Lawmakers battle over push to create military 'chaplain' for atheists

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.

**Jihadin**

Members of Congress are set to square off over a push to create military chaplains for people who do not believe in God.

The effort to create a chaplain for atheists and "humanists" has been building over the last several weeks. While the title might sound inherently contradictory, supporters say the point is to give atheists in the military someone who will pro-actively reach out to them and facilitate meetings.

Jason Torpy, president of the Military Association of Atheists and Free Thinkers, claims that 23 percent of those in the military ranks assert no religious preference. And he argues chaplains are not providing enough "positive outreach and support" in the way "they do for all of those beliefs that aren't their own."

As might be expected, the campaign is running into some heated criticism.

Lawmakers turned away a Democratic-sponsored amendment last month that would have created the post -- and now, Republicans are trying to formally quash the idea, with an amendment to a defense budget bill that would require military chaplains to be affiliated with a particular faith.

"When it comes to the idea of an atheist chaplain, which is an oxymoron -- it's self-contradictory -- what you're really doing is now saying that we're going to replace true chaplains with non-chaplain chaplains," said sponsor Rep. John Fleming, R-La. "It's just total nonsense, the idea of having a chaplain who is an atheist."

Rep. Doug Collins, R-Ga., who is also an Air Force chaplain, said he often dealt with atheists who were simply asking about their problems.

"What I have found is so many times people in our world today just need someone to listen," he said.

But he questioned the idea of creating a new atheist-specific position, as there are other counseling services available.

"They need to come at it differently instead of just saying we want an atheist chaplain," Collins said. "I think there's plenty of opportunities for them to talk."

The Armed Forces has counselors of all kinds, including psychologists and psychiatrists. While calling a newly created post something else -- like a counselor -- might sit fine with the military, it doesn't satisfy those who specifically want a non-faith chaplain established.

Torpy said current chaplains are not doing enough to embrace non-believers. Further, in response to the effort to require chaplains be affiliated with an endorsing faith, he said the Humanist Society is recognized as a religious organization by the one agency that matters, at least for taxes -- the IRS.

"Basically, the standard is to be recognized as a church by the Internal Revenue Service," he said.

The U.S. military could decide on its own to allow non-faith chaplains, but members of Congress are trying to both require -- and prohibit -- the post.

Fleming vowed to oppose it.

"Let's define what a chaplain is. A chaplain is a minister of the faith -- someone who believes in a deity of a spiritual life who is assigned to a secular organization," he said.

Why I strongly believed that to be a member of the House and the Senate of Congress. They need to have at least a completed contract term in the military. I really hate when congress plays around with the military like a we're a petri dish of a slice of the USA. So....is there any actual Chaplain of the Atheist faith out there? in the US of A? Lets not turn this into Military vs ciie thread....we had what.....three lock threads already....no mention of Zimmerman or Trayvon Martin...This potentially has to be up in the ten "Iamadummy" move I've seen lately...

Read more: http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2013/07/23/lawmakers-battle-over-push-to-create-military-chaplain-for-atheists/#ixzz2ZvhqF6cm

**Forar**

And yet there are outside influencing factors. I've seen reports that "aethiests" are among the most looked down upon groups in the US, so it wouldn't be surprising to find that those without a specific faith might desire someone with the same position of Chaplain to speak to without the other baggage they might feel going to one of a particular denomination.

Really not seeing the controversy. Add an extra chaplain, if aethiests feel more comfortable talking to them, great, if not, they can pick up on the workload with the others, doing outreach, case working, etc.

Also, I've read reports about rather disconcerting levels of, err, religiosity in certain branches of the US military, particularly the Air Force, so seeing "Rep. Doug Collins, R-Ga., who is also an Air Force chaplain" in there was sort of an "Ahhhhh, of course he does" moment.

Also also, given your sig, is this something you actually feel passionate about, or are you just trolling? :-P

**Relapse**

Forar wrote:
And yet there are outside influencing factors. I've seen reports that "aethiests" are among the most looked down upon groups in the US, so it wouldn't be surprising to find that those without a specific faith might desire someone with the same position of Chaplain to speak to without the other baggage they might feel going to one of a particular denomination.

