GOP hate speech continues ban on atheist chaplains in military

[jj]

A Chaplains job is primarily religious in nature - it is the defining aspect of their job. The notion of an Atheist joining the Chaplaincy really is ridiculous. An Atheist that is otherwise qualified could certainly become a counselor in one of the many other disciplines employed by the services.

No, it's primarily counseling. Denying unbelievers proper counseling is nothing more or less than system-enforced discrimination. This is a violation of basic law.

 

[sarge]

My point. And having a woo-counselor is going to work how well with a secular family?

It works perfectly. I'm afraid you have no idea what a notification team does, how the chaplain integrates into that team - or even what military chaplains actually do. A chaplain is primarily a religious official. Most of his work, the very reason he holds a commission, is to provide a range of religious services. That he also performs other functions is secondary.

If you would like to make an argument that secular families might be offended by the mere presence of a chaplain during a notification, then make that argument. I don't believe there is a single instance of a secular family having complained because a chaplain was present during a notification. Do you know otherwise?

the answer to this (seemingly non-existant) problem would be to omit a chaplain from that specific notification. The answer would not be to create atheist chaplains - that remains an exceedingly silly notion.

 

[JoeTheJuggler]

Much like the homosexual "marriage" debate, much would seem to depend on the definition of the word "chaplain". When I was in, the various chaplains ("Protestant" and Catholic only...You were out of luck if you were of some other faith or sect....) indeed functioned as psychological counselors, family counselors, and varieties of other things as well.

And yet, at least for the most part, their only credential was whatever it takes to be a cleric in their religion. They weren't necessarily schooled or trained as psychologists, family counselors, etc.

 

[sarge]

No, it's primarily counseling. Denying unbelievers proper counseling is nothing more or less than system-enforced discrimination. This is a violation of basic law.

You are mistaken. The primary role of a military chaplain is to provide a range of religous services. That chaplains do some counseling (actually, they do all the religious counseling and some other counseling) in no way denies the non-religous anything.

 

[JoeTheJuggler]

The answer would not be to create atheist chaplains - that remains an exceedingly silly notion.

The extent to which that notion is silly, I think, is the extent to which the chaplain program creates a church-state entanglement issue.

We're using tax dollars to pay them specifically for providing religious services.

And right along with that is the age-old establishment clause problem of favoring some religions over others (or none).

I agree that atheist chaplains isn't the best solution, but it certainly presents an existential challenge to the program. The only way you can bar atheists from serving as chaplains is to admit that the state is deciding what constitutes a valid religion.

(FWIW, I have a friend who is a Buddhist priest and is currently employed as a prison chaplain. She is an atheist, as are many Buddhists.)

 

[sarge]

And yet, at least for the most part, their only credential was whatever it takes to be a cleric in their religion. They weren't necessarily schooled or trained as psychologists, family counselors, etc.

While they must be ordained before they become military chaplains, they do receive a fair amount of training in lay counseling as well. Indeed, very little of their formal post-commissioning training has to do with their church duties. It is primarily focused on being a Soldier, attending to general spiritual needs (as opposed to denomination specific activities), morale and welfare training, and suicide prevention, grief counseling, couples counseling, etc.

And of course, the services do provide real psychologists, social workers, and the like. Each battlaion gets a chaplain, they act as a first line for social and psycholgical issues. They no more attempt to do more than they are trained to do than field medics - they provide a "field" response.

 

[JoeTheJuggler]

That chaplains do some counseling (actually, they do all the religious counseling and some other counseling) in no way denies the non-religous anything.

In practice, it most certainly does. It's certainly happened that soldiers are given time off to go to special religious events, and those who decline the religious events are not given that time off. (And I know of cases where they were given the option of participating in religious activities or doing punitive tasks.)

 

[sarge]

The extent to which that notion is silly, I think, is the extent to which the chaplain program creates a church-state entanglement issue.

