That's perfectly fair on points for and against. No matter how many seminaries train their leprechaun chasers to secular standards of ethical counseling, there is no indication that all the angel census takers who meet the qualifications to be chaplains have received the same training. If a particular chaplain has received such training, and does behave ethically, then their status as a shaman of the sky-chieftain isn't relevant, and I wouldn't object.
But you'd still be an asshat about it, wouldn't you?
However, there's no indication that either the requirements or the training to be a chaplain do what you indicate.
Other than having seen them in action, no. Why rely on how it works, rather than an impression based on ignorance?
However, considering the controversial and conspicuous Evangelical proselytizing that has made the news in regards to all branches of armed service, I choose the Army chaplains because they have a better reputation.
The increased Envangelism I have seen over the course of my career, more on that later.
Stories like these feature what can be conservatively characterized as hordes of ministers and priests
No, they can't, that's hyperbole, and the priests aren't doing it.
fairly chomping at the bit for the opportunity to win converts, and systemic Christian propagandizing in the Air Force, and a blurring of the lines between accommodating religion in the military and establishing it:
Regarding that last line, I tend to agree with you, as this is where Command has responsibilities to intercede.
http://www.nytimes.com/2005/07/12/n...8167c168391d9a&ei=5088&partner=rssnyt&emc=rss
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2005/05/12/AR2005051201740.html
http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=4772331
This last story features an unabashedly Evangelical bible liberally decorated with U.S. military symbols the use of which is officially sanctioned.
Surely there are grounds for concern about religious tolerance and ethical behavior in military chaplains, concerns which are perfectly mainstream. It’s not a matter of ID and ponderingturtle, those whacky anti-theists, getting a hair up where the sun don’t shine, it’s a matter of millions of people being genuinely concerned about a widely recognized problem.
The Bible itself is a non issue. The "problem" has been a long time in the making.
A Roman Catholic Marine has as much cause for concern as an atheist sailor.[/
Absolutely, the Marine sure does, which underscores the lie in your hordes of
priests.
One of the curious outcomes of the all volunteer force, the reduction in active military operations for just under 20 years (until Desert Storm), and the professionalization of the force in all services (particularly the Army) was the kind of people it attracted.
You need to understand something: the chaplain corps are not the root cause of the increasingly evangelical/religious character of the Armed Forces, a demographic shift I noted in roughly thirty years exposure to military persons of all ranks, in all four services, though I began and ended as a Navy man. (The Joint Jobs were the most interesting, and the most frustrating at the same time.)
Who does military service attract? Rather than "everyone who can't get a deferment," it attracts a variety of personality types, but when you go to "what sort of person is attracted to a career, rather than a hitch or two" in the military, I saw some interesting patterns emerge over time. People who were team, rather than self, focused, and people who believed that sacrificing for others for a greater good was a standard norm. (That's one of many observations I have made.) Add to that, at the same time, the infusion of women into the service, in roles and billets that had before the 80's been all male, and you had a social engineering experiment whose results
required a significant upgrade in moral behavior.
Add to the above the re-empowerment of the evangelical strain in American society in general, and the politicization of that via the Religious Right's resurgence from the 80's to the present, and you find that the bulk of the career members of the Armed Forces are religious. That means that their core values are based on Christian morals, to a greater or lesser extent, particularly those who are married. Comparing the internal military culture when I was a junior officer to when I retired, anecdotally, was a striking case of "before and after." If you check the demographic change from the days of the draft to the today's force, the married service member's numbers nearly tripled.
The force itself changed first.
The recent challenges by some Evangelicals, both in command positions and among the Chaplain corps, to the generally secular/non sectarian requirements of military rules have been, IMO, empowered by the Congressional shift from 1994 to 2004, and to a certain extent Pres Bush's open Protestantism.
You will note that the
Catholic Chaplains aren't the folks making waves, even though Catholics make up the single largest religious group in the military. (Check: they did about 5 years ago, when I was looking into this seriously. Back in the 80's, the Navy was over 40% Catholic, or at least that is what was on their dog tags.
)
The recent cases, particularly at the Air Force Academy, don't surprise me. The pressure to find and keep persons of high moral fiber in the professional force has had the outcome, perhaps unintended, of attracting a lot of practicing Christians to the force.
The liberal world spent 20+ years insisting that American soldiers and sailors, as well as cadets and midshipmen, behave like warrior monks. This is codified in the UCMJ, for example: technically, adultery (sex not with your spouse) is strictly against regulations. The last 10 years has seen some interesting developments on "Core Values" establishment in all services, as well as moral and ethical instruction in the officer and NCO corps.
So, now that they America has crafted a force of "warrior monks" (note: that's quite an overstatement, I promise you, given the testosterone count readily available in the force) it's made the same crowd, or perhaps a slightly different crowd, of critics uncomfortable. The Military always has critics, be they pacifists, feminists, isolationists, moralists, anti industrialists, anti globalists, or what ever. (Good article in Newsweek's Beliefwatch last month about atheists in foxholes, by the way, if you hadn't previously seen it.)
It makes me uncomfortable, and I think it wrong, that a Colonel or General would endorse sectarian evangelism in his unit. I think the cases will be adjudicated as I see it, with punitive action for improper command influence. Evangelism is not a proper role of command in a force that is made up of many denominations, as well as agnostics, non-believers, and atheists. For that matter, starting a ponzi scheme in a command is improper as well.
To recap: given the moral demands made on leadership by regulation, and on the force in general in terms of the expected standards, I am not surprised at the outcome, and the increasingly religious character of the force over the past generation. People are what make up the force. Some of them in leadership positions, see your articles and some others I've seen in the past three years, forget how critical it is to accomodate the whole team. It's hard, but that's the job requirement of a commander.
Blaming the Chaplains is arse backwards reasoning, ID, which I would expect from someone not familiar with the internal workings of the system. I share your concern on the cases you referred to. Undue command influence, or negligence, is creating in some units a climate that isn't all inclusive. Given how critical teamwork is to unit success in any service, that is a
bona fide Bad Thing(TM), and inconsistent with standards.
DR
