Workplace Chaplains

[Garrette]

Chaplains can not fight,

They can in extremis.

nor provide any other service in support of combat -

Whether it would be of service to you personally is irrelevant to the fact that spiritual support is highly valued by most in the military, particularly as those of a religious nature get closer to combat. That makes the presence of one chaplain a better force multiplier than an additional fighting soldier of equivalent rank, or even two or three.

a wasted resource in an army.

Not in those armies comprising a majority of religious soldiers. I am not a religious soldier, but I recognize that other soldiers are.

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

You are welcome to petition your legislators to have it changed.

I presume they are paid by taxes

Yes.

- should tax money be employing religious storytellers? I argue not.

I'd like to hear your alternative to allowing soldiers to exercise their freedom of religion, including the conduct of services. Please consider both peacetime and wartime and how you would handle placing non-military places of worship on military posts or, conversely, paying for the transportation of thousands of privates without transportation to the local place of worship each sabbath.

Alternatively, you may argue how you would constitutionally defend making no provisions for such freedom of worship.

Properly trained counsellors with no religious affiliations would be more qualified to perform the counselling role.

People with training sufficient to satisfy the objectors here need to spend their time in that training and reviewing the literature to remain current. They would therefore be of little or no use in combat. A waste of resources. Your logic.

 

[Darth Rotor]

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?

Career military. That's OK, I'll be sure to spout off like a moron regarding your profession. What do you do? At least then you can enjoy reading idiocy about something you know about.

DR

 

[Darth Rotor]

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.

ID, to get the meaning of "a few bad apples," do a small amount of DoD manpower research, and find out how many AF, Army, and Navy chaplains, in all services (Navy provides for Marines, as they do doctors and corpsmen) and see how many are in the force.

Then consider whether or not relying on less than a dozen articles in the paper may be coloring your perception on the depth of the problem of commands failing to follow policy guidance.

If you are passionate about this, perhaps you are completely wasting your time discussing this on an internet board. Hell, it's your taxes too, and you think there's some waste, fraud, and abuse in the manpower policies of the DoD.

Write to your Senator and your Congressman. Get like minded people to do likewise. You won't change a thing arguing with me, or anyone else.

DR

 

[Garrette]

I think the counseling you're describing is the kind of concern and help anyone in that situation should reasonably expect to get from an officer. Any officer. You yourself said that just about anyone there would provide that same level of counseling to anyone who needed it.

Why do we not forbid it, then, as it's likely to be incorrectly done?

 

[ImaginalDisc]

Why do we not forbid it, then, as it's likely to be incorrectly done?

That's a fair point. But, what you've described is the general sort of guidance and support one would expect to find amoung co-workers, especially co-workers in such a stressful situation. What I suggest fobidding is systematically having poorly-trained mystics presumse to give advice to emotionally vulnerable people. There's a differene between confiding in a friend and being told to speak to the chaplain.

 

[Garrette]

That's a fair point. But, what you've described is the general sort of guidance and support one would expect to find amoung co-workers, especially co-workers in such a stressful situation. What I suggest fobidding is systematically having poorly-trained mystics presumse to give advice to emotionally vulnerable people. There's a differene between confiding in a friend and being told to speak to the chaplain.

For the moment, I suggest we set aside the "poorly trained" bit, as I'll check on it later.

1. Even if your derogatory usage of "mystics" is correct (and it's not), that is not the role in which a chaplain acts when counseling, bad apples aside.

2. It's hardly systematic.

3. Counseling does not entail giving advice.

4. Speaking with the chaplain is always voluntary. Yes, it is possible for unintended command influence to creep in when a young private or timid specialist takes a recommendation as a veiled command, but the same objection applies to every voluntary activity.

5. If there is a difference between confiding in a friend and speaking to a chaplain who is not acting in a denominational manner, what is it? Aside from confidentiality, I mean.

 

[Darth Rotor]

That's a fair point. But, what you've described is the general sort of guidance and support one would expect to find amoung co-workers, especially co-workers in such a stressful situation. What I suggest fobidding is systematically having poorly-trained mystics presumse to give advice to emotionally vulnerable people. There's a differene between confiding in a friend and being told to speak to the chaplain.

ID, how much time did you spend in uniform? I ask this for clarification, as I have met a number of servicemen who had no use, at all, for chaplains. (There were days where I hoped the sky pilots would piss off, I confess.)

There are two things a chaplain can do, as a lawyer and a doctor can also do, that a commissioned officer or NCO can't do.

One is provide an ear that is not in the chain of command, and

Two, is provide a sounding board, and a kind ear and word, with the legally protected confidentiality on extremely personal matters.

