There’s no reason they [bold]couldn’t[/bold]. But then again there is no reason they should be either. If a chaplain makes a group a better unit by increasing the overall morale, then it should just be factored into the cost of running that unit.
A non-religious example :
Let’s say ice cream is made available to a unit to increase morale. Now there may be lactose intolerant people in that group, who will not be able to enjoy the morale increasing tasty treat. Does that mean that the ice cream should be donated by Baskin Robbins? I say Nay, but if the commanding officer was a wise leader, then they would also requisition some cookies or another desert for those that don’t like (or can’t eat) ice cream.
I must add…
The story about giving the soldiers the option of work or worship doesn’t sit well with me. If the army decided that it is worth while for Christian soldiers to have “paid worship time” then the same amount of paid time should be available for soldiers of different religions, or for atheists to go for a walk, meditate, play video games, or do whatever gives them the same satisfaction that the Christians get from going to church. To do otherwise fosters resentment.
I’ve wrestled with it for years, but ultimately I decided it was unfair to blame religion for all the moronic things done in its name. The things it specifically endorses that are bad (stoning to death for adultery, slavery, etc.) are fair game in my book. But Young-Earth Creationism and Osama bin Laden’s terrorism are the fault of morons. That’s a category separate from religion. There are many religious morons, many non-religious morons, and many religious non-morons. (Seriously, the problems are dogmatism and fanaticism, which are also independent of religion. Religion at times encourages those things, but most religious people I’ve met are smart enough to realize that the actual words in scripture aren’t meant to be taken literally and should be applied to the world as it really is. If you love your fellow man because of your religion, I don’t really have a problem with that.)
One of the many problems with Christianity as I understand it are the fear tactics inherent in its belief system:
You will go to hell (whatever that is) if you do not accept Christ as your saviour. And this idea is bound up in some kind of idea that we are all sinful and must seek an ominpotent and omniscient being’s forgiveness for being sinful.
This does not make sense. Is ‘sin’ the same thing as making a mistake? Having a jealous thought? Bearing an emotional reaction that makes us feel ashamed of ourselves? Are sins everything from petty slips up through the most heinous and grievous of sins? I suppose they must be in Christian thinking. But why the necessity of having a saviour forgive them when you could equally as well talk over your ‘sins’ or weakness of character with a good, rational friend, get some perspective on how to straighten out your thinking, and try to do better. It seems the forgiveness of sins is a confusing way to modify one’s behavior. Are the ones that are forgiven in prayer wiped out as readily as the ones you talk over with your good friend or even counselor? And the ones that are forgiven in prayer–should those also be talked over with the good friend or counselor–or is prayer enough? But suppose prayer doesn’t feel like enough. That good friend might be the best route. Why then prayer? It seems that Christianity is a strange route–prayer, counseling, confession, sin, forgiveness, new starts, more sin–but no one really hears the voice of the Almighty. Even Billy Graham said he had never heard the voice of God, which made me admire him on that one account. Great admission there from Graham.
It’s not so much the problem that atheists have with religion, but that the non-theistic view of life seems to some a clearer, less complicated, and more natural way of living. It is a relief somehow not to have to worry about every single thought being one that could be offensive to a supernatural being–not having to worry about what needs to be prayed about and what can slide–and what should be confessed and what is minor. With the release of what has felt to be superstitious worry over something that felt more like shadow than substance, a person without theistic tendancies can make judgments based on what is directly experienced in life or on what is judged to be part of others’ direct experiences.
People who have spiritual experiences have a by far different experience than my own. I can’t question what they say they have experienced. But it has not been part of my moral, ethical and educational inner experience. Their experience sounds foreign.
So it’s not really a problem with people who are religious. I certainly have loved and admired religious people. But I cannot believe what they believe because my doubt of those kinds of spiritual experiences is so very strong.
"Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof;"
I can see that there could be some argument that a taxpayer funded chaplain might come close to treading upon the first amendment -
But there is a difference between making a law establishing that all military units must have a Catholic chaplain, and letting the individual military command structure determine if a chaplain is a good thing (for morale) on a case by case basis. Basically, I believe the decision should be left up to the military as to where and when to station chaplains of various denominations, not up to the legislature.
I’m not sure if there have been any laws passed on this subject, but if there are, they would make for an interesting test to the interpretation of the first part of the first amendment.
Color me ignorant, I wasn’t aware that they were being paid specifically for that reason:smack: !
