GOP hate speech continues ban on atheist chaplains in military

[JoeTheJuggler]

Hunamists are not atheists and atheists are not humanists. Quit equivocating!

You're the one insisting that the only people who are ordained are theists. That is false, as a matter of fact.

But in fact, some humanists are atheists, and some atheists are humanists. So your statement is false.

Also some traditionally religiously ordained clerics are in fact atheists. (See my other example of an atheist chaplain.)

Atheism, by the claim of atheists themselves, is not a religion.

Transubstantionism is not a religion. Does it follow that it's OK to ban transubstantiationists from being military chaplains?

Belief in double predestination is not a religion. Does it follow that it's OK to ban anyone who believes in double predestination from serving as a military chaplain?

Belief that Jesus is divine is not itself a religion. Does it follow that it's OK to ban anyone who believes Jesus is divine from serving as a military chaplain?

Do you understand the flaw in your reasoning here? You're singling out atheists without providing any valid reason for that special treatment.

Atheist can neither be nor be served by a chaplain.

Says who?

Atheism refers to either lack of belief in a god or gods or belief in the non-existence of a god or gods. The fact that it is not itself a religion is neither here nor there. I've pointed to plenty of differences in beliefs among theists that no one would consider being a reason to prohibit their serving as a military chaplain.

 

[ponderingturtle]

Let's just ignore the ethnic hatred there.

Yes just ignore the religious angle, well except for the Muslims. Why else would it have been portrayed as Croats, vs Serbs vs Muslims?

To quote Sesame Street one of those things is not like the other...

And it was certainly treated by as a religious war by many of the good catholic boys coming in from neighboring countries to defend the faith.

 

[ponderingturtle]

Yeah, focus on your caricature of what happens instead of what really happens. Confidentiality laws are apparently not being followed strictly or even at all. The remedy for that is to enforce the laws as they are written not to write new ones that abuse language and directly contradict claims atheists make about themselves with respect to their beliefs.

Do you think anyone will take the atheist chaplains any more seriously with respect to cofidentiality than the already take the phsychological and psychiatric staff?

Look the military hates those who have mental problems, that is why they do so much to drill out the weaklings who have PTSD and such because they are now bad soldiers.

 

[mijopaalmc]

Your statement is false. More than one or two atheists are humanists, and vice versa.

Perhaps you did not mean that these were mutually exclusive like you seem to have claimed?

It seems that I claim that no humanists are atheists and no atheists are humansits, because you are invested in not understanding what I say. The statement "All atheists are not humanists; all humansits are not atheists" is true, regardless of how you choose to twist it.

 

[elbe]

It seems that I claim that no humanists are atheists and no atheists are humansits, because you are invested in not understanding what I say. The statement "All atheists are not humanists; all humansits are not atheists" is true, regardless of how you choose to twist it.

While I understood what you meant you probably should have included the "all" in your original point; probably reword it as "not all".

"All atheists are not humanists; all humansits are not atheists" is false (all X are not Y), "not all atheists are humanists; not all humanists are atheists" would be true (not all X are Y).

While I don't think it's too hard to guess your meaning, they aren't wrong in pointing out that your statement is false.

 

[Travis]

Look the military hates those who have mental problems, that is why they do so much to drill out the weaklings who have PTSD and such because they are now bad soldiers.

Indeed the army wouldn't even let me enlist because I had been treated for depression once.

 

[sarge]

It seems that I claim that no humanists are atheists and no atheists are humansits, because you are invested in not understanding what I say. The statement "All atheists are not humanists; all humansits are not atheists" is true, regardless of how you choose to twist it.

While it may be pedantry to point it out, it is correct to say that your statement is false. It is also correct to say that, given the context of your other posts on the subject, it should have been easy enough to discern what you were saying from what you wrote.

"Not all atheists are humanists" seemed to be what you meant.

 

[AlBell]

I suppose it's much more comforting to the family of a dead solider to be told "oh, he still exists, he's burning in hell for all eternity because he didn't go to the right denomination's services".

You have any actual, you know, evidence, that any Service Chaplin ever made that statement to the bereaved? <SNIP>

Edited by Locknar: 

SNIPed, breach of rule 0/rule 12.

 

[JoeTheJuggler]

You have any actual, you know, evidence, that any Service Chaplin ever made that statement to the bereaved? <SNIP>.

Edited by Locknar: 

Moderated content removed.

Or more to the point, is there any evidence that an atheist chaplain would say anything equally offensive to the bereaved?

Again, if there is any problem caused by the fact that a chaplain's beliefs differ from those of the people he or she serves, that problem already exists and does not justify banning atheists from serving as chaplains.

 

[JoeTheJuggler]

While I understood what you meant you probably should have included the "all" in your original point; probably reword it as "not all".

"All atheists are not humanists; all humansits are not atheists" is false (all X are not Y), "not all atheists are humanists; not all humanists are atheists" would be true (not all X are Y).

While I don't think it's too hard to guess your meaning, they aren't wrong in pointing out that your statement is false.

And to the point of this thread, his statement was false in the way that matters.

