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.

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 agree, it should be a requirement for all civilians to serve in the military one term. Yeah sure it would be like communist China or the soviet union. But it would rid the country about 75% of ass-hats who have no discipline or no respect for anyone, not even there parents.

You guys are looking at it backwards. Think about it this way.

If I want to BE a chaplain, and I am an atheist, it doesn't matter how great I am at that job, how philosophically expressive I am, how well trained I am, I cannot be a chaplain unless I pick a religion to pretend to be. Why can't I just be a philosopher-chaplain instead of picking a religion?

It makes perfect sense to allow atheist chaplains. If an atheist wants that job, that job should be at least an option for them.

 Rented Tritium wrote:
You guys are looking at it backwards. Think about it this way.

If I want to BE a chaplain, and I am an atheist, it doesn't matter how great I am at that job, how philosophically expressive I am, how well trained I am, I cannot be a chaplain unless I pick a religion to pretend to be. Why can't I just be a philosopher-chaplain instead of picking a religion?

It makes perfect sense to allow atheist chaplains. If an atheist wants that job, that job should be at least an option for them.

How it worked in the Navy, my Chaplain knew 15 different religions and headed the chapel for 5 different services on Sundays. Also outside of the Navy they were a pastor of a Lutheran church.

 pities2004 wrote:
I agree, it should be a requirement for all civilians to serve in the military one term. Yeah sure it would be like communist China or the soviet union. But it would rid the country about 75% of ass-hats who have no discipline or no respect for anyone, not even there parents.

That would only make sense if that were true. Having been alive for more then four weeks I have met people who have served and that were also huge jerks with no respect for anything or anyone. It isn't a magic factory that removes basic human nature, after all. Some people in the service are donkey-caves, some are saints, and the vast majority are in between, just like the rest of the world.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 pities2004 wrote:
How it worked in the Navy, my Chaplain knew 15 different religions and headed the chapel for 5 different services on Sundays. Also outside of the Navy they were a pastor of a Lutheran church.

That doesn't sound like a job where you need to be a specific faith at all, just be knowledgeable of multiple faiths and traditions.

 Ahtman wrote:

 pities2004 wrote:
I agree, it should be a requirement for all civilians to serve in the military one term. Yeah sure it would be like communist China or the soviet union. But it would rid the country about 75% of ass-hats who have no discipline or no respect for anyone, not even there parents.

That would only make sense if that were true. Having been alive for more then four weeks I have met people who have served and that were also huge jerks with no respect for anything or anyone. It isn't a magic factory that removes basic human nature, after all. Some people in the service are donkey-caves, some are saints, and the vast majority are in between, just like the rest of the world.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 pities2004 wrote:
How it worked in the Navy, my Chaplain knew 15 different religions and headed the chapel for 5 different services on Sundays. Also outside of the Navy they were a pastor of a Lutheran church.

That doesn't sound like a job where you need to be a specific faith at all, just be knowledgeable of multiple faiths and traditions.

Maybe it's just a majority of Americans that are donkey-caves. Some of the nicest people I met were in Japan, New Zealand and Scotland.

 pities2004 wrote:
Maybe it's just a majority of Americans that are donkey-caves. Some of the nicest people I met were in Japan, New Zealand and Scotland.

I can't help but feel like you either didn't actually read what was written, or you are having trouble understanding it. Would you like some help?

 Ahtman wrote:

 pities2004 wrote:
Maybe it's just a majority of Americans that are donkey-caves. Some of the nicest people I met were in Japan, New Zealand and Scotland.

I can't help but feel like you either didn't actually read what was written, or you are having trouble understanding it. Would you like some help?

Case and point. Thanks

 Ahtman wrote:
That doesn't sound like a job where you need to be a specific faith at all, just be knowledgeable of multiple faiths and traditions.

Who said you needed to be a specific faith?

Broad sweeping generalizations - mostly not true, and rather offensive.

To someone.

Rule #1 everyone!

 pities2004 wrote:

 Ahtman wrote:

 pities2004 wrote:
Maybe it's just a majority of Americans that are donkey-caves. Some of the nicest people I met were in Japan, New Zealand and Scotland.

I can't help but feel like you either didn't actually read what was written, or you are having trouble understanding it. Would you like some help?

