GOP hate speech continues ban on atheist chaplains in military

[mijopaalmc]

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.

No, Joe the oft-paraphrased quote is "[c]alling atheism a religion is like calling bald a hair color". It seems to be only when atheists want access to religious services that they claim that atheism is really the opposite of theism, not of religion. The point is that atheists portray their own beliefs as being the opposite of religion, so atheists then implying that they are being descriminated against when they are denied religious services directly contradicts how atheists address atheism's relationship to religion.

 

[jj]

No, Joe the oft-paraphrased quote is "[c]alling atheism a religion is like calling bald a hair color". It seems to be only when atheists want access to religious services that they claim that atheism is really the opposite of theism, not of religion. The point is that atheists portray their own beliefs as being the opposite of religion, so atheists then implying that they are being descriminated against when they are denied religious services directly contradicts how atheists address atheism's relationship to religion.

My goodness, the straw-men in that quote.

In any case, it is interesting to see how far afield you will go in your effort to discriminate against atheists in the military.

That, I dare say, says a lot.

 

[mijopaalmc]

My goodness, the straw-men in that quote.

In any case, it is interesting to see how far afield you will go in your effort to discriminate against atheists in the military.

That, I dare say, says a lot.

Being denied services that one has defined oneself out of being eligible for is not discrimination; it's being treated as one has asserted one should be treated. Atheists insist that their beliefs system is fundamentally different than religion, yet complain that they are not affored services that they have demonstrated can be logically extended to a belief system that is, by definition not religious.

For people who usually claim that they came to there unbelief through logic, atheists seem to be being remarkably illogical about this issue.

 

[JoeTheJuggler]

No, Joe the oft-paraphrased quote is "[c]alling atheism a religion is like calling bald a hair color".

I understand that. And that sentiment is correct. Atheism is not a religion.

It seems to be only when atheists want access to religious services that they claim that atheism is really the opposite of theism, not of religion. The point is that atheists portray their own beliefs as being the opposite of religion, so atheists then implying that they are being descriminated [sic] against when they are denied religious services directly contradicts how atheists address atheism's relationship to religion.

Yes, refusing to allow atheist to be military chaplains would be unfair discrimination against atheists.

It doesn't mean that atheism is a religion.

Again, atheism is a matter of creed (of belief or disbelief), as are things like transubstantiationism, consubstantiationism, trinitarianism, and so on.

None of these things are religions either, but if we said people who embraced any of these belief systems shouldn't be allowed to be military chaplains, it would also be discrimination.

 

[JoeTheJuggler]

Being denied services that one has defined oneself out of being eligible for is not discrimination;

Who says that anyone has defined themselves out of being eligible for services?
And if we're talking about the question as to whether or not atheist soldiers should be eligible to receive chaplain services, then your assumption is question begging.

Are you making the claim that only some members of the military are eligible to receive the services of military chaplains?

At any rate, that's not really the question here. The question is whether candidates to become military chaplains ought be denied based on their beliefs.

 

[jj]

Joe, as far as I can tell, nothing is going to stop the efforts of some of the religions to put our atheist service people at a disadvantage.

This is just like other Taliban-like enterprises, from the attacks on women's rights to the attempts to enforce state religions via things like the "10 commandments" (which 10 do they want, for starters, hello?). Those who wish to be in control are simply unwilling to abandon their efforts to enforce their particular god on all of us, and that's how it is. This is no different than what happened in Iran a while ago, or why the Moorish and Arabic empires, who were far, far ahead of Europe until religious bigotry took them down. (And, of course, the failure of the religious feudal system in Europe along with the black death that allowed Europe to recover from repression.)

 

[mijopaalmc]

Joe, as far as I can tell, nothing is going to stop the efforts of some of the religions to put our atheist service people at a disadvantage.

This is just like other Taliban-like enterprises, from the attacks on women's rights to the attempts to enforce state religions via things like the "10 commandments" (which 10 do they want, for starters, hello?). Those who wish to be in control are simply unwilling to abandon their efforts to enforce their particular god on all of us, and that's how it is. This is no different than what happened in Iran a while ago, or why the Moorish and Arabic empires, who were far, far ahead of Europe until religious bigotry took them down. (And, of course, the failure of the religious feudal system in Europe along with the black death that allowed Europe to recover from repression.)

That's some serious paranoia there. Why not fight to have existing laws about mental health confidentiality enforced and to destigmatize mental illness instead of trying to redefine atheism so that is covered under religious services?

