• Quick note - the problem with Youtube videos not embedding on the forum appears to have been fixed, thanks to ZiprHead. If you do still see problems let me know.

Workplace Chaplains

Garrette said:
I hate eating both crow and my hat, but I may have to do so here.
Click to expand...

Oh, don't bother. I'm not disagreeing with you. That actually strengthens your point -- the reason that officers come in at higher rank is because they have superior training and experience that they didn't get from the Army, and the army wants to make use of that traning/experience by putting them in positions of responsibility. This is true regardless of whether the training is as a lawyer, a dentist, or whatever....

If a brand new 2LT wants to become a chaplain, I think the army has a Chaplain Candidate Program or something like that. Basically, the army will pay for him to get the necessary training at a normal civillian school, the same way that that the army will buy a medical degree for a new 2LT. By the time our lieutenant graduates and completes the necessary training, he will have spent enough "time in rank" that it doesn't look inappropriate for him to be wearing captain's bars.

But look at the 'training" and "experience" he's been getting. A lot of seminary training, including the standard "pastoral studies," but not a lot of saluting and shoe-polishing.
 
ImaginalDisc said:
If you find the comparison between the professional leprechaun chasers and professional preists insulting, I think that indicates strong bias against evidence based reasoning on your part.
Click to expand...
True to form.
I've repetedly cited Army regulations on chaplain requirements and training which support my position.
Click to expand...
The Washington Post, New York Times, and other major publications disagree with you.
Click to expand...
A priest tends to be a Catholic.
Lie? Excuse me? The Marine is being asked by preachers of one religion to give up his own religion in favor of theirs.
Click to expand...
Priest => Catholic, and Catholic Marine, means the priests aren't his problem, ID.
Actually, no the Catholics are not the largest segment of Chaplains. The NYT article I cited indicates that Evangelicals are.
Click to expand...
I said the largest single denomination in the force, so if you read what I had written, you'd not have responded thus. Thanks.
DR you're blaming "liberals" for the USCMJ's moral strictures about adultery? That's absurd. You're saying that the rise of prosyletization amoung chaplains is caused by certain social forces, and as much as I disagree on your assessment of those forces, may I remind you that why some chaplains are behaving unethically isn't relevant to the question of whether or not they should be allowed to do so.
Click to expand...
No, the UCMJ was already written thus, for years, and no, I don't blame the "liberals" for this warrior monk syndrome: it's a bit more complex than that. First the liberal social experiment, and then continued (over the course of a couple of decades) demand for increased moral standards, which were increasingly enforced (that's actually a good thing, in the long term) and then you have the influence of the Religious Right over the past 10-12 years, and the increasingly Christian nature of the people in the force.

By the way, ID, the Chaplains aren't allowed to do so, in case you hadn't noticed, which is why these cases end up being cases. Did you read my post, or just skim it?

I wrote:
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.
Click to expand...
Head out, ID, you are still making baseless assumptions, and in the process insulting some decent people: military chaplains, who are by and large good people who do good things for morale. You focus on the exceptions, and presume it is the rule.

Again, you argue from ignorance.

ETA: Oh, on the "lie" thing: I should have said error. My mistake.

DR
 
Last edited:
Darth Rotor said:
The military does all of that, and has chaplains too. Why do you choose to ignore this entire conversation and pretend that there are no counsellors (there are) and that soldiers and officers are not so trained, they are. Chaplains go into combat, most of the counsellors (civilians mostly, at bases) do NOT go into combat. The Chaplain's core task, that makes him a bit unique from other clergymen and other folks who do counselling for a living, is that he counsels men and women of war, when a war is going on, does the whole of his religious task of his profession in a combat zone or military unique environment. When there is no war, he does more mundane things in addition to his religious tasks, such as sponsoring charitable projects, non denominationally, for sailors and soldiers who are so minded to undertake.

DR
Click to expand...

We established that resources are limited so why are the resources being wasted on employing philosophers/storytellers who do not participate in combat when the resorces could be employed elsewhere? Especially when the primary role of these storytellers is one which others are more qualified to perform.

That was the question asked.
 
Last of the Fraggles said:
We established that resources are limited so why are the resources being wasted on employing philosophers/storytellers who do not participate in combat when the resorces could be employed elsewhere? Especially when the primary role of these storytellers is one which others are more qualified to perform.

That was the question asked.
Click to expand...
You're still not following.

The chaplains themselves are not resources wasted. Remove the counseling part that you object to and they still fill a role which is not only useful but mandated.

Adding a counseling role to a position already in place is a smart use of resources, not a wasteful one.

And no one has demonstrated that anyone else is more qualified to perform the counseling role, short of a psychologist.
 
Darth Rotor said:
A priest tends to be a Catholic.

Priest => Catholic, and Catholic Marine, means the priests aren't his problem, ID.
Click to expand...

Ahem:

priest /prist/ Pronunciation Key - Show Spelled Pronunciation[preest] Pronunciation Key - Show IPA Pronunciation
–noun 1. a person whose office it is to perform religious rites, and esp. to make sacrificial offerings.
2. (in Christian use) a. a person ordained to the sacerdotal or pastoral office; a member of the clergy; minister.
b. (in hierarchical churches) a member of the clergy of the order next below that of bishop, authorized to carry out the Christian ministry.
Click to expand...

No, the UCMJ was already written thus, for years, and no, I don't blame the "liberals" for this warrior monk syndrome: it's a bit more complex than that. First the liberal social experiment, and then continued (over the course of a couple of decades) demand for increased moral standards, which were increasingly enforced (that's actually a good thing, in the long term) and then you have the influence of the Religious Right over the past 10-12 years, and the increasingly Christian nature of the people in the force.
Click to expand...

