Workplace Chaplains

[drkitten]

Clearly someone needs to be able to handle crisies, but that someone does not have to be a shaman. Why not choose the cook or the medic?

Because crisis intervention and suicide prevention are not usually incorporated into the curricula of the Cordon Bleu academy. Nor are they incorporated into the training given to your normal E-4 mess sergeant. They're not even part of the standard EMT package (although some paramedics get it as part of their training).

They are, however, part of the standard seminary curriculum.

 

[Garrette]

Clearly someone needs to be able to handle crisies, but that someone does not have to be a shaman. Why not choose the cook or the medic? A chaplain is no more qualified than anyone else.

Three points:

1. Yes, they are more qualified. Perhaps not as qualified as a psychologist, but more qualified than the cook.

2. The function fits more neatly with the other roles of the chaplain than it does with the cook.

3. It generally works. I myself am atheist, and my unit is quite aware of it. I would consider using the chaplain if I needed confidential counseling. I wouldn't necessarily use the chaplain, but I wouldn't dismiss it out of hand. I would dismiss using the cook out of hand.

 

[drkitten]

I'm with ceo_esq and drk here. The chaplain may not be qualified enough to satisfy ImaginalDisc, but he is almost certainly more qualified than the CO. In an emergent situation, though, neither is likely to be immediately available.

I have some freakish talking money here, and it says that the chaplain is probably closer.

 

[ImaginalDisc]

You might lend a bit more credibility to your position if you don't overstate your case. Shaman may be a religious term, just as chaplain is, but they are not interchangeable.

Nor are the counseling duties of a chaplain interchangeable with their religious duties, though they may overlap in instances.

Were I a battalion commander needing to tell my chaplain what I expected of him, I would say something akin to this:

You are responsible for monitoring the overall morale of the unit, and you will perform that function in coordination with the Command Sergeant Major. You will provide religious services to meet the religious requirements of the soldiers, and assist those of a denomination you cannot accomodate in finding alternate venues. In addition, you will provide counseling services as needed, as requested, up to the limits of your training and the demands of the situation.

Perhaps I haven't made myself clear. Chaplains do not come into the Army with any more qualifications to be counselors than anyone else. Whatever training they may get to that effect in 12 weeks doesn't make them very good, so why have them in the first place? Why not give the suicide intervention and other crisis training to someone who has a useful function?

Incidentally, the only difference between a shaman, a priest, a rabbi or any other religious leader is the particular religion they subscribe to. To be a chaplain, a person has to be one of those.

Keeping them around because a barely trained amatuer counselor is better than none doesn't sound terribly wise.

 

[ImaginalDisc]

Three points:

1. Yes, they are more qualified. Perhaps not as qualified as a psychologist, but more qualified than the cook.

2. The function fits more neatly with the other roles of the chaplain than it does with the cook.

3. It generally works. I myself am atheist, and my unit is quite aware of it. I would consider using the chaplain if I needed confidential counseling. I wouldn't necessarily use the chaplain, but I wouldn't dismiss it out of hand. I would dismiss using the cook out of hand.

These are good points, and good reasons to have someone accessable to provide those functions, but why must they be a shaman?

 

[drkitten]

Perhaps I haven't made myself clear. Chaplains do not come into the Army with any more qualifications to be counselors than anyone else.

You have made yourself clear.

That is your opinion, and it is wrong.

If you said that "Surgeons do not come into the Army with any more qualifications to be doctors than anyone else," that would be equally clear, and equally wrong.

 

[ImaginalDisc]

You have made yourself clear.

That is your opinion, and it is wrong.

If you said that "Surgeons do not come into the Army with any more qualifications to be doctors than anyone else," that would be equally clear, and equally wrong.

A preist, rabbi or other type of shaman is not a qualified counselor. They fail to meet any academic or professional criteria as counselors. Just because their religious order says that they are doesn't make it true.

 

[Garrette]

These are good points, and good reasons to have someone accessable to provide those functions, but why must they be a shaman?

See points 2 and 3.

 

[ImaginalDisc]

See points 2 and 3.

I don't follow. A priest is not, by virtue of being a priest, any better at helping a person who needs counseling than anyone else.

3 is a kind of status quo position. It's not an argument in favor of religious authorities having that role, as opposed to someone else. There's no need for the person who doubles as a counselor to also be a religious authority, the half-trained counselor could be anyone. Why must it be the shaman?

 

[ceo_esq]

There's no reason why they should be treating anyone for anything in the first place. What is a military unit doing with a shaman around?

From Army Regulation 165-1:

The First Amendment to the U.S. Constitution prohibits enactment of any law "respecting the [sic] establishment of religion or prohibiting the free exercise thereof." In striking a balance between the "establishment" and "free exercise" clauses, the Army chaplaincy, in providing religious services and ministries to the command, is an instrument of the U.S. Government to ensure that [a] soldier's religious "free exercise" rights are protected.

...

The importance and influence of the chaplain to the moral health of the unit and in spiritual matters have been valued throughout the history of the Army. Today's commander recognizes the value of the chaplain, both in combat and garrison.

Although you may not attach any value or importance to military chaplaincy, as usual, your views diverge from those prevalent among people who actually know something about the subject at hand.

A preist, rabbi or other type of shaman is not a qualified counselor. They fail to meet any academic or professional criteria as counselors.

Many clergy meet academic or professional criteria as counselors. I daresay that for mainstream clergy it is the norm to have at least modest credentials in that area. [ETA: The clerical profession is not just about theology; counseling has almost always been an important aspect of it. Most professional training is geared towards the demands of the profession and the public's expections regarding the same; it should come as no surprise that this is true of seminaries and such.]