So long as Chaplians are primarily religious officials, then the notion of atheist chaplains is silly. There is no belief system for an atheist chaplain to attend to, there is no sensibility offended by a religious chaplain attending to an atheists secular needs, and there are ample non-Chaplain counselors to fill the need for credentialed social work, psychology, etc.

We're using tax dollars to pay them specifically for providing religious services.

And right along with that is the age-old establishment clause problem of favoring some religions over others (or none).

I have never understood why the services have chaplains at all.

I agree that atheist chaplains isn't the best solution,

Atheist Chaplains isn't a solution, and there is no problem to begin with. No Soldier is disadvantaged by the presence of Chaplains that would be advantage by the presence of Ahteist Chaplains.

....but it certainly presents an existential challenge to the program. The only way you can bar atheists from serving as chaplains is to admit that the state is deciding what constitutes a valid religion.

I agree. Deciding what constitutes a valid religion is exactly what the state is doing when it commissions officers whose sole (initial) qualification is that they are ordained by a church that the state recognizes as "valid". I question the need for Chaplains, and I question the constitutionality of the Chaplaincy. So long as the primary function of Chaplains is to provide a range of overtly religious services, I don't believe that including Atheist Chaplains would change the equation.

(FWIW, I have a friend who is a Buddhist priest and is currently employed as a prison chaplain. She is an atheist, as are many Buddhists.)

An Atheist Chaplain could fulfil some of the roles performed by a military Chaplain - but not the primary role. Including Atheist Chaplains requires re-defining the Chaplaincy.

 

[JoeTheJuggler]

An Atheist Chaplain could fulfil some of the roles performed by a military Chaplain - but not the primary role.

Says who?

A Protestant Chaplain can't consecrate and administer the eucharist for a Catholic. What can that Protestant Chaplain do that an atheist Buddhist priest can't do?

 

[sarge]

In practice, it most certainly does. It's certainly happened that soldiers are given time off to go to special religious events, and those who decline the religious events are not given that time off. (And I know of cases where they were given the option of participating in religious activities or doing punitive tasks.)

No. That the non-religious Soldiers were discriminated against does not impact their access to adequate counseling. They were punished for not attending a religious service - they were not denied counseling.

Of course it is wrong for this to have happened - and I know that it used to occur. It was common practice during basic training. it disappeared sometime between when I was in basic and when I became a Drill Sergeant. And even when it did happen, it was discriminatory, but it did not change the equation between a secular Soldier and a Chaplain as far as counseling goes. The Chaplain would still have been as capable of counseling the Soldier on any subject as an Atheist Chaplain would have.

While I firmly believe that the military should either provide for all religous beliefs equally or none at all, and that there should be absolutely no sanction for non-believers, there is no need that non-religious Soldiers have that can not be adequately filled by the Chaplains Corps as it currently exists.

 

[sarge]

Says who?

A Protestant Chaplain can't consecrate and administer the eucharist for a Catholic. What can that Protestant Chaplain do that an atheist Buddhist priest can't do?

A protestant Chaplain can perform religious services for a Catholic Soldier, even though there are some activities that he can not perform. An Atheist Chaplain could not perform any religious services for any Soldier. The Chaplains Corps would have to be re-defined in order for Athesits to serve.

Here's what chaplains must do - all of them:

• Providing advice in matters pertaining to religion, morals and morale
  
• Overseeing a full program of religious ministries, including workshops, counseling sessions, religious education and special events
• Officiate at official ceremonies such as military functions, funerals and memorials
• Provide religious ministry to a variety of armed service personnel and civilians from the U.S., foreign nations and agencies

These are disqualifiers for Atheists.

Here's what Chaplains must be:

• A clergy person in your religious organization
  
• 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 for all military personnel, their family members and civilians who work for the Army
  
• Possessing a baccalaureate degree of not less than 120 semester hours
  
• Pursuing or possessing 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

Also disqualifying for Atheists.

