GOP hate speech continues ban on atheist chaplains in military

[ponderingturtle]

If atheists can be chaplains, why can't Christians be atheists?

They can. Even ministers

link

 

[mijopaalmc]

They can. Even ministers

link

This is getting old. You're essentially claiming that married men who have sex with other men are straight because the say they are. Yes, self-identification in a group is a fascinating sociological phenomenon, but, when one actually devises criteria for, e.g, employment qualifications, one is being prescriptive rather than descriptive, and the that's-how-they-self-identify argument simply does not suffice precisely because one is defining criteria by which applicant are distinguished as viable candidates for the position.

 

[JoeTheJuggler]

You're essentially claiming that married men who have sex with other men are straight because the say they are.

Nope. Nobody made that claim. Nobody is essentially saying anything like that.

Yes, self-identification in a group is a fascinating sociological phenomenon, but, when one actually devises criteria for, e.g, employment qualifications, one is being prescriptive rather than descriptive, and the that's-how-they-self-identify argument simply does not suffice precisely because one is defining criteria by which applicant are distinguished as viable candidates for the position.

When it comes to saying what your beliefs are, self-identification is the ONLY thing that matters. Are you essentially saying that someone other than an individual can identify that person's beliefs better than that individual?

It would simply be better if you admitted that you were unaware that there were Christian atheists.

[ETA: And I suggest you read up on the No True Scotsman fallacy. When presented with examples of Christian atheists, your response has been that fallacy.]

However, let's revisit your question:

If atheists can be chaplains, why can't Christians be atheists?

In fact, Christians can be what ever they want in the same sense we're discussing whether or not atheists can be chaplains. In other words, there is no legal prohibition against Christians being atheists.

If you're still trying to argue that atheist chaplains are a logical impossibility, I've already refuted that by providing two examples of actual atheist chaplains.

[ETA: And I'm not sure why you're limiting your challenge to Christians. I've also already provided more than one example of atheist rabbis.]

 

[Fudbucker]

They can. Even ministers

link

How does that link prove your point? Those are ministers who lost faith and became atheists. They are no longer Christians.

To be a Christian, by definition, you have to believe in the teachings of Christ. Since many of Christ's teachings are god-based, there can be no atheist Christians or Christian atheists.

I think Mijo's point was that just because people self-identify as something doesn't mean they're correct.

 

[mijopaalmc]

How does that link prove your point? Those are ministers who lost faith and became atheists. They are no longer Christians.

To be a Christian, by definition, you have to believe in the teachings of Christ. Since many of Christ's teachings are god-based, there can be no atheist Christians or Christian atheists.

I think Mijo's point was that just because people self-identify as something doesn't mean they're correct.

An atheist who claims to be eligible to be a Chaplain because he self-identifies as a Christian is like a Breton who denies the existence of the British Isles but nonetheless claims that his right to the throne of the United Kingdom supersedes that to Saxe-Coburg-Gotha, because Brittany is in fact Scotland and Anne of Brittany was in fact Mary Queen of Scots. The very assumption of said Breton precludes the intelligibility of his claim to the UK throne in the world as he perceives it, because his assertion that the British Isles does not exist defines the United Kingdom out of existence.

He can assert his claim all he wants but it neither makes him a "true Scotsman" nor the "true King of the United Kingdom".

 

[JoeTheJuggler]

An atheist who claims to be eligible to be a Chaplain because he self-identifies as a Christian is like...

But that's not the question we were answering. You asked why a Christian can't be an atheist. In fact, they can.

You said nothing about an atheist being eligible to be a chaplain because he identifies as a Christian.

And frankly, what does any of this have to do with the question of whether or not an atheist ought be prohibited from serving as a chaplain in the U.S. military?

 

[JoeTheJuggler]

To be a Christian, by definition, you have to believe in the teachings of Christ. Since many of Christ's teachings are god-based, there can be no atheist Christians or Christian atheists.