Case and point. Thanks

You aren't making much sense. I know what you are trying to say at this juncture, but since you have shown that you seem to not understood what I stated, it seems a bit untoward to get all uppity just yet and get upset because I asked if you need clarification. Since it seems you do, I will try my best to help you out.

I never said the majority of any group where donkey-caves, just that there are donkey-caves, even in the military. I also said some people are saints, even in the military, but that most people in the world are neither, or a bits of both, as most people are neither fully good or fully bad. How you go "all people are donkey-caves" from that I can not say for sure, because it isn't close to being in the text, but here were are anyway. Some of the nicest people I have met are humans from various parts of the world, including America. Some of the douchiest are humans from various parts of the world, including Japan and New Zealand (never been to Scotland). Most people generally are fairly decent wherever you go in the world.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Seaward wrote:

 Ahtman wrote:
That doesn't sound like a job where you need to be a specific faith at all, just be knowledgeable of multiple faiths and traditions.

Who said you needed to be a specific faith?

Apparently some people in Congress, as they don't want atheists doing it.

 Ahtman wrote:
Apparently some people in Congress, as they don't want atheists doing it.

I see. You're confused about the difference between, "You must have some sort of faith," and, "You must have a specific faith."

I'm not sure what to do about that, as it's a pretty simple distinction.

There is a stigma attached to going to talk to a psychologist/psychiatrist/counselor which is not present when you go to speak to a chaplin. There is also an element of community inherent with many religious groupings which atheists often miss out on because there is no one dedicated to guiding and helping them. As an atheist I would be more happy to speak to a fellow atheist rather than a person of religion, though clearly given no choice I would rather speak to a chaplin rather than a "professional"... that you generally have to have an appointment and referral for, and in some cases may have these on your service record.

 Seaward wrote:

 Ahtman wrote:
Apparently some people in Congress, as they don't want atheists doing it.

I see. You're confused about the difference between, "You must have some sort of faith," and, "You must have a specific faith."

I'm not sure what to do about that, as it's a pretty simple distinction.

Is there a generic monastery where they give ordinations in 'some sort of faith'? Even the online ordinations are more specific than that. Run into a lot of purely agnostic Chaplains? The term Chaplain by definition involves being a member of a specific faith. Perhaps it is because I never met a Chaplain that would answer the question 'what faith are you?" with "Oh, generic faith, nothing specific. I just believe in stuff...and things". If anything this is a bit of a high wire act for Chaplains as they have to pretend to find all faiths, or lack of faith, equally viable, while suppressing their innate faith; it seems at odds with the title of the job. I'm not big on just hiring some guy to go through the motions and pretend to believe in a religion he doesn't just to placate people.

 Ahtman wrote:

 Seaward wrote:

 Ahtman wrote:
Apparently some people in Congress, as they don't want atheists doing it.

I see. You're confused about the difference between, "You must have some sort of faith," and, "You must have a specific faith."

I'm not sure what to do about that, as it's a pretty simple distinction.

Is there a generic monastery where they give ordinations in 'some sort of faith'? Even the online ordinations are more specific than that. Run into a lot of purely agnostic Chaplains? The term Chaplain by definition involves being a member of a specific faith. Perhaps it is because I never met a Chaplain that would answer the question 'what faith are you?" with "Oh, generic faith, nothing specific. I just believe in stuff...and things". If anything this is a bit of a high wire act for Chaplains as they have to pretend to find all faiths, or lack of faith, equally viable, while suppressing their innate faith; it seems at odds with the title of the job. I'm not big on just hiring some guy to go through the motions and pretend to believe in a religion he doesn't just to placate people.

Just a quick googlin' says that to join the Army Chaplains, I have to be enrolled in the graduate studies of either a seminary or a theological school. So I do have to be of a specific faith, it just doesn't say which specific faith (since seminaries and theological schools are associated with some organized form of religion).

 Ahtman wrote:
Is there a generic monastery where they give ordinations in 'some sort of faith'?

Not to my knowledge. Why would there be?

Are you being deliberately obtuse here? It's hard to tell.

Even the online ordinations are more specific than that. Run into a lot of purely agnostic Chaplains? The term Chaplain by definition involves being a member of a specific faith.