 

[Last of the Fraggles]

A preist, rabbi or other type of shaman is not a qualified counselor. They fail to meet any academic or professional criteria as counselors. Just because their religious order says that they are doesn't make it true.

Of course its wrong that anyone's counselling options should be limited to a practictioner of a religion that they may or may not be affiliated with. I wonder if people would be so accepting if the counsellor was a Rabbi or a Muslim cleric?

 

[Euromutt]

Quoted by drkitten:

To be an Officer in the Army Chaplain Corps, you must obtain an ecclesiastical endorsement from your faith group. This endorsement should certify that you are:
[...]
* 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.

Given some of the reports I've read about chaplains' behavior towards those of different religious persuasions, it would appear some faith groups have been telling porkies in their endorsements. And as a former infantryman, I just love it when a chaplain trots out the old "no atheists in foxholes" line. And just how the [rule 8] would you know, padre?

I don't think there's a case to be made for civilian organizations, like corporations, having chaplains in the way the armed forces do. Military chaplains exist so that the armed forces can provide spiritual guidance in situations where clergy of the desired denomination, and capable of speaking the same language, may not be otherwise available locally (i.e. in the field or at sea). This doesn't apply to people with an office job; those of a religious persuasion who feel they need to talk to a clergyman have ready access to their own at whatever church they attend.

 

[Achán hiNidráne]

There is no freedom of choice unless there is freedom *from* choice.

Like the old Devo song goes: "Freedom of choice is what you got, Freedom from Choice is what you want."

 

[Kopji]

Hey businesses do all kinds of woo stuff, this might even be more productive than most ideas. The risk really might be the other way around - what 'unsavory' influence mainstream business will eventually have on religions: Let'see -

Homosexuals have equal rights and full partner benefits... people are rewarded by performance... a woman might be your boss... tradition is viewed as a barrier to new ideas... tolerance and hard work are components of a happy workplace... family planning includes abortion counseling and a full range of contraceptive provisions.

Not to mention how ministerial performance might be measured. Rather than quantity of employees going to heaven or hell, they will need to answer to specific metrics, quality of the work environment, return on investment, attendance, days lost due to emotional distress, etc.

I say let 'em in.

 

[Garrette]

I don't follow. A priest is not, by virtue of being a priest, any better at helping a person who needs counseling than anyone else.

I don't understand why you persist in this argument which continues to miss the point which has been repeatedly stated:

Chaplains are better qualified than other service members. There qualifications do not come by dint of being clergy. They come from two sources: Any training they likely received when becoming civilian clergy, and training they receive upon entry into the armed services.

It can't get much clearer than that.

3 is a kind of status quo position.

Yes, it is. The status quo is never correct simply because it is the status quo. Likewise, it is never wrong simply because it is the status quo or simply because someone doesn't like who is delivering a service.

It's not an argument in favor of religious authorities having that role, as opposed to someone else.

It's an empirical argument in favor of the method shown to work. Nothing else.

There's no need for the person who doubles as a counselor to also be a religious authority, the half-trained counselor could be anyone.

Yes, if you ignore the realities of resource management. The chaplaincy is the place where it fits within the structure.

Why must it be the shaman?

Oh, I don't know. Why must you continue to use a term you obviously consider derogatory purely for the emotional impact?

 

[Garrette]

Of course its wrong that anyone's counselling options should be limited to a practictioner of a religion that they may or may not be affiliated with.

Read my posts.

They are not limited in this fashion.

I wonder if people would be so accepting if the counsellor was a Rabbi or a Muslim cleric?

I've never met an Islamic chaplain (known several Islamic soldiers, though, who never had an issue with the christian chaplain). I have known Jewish chaplains and never known soldiers to have an issue with them.

My active duty service totals nearly eleven years. My reserve time nearly doubles that. I've served in line units and at high level commands. I have known and dealt with many chaplains and have been an atheist through most of that time. I have personally experienced only three types of problems with chaplains:

1. The one who cannot set his denomination aside and proselytizes for it. This has happened once and was rightly quashed by the command.

2. The one who, despite clear regulations and international law, felt it appropriate to regularly carry a weapon. This was wrongly not quashed by the command. (for the record, chaplains are allowed to carry weapons and to fight when circumstances requiring active self-defense are imminent; they are not allowed to carry weapons as a matter of course).

3. The ones who were simply incompetent or whose personality and style was such that they were not credible to the soldiers. This has happened a few times, but proportionally no more so than in any other staff position.

 

[RenaissanceBiker]

I thought this thread was going to be about those unofficial workplace chaplains. I hate those.

 

[ponderingturtle]

I'm with ceo_esq and drk here. The chaplain may not be qualified enough to satisfy ImaginalDisc, but he is almost certainly more qualified than the CO. In an emergent situation, though, neither is likely to be immediately available.

So the goal is to have the least unqualified person there, and not a qualified person there?

 

[ponderingturtle]

Because crisis intervention and suicide prevention are not usually incorporated into the curricula of the Cordon Bleu academy. Nor are they incorporated into the training given to your normal E-4 mess sergeant. They're not even part of the standard EMT package (although some paramedics get it as part of their training).

They are, however, part of the standard seminary curriculum.

As are the evils of homosexuality, but why should we concider one to be evidence based and having a positive effect and the other not evidence based?

Basicly why should we believe that they are getting training based on sound psychological principles in their religious instruction, and not training based on religious principles in their religious instruction?

 

[Garrette]

So the goal is to have the least unqualified person there, and not a qualified person there?

There is no rational way in which you could have reached this conclusion from the posts made here.