things," then the actual law will remain confusing.

Shockingly, the intersection of military need, the right to worship, the establishment clause, and tradition is not neat and tidy.

Because if expect a lot of americans to sign up for the miliiray knowing they cannot practice their faith for their hitch... that's going to be a problem.

Manchu wrote:

daedalus wrote:If you're not doing it on behalf of your religion, then perhaps you need to try to get the ones who are under control.

No atheist is responsible for the actions of any other. Atheism alone is not the basis for any association. Maybe I misunderstood what you posted?

Ah, my mistake. What I was trying to say is that "If you are religious, and trying to live and let live, more power to you. You believe your way and I'll believe (or not) mine. If you're one of the ones cramming elements of your religion down everyone else's throats, you're the reason why militant atheists exist. If you're not one of the ones doing it (proselyting) on behalf of your religion, then perhaps you should try to get the ones who are doing so under control."

Why is it that when the government provides funding and training for religious leaders in the military, it's suddenly okay?

The Government doesn't train them for religious purposes. The individual performs whatever certification is requires (seminary etc) and then they join the Army who then assigns them to their duties. I don't believe the Army covers religious training like they do medical or law.

daedalus wrote:Then, logically, why would an atheist perform any duty that could jeopardize his or her only existence? I think there is an ability to reconcile the possibility of an afterlife without needing a deity.

I would think an 'atheist chaplain' would probably just be a philosopher/therapist of some sort who makes appeals to logic and reason. But then again, I think that there's equal chances of 'reality' being something a giant turtle is dreaming as there is of a bearded guy in a cloud watching over us. Since it's not something I can prove, I just smirk about it and go on with life.

My point was that it's obvious what a Chaplain does. They provide religious console which I think is a justifiable expenditure for an armed force. Atheists, having no religion have no need for one. Psychologists and therapists are already available in the military. Why do we need specific ones for atheists? It's a rather dumb statement to make that we should have Atheist chaplains. What do they do that isn't already done? Nothing.

Hordini wrote:I guess to be more clear, it's not that I didn't understand your answers, it's just that I thought the arguments were poor.

Okay. Could you please be more specific about what parts you thought were poor?

Polonius wrote:

Hordini wrote:In the case of a tombstone at Arlington National Cemetery, the government is still spending taxpayer money on religious symbols placed on public property. Why does the religious affiliation of the individuals buried there matter? If the majority of tombstones there have crosses on them, that could still be construed as promoting Christianity over other religions, even if that wasn't the intention.

If we're not okay with religious symbols on public property, why are religious symbols all over Arlington okay?

The rule is that the governmetn cannot "establish" a religion. This originally meant that there could not be a Church of the United States, like there was in England. Keep in mind that barring a few exceptions, nearly all early Americans were Christians, but often from sects persecuted somewhere in Europe.

This has been broadened considerably, most notably due to rising numbers of non-christians. The rule is generally interpreted to mean that the government cannot favor one religion, encourage or promote one (or even several) religions, and increasingly, cannot promote even religiosity. That does not mean that the government cannot spend any money on religion, or acknowledge that religion exists.

Having a large christian cross, or the 10 commandments, on the wall of a public building is pretty generally accepted to be too close to promoting that religion. Placing such a symbol on an invidual grave marker, particulalry since grave markers are traditionally marked with such, is very hard to see as an attempt to promote or mandate religion.

Also, constituional restraints on government power are always lessened in military matters.

This is a more complete explanation, and I agree with you. I personally tend to favor a more permissive interpretation of the first amendment, that is, one that would allow for both a cross memorial and a crescent memorial (or whatever other example), but would not disallow either. I understand that not every one agrees with this, of course. I also think the Marines should have at least some say over what memorials they allow for their own fallen members, but I realize that being in service to the American people plays a significant role in what is or should be allowed as well.

Chaplains actually do take on a counsellors role in the field as well. I have even had a chat with them when I was nervous and shaking like gak, and I'm an athiest. Why snob someones help just because they hold a different belief. Not once during my talks with him did he mention god or religion.

Polonius wrote:I think as long as you think that the legal standard is simply "the government isn't supposed to be funding or supporting religious things," then the actual law will remain confusing.

There's a misunderstanding of law generally and the Establishment Clause particularly in the OT forum??? Cheers, my brother.

Electro wrote:

daedalus wrote:
The above is the exact reason militant atheists exist. When your religion expects you to proselytize to those who have no interest in it and trying to work your beliefs into schools and laws, expect some push back. If you're not doing it on behalf of your religion, then perhaps you need to try to get the ones who are under control.

Fight hate with hate? Attack all christions for the actions of a few. Sounds like a few groups i can think of.

First off, I'm not speaking just about Christians, I'm speaking about all religions. Hell, all philosophies. If I care not to believe, GTFO. Don't push it on me.

As far as the groups you might be thinking of, I can only think of one group it sounds like to me: Animals (of which humans are a part of). Poke a dog enough and he'll start to snap back. Same is true for humans. The difference is that not all people have moral and spiritual leader who's teachings implore "turning the other cheek".