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:

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.

as a atheist who served in the military I really don't have any issues with chaplains. They do a lot more than just religious stuff. A military base is a small city, while taxpayers will pay for a building that some religious ceremonies will get held in, taxpayers also paid for a bowling alley, movie theater, gyms, a bar or 3, libraries, (which depending on the size of the base the library doubles as a meeting place for religious events) These places are for the moral of the troops and their families. Until churches start disappearing from most cities, I doubt you can start by getting rid of the ones on military bases.

The chaplains have been challenged in court before and they've been ruled that they're ok (for now). Priests can volunteer for the military the same as anyone else.

Hordini wrote:

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 training that chaplains receive at the hand of taxpayers has nothing to do with their particular religious beliefs. Hence why to be a chaplain in the US military one must be endorsed by the religious group they desire to represent. The training chaplains receive at taxpayer expense is the same training all military personnel, whether combatant or noncombatant, receive. Keep in mind, chaplainry in the United States Military can sometimes be a hot button issue.

In answer to the question in bold though, the simplest answer I can think of is that untrained personnel in a war zone are a liability. The more complex issue would probably be a combination of tradition, not wanting to ostracize groups, and soldier morale.

streamdragon wrote:
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.

No problem. It kind of was, but only because of the issue at hand. Every group has to much hate imo, Christians included. No group has a monopoly on right.

LordofHats wrote:
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.

Ah. I assumed that the Chaplain fulfilled more of that role in practice than any sort of actual psychologist, but I'll be the first to admit that I speak from ignorance pertaining to matters of military practice. So long as there is someone else to fulfil those rolls, I need no need for an atheist chaplain either.

You're WRONG! Mine DOES!

(a joke, obviously)

edit: darn it daedalus, way to ruin my joke.

A hot girl in my Evidence class was writing about the Establishment clause for her law review note, so I listened to her go on and on about how far from the original intent the Establishment clause has been interpreted.

I dont' fully disagree with much of the rulings, but it's important to realize that the "wall between church and state" is not a constitutional doctrine, but a philosophical one. It's one that I generally agree with, but I also like to apply a 10% rule to must stuff. If 90% of people want something, and nobody is actually hurt (financially, emotionally, etc), than just let it go.

Lets my take on military chaplains. I think that any chaplains that proslytize should be removed, as that's not their job as servicemen. But chaplains perform informal counseling in addition to conducting services. Nobody is hurt by having chaplains, and a lot of people are helped a lot.

Polonius wrote:A hot girl in my Evidence class was writing about the Establishment clause for her law review note, so I listened to her go on and on about how far from the original intent the Establishment clause has been interpreted.

I love your sense of humor.

Private_Joker wrote: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?

I posted earlier in the thread that I was playing a bit of devil's advocate. I want to be clear that I'm not actually for the removal of chaplains or religious symbols at Arlington or anything like that, I have a lot of friends and family who are currently or have in the past been in the military, and I would not want to take away any of their limited comforts during deployments or otherwise. I'm really just trying to explore the limits of the first amendment a bit, and people's interpretations of it.

Polonius wrote:

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.

Thank you, Polonius. I just want to point out at this time that I don't actually believe the legal standard is simply "the government isn't supposed to be funding or supporting religious things." I do hear that argument from other people a lot, and I've noticed that a lot of posters here seem to take that basic position in other religious threads we've had, so I was trying to explore that position a bit to see where it went. Obviously, it didn't go very far.


Manchu, I guess I was just hoping for a bit more detail. I found your brief posts both prefaced with "Nope" to be a bit dismissive, and I thought the questions about what is admittedly a complex subject deserved a bit more of a response than that. That said, I think my attempt to play devil's advocate got away from me a bit and I ended up straying a bit too far, and for that I apologize.

Oh, no need to apologize. I'm not offended that you found my arguments unconvincing. Just let me know why you feel it is weak. This is a good discussion so far, IMO.

I also meant to ask for an example of a need obstructed by military service for which the government does not provide.

Manchu wrote:Oh, no need to apologize. I'm not offended that you found my arguments unconvincing. Just let me know why you feel it is weak. This is a good discussion so far, IMO.

I also meant to ask for an example of a need obstructed by military service for which the government does not provide.

.

The need to drink while in the middle of the ocean well for the only dry navy anyways

Manchu wrote:Oh, no need to apologize. I'm not offended that you found my arguments unconvincing. Just let me know why you feel it is weak. This is a good discussion so far, IMO.

I also meant to ask for an example of a need obstructed by military service for which the government does not provide.

I actually think the US government does a reasonably good job providing for the needs of service members. I was thinking more along the lines of separation from family and things of that nature, which while the government does try to alleviate a bit, isn't really avoidable. Maybe that would count as an obstructed need that the government doesn't provide for, but attempts to lessen the negative impact of by providing things like mail and phone calls and that sort of thing.