I pointed to the human/atheist/agnostic chaplaincy at Harvard to counter the charges a couple of people have made that the the concept of an atheist chaplain is somehow internally inconsistent (not possible, not logical).

I have also pointed to a personal friend who is a Buddhist priest who is an atheist and works as a prison chaplain. So even if he could somehow show that an atheist chaplain at Harvard isn't possible (which he hasn't done), he still hasn't refuted my evidence that shows that atheist chaplains are logically possible. In order to refute the claim, "There are no black swans," I only have to show one example of a black swan.

 

[ponderingturtle]

You have any actual, you know, evidence, that any Service Chaplin ever made that statement to the bereaved? <SNIP>.

Edited by Locknar: 

Moderated content removed.

I'm sure good christians chaplains are working on getting exemptions so they don't have to do their duty for homosexuals.

 

[sarge]

And to the point of this thread, his statement was false in the way that matters.

I pointed to the human/atheist/agnostic chaplaincy at Harvard to counter the charges a couple of people have made that the the concept of an atheist chaplain is somehow internally inconsistent (not possible, not logical).

I have also pointed to a personal friend who is a Buddhist priest who is an atheist and works as a prison chaplain. So even if he could somehow show that an atheist chaplain at Harvard isn't possible (which he hasn't done), he still hasn't refuted my evidence that shows that atheist chaplains are logically possible. In order to refute the claim, "There are no black swans," I only have to show one example of a black swan.

It is likely that military chaplains are not similar enough to non-military chaplains to use non-military atheist chaplains as an evidence that military atheist chaplains could perform the same role that non-atheist military chaplains perform. I still contend that, as military chaplains must believe in God, atheists could not perform as military chaplains - as military chaplains are currently employed. Change the role of military chaplains so that a belief in god is no longer required and then there is no impediment to atheists being chaplains.

 

[sarge]

I'm sure good christians chaplains are working on getting exemptions so they don't have to do their duty for homosexuals.

They are, in fact.

Of course, that does not mean that a gay Soldier gets less religious support from an Army Chaplain than he would from his own church.

The whole discussion points to the very problem of having the government provide for religious services in the first place. While I am certain that an Atheist can not perform the full range of services than military chaplains currently perform, and I am certain that atheist Soldiers are not disadvantaged by the absence of atheist chaplains, I still hold the opinion that there should be no chaplains at all.

 

[JoeTheJuggler]

The whole discussion points to the very problem of having the government provide for religious services in the first place.

I agree with you there, but ending military chaplaincy isn't the topic here. And the constitutional problems with military chaplains certainly doesn't justify banning atheists from serving as chaplains.

While I am certain that an Atheist can not perform the full range of services than military chaplains currently perform,

Which ones? I disagree with you here, and have yet to see any evidence that there is something chaplains currently do that atheist chaplains couldn't do.

Again, there currently is no requirement that a chaplain share theological beliefs with all of the soldiers he or she serves*. Pointing out repeatedly that an atheist chaplain doesn't share beliefs with theists doesn't argue that the atheist chaplain could not perform the functions of a chaplain.

I would repeatedly answer this by pointing out that a transubstantiatist chaplain doesn't share beliefs on the eucharist with a non-transubstantiationist chaplain, yet this failure to share beliefs doesn't justify banning transubstantiationists from serving as military chaplains.

*[ETA: And just as not all soldiers are Christians or transubstantiationists, not all soldiers are theists. Surely you're not making the claim that a chaplain ought not be available to serve all soldiers, regardless of belief?]

and I am certain that atheist Soldiers are not disadvantaged by the absence of atheist chaplains,

Maybe--but that's not the topic. A qualified atheist who wants to serve as a military chaplain is certainly disadvantaged by the policy of prohibiting atheists from serving as military chaplains.

I still hold the opinion that there should be no chaplains at all.

Again, I agree with you, but that's not the topic, and even if our position on that topic is correct, it doesn't argue that banning atheists from serving is justified.

 

[sarge]

I agree with you there, but ending military chaplaincy isn't the topic here. And the constitutional problems with military chaplains certainly doesn't justify banning atheists from serving as chaplains.



Which ones? I disagree with you here, and have yet to see any evidence that there is something chaplains currently do that atheist chaplains couldn't do.

Again, there currently is no requirement that a chaplain share theological beliefs with all of the soldiers he or she serves*. Pointing out repeatedly that an atheist chaplain doesn't share beliefs with theists doesn't argue that the atheist chaplain could not perform the functions of a chaplain.

I would repeatedly answer this by pointing out that a transubstantiatist chaplain doesn't share beliefs on the eucharist with a non-transubstantiationist chaplain, yet this failure to share beliefs doesn't justify banning transubstantiationists from serving as military chaplains.

*[ETA: And just as not all soldiers are Christians or transubstantiationists, not all soldiers are theists. Surely you're not making the claim that a chaplain ought not be available to serve all soldiers, regardless of belief?]


Maybe--but that's not the topic. A qualified atheist who wants to serve as a military chaplain is certainly disadvantaged by the policy of prohibiting atheists from serving as military chaplains.



