Actually, that option is Atheist. Sorry about the misspelling.
With respect, your analogy is terrible. Providing soldiers with desert is in no way analogous to providing them with chaplains (unless you want to argue that chaplains are as devoid of spiritual value as dessert is of nutritional value, but that’s another debate). The Constitution is silent on the subject of dessert, so whether or not dessert makes soldiers happy is irrelevant to the discussion. What it comes down to is your claim that “making religious soldiers happy” is a legitimate secular purpose of chaplains. But if the purpose is to make people happy based on their religious beliefs, that’s the very definition of non-secular. Even if catering to religious beliefs is somehow a secular purpose, I can’t see how there’s a question that religious services advance religion. The distinction someone tried to draw between “advancing” and “maintaining” is also invalid.
You are truly a tool.
I NEVER ONCE stated a denial of religious rights to others. I merely am stating my right to not be forced to endorse or support the religion of others with my money. I may be anti-religious in world view, but I am completely in support of all people’s right to practice whatever religion they want to, and my right to ignore, challenge, and protest them.
Actually Marty, your statement referred to “this board”. Let’s look at it again.
Quite the broad brush, eh? Or do you now retract this statement?
I have a duty to my patients to provide competent medical care and accurate information, even when I hold the individual patient to be contemptible for their beliefs, statements, and actions.
I have no duty to provide information here. I’ve provided it for individual posters whom I have found to be ignorant, annoying, bigoted, and contemptible in the past. I did so more on the principle that I was serving the fight against ignorance for the greater fellowship of SDMB board members. While I still hold out such hope for the greater fellowship, I find that your words here make me want to re-think that principle.
I don’ have a problem with the chaplain system. I don’t see it as an establishment violation because it doesn’t endorse any particular view over any other, it’s non-coercive and there’s no prosyletizing. It’s just a way to provide a more full access to religious practice for those who want it. As long as chaplains are restricted from attempting to prosyletize or convert people from outside their own faiths. I see it as an attempt to facilitate the right of religious practice for people whose access to practice might otherwise be difficult. I see a distinct difference between the military forcing people to pray or endorsing a specific viewpoint and simply allowing people access to clergy if they want it.
Having said that, I don’t think that people who see it as an Establishment violation are anti=religious bigots and I think Martin Hyde is off his fucking rocker.
See what some of you have done? You have stepped to the left…or…something or Diogenes and he has to step in as a voice of reason. I hope you are all happy with yourselves now.
That was me, Otto m’lad.
When I read “advancing”, I think prosletyzing. When I see “maintaining”, I think status quo.
Maybe I don’t understand your terms, but now you understand mine. I think there is a distinct difference there.
Quite aside from the issue of military chaplains is the fact that Mr. Hyde conducts himself deplorably. To say, “if you disagree with me you are a bigot,” and then to follow any argument with, “I don’t want to dignify bigotry with a response,” is the epitome of fallacy and uncivility and can not be held on any level as appropriate in a forum dedicated to fighting ignorance.
So, let’s have a show of hands. I don’t want to hear you opinion of military chaplains, but of Mr. Hyde’s argument that “if you disagree with me you are a bigot” and follow-up arguments, “I won’t dignify your bigotry with a remark,” or “I refuse to acknowledge bigotry as a legitimate debating point.” If you think he’s a jerk, in violation not only of board rules but the very unspoken rules of human discourse, say “aye.”
“Aye!”
It would be easier to find people to say “nay”.
If people here seriously think that this is a legitimate debate strategy, used even passingly by educated adults, then I want my $15 back.
He is being a jerk throughout this thread.
I hope you saw this post Walter,
Martin has been a big jerk today.
Jim
I’m only taking issue with the posts I disagree with, Jim. 
Let me rephrase that. Unless you want a couple of hundred pages of people saying “aye”, you should ask for “nays”.
And to make my position even clearer,
aye.
When I mentioned a “policy of the government”, I was referring to the policy of having chaplains in the military. You’ve made it perfectly clear how you feel towards anyone that opposes that policy, especially the members of this board. I’m sorry if my meaning wasn’t clearer.
And, by the way, I’m in no way against having chaplains in the military. The problem I have is simply with the plentiful idiotic statements that you have made in this thread.
An important point we’re missing here, BTW, is that those who enter the US armed forces voluntarily forfeit several Constituational rights in doing so, the most significant (IMO) being the freedom of speech and the freedom of association. I can cite the Universal Code of Military Justice here–I have a GI summary of some of the important points–if so asked.
Aye!
er…okay. And as rayh notes the ayes most assuredly have it.
Aha. Sorry I misread you. Lesson learned: don’t post in between stirs while cooking.
That’s exactly why it’s a good analogy. It’s entirely arguable that dessert and religion are both devoid of value and possibly harmful. However, soldiers might well be happier if you gave them these things, which is why the government does so. It has nothing to do with advancing religion, any more than providing them with dessert does with advancing nutrition.
Nonsense. If it makes soldiers happy, then that is a legitimate secular purpose, which means it passes the first limb of the Lemon test. The means of fulfilling that purpose does not form part of the first limb.
Why? Assertions are not going to get you anywhere, particularly when they are an attempt to bury your head. Advancing means advancing. It doesn’t mean maintaining. You argue that any maintenance effectively is advancing, but you are conveniently ignoring the words “primary effect”. The primary effect of giving soldiers chaplains that they want is that you keep them happy.