Well now I'm home I had a look online and found the story about the wiccans. It appears that you cannot just have any symbol on your grave but you have to have one of about 40 which is approved. Apparently it usually takes a few months to petition and get a new one approved but took the wiccans 10 years.

http://www.nytimes.com/2007/04/24/washington/24wiccan.html

generalgrog wrote:

Manchu wrote:

generalgrog wrote:Hmmm...so it's ok to call a group of Christians that believe in young earth a pejorative insult like "fruitcakes"? on dakka?

It's a bit like calling people who lie liars.

This is exactly the kind of thing that is wrong. You classified a whole group of people that have been shown many times by repeatable experiments and good data are wrong.... liars. This would include me. If that isn't a violation of dakka rule #1 I don't know what is.

GG

Fixed that for you


Automatically Appended Next Post:

daedalus wrote:

LordofHats wrote:
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.

Ah. I assumed that the Chaplain fulfilled more of that role in practice than any sort of actual psychologist, but I'll be the first to admit that I speak from ignorance pertaining to matters of military practice. So long as there is someone else to fulfil those rolls, I need no need for an atheist chaplain either.

they just want their military unit to reroll hits on the charge


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Frazzled wrote:

Hordini wrote:Also, at Arlington National Cemetery, most of the headstones have a religious symbol on them denoting the religion of choice of the service member buried there. This is another example of religious symbols on public, government-owned land. Are these religious symbols a violation of the establishment clause? Should they be removed as well?

Try it. Just try it.

No, each represents the person and they are inclusive. Some have no marks at all... and seriously.. some are cannons...

Howard A Treesong wrote:Well now I'm home I had a look online and found the story about the wiccans. It appears that you cannot just have any symbol on your grave but you have to have one of about 40 which is approved. Apparently it usually takes a few months to petition and get a new one approved but took the wiccans 10 years.

http://www.nytimes.com/2007/04/24/washington/24wiccan.html

Chaplains specifically are required to minister to the needs of people who hold different faiths. Even completely different ones.

Wicca, for example, was added to the Army's Religious Requirements and Practices of Certain Selected Groups: A Handbook for Chaplains back in 1978. Here's the excerpt:
http://www.wicca.org/instit/army.html

A whole list of other religions are covered in there, including Satanism. I think the latter is mostly in there due to one or two prominent Satanists in the military, like Lt. Col. Michael Aquino, founder of the Temple of Set.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Temple_of_Set

"One nation under God" -Pledge of Allegiance

You make me laugh, Dayvuni.

Someone else explain how "One nation under God" was added 50 years or so ago during a large spate of anti-communist fervour to him/her/it, thanks.

Dayvuni wrote:"One nation under God" -U.S. Constitution

Have a problem with our constitution? Leave the U.S.!

That's not in the Constitution. The Constitution makes no reference to supernatural phenomena of any sort, in fact.

Seaward wrote:

Dayvuni wrote:"One nation under God" -U.S. Constitution

Have a problem with our constitution? Leave the U.S.!

That's not in the Constitution. The Constitution makes no reference to supernatural phenomena of any sort, in fact.

There's also that hilarious fact.

Where do you sign up to be an Atheist Chaplain? Is that the easiest job in the world or what?

Dead people don't care what's on their headstones, only living people do. Personally I find burial to be a needless waste of space. Of course you have more room in America.

Dayvuni wrote:"One nation under God" -U.S. Constitution

Please read this and don't be so silly:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pledge_of_Allegiance

Dayvuni wrote:"Have a problem with our constitution? Leave the U.S.!

This is an amazingly ignorant statement. If there IS a problem with the Constitution, we should (and we have) change it. Let's ask Thomas Jefferson what he thinks:

Thomas Jefferson wrote:Some men look at constitutions with sanctimonious reverence, and deem them like the arc of the covenant, too sacred to be touched; who ascribe to the men of the preceding age a wisdom more than human, and suppose what they did to be beyond amendment. Let us follow no such examples, nor weakly believe that one generation is not as capable as another of taking care of itself, and of ordering its own affairs. Each generation is as independent as the one preceding, as that was of all which had gone before.

Our Constitution is wonderful, but has been amended a number of times and mostly much for the better. Unless you think a black person or a woman shouldn't vote?

Dayvuni wrote:"One nation under God" -U.S. Constitution

Have a problem with our constitution? Leave the U.S.!

I get your humor... even if no one else does : ) I laughed.

There is always humor in absurd things

Hordini wrote:I'm playing a bit of devil's advocate here, but should there be chaplains in the military at all? They're religious leaders being employed by the government to serve religious functions. If erecting a cross-shaped memorial is a violation of the establishment clause, wouldn't the commissioning of chaplains for explicitly religious purposes in the military also be a violation?