When a soldier is troubled, sometimes he can talk to his chain of command, and sometimes he can't, or feels he (or she) can't. The Chaplain is required by regulation to be available to all sailors/soldiers, regardless of denomination, for such protected discussion, and for venting. He's a free port in the storm. Given the occasionally BS atmosphere that arises from time to time in military units, that haven is like gold for morale.

DR

 

[drkitten]

5. If there is a difference between confiding in a friend and speaking to a chaplain who is not acting in a denominational manner, what is it?

Ooooh, I know this one! The chaplain is more likely to have training in methods of counselling, and more likely to be able to act effectively on behalf of the soldier in question, because he's officially designated as one of the channels of action (command is more likely to listen to his "official" concerns than to the random grumblings of a soldier).

And then of course the whole confidentiality issue.

 

[ImaginalDisc]

Ooooh, I know this one! The chaplain is more likely to have training in methods of counselling, and more likely to be able to act effectively on behalf of the soldier in question, because he's officially designated as one of the channels of action (command is more likely to listen to his "official" concerns than to the random grumblings of a soldier).

And then of course the whole confidentiality issue.

The chaplain is also more likely to be an authority figure so arrogant as to presume to know the opinions of an invisible magical being.

 

[Garrette]

Ooooh, I know this one! The chaplain is more likely to have training in methods of counselling, and more likely to be able to act effectively on behalf of the soldier in question, because he's officially designated as one of the channels of action (command is more likely to listen to his "official" concerns than to the random grumblings of a soldier).

And then of course the whole confidentiality issue.

And I swear we didnt' practice...

 

[Garrette]

The chaplain is also more likely to be an authority figure so arrogant as to presume to know the opinions of an invisible magical being.

Evidence?

I presume you are unfamiliar with the prevalence of barracks lawyers, barracks psychologists, barracks doctors, barracks counselors, barracks geniuses?

 

[ImaginalDisc]

For the moment, I suggest we set aside the "poorly trained" bit, as I'll check on it later.

Considering that you're going out of your way to establish that they may be well trained, I agree to set it aside for the time being.

1. Even if your derogatory usage of "mystics" is correct (and it's not), that is not the role in which a chaplain acts when counseling, bad apples aside.

Religious authorities are mystics by definition.

2. It's hardly systematic.

3. Counseling does not entail giving advice.

4. Speaking with the chaplain is always voluntary. Yes, it is possible for unintended command influence to creep in when a young private or timid specialist takes a recommendation as a veiled command, but the same objection applies to every voluntary activity.

If points 2-4 are correct, then it would assuage half of my worries.

I've already responded to point 5.

 

[ImaginalDisc]

Evidence?

I presume you are unfamiliar with the prevalence of barracks lawyers, barracks psychologists, barracks doctors, barracks counselors, barracks geniuses?

Evidence? Religious authorities represent religious faiths. By definition religious authorities are arrogant enough to presume that they know something about magical creatures.

 

[Garrette]

Considering that you're going out of your way to establish that they may be well trained, I agree to set it aside for the time being.

Thanks. I appreciate it.

Religious authorities are mystics by definition.

No. The vast majority of rabbis would rightly reject that label, even if the word itself were not used. So would most priests.

If points 2-4 are correct, then it would assuage half of my worries.

Glad to hear it. They are. I've been saying it. The only one that concerns me is 3 (counseling does not entail giving advice). It is easy for even the most professional counselor to slip into advice-giving, but it is an objection against all counselors and not just chaplains. The ones most likely to give advice, in fact, are the ones least qualified to provide it, such as fellow privates.

I've already responded to point 5.

Not well, I thought.

 

[Garrette]

Evidence? Religious authorities represent religious faiths. By definition religious authorities are arrogant enough to presume that they know something about magical creatures.

Arrogance in and of itself has never bothered me. I know I'm arrogant. I daresay you're arrogant.

Given the choice between two otherwise equally qualified people for almost any position, I would nearly always choose an arrogant one over a humble one.

As to the magic creatures bit, and setting aside the hyperbole: (a) their beliefs are set aside for purposes of counseling (b) should we screen for belief in homeopathy or chiropracty or aromatherapy or astrology? Those beliefs are rampant in the military, and far more likely to be pushed on someone than is religious belief and far more likely, imo, to be indicative of shoddy thinking.

 

[ImaginalDisc]

No. The vast majority of rabbis would rightly reject that label, even if the word itself were not used. So would most priests.

Whether they reject the label or not is irrelevant. I'm sure the majority shamans, priests and rabbi's see nothing mystical about leading ceremonies for their "real." god.

However,

http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/mystic

Mystic. . .

