Theoretically, but they say there are no atheists in foxholes. 
I didn’t miss anything. The guy discussed in the OP is endorsed by the Humanist Society.
Which sort of goes back to my original point. Atheism isn’t simply a “lack of belief” if you can term an atheist organization as a “faith group.”
It sounds to me like what people in this thread are saying is that chaplains should basically serve as psychological counselors, and not as clergymen. Why not simply call them what they are, then, instead of redefining terms?
How does that meet the “ecclesiastical” or the “faith group” part of the requirement?
Are you saying to call them psychological counselors?
Seems to me a function of the fact that the purpose of chaplains in the army has evolved over time.
Originally, it was simply to meet the religious needs of servicemen for the rituals of their faith. Typically of the majority faith only, depending on the country.
Now, the expectation is that chaplains will do more than that - to act, in essence, as councellors who are “imbedded” within the army hierarchy but who are, in terms of the services they provide, confidential for the soldiers.
For this larger role, it doesn’t matter what faith they personally have; whereas for the original, narrower role, it would.
The Humanist Society apparently believes it’s a faith group. The military isn’t in the business of deciding which faiths qualify as religions, is it? And even if it was, that disqualifies the majority of Buddhist sects.
Vegetarians don’t eat meat (they don’t specifically and actively eat something called UnMeat) - and regardless whether they are a group or not, they have specific common requirements (which, incidentally, military services cater for)
Same thing with atheists (I’m not one myself, in case it matters) - in the specific context of military service, they have common needs that could be fulfilled by something analogous to a chaplain. They’re more or less a group in that context, but that doesn’t make atheism a religion.
True, and I agree that athiest chaplans are not a concern.
I take it that the point is as follows:
(1) Chaplains are (or rather were) intended to meet specifically religious needs, such as performing the rituals/sacraments of confession and eucharist for Catholics.
(2) Atheists do not have religious needs. They are not analogous to “meat eaters” versus “vegitarians”, who both eat stuff, but disagree as to what. Athiests have no religion, they are not simply a different kind of religion.
(3) Therefore, Athiests do not require chaplains, and athiest chaplains are pointless and/or a contradiction in terms.
The reason I disagree with those three points, is that I think the function of chaplains in the military has gone beyond simply meeting purely religious needs and includes meeting personal needs for comfort and guidance that soldiers require whether they are religious or not.
There was this chaplain who thought I’d be really interested in reading the “Jews for Jesus” literature he procured for me, regardless of how many times I told him I wasn’t. I told him if he wanted to do something for me he could get me kosher c-rations. And I reported the asshat to the IG.
I agree completely (and disagree with whoever is making those three points)
Bald men wear hats when the sun shines, and yet, every bald man I speak to denies the existence of the Bald Men Sun Hat Cabal.
Does it always have to be a conspiracy when people with something in common do (or want) something similar to one another, in a given circumstance?
If someone want to come up with a different name for those who serve atheists, I don’t have a strong feeling for that, one way or another.
However, the position of chaplain was created at a time when well over 95%, (perhaps 99.9%) of all those entering the military held religious beliefs. The definitions and regulations speak to the conditions that were in effect at the time when those offices were established and there is no reason why they could not be amended, now. The service that chaplains provide is not merely that of “psychological counselors,” but of ombudsmen in regard to military bureaucracy. In addition, as already noted, speaking with a chaplain does not carry the same burden of being recorded on one’s record as meeting with a therapist.
Regardless of whether an atheist is part of a “faith community,” that person deserves to have the same services available from a person who shares somewhat more of his or her world view.
The current rules that include references to “faith groups” and theological training could be amended to refer to separate conditions that would cover non-believers serving in the same capacity. Such persons would, ideally, have sufficient training and personal consideration to address the needs of believing service personnel, but we already have chaplains who violate that standard in favor of their own religious beliefs.
Turning this discussion into one more tired argument over whether atheists are or are not “believers” of some sort are neither necessary nor relevant.
What would a atheist chaplain say to one who is grieving over the death of a loved one.
“So sorry for your loss, is there anything you need”…
This ground has been covered so many times, it seems rather borish for you to try and dredge it up again.
Something similar to what a Catholic chaplain would say to a Hindu soldier in the same situation?
What would a religious chaplain say to that person?
What do religious chaplains say to atheist service personnel, now? Do you suppose that most of them are as clueless and unfeeling as the idiot to whom Ranger Jeff referred, earlier? Or do you approve of that behavior?
I have nothing against allowing atheists to be chaplains.
Having said that I feel certain things like faith and hope for a life beyond this may not be easy for them to teach. I was in the military and chaplains perform many different kinds of duties. They hold church on Sunday and since my ship was small all faiths were invited to come. Our chaplain counseled a friend of mine when he lost both his children in a tragic accident. I am not sure believers would go to them either. It would take a special person to do it.
I would not expect them to even attempt that.
Obviously, providing for everyone when resources are limited is a problem, but this solution sounds like it might have been insulting. When you say ‘other faiths’ are you talking about other Christian denominations (because I could see that working), or other faiths like Islam, Judaism, Hinduism? I wouldn’t imagine a “just come to church instead” invitation working very well at all.
It’s not like they had to go. And it could just as easily have been a Muslim cleric (okay, not just as easily, but easily) so I imagine they kept it mostly nonsectarian and in the general devotional area. Hindus don’t get offended when people say “God”; we say it too.
Bad idea. Eventually the chaplain will need to get into a foxhole.
