Hey, you’re not even in America.
You can be a Welsh unwashed, mentally-ill degenerate, though.
I retract my earlier statement. This is the stupidest thing I’ve ever read on this board. Truthfully, now, you popped a stiffy when you wrote that, didn’t you?
I don’t go so far as to endorse the comment that there is no logical reason to oppose chaplains.
But I also believe that there are some people who oppose chaplains simply because of anti-religious motives. It’s difficult to unmask such folks, because - no fools they - the shield of First Amendment purism is readily available.
I have no idea whether any particular person fits into this category. But the concept of averages practically demands that some such folks exist.
Dear god.
Its vocabulary includes words like “logic,” “reason,” “argument,” and “debate,” and yet…
For crying out loud, Martin. The position that you endorse (with regard to the propriety of the chaplain system) is easily supported in a debate with a logical, reasonable argument. Easily. In fact, the overwhelming majority of people no doubt either already agree with this position or could be quickly persuaded to through a reasoned debate.
Very few people would say that anti-religious bigots don’t exist. You’d be hard pressed to find someone who would argue against the idea that opposition to the chaplain system can stem from an anti-religious bias. We don’t have to look any further than this thread to find confirmation for this, although it is clearly an insignificant minority viewpoint.
“The current chaplain system is the best option?” Easily supportable and largely uncontroversial position.
“The only way opposition to the chaplain system can exist is because of anti-religious bigotry?” Manifestly untrue, completely unsupportable by the application of reason, and offensive. The very fact that you are capable of using the word “bigotry” in this way is so astonishingly ironic that it would be funny, if it weren’t so sad. Is there any way you could start from a more prejudiced posture?
What can you possibly hope to accomplish by taking this belligerent position?
You see what the result is, right? It does absolutely nothing to aid in the defense of the chaplain system (which is quite secure anyway,) but immediately places you in an adversarial position with reasonable people, the vast majority of whom (whether they are religious or non-religious) are starting from a position of supporting the chaplain system.
You may imagine that you’re defending the faith, but the net result of behaviour like this can only be to reinforce the misperception some people have that religious people are batshit-crazy zealots without the capacity for rational thought. That is, creating intolerance of religion.
If you have some psychological need to feel persecuted for your beliefs, then I guess you’re on the right track.
You and mrrealtime are cut from the same cloth. I doubt that either of you has the capacity to persuade or to be persuaded. That’s too bad, really.
I already am that. Can I be extreme leftism that are literally a cancer upon mainstream society too?
I have the qualifications, I think Martin Hyde is a complete tool.
You know Martin Hyde’s post #80 deserved extra pitting:
So I present: This is what Martin Hyde thinks of everyone
Enjoy
Jim
Socrates certainly wouldn’t have given much credence to a circular argument, that’s for sure.
You say that chaplains are unconstitutional. I point out that the test for whether they are unconstitutional involves a consideration of, amongst other things, whether there is a legitimate secular purpose. I provide an analogy showing how there is a legitimate secular purpose, and your response is to say it’s not legitimate because it’s unconstitutional.
High jump must be real easy for you Otto: you just grab those bootstraps and pull.
I had a whole post written up about how it’s ok that he has extreme views, but he should be more considerate of other opinions, etc. etc. etc. I deleted it without thinking about it 'cause I had to reboot my computer. I don’t feel like typing it again, so as an agnostic hardline supporter of the seperation of church and state who feels that the chaplain system as it currently exists is vital to the military, I leave you with this:
Martin Hyde, you are a fucking idiot. I hope you find a message board better suited to your tastes. You won’t be missed.
Uhhh, don’t let the door hit ya where your Lord split ya? Seriously, why are you hanging around such riffraff? You arrogant assface. (This insult pre-approved by Giraffe)
One is familiar ground to you, the other has never been nor ever will be.
Dude, before this thread, I thought of you as an ignorant, unthinking caveman who has given very little thought to any of the things he spout off about. A jerk. This thread has been quite a learning experience for me though. Now I think of you as babbling batshit insane.
Oh, fine, I suppose. After all, you are posting to this message board of iniquity.
Ya got yer persuaders and yer provokers. Ive played both all my life, and in this area Im a provoker because I see hordes of billions of religious provokers, but very few athiest provokers.
So you did. I must have overlooked your post; I basically repeated the gist of what you said. Sorry 'bout that. 
There is no witnessing happening in the military chaplains’ function as personal counselors. They’re required to provide a secular environment for the servicepeople of their assigned unit, regardless of the religion of the chaplain (who could be Greek Orthodox, Roman Catholic, Southern Baptist, Orthodox Jewish, Muslim, Buddhist, Baha’i, Wiccan…) and the religion of each individual servicemember. Counseling, help and support are not held for ransom in return for conversion, prayer, or any other religious means. The (Jewish) chaplain in my squadron did a lot of secular things for the mostly atheist or Protestant members of same squadron. I can think of one example off the top of my head where he helped one of my buddies (atheist) find a civilian job, a place to live, and a lawyer back home, several thousand miles away from his station, when he found out he was getting kicked out. He helped a lot of our other men out with getting extra phone time, psychiatric help, etc., without any religious aspect to any of it. All other chaplains are required to work the same way.
As for being able to conduct other religious services; my dad (also Jewish) was once in a Navy fleet at sea where the unit’s Catholic chaplain arranged (without being asked to do so by anyone else) to take every Jew in the fleet to the flagship by helicopter for a Hannukah service he singlehandedly performed as well as any rabbi. That’s not a unique story in the military AFAICT, although I didn’t serve long enough to have an experience like that; my base had chaplains of every stripe who provided all kinds of services, religious and secular, for anyone of any faith or non-faith who needed it.
I hope you can use this information to inform yourself and expand your mind. If not, I hope you find another way to get out of your provoker complex, or alternatively find a board that better suits your tastes.
I wasn’t really paying much attention to the peculiar arguments put forward by Mr. Hyde, or to this thread, but I feel compelled to thank him for calling me a degenerate, simply by being a member of this board. It’s good to know that hard work is still rewarded in this country.
Nice stand against bigotry there, bucko.
Also, you forgot about the fat chicks.
Depends. In general I was talking about the political SDMB, the SDMB isn’t purely a political forum and many of the threads I see you posting in and in which your advice is sought are not political in nature. My memory may be failing me but I remember perhaps a year or so ago being glad to see you responding in a medical question thread of mine.
I went to Basic Combat Training in 1979. One of the options for religious preference–as it had been for years–was Athiest. Another was Agnostic. Yet another was No Preference, while another was Unknown.
Also, at the time, those who declined to avail themselves of religious services were permitted to remain in the barracks and study or do basic housekeeping chores (washing their uniforms, etc.), all at their choice.
I guess I just had a far better Drill Sergeant than yours.
Oh, and my MOS in the Army? 75B.
As I am glad that you have the freedom to express yourself.
Sadly this thread has gone into the “strawman” territory. When your opponents begin to put words in your mouth it shows the weakness of their position.
I’m not advocating everyone I disagree with being forced out of the country. I happily share my country with many people whom I disagree with. I don’t advocate the forced disbanding of the KKK or the Worker’s World Party. I think both of those organizations are cancers on society. And I think society would be better off without them. However, the cost of removing them is too high, because if one cannot respect the civil liberties of one’s enemies then one doesn’ thave respect for civil liberties at all.
And I also don’t believe anyone who disagrees with any government policy (where in the god did that come from, Club 33? that has nothing to do with this thread) is the dregs of society. In general. I do believe that anti-religious bigots who try to deny religious rights to others are the dregs of society, though.