Again, I agree with you, but that's not the topic, and even if our position on that topic is correct, it doesn't argue that banning atheists from serving is justified.

That's the whole point. There are none, and can be none so long as the military requires a chaplain to be ordained in a faith-based religion with a belief in God. And make no mistake, that is an absolute requirement.

Change the very nature of the chaplaincy so that chaplains no longer have to provide theism-based religious advice, and there will then be no reason that atheists could not perform as chaplains.

You are equating "I believe in God, but in a different way than you do" with "I don't believe in God". From a perspective of someone charged with providing God-advice, these two statements are not similar.

An Atheist could certainly perform all but a handful of the roles that military chaplains currently perofrm. Unfortunately, that handful includes the primary roles for which chaplains exist.

 

[ponderingturtle]

They are, in fact.

Of course, that does not mean that a gay Soldier gets less religious support from an Army Chaplain than he would from his own church.

But what about non religious support that chaplains provide? Where can they go for marriage counseling with out the stigma attached to seeking mental health support?

The whole discussion points to the very problem of having the government provide for religious services in the first place. While I am certain that an Atheist can not perform the full range of services than military chaplains currently perform, and I am certain that atheist Soldiers are not disadvantaged by the absence of atheist chaplains, I still hold the opinion that there should be no chaplains at all.

Well in an ideal world I grant you there would be no chaplains and no stigma for seeking mental health support. Of course we wouldn't need a military in the first place so in an ideal world the point is moot anyway.

 

[BStrong]

I hate to say it, but I'm not sure that some of you guys are talking about the U.S. military.

Nobody is getting RIF'd or bounced because they sought counseling. PTSD itself is not grounds for discharge.

Being treated for depression isn't a disqualifier for enlistment, and if a potential recruit has special skills, a 5150 commitment would probably be waived.

See paragraph 2-27:

http://armypubs.army.mil/epubs/pdf/r40_501.pdf

 

[JoeTheJuggler]

That's the whole point. There are none, and can be none so long as the military requires a chaplain to be ordained in a faith-based religion with a belief in God. And make no mistake, that is an absolute requirement.

I'm not so sure. It wasn't a requirement in the list of requirements you provided. It's entirely possible for someone who is an atheist to satisfy all the requirements and perform all the functions you listed.

However, the point is a proposal that would specifically consider a person certified or ordained by a non-religious institution to be a military chaplain. While I admit few religious people are atheists, the term "religious" is not a synonym for "theist".

Change the very nature of the chaplaincy so that chaplains no longer have to provide theism-based religious advice,

That's more question begging. Who says the "very nature of chaplaincy" is to "provide theism-based religious advice"?

You are equating "I believe in God, but in a different way than you do" with "I don't believe in God".

I've done no such thing. Please cite where you think I have done so.


I've pointed out repeatedly that it doesn't make sense to ban atheists from being military chaplains based on the fact that they don't share the same beliefs as all the soldiers they would serve. The exact same thing is true of chaplains who are theists.

[ETA: In other words, I have equated differences in beliefs with differences in beliefs. You have been seriously glossing over the serious differences in beliefs among theists, treating them as if they all believe the same thing. My point is, if one-size can fit all, and no soldier is guaranteed a chaplain that shares any of his beliefs, then there's no reason to ban atheists from serving as chaplains.]

An Atheist could certainly perform all but a handful of the roles that military chaplains currently perofrm.

You've asserted that a few times. I repeat, what are those roles that a theist military chaplain could perform than atheist one couldn't?

You listed the duties earlier, and none of them are duties that only a theist chaplain could perform.

 

[sarge]

But what about non religious support that chaplains provide? Where can they go for marriage counseling with out the stigma attached to seeking mental health support?

To chaplains, of course. There is no issue with atheists going to a chaplain for help - it happens all the time. And unlike the reverse (a theist going to an atheist for religious support), there is no need that atheist Soldiers have that a theist chaplain can't fill.

Except for the discrimination involved in telling a non-theist that he can't be a chaplain in an organization where chaplains must be theists, there is no problem at all with excluding atheists from the chaplaincy.

Well in an ideal world I grant you there would be no chaplains and no stigma for seeking mental health support. Of course we wouldn't need a military in the first place so in an ideal world the point is moot anyway.

It does not require the ideal. It requires only exactly what currently exists. There is no reason to allow atheists chaplains. None at all.

 

[sarge]

I hate to say it, but I'm not sure that some of you guys are talking about the U.S. military.

Nobody is getting RIF'd or bounced because they sought counseling. PTSD itself is not grounds for discharge.

Being treated for depression isn't a disqualifier for enlistment, and if a potential recruit has special skills, a 5150 commitment would probably be waived.

See paragraph 2-27:

http://armypubs.army.mil/epubs/pdf/r40_501.pdf

It is often strage, having a discussion about the military. That society is so far removed from the general society in so many ways that it is occasionally impossible to have a meaningful discussion.

It's difficult to explain that sometimes, regulations mean everything and sometimes they mean nothing at all, for example. There is occasionally no common point of reference.