By that definition, there are no Christians. (If we take the New Testament as an accurate reporting of the teachings of Jesus, those teachings are at least on some points contradictory, so it's impossible for anyone to adhere to all of them.)

FWIW, we don't actually know what the teachings of Christ were, so belief in those unknown teachings can't be what defines who is and who is not a Christian. In fact, some of what we're talking about involves disagreements over what the teachings of Jesus were. Many Deists, for example, think Jesus was likely a teacher who probably never claimed to be divine.

I think Mijo's point was that just because people self-identify as something doesn't mean they're correct.

And of course when it comes to identifying what someone believes, Mijo is wrong. Self-identification is the only way to determine what someone believes. Surely there is no more valid way. You don't think what someone else says about your beliefs is more correct than your own reporting of your beliefs?

 

[JoeTheJuggler]

And getting back to the claim that the primary function of a military chaplain is to give theist based advice, let's assume for sake of argument that it is so. . . .

Consider a born-again evangelical Christian soldier and a Jewish chaplain (a rabbi). For the soldier, being a "theist" is all about his personal relationship with Jesus. Can a rabbi do any better a job at that than an atheist?

Singling out atheism as a point of creed that should exclude one from serving as a military chaplain based on this assumption (that the primary role is dispensing theist-based advice) requires the further assumption that all theism is interchangeable.

 

[mijopaalmc]

But that's not the question we were answering. You asked why a Christian can't be an atheist. In fact, they can.

You said nothing about an atheist being eligible to be a chaplain because he identifies as a Christian.

And frankly, what does any of this have to do with the question of whether or not an atheist ought be prohibited from serving as a chaplain in the U.S. military?

Words have commonly accepted meanings, and sometimes stringing words together creates phrases the meanings of the constituent words of which represent logically contradictory concepts. "Atheist Christian", "Christian Atheist", and "atheist Chaplain" are just three such phrases. Simply declaring oneself to be something doesn't mean that concept represented by the words used as a label actually form a coherent or intelligible concept.

 

[mijopaalmc]

And getting back to the claim that the primary function of a military chaplain is to give theist based advice, let's assume for sake of argument that it is so. . . .

Consider a born-again evangelical Christian soldier and a Jewish chaplain (a rabbi). For the soldier, being a "theist" is all about his personal relationship with Jesus. Can a rabbi do any better a job at that than an atheist?

Singling out atheism as a point of creed that should exclude one from serving as a military chaplain based on this assumption (that the primary role is dispensing theist-based advice) requires the further assumption that all theism is interchangeable.

Have you bothered to find out what the function of a military Chaplain is?

You seems obsessed with the fact that, because not every religion agrees on doctrine, believers in different religions are incapable of counseling one another based on the commonalities among all religions, which atheism itself lacks with respect to all religions.

 

[Fudbucker]

By that definition, there are no Christians. (If we take the New Testament as an accurate reporting of the teachings of Jesus, those teachings are at least on some points contradictory, so it's impossible for anyone to adhere to all of them.)

Or there's just a lot of cognitive dissonance among Christians.

FWIW, we don't actually know what the teachings of Christ were, so belief in those unknown teachings can't be what defines who is and who is not a Christian.

Yes, but Christians think they know (the Bible).

I suppose it's possible to be a Christian atheist, in the logical sense, but it's kind of silly- like me calling myself a Muslim atheist because there are two Koran passages I follow.

And of course when it comes to identifying what someone believes, Mijo is wrong. Self-identification is the only way to determine what someone believes. Surely there is no more valid way. You don't think what someone else says about your beliefs is more correct than your own reporting of your beliefs?

Depends on whether I lied about my beliefs or not. People constantly lie- to themselves, to others. If someone professes to believe X, but acts in a way that suggests they believe Y, I'm probably not going to believe their self-identification. We've all met people who claim to "have no problem with minorities" but make outrageously bigoted statements.

 

[JoeTheJuggler]

Have you bothered to find out what the function of a military Chaplain is?

Please read the thread.

Also you are the one (or one of a few people) claiming that there are functions of a chaplain that cannot be performed by an atheist.

What are those functions?

Sarge insists that the primary role of a chaplain is to provide theist-based counseling to soldiers. I reject that since it's an unsubstantiated claim. (And read the thread: Sarge has not been able to provide a quote of published policy or statute that substantiates that claim. Further, I've provided quotes to some published information and parts of the U.S. Code that seem to contradict Sarge's claim.)

You seems obsessed with the fact that, because not every religion agrees on doctrine, believers in different religions are incapable of counseling one another based on the commonalities among all religions, which atheism itself lacks with respect to all religions.

First, as I mentioned above, theism is not in fact common to all religions. Neither is any other point of creed (transubstantiationism, trinitarianism, etc.).

Second, my argument is NOT that believers in different religions are incapable of performing the role of the chaplain. In fact, my point is that no soldier is guaranteed a chaplain that shares ANY point of religious belief. Since this is so, the difference between theists and atheists ought not be a barrier to an atheist serving as a military chaplain.

Finally, I'm not obsessed with anything. I'm participating in a discussion on a topic that I find interesting. But my emotional state or motivations for participation are wholly irrelevant to the discussion. My arguments stand or fall on their own merits. Any further attempts on your part to personalize the discussion will result in a request for moderator attention.

 

[JoeTheJuggler]

Or there's just a lot of cognitive dissonance among Christians.

So if you accept cognitive dissonance, then why ask for a requirement that they believe all (of someone's idea of) Jesus' teachings? Why can't they claim to be a Christian and a non-Christian or anything else?

Yes, but Christians think they know (the Bible).

And so do atheists including Christian atheists.

I suppose it's possible to be a Christian atheist, in the logical sense, but it's kind of silly- like me calling myself a Muslim atheist because there are two Koran passages I follow.

Some refer to them as "Jesusists" for that reason. By the way, most Buddhists don't believe in the divinity of the Buddha. Mohhamendans--another name for Muslims--don't believe Mohammed is god. Marxists don't worship Marx. I see no reason to deny them this name, or anything else they want to call themselves.

Personally, I sometimes refer to myself as a Catholic atheist. The "Catholic" part is about familial identity and not at all about creed or practice.

And of course some Christians want to deny Mormons the label "Christian" even though they self identify as Christians (their church is even called The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints).

Depends on whether I lied about my beliefs or not. People constantly lie- to themselves, to others. If someone professes to believe X, but acts in a way that suggests they believe Y, I'm probably not going to believe their self-identification. We've all met people who claim to "have no problem with minorities" but make outrageously bigoted statements.

But Mijo isn't offering any such evidence that they don't believe exactly what they say they believe. He's suggesting that absent some sort of organization, this particular mixture of beliefs cannot exist. As I said, it's the No True Scotsman fallacy. He assumed that there were no Christian atheists. When presented with examples of Christian atheists, he basically claims that they aren't truly Christian atheists unless some additional step is added.

And yet again, in context, he was equivocating on the use of "can". When we're talking about whether or not there can be atheist chaplains, the question is really about whether or not we should prohibit atheists from serving as chaplains. (I've already completely debunked the notion that atheist chaplains are impossible by pointing to two existing examples.) In that sense, Christians can be atheists if they want. Congress certainly does not have the authority to prohibit people from believing whatever they want.

 

[mijopaalmc]

Atheists shouldn't be so eager to declare atheism to be like religion in the same way hair is like a hair and then complain about how they are not afforded barbers. If one wants a barber, one shouldn't define oneself as having no hair.

 

[mijopaalmc]

But Mijo isn't offering any such evidence that they don't believe exactly what they say they believe. He's suggesting that absent some sort of organization, this particular mixture of beliefs cannot exist. As I said, it's the No True Scotsman fallacy. He assumed that there were no Christian atheists. When presented with examples of Christian atheists, he basically claims that they aren't truly Christian atheists unless some additional step is added.