 

[JoeTheJuggler]

So long as Chaplians are primarily religious officials, then the notion of atheist chaplains is silly. There is no belief system for an atheist chaplain to attend to,

So you're saying chaplains can only "attend to" religious needs of soldiers if they share the same belief system? Then the chaplaincy program already has a really serious problem. There are any number of serious theological dogmatic divides among theists. Heck, even in the limited range of Christianity, there are serious divides over transubstantiation v. consubstantiation.

there is no sensibility offended by a religious chaplain attending to an atheists secular needs,

First, you're equating "atheist" and "secular", though the terms aren't synonymous. You're assuming all atheist needs are secular.

And, as I mentioned, you're ignoring the glaring differences among beliefs of theists when you make these pronouncements as to what an atheist cleric can or cannot do. In other words, even if we limit what a chaplain does to theistic faith needs, there's no requirement that the chaplain share any of the same god beliefs as the soldiers, so why require the chaplain to believe in any god or gods?

I have never understood why the services have chaplains at all.

The only defense I've heard that makes any sense is that without a chaplain, soldiers who are stationed overseas or in combat would effectively be denied their First Amendment right to free practice of religion.

Of course that argument misses the fact that it would only justify chaplains in very limited circumstances (certainly not on U.S. soil, where access to churches and temples is easy and abundant). Also, if you believe that a chaplain of any faith can somehow supply these needs to soldiers of any faith, then there's no reason why a chaplain of no faith can't supply these needs to soldiers of any faith. In other words, if a chaplain is only a person who provides church schedules, bibles, korans, and such, then that position could be filled by anyone--not only a person with certain types of beliefs, or with credentials from a mainstream religion.

As you say, if the job is counseling or psychology, it's better to fill those jobs with people holding those credentials. (Many religions believe in faith healing. We certainly shouldn't hire "healers" to take over the job of medical personnel.)

 

[JoeTheJuggler]

A protestant Chaplain can perform religious services for a Catholic Soldier, even though there are some activities that he can not perform. An Atheist Chaplain could not perform any religious services for any Soldier.

Says who?

Again, if a rabbi can help a Christian through a spiritual crisis, can't an atheist Buddhist priest help a Jew through such a spiritual crisis?

I'm still not clear on what characteristic or credential you think it is that allows a chaplain to perform the duties listed and why an atheist couldn't perform them.

 

[tyr_13]

I know several atheists who know all of those things better than most of the Christians I know. That they don't believe them doesn't mean they don't know them and cannot provide them. The only thing I see that disqualifies atheists is that they must be clergy.

Having them have to be 'clergy' seems arbitrary.

 

[JoeTheJuggler]

Here's what chaplains must do - all of them:

• Providing advice in matters pertaining to religion, morals and morale
  
• Overseeing a full program of religious ministries, including workshops, counseling sessions, religious education and special events
• Officiate at official ceremonies such as military functions, funerals and memorials
• Provide religious ministry to a variety of armed service personnel and civilians from the U.S., foreign nations and agencies

These are disqualifiers for Atheists.

No, they're not.

Here's what Chaplains must be:

• A clergy person in your religious organization
  
• 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 for all military personnel, their family members and civilians who work for the Army
  
• Possessing a baccalaureate degree of not less than 120 semester hours
  
• Pursuing or possessing 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

Also disqualifying for Atheists.

No, they're not.

Nothing in the list of credentials requires being a theist.

I've already given you a good example: an atheist Buddhist priest. Such a person could satisfy every one of these requirements without believing in anyone's idea of a god and even while referring to himself as an atheist.

 

[JoeTheJuggler]

I know several atheists who know all of those things better than most of the Christians I know. That they don't believe them doesn't mean they don't know them and cannot provide them. The only thing I see that disqualifies atheists is that they must be clergy.

And I've provided one example that shows even that isn't necessarily a disqualification.

 

[Minoosh]

Again, if a rabbi can help a Christian through a spiritual crisis, can't an atheist Buddhist priest help a Jew through such a spiritual crisis?