Really not seeing the controversy. Add an extra chaplain, if aethiests feel more comfortable talking to them, great, if not, they can pick up on the workload with the others, doing outreach, case working, etc.

Also, I've read reports about rather disconcerting levels of, err, religiosity in certain branches of the US military, particularly the Air Force, so seeing "Rep. Doug Collins, R-Ga., who is also an Air Force chaplain" in there was sort of an "Ahhhhh, of course he does" moment.

Also also, given your sig, is this something you actually feel passionate about, or are you just trolling? :-P

A psycologist or accredited counseler installed in that position might be the ticket with Sunday service being like a group encounter session.
I don't say this in jest, but with the realization that most everyone needs to unload.

**Forar**

Considering the stresses that military service members can be under, regardless of their role, I wholeheartedly support that, Relapse.

Real talk, no sarcasm, PTSD and other mental issues are no joke. If someone needs to unload, to express concerns and be heard, I strongly believe it's worthwhile to provide all the support possible, before, during, and after service.

**motyak**

I think his sig is in response to another user who at some point called him a murderer for having been in contact with an enemy force and killed some of them. But it was a good while ago I think...could be getting him confused with another.

And I see no problem with that, I mean in the Aus Army there are padres of a bunch of different denominations and what not, so I can't see it being a problem having one for atheists. The padres were always really kind, and, particularly at Kapooka (our basic training joint), really helpful in getting through it all. If a bunch of soldiers are feeling uncomfortable going to the regular padres, why not find another one who is willing to do it for them? I mean I'm sure there weren't padres of every denomination initially, they were probably included in response to soldiers saying 'man I wish we had a Protestant chaplain, I don't like going to the catholic one' or something like that

**Forar**

motyak wrote:
I think his sig is in response to another user who at some point called him a murderer for having been in contact with an enemy force and killed some of them. But it was a good while ago I think...could be getting him confused with another.

Err, that's not what I'm talking about.

"No longer defending the US Military or US Gov't. Just going to feed into your fears"

**Jihadin**

We have those options available. Its up to the individual to attend them. An individual of the Atheist perception can talk to a chaplain with no backlash. Issue that's been cropping up mainly so far in the military are individuals who are vocal of the repeal of DOMA and DADT. Example would be a SSG from the Air Force wrote a scathing dress down to the Chaplain who performed a same sex marriage in a chapel at West Point. UCMJ Hammer hit hard on that chucklehead....you do not get to dress down of an Officer.
We have all kinds of counselors all over post to handle or assist you in handling you spiritual needs. I am of Pagan Belief of Bacchus. I've no issue talking to a chaplain or Imam about anything. One issue not brought up is the fact a atheist. on post, can see a chaplain in a house of worship. A atheist Chaplain does not require a House of Warship. He/she would need to see them in just a office.
Also before we go on mission, perform an airborne op, conduct an combat operation its a giving some Chaplain regardless of faith going pray out loud for us to make it back safe. Hear quite a few NCO's saying under breath to a subordinate to "Respect his position but not his religion." Follow by "I want every edge I can get without getting smoked or bagged don't you?"
Besides when you open a new line of MOS's its going to be a bit "creative" in figuring out the pecking order for awhile.

I want to clarify when one talks to a chaplain. An individual talking to a chaplain can say whatever they want to say be it bad mouthing his/her chain of command, ranting how the army screwed them over, perception someone out to get them because they are atheist.....he/she can say whatever with no reprocussion whats so ever. Its falls under the confession. The Chaplain does not press religious views onto the individual but will point in the direction and give him contacts for help on whatever he needs. One of my soldiers, Singleton, a Muslim, was actually helping our Protestant Chaplain for two months on how the stock market work. They both built up a good portfolio

edit

Think this is due to Todd Starnes article on how strong religious view of service members are being prosecuted under the Obama Admin

**LordofHats**

First tell me if I have this right; The Army doesn't say "you're an atheist so you can go talk to Bob." It assigns Frank to a unit and no matter what your faith you go talk to Frank and Frank is a Catholic and you're a Buddhist. That's the option available to you.