Again, I haven’t been in the military and truth be told, I’m not all that familar with these military sorts of things; I suppose I just figured the Chaplain was an ordinary soldier who received a space (a church, so I guess I can’t plead total ignorance) in which to conduct service.
Now that I’m thinking about it more, while it would be nice to have my religion represented in the military(on their tab), but realistically it’s not fair to those who don’t share my religious beliefs.
I suppose though, if the denominations were to privately fund the chaplains (as you suggest), that would be a reasonable solution (IMO).
It’s time that the religious stopped being so touchy about these things… remember, most of us ungodly have the courtesy to tolerate the superstitious, while still abhorring the superstition…
Marley23: I suggest you meditate on the implications of the past tense in my post.
Priceguy:
Hmm. I’ll give you the existence of Terry Pratchett as evidence for a benevolent creator.
I could make an argument from catastorphe and we could go back and forth a few rounds, but such things tend to come out pretty even, as if there was neither a benevolent nor malevolent creator. (Hmmm…) Anyway, if you were told that someone loved you and would care for you, and learned that this person did not, I imagine you would feel hurt and betrayed.
If you want me to buy this, you’d better elaborate. I thought you were an atheist, by the way?
If my mother, for example, had spent my childhood indoctrinating me that there was a god and that he loved me, and I later found out she was lying, I might be pissed at her. The world would still be bright and beautiful, though.
Sentient Meat, I think you may have misinterpreted by non-identity.
¬B(G) != B(¬G)
means
“no belief in god is not the same as belief in no god”
It specifically is a refutation of your “must believe in no-god” argument. Atheism is the LHS of the equation. You’re trying to make the leap to the RHS without any logical progression to show why we should follow your leap.
Whilst I’m on the hijack trail: rugby. FWIW the legend in the UK is that one William Webb Ellis, a pupil of Rugby school, was crap at soccer, got pissed off whilst playing it one day and picked up the ball and ran with it instead. Instead of righteously beating the crap out of the little shit as he deserved, his fellow competitors decided to join in instead and a new game was born…
Furthermore, after he’d scored the goal with his hands, he asked the referee what he should do with the ball. The ref told him, and he did - which explains the ball’s unusual shape (or so the legend goes ;)).
I am. I still acknowledge that sometimes evidence of a benevolent creator crops up. It’s just that weighed against all the other evidence (including evidence implying a malovelent creator), things look like there is no creator.
Apparently I have a higher standard for brightness and beauty than you do. Lemme extend the Santa analogy. The kid that is told that he will get presents and eventually go to live with Santa in the North Pole will be more affected by the truth about Santa than a kid who just presents, and gets them regardless of Santa’s factuality.
The PAST TENSE. I USED to feel that way. I don’t anymore. I sounded like one of those dimwits and returned the perceived snottiness in kind. Well, I actually do return snottiness, but for different reasons.
I disagree that there is evidence of a benevolent creator if Occam’s Razor is taken into consideration.
I suppose. I did believe in Santa and finding out wasn’t a shock in any way, actually. This goes for a lot of other little childhood myths. Did anyone reading this freak out upon finding out there was no Father Christmas?
Still, I take issue with your assertion that many atheists are continually pissed off because their world is free of fairy-tales. This isn’t my experience at all.
Your parents told you that you would eventually go live with Santa?
LOL. Was that a freudian slip of some sort? Them sort of expressing thier fantasy of getting rid of you inside of a fantasy of you wanting to get away from them?
How do you explain writing a 20-some book series that has gotten continually better as it progressed?
That was a rather poor metaphor about an afterlife with the god of your choice.
Arg. I would rephrase that as some atheists are pissed off because something that they beleived in was a fairy tale. I would posit this for being a reason some atheists are pissed at religion in all its incarnations and not just the various harmful bits of it. Of course, YMMV. On the other hand, you don’t give the impression of being an atheist who has a problem with religion. (Neither am I, but I was. Hence my answer.)
The guy (Terry Pratchett for those who lost track) is a talented writer who has matured as a writer since he started writing, thus increasing the quality of his books. What’s so strange about that? How does it require a benevolent Creator?
I’d also like to note that whether Terry Pratchett is a good writer and whether the books get better are matters of opinion and thus not really in need of evidence. You might as well ask me for an explanation of why George W Bush is such a great president.
Care to elaborate or anything?