First of all, the thread is in GQ, not GD. Secondly, it’s impossible to be opposed to military chaplains for any reason other than anti-religious bigotry? A religious person can’t be opposed to a possible establishment of religion? That’ll come as quite the news flash to, say, The Reverend Barry Lynn. Finally, no one in the thread is even objecting to the overall existence of the chaplaincy as it pertains to any secular, non-religious functions it may perform. And no one is suggesting that military personnal shouldn’t be allowed to worship as they see fit. What I and others are suggesting is improper is the use of government money to pay people to conduct worship services. So fuck you and your dumbass bullshit that I’m a bigot because I don’t want to foot the bill for any part of anyone else’s prayer.
I don’t care what reasons you have for your opinions one way or the other. I also couldn’t give a flying fuck about what you want to pay for, because you’re going to pay for it and you’re going to fucking like it and there’s not a damn thing you can do about it except leave the country and quit paying taxes in the United States.
No logical and reasonable person would oppose the chaplain service, the only reasons for opposition to this service is religious bigotry. You can try and hide that however you want, but that’s how it is. It’s like saying someone could support the KKK without being a racist.
In other words, you’ve pre-emptively rejected all arguments and positions which disagree with you, and you completely unwilling to entertain the idea that there may very well be perfectly rational and non-bigoted reasons for such a stance. Hmmm. What’s that I smell? It’s vaguely bovine…
That’s fucking hilarious. You accuse me of bigotry and at the same time refuse to entertain any thought that contradicts your bullshit. Hmm, let’s see, what’s the word for someone whose mind is so thoroughly closed that he flat-out refuses to even consider contrary positions? Oh yeah! Bigot!
Repeating a lie doesn’t suddenly make it true; it simply shows up the liar as being completely intellectually corrupt.
What, I’m only now disgusting you? You’ve disgusted me for a while now. And um, excuse me? You lambaste me for not starting a GD thread (I don’t go to GD) when it’s obvious from Martin’s first sentence that he has no interest in debating anything?
Please don’t use words like “respectfully” when it’s painfully clear you have no idea what they mean. That you would compare someone who opposes governmental payment for religious services to the Klan not only shows that you’re a complete, total and probably irredeemable tool, but that you have no respect for anyone who dares to have a principled position in opposition to your own.
No, I don’t reject all positions which disagree with me, nor am I unwilling to entertain other ideas. On this particular issue however, there is nothing that could motivate opposition to the chaplain service aside from anti-religious bigotry*.
Opposition to the chaplain service is, in effect, advocation of denial of religious freedom for a certain class of persons. It’d be like saying denial of freedom of speech to blacks has serious, non-bigoted reasons, it does not.
To entertain this matter any further is to give the bigots in question legitimacy, as any argument on my part simply allows them to say that just by arguing with them I’m giving their positions a degree of acceptability.
*After thinking about it I will admit I’m partially incorrect here. There is one other explanation for such a stance, and that is abject ignornace or stupidity that renders one incapable of understanding or addressing issues in a normal manner. But when dealing with the abjectly idiotic we aren’t dealing with logic or reason in the first place.
Otto, I was wondering how long it’d take to see a tread with this title.
This is one of the dumbest things I’ve ever seen on the Dope.
Religious freedom does not mean that one has the freedom to charge the taxpayers for their religious leaders. If they were telling soldiers that they weren’t allowed to pray during their own free time then you might have a case. As it is, your hyperbolic statements simply kill any attempt at good faith debate. Good show!
Simply for the record, I think that the chaplain program is a psychological need for troops who are being asked to kill, and possibly die.
Hey, Hyde, how does it fit into your worldview that I’m an atheist, an absolutist when it comes to church/state separation, but I think the chaplain service is essential?
I have to add my support for this thread, of course there is a psychological need for people to have support and guidance who are being asked to kill and possibly die. There are professionals trained for that. People who get certified in mythology (aka theology) are no more qualified to help Soldiers or grieving people than a local bartender. The fact that they are entrenched in the system now is a problem that needs to be addressed. The government should replace the chaplaincy with qualified professionals, rather than spending tax dollars to allow religious leaders to continue to take advantage of people in who are vulnerable, including soldiers, grieving people, young children, the sick, the poor, the oppressed etc. by offering support for the price of their victims “souls”.
Martin, it seems only right to me that churches, mosques, synagogues and so forth should be the ones to provide and pay for chaplains to the armed services. Does that sound to you like I am an anti-religious bigot?
It is, in fact, crazy to oppose all military chaplain service. I can see where you are coming from but it isn’t practical, it never would be adopted, and it doesn’t make much sense to say that captive people (military) shouldn’t have access to religious counsel wherever they get deployed in the world. Many of them are stuck on military bases in remorte foreign lands for God’s sake. Chaplains provide religious guidance but they also counsel and perform essential functions that the general public expects and needs. That has to come from the U.S. government because of the circumstances surrounding the job and to say otherwise is idiotic.
Uh, Martin, where do you get off using words like “logical” and “reasonable?”
Look:
No logical person could endorse the chaplain system. Thus, the only way support for the chaplain system can exist is because of religious zealotry.
This is not my position. It is neither logical or reasonable. It was neither logical or reasonable in its original form.
What you’re doing is taking an absolutist position that based entirely on emotion, and then claiming that you’ve arrived at it in some logical way.
This is like saying “No cats are black, therefore any black household pet is a dog.”
As it happens, I don’t think that it’s a terrible idea, but I can see how someone can, through the exercise of their reason, conclude that goverment money spent tending to the morale of service members should be limited to recreation and non-religious counselling, and that arrangements for religious counselling should be made without the disbursement of public money.
You don’t need to be so binary about this – it’s not black and white, and there is room for reasonable people to be of either opinion.
How is that an essential service? People sometimes need professional psychological treatment, but why on earth should any publicly funded agency continue to support this activity?
If the chaplaincy is here to stay and so entrenched that it is, in fact, not going anywhere, it should at least be mandatory that all chaplains be trained and qualified to provide actual treatment, as well as “religious guidance” in ALL faiths. IF that was/is the case, then I have no problem with it. I will protest loudly if I found out that MY tax dollars were paying for Christians “witnessing” to non Christians under any circumstances.
Pragmatics; morale.
If you have a fighting force that is largely religious, then you need religious leaders to talk to them about religious questions, like what happens after death and the morality of killing.
I’m a diehard atheist, but I can certainly recognize that there is ‘actual treatment’ inherent in helping people deal with their mortality. Even if it’s via a method that I vew as inherently non-rational.
Of course, Air Force Academy style bullshit should not be allowed.
Otto, I think you are wrong. Providing Chaplains to Armed service men is a small price to pay for men and women who are comforted by this stuff {I don’t believe in} as they might die for their country at any moments and at very least might be very homesick for something familiar.
This is grade ‘A’ stupidity, Yours is the only view that counts and if someone doesn’t like it they should get out of the country? Comparing questioning the expense of training and paying the Chaplain core to bigotry? Hell, that is some damn good old fashion fiscal conservatism. Save a buck wherever we can.
I agree Chaplains should and will stay, but your argument is petty and stupid.
No really, it is.