And you have chosen to declare Brittany to be Scotland and Anne of Brittany to Mary, Queen of Scots and then assert that the lateral descendents of Anne of Brittany are the rightful heirs to the UK throne. The only reason you see "atheists can't be Christians" as a No True Scotsman is because you have chosen to take the word of a Breton who denies the existence of the British Isles that he is in fact Scottish.

 

[JoeTheJuggler]

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.

Good thing I didn't do that then. I used the existence of two actual non-military atheist chaplains to prove that the idea of an atheist chaplain was not in fact logically contradictory or impossible.

I still contend that, as military chaplains must believe in God, atheists could not perform as military chaplains - as military chaplains are currently employed.

Where does it say they must hold any particular belief? You're reasoning based on a false--or at least unsubstantiated --assumption.

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.

Ditto. You're reasoning based on an unproven assumption--in fact, an assumption that I've done a pretty good job of proving wrong, unless you want to argue that the kind of Buddhist who has already been commissioned as a chaplain in the U.S. military is theist. I couldn't find that information.

 

[JoeTheJuggler]

The only reason you see "atheists can't be Christians" as a No True Scotsman is because you have chosen to take the word of a Breton who denies the existence of the British Isles that he is in fact Scottish.

You're confused. I never said that your assumption that atheists can't be Christians is a No True Scotsman fallacy. I said your response to examples of Christian atheists that proves your assumption is false is the No True Scotsman fallacy. You rejected the existence of Christian atheists as counting as Christian atheists because they don't belong to a Christian atheist denomination or organization.

 

[JoeTheJuggler]

Atheists shouldn't be so eager to declare atheism to be like religion in the same way hair is like a hair and then complain about how they are not afforded barbers. If one wants a barber, one shouldn't define oneself as having no hair.

I don't think anyone here is arguing that atheism is a religion. In fact, it refers either to a lack of belief in a god or gods or belief in the non-existence of a god or gods. Either way, it's a point of creed. As such, it is comparable to transubstantiationism, or trinitarianism.

Its antonym is theism. Theism is not a synonym for religion.

I think your problem here is that you equate theism and religion. There are in fact religions that are atheistic.

However, the proposal in question would allow chaplains ordained even by non-religious entities. I think the proposal makes good sense.

We recognize that there are soldiers who are atheist, humanist, agnostic, etc. as well as those who practice any number of very different religions. It doesn't make sense to provide a service that is only available to some soldiers, or soldiers who hold certain points of creed.

 

[theprestige]

It doesn't make sense to provide a service that is only available to some soldiers, or soldiers who hold certain points of creed.

And actually, based on my own experience in the armed froces, I'm not sure it's even really about providing chaplain services to soldiers. It would take a really confrontational atheist soldier, or a really incompetent chaplain, to make the difference in creeds a barrier to the kind of moral counseling a chaplain is usually called upon to provide.

I mean, sure, a Christian chaplain might be more able to answer a Christian soldier's more obscure questions of Christian doctrine... But doctrinal instruction isn't why most soldiers go to chaplains, is it?

I think this is more about atheists who wish to provide chaplain services to the armed forces not currently having equal access to serve in that role.

 

[JoeTheJuggler]

I think this is more about atheists who wish to provide chaplain services to the armed forces not currently having equal access to serve in that role.

Yep. I made that point earlier. Whether or not atheist soldiers are at a disadvantage wrt chaplain services, candidates for chaplain who are atheist are at a disadvantage.

Though since reading the proposal, I'd amend that to say candidates who are certified or ordained by non-religious entities are the ones suffering. I think current rules don't actually exclude atheists who meet all the other criteria (and I'm pretty sure they can and have).

OTOH, I think it's also true that the military could make more of an effort to treat atheist soldiers equally. But I understand proposal in question doesn't directly address this point. It could be achieved by making existing chaplain more aware of their concerns.