 

[jj]

That's some serious paranoia there. Why not fight to have existing laws about mental health confidentiality enforced and to destigmatize mental illness instead of trying to redefine atheism so that is covered under religious services?

Why wait for that, when religious freedom requires atheist "chaplains".

 

[mijopaalmc]

Why wait for that, when religious freedom requires atheist "chaplains".

Atheism is not a religion, so your claim is nonsensical.

 

[JoeTheJuggler]

Atheism is not a religion, so your claim is nonsensical.

No.

Religious freedom means that you shouldn't discriminate based on points of belief. Again, if we made laws discriminating against transubstantiationists, wouldn't that be a violation of the free practice of religion even though transubstantiationism is not itself a religion?

If you define points of belief as not including what you don't believe in, then you're going to run into trouble with other mainstream tenets of religious faith. The example I've been using, transubstantiation, differs from consubstantiation by rejecting belief that the consecrated eucharist is still bread. There are other examples. Differing views on Mariology and Christology, for example, include doctrines of non-belief.

You seem to continue to miss the difference between a doctrine or belief and a religion.

 

[theprestige]

Questions I have at this point in the thread:

Q. Should soldiers who self-identify as atheists be allowed to consult with chaplains?

Q. Does current military policy or practice prohibit soldiers who self-identify as atheists from consulting with chaplains?

Q. Should soldiers who self-identify as atheists, and who meet all documented requirements (including ordination or similar accreditation by a recognized organization of their belief system), be allowed to enter the Chaplain Corps and provide chaplain services to any soldier that requests them (regardless of the soldier's own belief system)?

Q. Does current military policy or practice prohibit soldiers who self-identify as atheists from meeting the documented requirements, joining the Chaplain Corps, or providing chaplain services to soldiers?

 

[JoeTheJuggler]

I'm sure of some of these.

Questions I have at this point in the thread:

Q. Should soldiers who self-identify as atheists be allowed to consult with chaplains?

Yes.

Q. Does current military policy or practice prohibit soldiers who self-identify as atheists from consulting with chaplains?

No.

But there are de facto considerations of some widespread discrimination against non-believers. It's stuff that is currently already illegal. (Like letting participants in a Christian event get out of work duties and/or assigning punitive work duty to people who don't participate in such an event.)

Q. Should soldiers who self-identify as atheists, and who meet all documented requirements (including ordination or similar accreditation by a recognized organization of their belief system), be allowed to enter the Chaplain Corps and provide chaplain services to any soldier that requests them (regardless of the soldier's own belief system)?

First, to clarify: as I understand it, candidates usually begin their application process while still in school and not as soldiers. Other than that, yes.

Q. Does current military policy or practice prohibit soldiers who self-identify as atheists from meeting the documented requirements, joining the Chaplain Corps, or providing chaplain services to soldiers?

I think not, but Sarge disagrees. I see nothing in any of the requirements or forms specifying that either the candidate or the ordaining/certifying institution must be theist. Sarge says that in practice all of the currently recognized institutions are theists*. (I pointed to the Buddhist Churches of America who are of the Pure Land type of Buddhism--it's not clear that they are atheist, though theism is certainly not a central tenet.) I think that's only so far. I don't think there is anything that would prevent an atheist religion from being recognized as an ordaining entity.

*[ETA: Another point I don't think I made yet was that Sarge also assumes that a person ordained or certified by a theist organization couldn't possibly self identify as an atheist. Or maybe that doing so somehow would disqualify him under current laws.]

The proposed amendment, though, would put this doubt to rest and allow for the recognition of entities that don't even refer to themselves as religions, which I think is a good thing.

[ETA: On this point, the OP was a little bit misleading. The proposal being discussed really isn't about whether or not a candidate who satisfies all the qualification requirements for being a chaplain can be rejected just for identifying as an atheist. So we've ended up discussing two pretty different things in this thread.]

The main question I have that has gone unanswered is a challenge to the assertion that there are functions of a military chaplain that cannot be performed by an atheist chaplain. What is an example of one such function? The only answer I've seen is Sarge's assertion that the primary function of a U.S. military chaplain is the dispensing of theist-based advice. My objection to that response is twofold: first, who says an atheist can't do that (or at least do it as well as a rabbi might be able to give that advice to a born-again Christian seeking advice about his personal relationship with Jesus)? and second, what evidence is there that this is in fact the primary function of U.S. military chaplains? It seems to go against the charge to be available to all soldiers regardless of beliefs.

 

[jj]

While it is true my original objection to the individual's comments was directed to the hate speech against atheists, it's also true that there is hard, cold evidence of discrimination against atheists in parts of the military (aside from the chaplain issue, of course) which are made worse by the lack of atheist chaplains.