It does indeed, which is why chaplains of no faith wouldn't make a great deal of sense.

Perhaps it is because I never met a Chaplain that would answer the question 'what faith are you?" with "Oh, generic faith, nothing specific. I just believe in stuff...and things". If anything this is a bit of a high wire act for Chaplains as they have to pretend to find all faiths, or lack of faith, equally viable, while suppressing their innate faith; it seems at odds with the title of the job.

How many military chaplains have you met, exactly? There's no requirement to suppress their own faith. They're free to believe what they like.

I'm not big on just hiring some guy to go through the motions and pretend to believe in a religion he doesn't just to placate people.

Yet you're in favor of hiring atheist chaplains, who would be required to do exactly that? Somebody's gotta run services.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Alfndrate wrote:
Just a quick googlin' says that to join the Army Chaplains, I have to be enrolled in the graduate studies of either a seminary or a theological school. So I do have to be of a specific faith, it just doesn't say which specific faith (since seminaries and theological schools are associated with some organized form of religion).

That of course is the point, but I'm pretty sure he deliberately missed it in favor of the "generic faith" strawman he dreamed up.

As someone who is an atheist, this doesn't really make much sense to me. Aren't there plenty of secular councillors available to talk to with whatever problems may ail you?

 Alfndrate wrote:
Just a quick googlin' says that to join the Army Chaplains, I have to be enrolled in the graduate studies of either a seminary or a theological school. So I do have to be of a specific faith, it just doesn't say which specific faith (since seminaries and theological schools are associated with some organized form of religion).

Perhaps that is where Seaward is getting confused. For some reason he has read into what I wrote that there is only a single faith that can be a Chaplian, when a plain text reading only says that one must have a faith to be one. As you have pointed out, you must have a specific faith to become a Chaplain i.e. you must have a religion, but there is no specific faith i.e. it isn't only limited to Rabbis, for instance.

It's like the masons. You have to have one. They don't care which one.

Someone with counseling or a background in philosophy should be allowed to do it, though.

 Seaward wrote:

Even the online ordinations are more specific than that. Run into a lot of purely agnostic Chaplains? The term Chaplain by definition involves being a member of a specific faith.

It does indeed, which is why chaplains of no faith wouldn't make a great deal of sense.

So now you are agreeing that they must have a specific faith? You need to learn some consistency.

 Seaward wrote:
How many military chaplains have you met, exactly? There's no requirement to suppress their own faith. They're free to believe what they like.

Oh now who is building Straw Men. I never said they weren't free to believe what they like or express, and never came close to such proclamations. I referred to them have to to run services outside their belief system, such as a Catholic Priest running Jewish Services, or an Imam doing a Protestant service.

 Seaward wrote:
Yet you're in favor of hiring atheist chaplains, who would be required to do exactly that? Somebody's gotta run services.

I never said that, because I am not for it. I am not for Chaplains in the service either. I don't think we should have a religious position in a secular organization.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Rented Tritium wrote:
It's like the masons. You have to have one. They don't care which one.

Which is what it means to have a specific faith.

If you want to be an atheist, be an atheist. If you want to be part of an organized religion, be part of an organized religion.

This is coming from an atheist.

 rubiksnoob wrote:
If you want to be an atheist, be an atheist. If you want to be part of an organized religion, be part of an organized religion.

This is coming from an atheist.

Well that solves the internet debate!

Shows over guys, time to pack up and head home!

 Ahtman wrote:
I never said that, because I am not for it. I am not for Chaplains in the service either. I don't think we should have a religious position in a secular organization.

I'd add to that "at taxpayer expense".

My standard argument when marriage equality comes up is that the state has no role in the marriage business; and the same goes for the religion business as well.

Hmm. As an atheist, I'd say the closest thing to a chaplain I have in my civilian life is the bartender.

That might not be so bad...

Relapse wrote:

 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.

While I agree the problem is that there is only one allotted chaplain per battalion level formation, plus an additional chaplain for brigade level formations (to be in command of the Bn chaplains), and in order to add "atheist chaplains" you'd have to either alter the setup, or get rid of a certain number of other religion's chaplains, and some religion's are already under-represented in the chaplaincy. Ultimately, I think this comes down to knowing your unit chaplain. Every unit chaplain that I've had has been a cool cat. If you ASK them about their religion, they'll share it, if you want to get something off your chest, they are trained to listen, and actually give non-religious advice. The more you know your chaplain, the better off they are in providing assistance in a time of need.