That's how I understood it too work and in that sense I don't really see the point. Just because you are an atheist doesn't mean you'll get assigned a spiritual adviser of like mind. Of course in that sense why bother at all.

**azazel the cat**

Don't they already have chaplains for aethiests?

**Jihadin**

Military Chaplains are trained to deal/handle going into deep discussions with indivduals with has a differing faith or a atheist view. Without the perception of trying to convert the individual.

edit

We do Az....just not Atheist "Chaplain". Mostly its EoA's who they talked to or the actual Chaplain. Chaplains are not allowed to enforce their belief on anyone

**Forar**

Jihadin wrote:
Think this is due to Todd Starnes article on how strong religious view of service members are being prosecuted under the Obama Admin

Todd Starnes?

To Google!

... Fox News, eh?

Man, I called that one before I even opened the tab.

**Jihadin**

Aye I read like two articles and thinking they're blowing it out of proportion. Actually the soldiers involve in those discussions were disobeying regs or orders. They just don't mention it.

**azazel the cat**

Jihadin wrote:Military Chaplains are trained to deal/handle going into deep discussions with indivduals with has a differing faith or a atheist view. Without the perception of trying to convert the individual.

edit

We do Az....just not Atheist "Chaplain". Mostly its EoA's who they talked to or the actual Chaplain. Chaplains are not allowed to enforce their belief on anyone

I'm aware. My understanding is that Chaplains are meant to serve as more of a pseudo-psychiatrist in the field. I just thought the joke was clever.

Turns out I was wrong.

**Ouze**

The best solution to this, of course, would be to completely eliminate the chaplain program, since it has no place in the military to begin with. Replace them with nondenominational counselors, problem solved - no reason for taxpayer money to subsidize one religion or the other at all.

Jihadin wrote:
Why I strongly believed that to be a member of the House and the Senate of Congress. They need to have at least a completed contract term in the military.

In my experience, this is a common sentiment among those that have served - that you have some special insight into the running of the country beyond your ken; but there are several problems with this line of thought.

Our government is explicitly, unambiguously, and intentionally set up to be under civilian control.

Congress has absolute power to do whatever they like with the inner workings of the military because of course, it's a taxpayer funded institution. While the military leadership has the right and responsibility to advise against, say, requiring all riflemen to shoot while holding their rifles upside down, the role is strictly advisory. The founding fathers were not real big on the military in general, frankly.

The military doesn't actually give you an special insight into lawmaking, which is the primary role of lawmakers.

While I am sure there are many jobs where knowing things such as the best way to blow up a bunker, how to assault a building from a helicopter, or just how to load a 75 pound backpack so you can get to your first aid kit quickly; none of these things will be particularly useful during budget negotiations, post office renamings, oversight committee hearings, and the other actual work of lawmakers. I'm sure you're familiar with the expression "War is the continuation of politics by other means"? Essentially, when diplomacy has failed, then war is the result to force a return to diplomacy. Packing our civilian leadership with veterans of the military is likely to lead to the next expression I'm sure you're familiar with - "When your only tool is a hammer, all of your problems start to look like nails". To see this in practice, you only have to consider...

Finally, historically our highest elected position - President of the United States - hasn't shown that military veterans make especially good politicians.

Obviously there are a few here and there that stand out, such as Eisenhower and Teddy Roosevelt, but if you look at any given list of "10 worst presidents"; you'll find that military veterans are disproportionately represented. In fact, there is an aggregated table of 17 different polls available of such, and out of the bottom 10 (the 10 worst) 9 of the 10 present are military veterans. As about half of all presidents have been military veterans, you'd really expect statistically for the number to be about half what it is.

**LordofHats**

Finally, historically our highest elected position - President of the United States - hasn't shown that military veterans make especially good politicians.

You forgot Truman and most of the founding fathers (many of them served as Majors and Colonels in the Continental Army). We can certainly discount Washington since as a President he wasn't a particularly active man but many presidents have been in the military and many other politicians besides them have served. It seems rather narrow sighted to dismiss all military men/women as being unable to become capable politicians. If anything, military presidents haven't be particularly bad at their jobs as much as they've been unremarkable given that 'worst president' forms a rather subjective standard by which to judge a group.

I'd also argue that given the military's duties, it is arguably within their realm to support the religious interests of their personnel, so saying it has no place in the military might also be a stretch.

**Seaward**

It might've gotten better since I've had any (largely involuntary) contact with them, but Navy chaplains are far and away the biggest problem children on the boat.

**Ouze**

LordofHats wrote:
. It seems rather narrow sighted to dismiss all military men/women as being unable to become capable politicians.

It would be. Luckily, that hasn't happened in this thread. If it does, point it out to whoever does so.

**LordofHats**

Ouze wrote:
LordofHats wrote:
. It seems rather narrow sighted to dismiss all military men/women as being unable to become capable politicians.

It would be. Luckily, that hasn't happened in this thread. If it does, point it out to whoever does so.

Finally, historically our highest elected position - President of the United States - hasn't shown that military veterans make especially good politicians.

You're words not mine. If you don't intend to make a sweeping generalization, then be more specific XD

**Ouze**

LordofHats wrote:

I was starting to write out a long post rebutting you, but I can see by the fact that i said a specific election position - POTUS - has shown that vets don't make especially good politicians - which you then strawman'd up to pretending what I said was "all military men/women are unable to become capable politicians" would mean I could find a better use of my time than arguing with you over things you are pretending I said, such as humming a song under my breath while stretching, thinking about how good fried chicken tastes, or just staring at the wall blankly. So, have a good time with that, bro.

**xole**

Atheists need chaplains too. How else will they win assault if they don't re-roll to hits on the charge?

Why I strongly believed that to be a member of the House and the Senate of Congress. They need to have at least a completed contract term in the military.

No. And this is the exact sort of comment that can turn this into a mil vs. civ thread, which you said you didn't want.

EDIT:Oh, look, it already happened.

**Ouze**

xole wrote:
Atheists need chaplains too. How else will they win assault if they don't re-roll to hits on the charge?

"There are no atheists in a foxhole, because the Eldar have fleet and they can be on you like that."

**Seaward**

Ouze wrote:
Obviously there are a few here and there that stand out, such as Eisenhower and Teddy Roosevelt, but if you look at any given list of "10 worst presidents"; you'll find that military veterans are disproportionately represented.

You probably weren't aware when you wrote this that 31 of 44 US presidents served in the military at some point, which makes it obvious why "presidents who served in the military" would be disproportionately represented on any given list of "10 <whatever> presidents," save maybe "10 non-veteran presidents."

**LordofHats**

I can see by the fact that i said a specific election position - POTUS - has shown that vets don't make especially good politicians - which you then strawman'd up to pretending what I said was "all military men/women are unable to become capable politicians"

I guess it is easier to cry strawman and ignore that " POTUS shows vets don't make especially good polticians" is "military men/women are unable to become good politicians" except with a dubious standard masquerading as evidence but I guess my word choice initially was shoddy.

I'll go get an ice cream sandwich instead.

**dementedwombat**

Well, I can see how a military man wouldn't make a good politician. Once you're used to thinking in strategic terms, cause and effect, and dealing with a group forced to abide by strict standards (of various levels of unreasonableness) where everybody has pretty much the same experience, trying to apply this experience to civilian government might not end well.

A naval historian named David Webber (who also happens to be an author) said that a lot better than me in one of his books, and I can see how the man makes a good point.

I strongly think that policy makers need to hear from actual military members about actions that will affect defense/military in general, but this isn't any different or more important than hearing from NASA scientists before making decisions about a national space program or economists/foreign relation people before setting trade policy. A lawmaker pretty much needs to be very good at interpreting advice and balancing cost/benefit analysis. That's how I'd select for the position (then again I have no interest in politics and God/quantum mechanics willing I will have nothing to do with it for all of my life).

Ok, on the actual topic, to the best of my knowledge a Chaplain is just a glorified name for a field deployed guidance councilor. If they're already trained to talk about people's problems without bringing religion into it then I don't see the reason why they shouldn't be whatever religion they want to be (or none at all, depending on whether you define atheism as a religion, which I really don't want to get into). It's just another old timey tradition that the military keeps around.

Quite frankly I'd feel a little better talking to someone who shared the same kind of outlook on life that I did, but since you can't exactly pick which denomination your chaplain will belong to the entire issue of preference is kind of thrown out the window.

**insaniak**

motyak wrote:
And I see no problem with that, I mean in the Aus Army there are padres of a bunch of different denominations and what not, so I can't see it being a problem having one for atheists. The padres were always really kind, and, particularly at Kapooka (our basic training joint), really helpful in getting through it all. If a bunch of soldiers are feeling uncomfortable going to the regular padres, why not find another one who is willing to do it for them? I mean I'm sure there weren't padres of every denomination initially, they were probably included in response to soldiers saying 'man I wish we had a Protestant chaplain, I don't like going to the catholic one' or something like that

Yeah, I would have been right behind this idea when I joined up. I don't know if it's changed in the 20 years or so since then, but back then there was no option to not select a religious affiliation. I wound up ticking the 'Roman Catholic' box just because I had met the RC priest and he was a nice guy. But it always seemed a little weird.

It would have been much more comfortable having something set up for those with similar non-religious leanings.

**d-usa**

xole wrote:
Atheists need chaplains too. How else will they win assault if they don't re-roll to hits on the charge?

And Space Marines are pretty much Atheists as well. They don't think the Emperor was a God, he was just a very great man.

So if Games Workshop can do it, then our Congress and our Military should be able to figure it out...

**Seaward**

dementedwombat wrote:
Ok, on the actual topic, to the best of my knowledge a Chaplain is just a glorified name for a field deployed guidance councilor. If they're already trained to talk about people's problems without bringing religion into it then I don't see the reason why they shouldn't be whatever religion they want to be (or none at all, depending on whether you define atheism as a religion, which I really don't want to get into). It's just another old timey tradition that the military keeps around.

They also run services for those who'd like to attend.

As an atheist, I find Ouze's position that religious members of the military should be denied the ability to attend religious services simply because they're stuck on a boat in the middle of the Med to be pretty abhorrent.

**dementedwombat**

Heh, It makes good sense. I could see how being stuck in the middle of the ocean without access to a religious function might be bad for morale to the religiously inclined.

But then you run into the issue of how you cram enough religious representatives onto a ship to get a wide enough religious spectrum nobody gets left out. I'd call for volunteers to lead "prayer services/reflections/chi cleanings/whatever" but that seems like it might lead into some bad times. Few things are more dangerous than someone who knows a little bit of religion trying to talk to other people about it.

**LordofHats**

dementedwombat wrote:
Heh, It makes good sense. I could see how being stuck in the middle of the ocean without access to a religious function might be bad for morale to the religiously inclined.

But then you run into the issue of how you cram enough religious representatives onto a ship to get a wide enough religious spectrum nobody gets left out. I'd call for volunteers to lead "prayer services/reflections/chi cleanings/whatever" but that seems like it might lead into some bad times. Few things are more dangerous than someone who knows a little bit of religion trying to talk to other people about it.

Someone of the Baha'i Faith might actually be uniquely qualified for the position

**Nevelon**

xole wrote:
Atheists need chaplains too. How else will they win assault if they don't re-roll to hits on the charge?

I was going to make this joke is nobody else did.

Are there Pastafarian chaplains? They are a pretty inclusive bunch, and should be able to cover atheists, while still being a major religion. Might have some problems with the navy though, seeing their stance on pirates though...

At the end of the day, we should be doing everything we can to support those in uniform. If there are a large number of atheists, who require the support of someone in a chaplain-type role, we should be providing it. I know talking to psychologists is different from talking to priests, even if they do the same thing. And some people might be more comfortable doing one over the other. On the flip side, if there was a position where only one chaplain was available, and he was an atheist, I think that might cause some problems with more faithful soldiers.