Is it possible for an atheist to have a spiritual crisis? I realize that is not precisely what you were addressing.

Perhaps this organization could provide suitable clergy.

http://www.churchofreality.org/wisdom/welcome_home/

I am thinking maybe an atheist would have difficulty identifying with the problems of people seeking out chaplains.

 

[JoeTheJuggler]

Is it possible for an atheist to have a spiritual crisis?

Yes.

Why wouldn't it be? Is the only possible spiritual crisis a crisis about belief in a deity?

And back to the point I was making, does a chaplain have to share that belief to do whatever it is chaplains do? If so, isn't there already a big problem since god beliefs vary so dramatically even among theists?

_________

Maybe the fear is that an atheist chaplain would try to talk a theist soldier into rejecting theism. If that's the case, isn't there a similar fear that a Catholic chaplain might try to talk a Jewish soldier into conversion?

 

[mijopaalmc]

http://www.nydailynews.com/news/pol...food-republican-congressman-article-1.1365024

"worm food" he says. Hate speech, and a clear violation civil rights of the unreligious, as well as barely hidden incitement.

After witnessing some of the thing that self-identified atheists about their religious friends and family, I don't think it to far off the mark to question the ability of some atheists to be sensitive others' religious conviction.

After all, isn't "Why should I have to 'respect' religion?" a fairly common rejoinder to reports of religious people claiming that their religious beliefs havd been disrespected?

 

[sarge]

So you're saying chaplains can only "attend to" religious needs of soldiers if they share the same belief system? Then the chaplaincy program already has a really serious problem. There are any number of serious theological dogmatic divides among theists. Heck, even in the limited range of Christianity, there are serious divides over transubstantiation v. consubstantiation.


First, you're equating "atheist" and "secular", though the terms aren't synonymous. You're assuming all atheist needs are secular.

And, as I mentioned, you're ignoring the glaring differences among beliefs of theists when you make these pronouncements as to what an atheist cleric can or cannot do. In other words, even if we limit what a chaplain does to theistic faith needs, there's no requirement that the chaplain share any of the same god beliefs as the soldiers, so why require the chaplain to believe in any god or gods?



The only defense I've heard that makes any sense is that without a chaplain, soldiers who are stationed overseas or in combat would effectively be denied their First Amendment right to free practice of religion.

Of course that argument misses the fact that it would only justify chaplains in very limited circumstances (certainly not on U.S. soil, where access to churches and temples is easy and abundant). Also, if you believe that a chaplain of any faith can somehow supply these needs to soldiers of any faith, then there's no reason why a chaplain of no faith can't supply these needs to soldiers of any faith. In other words, if a chaplain is only a person who provides church schedules, bibles, korans, and such, then that position could be filled by anyone--not only a person with certain types of beliefs, or with credentials from a mainstream religion.

As you say, if the job is counseling or psychology, it's better to fill those jobs with people holding those credentials. (Many religions believe in faith healing. We certainly shouldn't hire "healers" to take over the job of medical personnel.)

Chaplains attend to the religious needs of Soldiers. Only those with a religious belief can do so adequately. The reverse is not true. A person with religious beliefs can adequately attend to the spiritual (atheists have no religious beliefs, as religious in this context stipulates theism).

An Atheist counselor can adequately attend to some spiritual needs of believers, so long as spiritual and religious are not synonyms. An atheist can not attend to the religious needs of Soldiers. As non-believer. Soldiers have no religious needs, and as non-believers spiritual needs are already adequately met, there is no problem excluding atheists from the chaplaincy.

You are incorrect also about how Chaplains treat with Soldiers not of their own faith. A Jewish Chaplain routinely counsels on matters of faith with non-Jewish Soldiers for example, and that is something that an atheist could not do. At least, not with any credibility. No matter how well educated an atheist might be about religion, a belief that there is no god is a disqualified.

There is no problem that needs fixing (except for the problem presented by the very existence of Chaplains to start with), and introducing atheists as Chaplians would actually create problems.