Additionally, every unit in the Army (at least) is expanding their combat stress/mental health provider departments. Unfortunately, there is still a stigma associated with seeing a shrink (we're fighting that, but it's like assaulting Omaha Beach all over again), so I don't think there's a need to put these sorts of counselors into a "chaplain's position" within a given unit.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Ouze wrote:

 Ahtman wrote:
I never said that, because I am not for it. I am not for Chaplains in the service either. I don't think we should have a religious position in a secular organization.

I'd add to that "at taxpayer expense".

My standard argument when marriage equality comes up is that the state has no role in the marriage business; and the same goes for the religion business as well.

The problem with that of course, is that there are religious people in the military, and especially after trying times, wish to seek their peace with those chaplains. We have a tradition of having embedded chaplains since even before the War of Independence (aka, the Revolutionary War). In modern times, they do actually do more than simply religious stuff.

 Ouze wrote:

 Ahtman wrote:
I never said that, because I am not for it. I am not for Chaplains in the service either. I don't think we should have a religious position in a secular organization.

I'd add to that "at taxpayer expense".

My standard argument when marriage equality comes up is that the state has no role in the marriage business; and the same goes for the religion business as well.

Wow, lucky for you they are soldiers too....No money off your back unless you object to the government paying soldiers off tax income.

We can fix that too, its called a draft.... personally, I'm all for a general draft of all males and females in America between the ages 0f 18 to 46 with no exceptions unless one is missing a limb or an eye or has already served.... Send them all into combat.

Bet Congress would end that war real quick....never seem to find any of their children in the ranks of the combat troops....must be something in the air....

 NeedleOfInquiry wrote:

Wow, lucky for you they are soldiers too....

Chaplains are non-combatants.... They are soldiers really in almost the loosest sense of the word.

People want to talk to someone of a like mind. That's why chaplains for all manner of religions are provided - because Catholics will naturally prefer to talk to Catholic chaplains, Protestants will prefer to talk to Protestant chaplains etc... As such, it only makes sense that a humanist will want to talk to a humanist chaplain, and to dismiss that by saying 'oh the Chaplain might be religious but he's trained to talk to people who aren't' is really weak, and ultimately no different to saying 'Protestants don't need their own chaplains, because the Catholic ones are trained to talk to them'.

Not that I'm surprised, or disappointed. This kind of stupid nonsense is pretty classic culture war stuff. Just an instinctive response to deny those strange, other worldly non-Christians what they want, no matter what they want, for no reason other than because they want it.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Seaward wrote:
Who said you needed to be a specific faith?

The bill the Republicans are trying to pass says that. Did you read the OP?


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Seaward wrote:
I see. You're confused about the difference between, "You must have some sort of faith," and, "You must have a specific faith."

I'm not sure what to do about that, as it's a pretty simple distinction.

Seriously, read the thread. fething please, just read.

"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."

 sebster wrote:
People want to talk to someone of a like mind. That's why chaplains for all manner of religions are provided - because Catholics will naturally prefer to talk to Catholic chaplains, Protestants will prefer to talk to Protestant chaplains etc... As such, it only makes sense that a humanist will want to talk to a humanist chaplain, and to dismiss that by saying 'oh the Chaplain might be religious but he's trained to talk to people who aren't' is really weak, and ultimately no different to saying 'Protestants don't need their own chaplains, because the Catholic ones are trained to talk to them'.

Sounds like the way everything is setup doesn't allow for that to happen for anybody really. If there is one Chaplain assigned to a unit, then the Muslims/Protestants/Jews will talk to the Protestant Chaplain assigned to them, and the Catholics/Jews/Muslims/Buddhist will talk to the Catholic Chaplain assigned to them. So asking an Atheist to talk to a Catholic priest is no different than asking a Muslim/Budhist/Satanist to talk to a Catholic priest.

All of them also have non-religous support staff available as well.

Not that I'm surprised, or disappointed. This kind of stupid nonsense is pretty classic culture war stuff. Just an instinctive response to deny those strange, other worldly non-Christians what they want, no matter what they want, for no reason other than because they want it.