Yeah it's from two pages ago...so what?

Chaplains roles are two fold. They provide an outlet for religious expression in and near combat. They also provide non-denominational counselling, moral and ethical guidance, and similar support to both soldiers and in the same roles act as an advisor to leaders in command positions. Chaplains are basically the moral compass of the service, or at least thats my experience in the US. I once told my chaplain of one of my many elaborate master plans that involved getting a legitimate theology degree and commisioning in the Army as a chaplain: a Jedi chaplain. With epic and ambiguous lines like, "Do or do not, there is no try" and "from a certain point of view" no soldier or commander would seriously seek my counsel. Free paycheck forever...sadly Chaplains are subject to OERs so that wouldn't really work out. Oh, that and I don't think the Army recognizes "Jedi" for Chaplaincy but does as a religion.

Seaward wrote:

Dayvuni wrote:"One nation under God" -U.S. Constitution

Have a problem with our constitution? Leave the U.S.!

That's not in the Constitution. The Constitution makes no reference to supernatural phenomena of any sort, in fact.

Its a typo, it actually was meant to say "underdog"

Howard A Treesong wrote:Wasn't there some argument a while back because wiccans in the army were being prevented from requesting a pentagram on their tombstone? This is distant in my memory so don't recall details.

The VA was refusing to make a decision on whether or not the pentagram would be allowed on gravestones. The fact that they were not denying the symbol meant that those who were requesting it (families of fallen Wiccan service members) could not contest the decision. Eventually after a lawsuit by the ACLU, I believe, the VA was forced to make the decision and they decided to allow it.

CT GAMER wrote:

Seaward wrote:

Dayvuni wrote:"One nation under God" -U.S. Constitution

Have a problem with our constitution? Leave the U.S.!

That's not in the Constitution. The Constitution makes no reference to supernatural phenomena of any sort, in fact.

Its a typo, it actually was meant to say "underdog"

This under dog?

rubiksnoob wrote:

Howard A Treesong wrote:Wasn't there some argument a while back because wiccans in the army were being prevented from requesting a pentagram on their tombstone? This is distant in my memory so don't recall details.

The VA was refusing to make a decision on whether or not the pentagram would be allowed on gravestones. The fact that they were not denying the symbol meant that those who were requesting it (families of fallen Wiccan service members) could not contest the decision. Eventually after a lawsuit by the ACLU, I believe, the VA was forced to make the decision and they decided to allow it.

Americans United for the Separation of Church and State. They focus more specifically on religious issues.

Yeah, that took longer than it should have. Go AU.

George Spiggott wrote:Where do you sign up to be an Atheist Chaplain? Is that the easiest job in the world or what?

Dead people don't care what's on their headstones, only living people do. Personally I find burial to be a needless waste of space. Of course you have more room in America.

Of course Christians believe that to be absent from the body is to be present with the Lord. So while it's a nice soundbite to say that dead people don't care whats on their headstones, that's just your opinion.

GG

generalgrog wrote:Still believe atheists aren't religious? This same group want's atheist chaplains.(which is fine with me...just quit pretending you aren't a religion)

Yes, because atheists aren't religious. The only people that believe them to be are the people that desperately want to interpret all things in the world through the lens of religion, it is a case of only having a hammer.

And they aren't asking for atheist chaplains, they're asking for humanist chaplains. Humanism can be considered an atheistic faith, but atheism itself, like theism, cannot. That you have such difficulty understanding this boggles my mind.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

generalgrog wrote:

Manchu wrote:Young Earthers are wrong. Also, I did not say they were liars. I said people who tell lies are liars.

Manchu you compared calling young earthers fruitcakes, to calling people who lie liars..so you essentially said this...because young earthers are liars we can call them fruitcakes on dakka.

No, that's not what was said. He implied its alright to call people who believe things that are wrong fruitcakes, because people that believe things that are wrong can properly called fruitcakes just as people who lie can properly be called liars.

And yes, Young Earthers are about as wrong as it can get. There is a mountain of evidence to the contrary, very little evidence in favor, and the majority of that evidence is based on proving that the dominant position might not be right. And, to throw even more fuel on the fire, most of that proof is grounded in an approach which effectively tries to discredit the only realistic way of ever proving that the Earth is 6000 years old.

Sure, there is an incredibly slim chance that you're not wrong, but in all likelihood you are. Its not absolute, because nothing is really absolute, but its damn close.

But you see the difference between calling people fruitcakes, and doing what you did, was that you at least used common decency and courtesy in disagreeing with the position.

That's all I'm asking for.

GG

Remember that the original statement was a defense of Christians.

KingCracker wrote:Just wanted to add, not all Christians are fruit cakes that believe Jesus walked with raptors and the Earth is little more then 10k years old.