6. a person who claims to attain, or believes in the possibility of attaining, insight into mysteries transcending ordinary human knowledge, as by direct communication with the divine or immediate intuition in a state of spiritual ecstasy.
7. a person initiated into religious mysteries.

A religious authority is a mystic by definition.

 

[drkitten]

A religious authority is a mystic by definition.

Perhaps, but not according to the definitions you just posted.

Rabbis, for example, would probably deny (#6) that their knowledge transcends direct human knowledge or that it's attained through direct communitcation with the divine (their knowledge is simple human knowledge, obtained via careful reading and close study).

They would also deny that anything about their knowledge is a mystery (#7), for the same reason.

 

[ImaginalDisc]

Arrogance in and of itself has never bothered me. I know I'm arrogant. I daresay you're arrogant.

Given the choice between two otherwise equally qualified people for almost any position, I would nearly always choose an arrogant one over a humble one.

Not that it has any bearing one way or the other on the issue of chaplains, why do you feel this way? I'm curious.

As to the magic creatures bit, and setting aside the hyperbole:

What hyperbole? Jesus, God, Brahma, Thor and Paul Bunyan are all just as real as leprechauns and unicorns. If you have evidence to the countrary, I'd like to see it.

. . .is precisely (a) their beliefs are set aside for purposes of counseling (b) should we screen for belief in homeopathy or chiropracty or aromatherapy or astrology?

Absolutely, especially if that person pushes their nonsense on others. If a person goes to a chaplain because they want to know what Mighty Chtulu thinks about something, or to chant a few Cthulu ftahgns by all means, they should be allowed to do so.

And IFF their beliefs are set aside for the purposes of counseling, that's great. Wait, it's not great, it's the bare minimum we should expect.

Those beliefs are rampant in the military, and far more likely to be pushed on someone than is religious belief and far more likely, imo, to be indicative of shoddy thinking.

I'm not seeing a distinction between the lack of critical thinking needed to become a homeopath and the lack of critical thinking needed to become a religious authority on mattters that are at least as ridiculous.

 

[ImaginalDisc]

Perhaps, but not according to the definitions you just posted.

Rabbis, for example, would probably deny (#6) that their knowledge transcends direct human knowledge or that it's attained through direct communitcation with the divine (their knowledge is simple human knowledge, obtained via careful reading and close study).

They would also deny that anything about their knowledge is a mystery (#7), for the same reason.

Are you joking? Burning bushes, tablets given to Moses by god, the OT is replete with direct communication by "g-d." A rabbi who said that defition #6 doesn't apply would have to explain how having "g-d" dictate ten commandments and making a covenent doesn't constitute "direct communitcation with the divine."

 

[Garrette]

Thanks to drkitten for responding to the definition of mystic. I agree with her post and was going to say exactly the same thing about rabbis.

Not that it has any bearing one way or the other on the issue of chaplains, why do you feel this way? I'm curious.

The arrogant are more likely to actually attempt something and less likely to balk when confronted with opposition.

What hyperbole? Jesus, God, Brahma, Thor and Paul Bunyan are all just as real as leprechauns and unicorns. If you have evidence to the countrary, I'd like to see it.

I'm an atheist, so I don't have evidence to present. I agree they are no more real, but their alleged characteristics are not equivalent to the alleged characteristics of unicorns.

The man I believe to be in the next room may not actually be there. That means my believe is mistaken, not that I believe in a unicorn.

Priests believe in a god, and regardless they won't define the belief to a degree of our liking, they do not believe in unicorns.

Absolutely, especially if that person pushes their nonsense on others.

The "if" is crucial. The same applies to chaplains. So far we have proof that there are bad apples among chaplains just as there are bad apples in all professions. We do not have proof that chaplains as a rule use counseling as a platform to proselytize.

We also have my (admittedly anecdotal) experience of a soldier-atheist who has not had that problem with chaplains.

If a person goes to a chaplain because they want to know what Mighty Chtulu thinks about something, or to chant a few Cthulu ftahgns by all means, they should be allowed to do so.

Absolutely. And possibly even referred to a psychologist as even military chaplains recognize that Cthulu is a fictional character.

And IFF their beliefs are set aside for the purposes of counseling, that's great. Wait, it's not great, it's the bare minimum we should expect.

A bare minimum that is met.

And, as I say when taking my physical fitness test:

"If the minimum wasn't good enough, it wouldn't be the minimum."

I'm not seeing a distinction between the lack of critical thinking needed to become a homeopath and the lack of critical thinking needed to become a religious authority on mattters that are at least as ridiculous.

Then you are of the opinion that anyone who deigns to counsel anyone else should be screened for all woo beliefs. Please provide the list of beliefs to be included and the manner in which everyone will be screened.