Well, I also think you can argue that some people want all the trappings of being a religion while also not wanting to be one.

I'm a Christian, but I also like sticking it to the man. So if the regs require attendance of a Seminary or Theological School I would just make a fancy School of Atheism and start issuing Masters of Divinity of Secular Humanism to everybody that applies. Just to beat them at their own game instead of forcing them to change the rule that is the same for every religion to placate somebody that is non-religious but wants religious preferences.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 sebster wrote:

"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."

So if the current regulations just require attendance/education from a school, then non-faith affiliated seminaries would/should qualify?

So a School of Rastafarianism could issue a degree and they would have to accept it?

 d-usa wrote:

 sebster wrote:
People want to talk to someone of a like mind. That's why chaplains for all manner of religions are provided - because Catholics will naturally prefer to talk to Catholic chaplains, Protestants will prefer to talk to Protestant chaplains etc... As such, it only makes sense that a humanist will want to talk to a humanist chaplain, and to dismiss that by saying 'oh the Chaplain might be religious but he's trained to talk to people who aren't' is really weak, and ultimately no different to saying 'Protestants don't need their own chaplains, because the Catholic ones are trained to talk to them'.

Sounds like the way everything is setup doesn't allow for that to happen for anybody really. If there is one Chaplain assigned to a unit, then the Muslims/Protestants/Jews will talk to the Protestant Chaplain assigned to them, and the Catholics/Jews/Muslims/Buddhist will talk to the Catholic Chaplain assigned to them. So asking an Atheist to talk to a Catholic priest is no different than asking a Muslim/Budhist/Satanist to talk to a Catholic priest.

All of them also have non-religous support staff available as well.

Not that I'm surprised, or disappointed. This kind of stupid nonsense is pretty classic culture war stuff. Just an instinctive response to deny those strange, other worldly non-Christians what they want, no matter what they want, for no reason other than because they want it.

Well, I also think you can argue that some people want all the trappings of being a religion while also not wanting to be one.

I'm a Christian, but I also like sticking it to the man. So if the regs require attendance of a Seminary or Theological School I would just make a fancy School of Atheism and start issuing Masters of Divinity of Secular Humanism to everybody that applies. Just to beat them at their own game instead of forcing them to change the rule that is the same for every religion to placate somebody that is non-religious but wants religious preferences.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 sebster wrote:

"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."

So if the current regulations just require attendance/education from a school, then non-faith affiliated seminaries would/should qualify?

So a School of Rastafarianism could issue a degree and they would have to accept it?

I'm in agreement with you D...

Especially about beating them at their own game.

How 'bout we have an Atheist denomination called "The Church of What's Happening Now!".

Here is what it takes to be all that you can be in an army of one chaplain corps.
http://www.goarmy.com/chaplain/about/requirements.html

You must obtain an ecclesiastical endorsement from your faith group. This endorsement should certify that you are:
A clergy person in your denomination or faith group.
Qualified spiritually, morally, intellectually and emotionally to serve as a Chaplain in the Army.
Sensitive to religious pluralism and able to provide for the free exercise of religion by all military personnel, their family members and civilians who work for the Army.
Educationally, you must:
Possess a baccalaureate degree of not less than 120 semester hours.
Possess a graduate degree in theological or religious studies, plus have earned at least a total of 72 semester hours in graduate work in these fields of study.
Applicants for active duty or the National Guard MUST be U.S. citizens. Permanent residents can ONLY apply for the Army Reserve.
Be able to receive a favorable National Agency Security Clearance.
Pass a physical exam at one of our Military Entrance Processing Stations (MEPS).
A minimum of two years of full-time professional experience, validated by the applicant’s endorsing agency (This requirement is not applicable to Army Reserve applicants).
Must be at least 21 years of age, but younger than 42 at time of Regular Army commissioning or less than 45 at time of Army Reserve commissioning. Prior service applicants with at least 3 years of prior AFS or creditable USAR service must be younger than 47 at time of Army Reserve commissioning. 

Edit don't mind the bold text I was going to point it out but I can't be arsed to. Honestly, if the chaplain can offer comfort, advice, and listen to the problems of the soldiers he serves, then I don't care what religion he claims to be.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
Or lack of religion..