 

[JoeTheJuggler]

While it is true my original objection to the individual's comments was directed to the hate speech against atheists,

And I confess I never read what Rep. Mike Conaway said in opposition to the proposed amendment to the National Defense Authorization bill. I assume he argued against it as if defending a prohibition on atheists serving as chaplains.

 

[theprestige]

And I confess I never read what Rep. Mike Conaway said in opposition to the proposed amendment to the National Defense Authorization bill. I assume he argued against it as if defending a prohibition on atheists serving as chaplains.

Yeah, Conaway's opposition to the proposed amendment (which would allow "members of ethical cultural groups or humanists" join the Chaplain Corps) was pretty douchey.

I confess, I'm curious to see what a humanist organization that intended to ordain* military chaplains would look like. What axioms would it profess? What moral framework would it reason from those axioms? How would it propose to provide moral counseling to soldiers of disparate faiths?










*For lack of a better term.

 

[ponderingturtle]

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.

No they are still christians, they are ministers and can be chaplains. As long as they stay in the closet. Its like it used to be with gays, as long as they lied about who they were they could be good soldiers, but be honest and they need to leave.

Or are we defining things such that priests and ministers are not necessarily christian even if they are of a christian congregation?

 

[JoeTheJuggler]

I confess, I'm curious to see what a humanist organization that intended to ordain* military chaplains would look like.

Something like this, I expect: http://militaryatheists.org/chaplain/#apply

What axioms would it profess? What moral framework would it reason from those axioms?

I think it depends on which organization you're talking about. I think, for example, the UUs would be quite different than The American Humanist Association.

How would it propose to provide moral counseling to soldiers of disparate faiths?

I suspect it would look pretty much like other military chaplains do. I think it would try to help soldiers with whatever problems they bring to them using the specific training that is required of military chaplains. I expect a large part of this help is simply putting them in touch with organizations where they are stationed (churches, ethical societies, whatever).

The fact that no soldier (even a very religious one) is currently guaranteed to get a chaplain that shares any of his or her beliefs means that whatever they do in this situation is already an issue. [ETA: or perhaps it means it's a problem already resolved.]

I'm not so sure exactly how they do it, and I'm in agreement with Sarge that I'd prefer we do away with the whole military chaplaincy thing. But if we have it, I see no legitimate argument for excluding people who hold any particular belief (or disbelief).

ETA: Again, what does a rabbi do for a soldier who is having a crisis regarding his most importantly held belief of having a personal relationship with Jesus? I suspect the rabbi can be a non judging supportive sounding board, but beyond that can help get the soldier in touch with a cleric or other person that shares his beliefs. I'm pretty sure the justification for military chaplains is that without a chaplain serving in the military prevents a soldier from the free practice of his or her religion. (I think it's an outdated idea from the days when being in the military meant being at war, and being at war meant you had no other way to practice your religion--and when "religion" pretty much meant "Christianity".)

 

[ponderingturtle]

No, Joe the oft-paraphrased quote is "[c]alling atheism a religion is like calling bald a hair color". It seems to be only when atheists want access to religious services that they claim that atheism is really the opposite of theism, not of religion. The point is that atheists portray their own beliefs as being the opposite of religion, so atheists then implying that they are being descriminated against when they are denied religious services directly contradicts how atheists address atheism's relationship to religion.

So in other words if the pope was secretly an atheist it would be wrong to say the pope was catholic? Hell I have seen a catholic Monsignor define god as the mystery in the universe, that is at least deist and a very heretical view for a catholic. So was he christian or not?

This isn't trying to set up atheism as a religion, but to have non theistic organizations be the basis for some chaplains.

 

[ponderingturtle]

Being denied services that one has defined oneself out of being eligible for is not discrimination; it's being treated as one has asserted one should be treated.

Good reason to have kept gays out of the military.

 

[JoeTheJuggler]

Speaking of discrimination--something I didn't notice before now--according to the militaryatheists.org page I just cited, to become a military chaplain, you've got to be under age 40.

???

As a 51 year old about to enter Law School, I find this age requirement hard to understand.

If they want physical fitness qualifications, why not specify those rather than age (which is a poor indicator of the physical fitness of any individual)?

Is it that they maybe want their chaplains to be closer to the age of typical recruits? If so, why? Do they have similar age requirements for DIs or any commissioned officers that routinely interact with new recruits? What about for doctors, medics, counselors, and psychologists that deal with recruits?