You obviously aren't aware that formal regulations against "moral" deviations including adultury have been part of the UCMJ long before "the liberal social experiment." http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Uniform_Code_of_Military_Justice

By the way, ID, the Chaplains aren't allowed to do so, in case you hadn't noticed, which is why these cases end up being cases. Did you read my post, or just skim it?

Head out, ID, you are still making baseless assumptions, and in the process insulting some decent people: military chaplains, who are by and large good people who do good things for morale. You focus on the exceptions, and presume it is the rule.

Again, you argue from ignorance.

ETA: Oh, on the "lie" thing: I should have said error. My mistake.

DR
Click to expand...


DR, this quote:
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.
Click to expand...

. . .is from the article I cited. You're attributing words to me that I didn't say.
Click to expand...
 
You obviously aren't aware that formal regulations against "moral" deviations including adultury have been part of the UCMJ long before "the liberal social experiment." http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Uniform...litary_Justice
Click to expand...
ID, head out of arse. Why don't you read my post before you pop off like that? I am far more familiar with the UCMJ than you, thanks so much. In my first response to you about the UCMJ riposte that you made:
me said:
No, the UCMJ was already written thus, for years, and no, I don't blame the "liberals" for this warrior monk syndrome: it's a bit more complex than that.
Click to expand...
But you can't be bothered to read, can you?
DR, this quote:
Quote:
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.

. . .is from the article I cited. You're attributing words to me that I didn't say.
Click to expand...
No, ID, those are words I wrote, and that I posted in my reply to you. Don't you dare give some journalist credit for my words, mister.

How about you cut the sloppines, ID. If you won't correctly understand and track how our conversation is progressing, post by post, then we will have an extreme difficulty in communicating.

As it is, you are looking out of your belly button, thanks to your irrational and apparently emotional disdain for military chaplains. They are better men than you, and women. Based on the many I have met and worked with, as a class of people they are far more charitable and decent with people than you have chosen to be in this conversation.

Your pigeon hole tactic is both dishonest, incorrect, and insulting to decent people.

DR
 
Last of the Fraggles said:
We established that resources are limited so why are the resources being wasted on employing philosophers/storytellers who do not participate in combat when the resorces could be employed elsewhere? Especially when the primary role of these storytellers is one which others are more qualified to perform.

That was the question asked.
Click to expand...
Because you are a moron, and the people who configured the military are not. Did that get past the fingers in your ears?

DR
 
Garrette said:
You're still not following.

The chaplains themselves are not resources wasted. Remove the counseling part that you object to and they still fill a role which is not only useful but mandated.

Adding a counseling role to a position already in place is a smart use of resources, not a wasteful one.

And no one has demonstrated that anyone else is more qualified to perform the counseling role, short of a psychologist.
Click to expand...

Chaplains can not fight, nor provide any other service in support of combat - a wasted resource in an army.

Their 'religious duties' might be mandated but they are still a waste.

I presume they are paid by taxes - should tax money be employing religious storytellers? I argue not.

Properly trained counsellors with no religious affiliations would be more qualified to perform the counselling role.
 
Darth Rotor said:
Because you are a moron, and the people who configured the military are not. Did that get past the fingers in your ears?

DR
Click to expand...

Well there is a great argument. Personal attacks because someonehad the audacity to question the role of a religious storyteller in a fighting army.

Christian perhaps?
 
Darth Rotor said:
ID, head out of arse. Why don't you read my post before you pop off like that? I am far more familiar with the UCMJ than you, thanks so much. In my first response to you about the UCMJ riposte that you made:

But you can't be bothered to read, can you?

No, ID, those are words I wrote, and that I posted in my reply to you. Don't you dare give some journalist credit for my words, mister.

How about you cut the sloppines, ID. If you won't correctly understand and track how our conversation is progressing, post by post, then we will have an extreme difficulty in communicating.

As it is, you are looking out of your belly button, thanks to your irrational and apparently emotional disdain for military chaplains. They are better men than you, and women. Based on the many I have met and worked with, as a class of people they are far more charitable and decent with people than you have chosen to be in this conversation.

Your pigeon hole tactic is both dishonest, incorrect, and insulting to decent people.

DR
Click to expand...

If you're done impugning my character, we can continue.

As for misattributing your words to a journalist, I apologize. All I can say is that such eloquence is unlike you.
 
drkitten said:
That statement is simply false. They maintain morale, which is crucial in support of combat.
Click to expand...

No, they provide religious services to military personnel. Whether that constitutes a boost to morale given the controveries related to ethical issues raised by the media is subject to debate.
 
ImaginalDisc said:
No, they provide religious services to military personnel. Whether that constitutes a boost to morale given the controveries related to ethical issues raised by the media is subject to debate.
Click to expand...

But not a reasonable one. No reaonable person could hold that chaplains as a whole do not provide a boost to morale, the actions of a few bad apples notwithstanding.
 
drkitten said:
You have an amazingly forgiving definition of "read" if you maintain that you have read the articles.
Click to expand...

If you really feel that way you should perhaps argue logically why that it is so. Assertions and insults just don't cut it. Given that you won't do it, I'll take it that you can't.
 
ImaginalDisc said:
Given that you won't do it, I'll take it that you can't.
Click to expand...

Take it however you want. Facts have never had an influence on your opinions before, so I don't expect them to start now. However, -- for the benefit of others reading this thread -- the actual reason that I won't is because your reading and reasoning skills are poor enough that it's not worth my time.
 
drkitten said:
Take it however you want. Facts have never had an influence on your opinions before, so I don't expect them to start now. However, -- for the benefit of others reading this thread -- the actual reason that I won't is because your reading and reasoning skills are poor enough that it's not worth my time.
Click to expand...

For a person who considers talking with me a waste of her time, you do it quite often.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom