# Should the U.S. Military allow Humanist/Secularist/Atheist chaplains? **URL:** \ **Category:** Great Debates\ **Created:** [December 15, 2016, 7:32pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/should-the-u-s-military-allow-humanist-secularist-atheist-chaplains/774801 "2016-12-15T19:32:28Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 20\ **Page:** 11
**Author:** ![eschereal](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/eschereal/32/18939_2.png) [@eschereal](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/eschereal)\ **Post date:** [December 22, 2016, 8:37am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/should-the-u-s-military-allow-humanist-secularist-atheist-chaplains/774801/201 "2016-12-22T08:37:34Z")
> [@Snowboarder\_Bo](#): > > When you say that “the chaplain is qualified to be a counselor”, what qualifications are you talking about? > … > > Or do they fall under this heading: If so, how does that qualify them to help an atheist, since all their perspective and interpretations and suggestions will be filtered through their religious views? As far as I can tell, a sizable fraction of shrinks are religious, to varying degrees. Some of them are devout, yet many somehow manage to treat clients/patients of all stripes, by employing a technique called “compartmentalization”: they address individuals’ issues in the context best fit to that individual and save their devotion for church and stuff. Religion is the oil of the war machine. It is a very effective motivator, given how very good it is with ussing us agin thems. Hence, chaplains provide a valuable service in keeping it running properly. For the atheists in the lines, the chaplain may be a handy sounding board or whatever, but they are not in particular need of his specific service. He cannot inspire or console them with god stuff, but it is kind of hard to see how having him there would be problematic for them. I mean, the lion’s share of atheists do not really give a flying fuck about the fact that the guy next them might be chewing on a rosary or praying to jesus or whatever, so it should be no big deal. ---
**Author:** ![even\_sven](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/e/dfb087/32.png) [@even\_sven](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/even_sven)\ **Post date:** [December 22, 2016, 11:28am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/should-the-u-s-military-allow-humanist-secularist-atheist-chaplains/774801/202 "2016-12-22T11:28:51Z")
> [@CarnalK](#): > > I see nothing right in having someone who thinks religion is bullshit conducting religious services. Not all Atheists see religion as bullshit. There are entire religious branches that are full of Atheists. Heck, there are entire religions that are primarily Atheist. Not believing in a particular concept of God does not mean you aren’t religious or don’t have spiritual beliefs. ---
**Author:** ![Bricker](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/977dab/32.png) [@Bricker](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Bricker)\ **Post date:** [December 22, 2016, 1:51pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/should-the-u-s-military-allow-humanist-secularist-atheist-chaplains/774801/203 "2016-12-22T13:51:03Z")
> [@Snowboarder\_Bo](#): > > Well, it wasn’t correct to say what they said in Marsh v Chambers, IMO. OK. So if the question is what your opinion is, we have that covered. If the question is what the current prevailing case law principles are and how they may apply to the question, we also have that covered. Interestingly, they seem to diverge. And that’s what makes America great. ---
**Author:** ![Bricker](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/977dab/32.png) [@Bricker](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Bricker)\ **Post date:** [December 22, 2016, 2:01pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/should-the-u-s-military-allow-humanist-secularist-atheist-chaplains/774801/204 "2016-12-22T14:01:43Z")
> [@Trinopus](#): > > Exactly so! The First Amendment shouldn’t be dismissed, solely because of “tradition.” > > It’s not at all surprising that a court would rule that way, of course. Justice Scalia specialized in flouting the constitution in favor of own personal moral values. It’s difficult to ascertain just how much influence Scalia might have had on the decision. The majority opinion was written by Chief Justice Burger, and joined by White, Blackmun, Powell, Rehnquist, and O’Connor. There were three dissenters: Stevens, and a separate dissent by Brennan, joined by Marshall. It’s possible Scalia didn’t contribute because he wasn’t a Supreme Court justice at the time. Scalia was confirmed September 17, 1986, and _Marsh v. Chambers_ was decided July 5, 1983, and so we see that it was probably Scalia’s mastery of both law and total proton tachyonic reversal that allowed him to sway the Court in this matter three and a half years ahead of his appointment. Man, that guy was good. ---
**Author:** ![Snowboarder\_Bo](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/snowboarder_bo/32/229_2.png) [@Snowboarder\_Bo](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Snowboarder_Bo)\ **Post date:** [December 22, 2016, 2:43pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/should-the-u-s-military-allow-humanist-secularist-atheist-chaplains/774801/205 "2016-12-22T14:43:53Z")
> [@Bricker](#): > > OK. > > So if the question is what your opinion is, we have that covered. > > If the question is what the current prevailing case law principles are and how they may apply to the question, we also have that covered. > > Interestingly, they seem to diverge. > > And that’s what makes America great. You said “Is there some reason it is not also correct…”; I responded that it was not correct in the first place. You posed the question; I answered it. Clearly you felt there was a possibility that it was not correct. Correct is not the same as legal. If you wanted to discuss the legality and not the correctness, you should have said so. But the _a priori_ assumption that the decision was correct is something I reject. ---
**Author:** ![slash2k](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/439d5e/32.png) [@slash2k](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/slash2k)\ **Post date:** [December 22, 2016, 4:09pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/should-the-u-s-military-allow-humanist-secularist-atheist-chaplains/774801/206 "2016-12-22T16:09:19Z")
As near as I can tell (and feel free to correct me if I’m wrong), in the military the chaplains are the MAIN providers of routine counseling services for issues such as marital strife or stress. If you’ve got major depression or PTSD, the mental health professionals want and need to be involved, but if your primary need is for somebody to talk to about your spouse or job issues or troubles with your kids, then you are referred first to the chaplain’s office, and the chaplains are the ones expected and tasked with running the various programs (such as the marriage retreats above-cited) for sorting out these kinds of problems. Can somebody with current knowledge of the military lifestyle confirm or refute this? ---
**Author:** ![Calico\_Jack](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/calico_jack/32/7320_2.png) [@Calico\_Jack](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Calico_Jack)\ **Post date:** [December 22, 2016, 5:35pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/should-the-u-s-military-allow-humanist-secularist-atheist-chaplains/774801/207 "2016-12-22T17:35:18Z")
> [@Slash1972](#): > > How can you have an atheist chaplain? Not sure, guess because even if atheism isn’t a ‘religion’, it still doesn’t stop people from treating it as one. ---
**Author:** ![Trinopus](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/t/2bfe46/32.png) [@Trinopus](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Trinopus)\ **Post date:** [December 22, 2016, 8:56pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/should-the-u-s-military-allow-humanist-secularist-atheist-chaplains/774801/208 "2016-12-22T20:56:07Z")
> [@Bricker](#): > > It’s difficult to ascertain just how much influence Scalia might have had on the decision. . . . As is not unusual for you, you conflate two separate things I said and try to pretend I said them as linked. This is not fair-minded or honest debate practice, but, alas, it is something you do terribly often. ---
**Author:** ![ISiddiqui](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/i/97f17d/32.png) [@ISiddiqui](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/ISiddiqui)\ **Post date:** [December 22, 2016, 9:58pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/should-the-u-s-military-allow-humanist-secularist-atheist-chaplains/774801/209 "2016-12-22T21:58:57Z")
> [@Trinopus](#): > > As is not unusual for you, you conflate two separate things I said and try to pretend I said them as linked. The statements did indeed sound very linked, to be honest. If you wished to have them considered unlinked, you should have been clearer (like a “for instance” in front of the Scalia sentence). ---
**Author:** ![Calico\_Jack](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/calico_jack/32/7320_2.png) [@Calico\_Jack](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Calico_Jack)\ **Post date:** [December 22, 2016, 10:04pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/should-the-u-s-military-allow-humanist-secularist-atheist-chaplains/774801/210 "2016-12-22T22:04:55Z")
> [@CarnalK](#): > > You have got to be fucking joking. > > Look, they introduced chaplains to serve what leaders at the time thought was a religious need among members of the military. Maybe that time is past or it was wrong all along. Regardless, I don’t see how pretending there’s a religious need for atheists to have one of their own chaplaining for them has any validity. I see nothing right in having someone who thinks religion is bullshit conducting religious services. Well truth is the secular humanism movement more or less descended from a French philosopher Auguste Comte who founded the positivist “Church of Humanity” as a ‘secular religion’ supposedly based off of science, to be a replacement for Christianity during the French Revolution: > **[Cult of Comte’s positivism claims key role in Brazil](https://www.irishtimes.com/news/world/cult-of-comte-s-positivism-claims-key-role-in-brazil-1.2051387)** > > Influencing even the flag , the Religion of Humanity is seeking funds for restoration So essentially the forefather of secular humanism more or less admitted himself it was a religion, yet tell a humanist on the internet it’s a ‘religion’ and he’ll just stereotypically respond with the “not collecting stamps isn’t a hobby!” stuff, lol And sure I’d agree that vanilla “atheism” in the most basic sense isn’t a religion, but I see New Atheists more or less use the terms “atheism” and “humanism” interchangeable themselves. An “atheist convention” is more or less a “humanist convention” in everything but name, for example. ---
**Author:** ![Bricker](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/977dab/32.png) [@Bricker](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Bricker)\ **Post date:** [December 22, 2016, 10:20pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/should-the-u-s-military-allow-humanist-secularist-atheist-chaplains/774801/211 "2016-12-22T22:20:05Z")
> [@ISiddiqui](#): > > The statements did indeed sound very linked, to be honest. If you wished to have them considered unlinked, you should have been clearer (like a “for instance” in front of the Scalia sentence). Correct. My first reaction was that the original intention was that they were linked and that this deflection was offered up when he learned of his timing error. As is “not unusual for him.” ---
**Author:** ![jayjay](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/jayjay/32/6765_2.png) [@jayjay](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/jayjay)\ **Post date:** [December 22, 2016, 11:31pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/should-the-u-s-military-allow-humanist-secularist-atheist-chaplains/774801/212 "2016-12-22T23:31:47Z")
> [@Calico\_Jack](#): > > Well truth is the secular humanism movement more or less descended from a French philosopher Auguste Comte who founded the positivist “Church of Humanity” as a ‘secular religion’ supposedly based off of science, to be a replacement for Christianity during the French Revolution: > > [http://www.irishtimes.com/news/world/cult-of-comte-s-positivism-claims-key-role-in-brazil-1.2051387](http://www.irishtimes.com/news/world/cult-of-comte-s-positivism-claims-key-role-in-brazil-1.2051387) > > So essentially the forefather of secular humanism more or less admitted himself it was a religion, yet tell a humanist on the internet it’s a ‘religion’ and he’ll just stereotypically respond with the “not collecting stamps isn’t a hobby!” stuff, lol > > And sure I’d agree that vanilla “atheism” in the most basic sense isn’t a religion, but I see New Atheists more or less use the terms “atheism” and “humanism” interchangeable themselves. An “atheist convention” is more or less a “humanist convention” in everything but name, for example. _quick-checks forum name_ Dammit… ---
**Author:** ![Calico\_Jack](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/calico_jack/32/7320_2.png) [@Calico\_Jack](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Calico_Jack)\ **Post date:** [December 22, 2016, 11:52pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/should-the-u-s-military-allow-humanist-secularist-atheist-chaplains/774801/213 "2016-12-22T23:52:25Z")
> [@jayjay](#): > > _quick-checks forum name_ > > Dammit… Excuse me? ---
**Author:** ![eschereal](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/eschereal/32/18939_2.png) [@eschereal](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/eschereal)\ **Post date:** [December 22, 2016, 11:57pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/should-the-u-s-military-allow-humanist-secularist-atheist-chaplains/774801/214 "2016-12-22T23:57:17Z")
> [@Calico\_Jack](#): > > Excuse me? **jayjay** is disparaging the inanity of your assertions and lamenting the dialogue constraints imposed by the Great Debates forum. Because, well, trying to paste religion onto atheism is pretty pathetic. ---
**Author:** ![Calico\_Jack](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/calico_jack/32/7320_2.png) [@Calico\_Jack](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Calico_Jack)\ **Post date:** [December 23, 2016, 12:00am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/should-the-u-s-military-allow-humanist-secularist-atheist-chaplains/774801/215 "2016-12-23T00:00:26Z")
> [@eschereal](#): > > **jayjay** is disparaging the inanity of your assertions and lamenting the dialogue constraints imposed by the Great Debates forum. > [@](#): > > Because, well, trying to paste religion onto atheism is pretty pathetic. Then tell that to Comte, the forefather of secular humanism - since it was his idea to attempt to create an “atheist religion” complete with its own churches: > **[Religion of Humanity](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Religion_of_Humanity)** > > Religion of Humanity (from French Religion de l'Humanité or église positiviste) is a secular religion created by Auguste Comte (1798–1857), the founder of positivist philosophy. Adherents of this religion have built chapels of Humanity in France and Brazil. > In the United States and Europe, Comte's ideas influenced others, and contributed to the emergence of ethical societies and "ethical churches", which led to the development of Ethical culture, congregational humanist, and secular humanist org... _Religion of Humanity is a secular religion created by Auguste Comte, the founder of positivist philosophy_ \*According to Tony Davies, Comte’s secular and positive religion was “a complete system of belief and ritual, with liturgy and sacraments, priesthood and pontiff, all organized around the public veneration of Humanity”. In Système de politique positive Comte stated that the pillars of the religion are: altruism, leading to generosity and selfless dedication to others. order : Comte thought that after the French Revolution, society needed restoration of order. progress : the consequences of industrial and technical breakthroughs for human societies.\* ---
**Author:** ![jayjay](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/jayjay/32/6765_2.png) [@jayjay](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/jayjay)\ **Post date:** [December 23, 2016, 12:02am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/should-the-u-s-military-allow-humanist-secularist-atheist-chaplains/774801/216 "2016-12-23T00:02:38Z")
> [@Calico\_Jack](#): > > Then tell that to Comte, the forefather of secular humanism - since it was his idea to attempt to create an “atheist religion” complete with its own churches: > > [Religion of Humanity - Wikipedia](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Religion_of_Humanity) > > _Religion of Humanity (from French Religion de l’Humanité or église positiviste) is a secular religion created by Auguste Comte, the founder of positivist philosophy_ _checks calendar_ Last I checked, it wasn’t the 18th Century anymore. Just because someone tried to set humanism up on religious lines in the 1700s (which are between 200 and 300 years gone at this point) doesn’t mean that modern secularism or humanism is a religion. ---
**Author:** ![Calico\_Jack](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/calico_jack/32/7320_2.png) [@Calico\_Jack](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Calico_Jack)\ **Post date:** [December 23, 2016, 12:09am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/should-the-u-s-military-allow-humanist-secularist-atheist-chaplains/774801/217 "2016-12-23T00:09:05Z")
> [@jayjay](#): > > _checks calendar_ > > Last I checked, it wasn’t the 18th Century anymore. Just because someone tried to set humanism up on religious lines in the 1700s (which are between 200 and 300 years gone at this point) doesn’t mean that modern secularism or humanism is a religion. He’s the forefather of secular humanism, if you want to debate whether or not it’s a “religion” by whatever definition you’re using, that’s another story. Fact though is humanism is a positive ideology and belief system, not just vanilla “atheism” in the sense of “not believing in a god”. But if it’s not a religion what’s the point of “humanist chaplains” or “humanist churches”? And why have humanist organizations applied for religious tax-exemption? ---
**Author:** ![eschereal](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/eschereal/32/18939_2.png) [@eschereal](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/eschereal)\ **Post date:** [December 23, 2016, 12:54am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/should-the-u-s-military-allow-humanist-secularist-atheist-chaplains/774801/218 "2016-12-23T00:54:51Z")
> [@Calico\_Jack](#): > > He’s the forefather of secular humanism … Bullshit. Comte was the founder of Comte’s “Religion of Humanity”. He was in no way the singular originator of the idea of secular humanism, nor is his particular atheology representative of all, or even many, humanists, agnostics or atheists. Your argument is ridiculous and holds as much water as a Pastafarian’s head gear. ---
**Author:** ![DinoR](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/dinor/32/2821_2.png) [@DinoR](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/DinoR)\ **Post date:** [December 23, 2016, 1:06am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/should-the-u-s-military-allow-humanist-secularist-atheist-chaplains/774801/219 "2016-12-23T01:06:16Z")
How the military checks that special branch folks are actually professionally qualified is a problem if we tried to implement this. You don’t just want anybody showing up and say “hey I’m qualified for that… trust me.” For things like lawyers and doctors there are readily checked civilian certifications. For chaplains they require endorsements. There’s a National Conference on Ministry to the Armed Forces ([wiki](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/National_Conference_on_Ministry_to_the_Armed_Forces)) as an umbrella group. From the above link > [@](#): > > Department of Defense Instruction 2304.28, outlines “Guidance for the appointment of chaplains for the military departments” and includes the requirement (among others) that “religious ministry professionals” (RMPs) must “receive an endorsement from a qualified religious organization”.[3] It defines endorsement as “the internal process that religious organizations use when designating RMPS to represent their religious organizations to the Military Departments and confirm the ability of their RMPs to conduct religious observances or ceremonies in a military context.”[3] It defines “Ecclesiastical Endorsing Agent” as “an individual authorized to provide or withdraw Ecclesiastical Endorsements on behalf of a religious organization.”[3] To have some kind of secular/atheist/humanist chaplain, without just exempting them from the same rigor other religions face, there needs to be an organization recognizing them as religious professionals within their organization. Unitarian Universalism does have a tradition that includes welcoming atheists, agnostics, humanists etc to their fellowship. That would be one way to have an established organization endorse religious professionals who might be say atheist. There are already UU chaplains in the military. An atheist who’s a chaplain could already be in uniform. ---
**Author:** ![GIGObuster](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/gigobuster/32/421_2.png) [@GIGObuster](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/GIGObuster)\ **Post date:** [December 23, 2016, 1:09am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/should-the-u-s-military-allow-humanist-secularist-atheist-chaplains/774801/220 "2016-12-23T01:09:52Z")
> [@Calico\_Jack](#): > > He’s the forefather of secular humanism, if you want to debate whether or not it’s a “religion” by whatever definition you’re using, that’s another story. Fact though is humanism is a positive ideology and belief system, not just vanilla “atheism” in the sense of “not believing in a god”. > > But if it’s not a religion what’s the point of “humanist chaplains” or “humanist churches”? And why have humanist organizations applied for religious tax-exemption? This seems to reference the very simple (and mostly wrong) idea that getting a tax exception (or other legal moves that puts Humanism in the same column as religion) leads to declare Humanism as a religion, the reality is more complicated: > **[Humanism is a Religion? Why Even “Anti-religion” Humanists Should Celebrate -...](https://thehumanist.com/commentary/humanism-is-a-religion-why-even-anti-religion-humanists-should-celebrate)** > > One of the first things I realized when I got involved in secular activism years ago was the importance that we humanists and atheists place on language. We are analytical by nature and take words seriously—and most of us believe that’s a good thing,... > [@](#): > > Funny thing is, having circulated in the secular movement for a decade, I can tell you that beyond the semantics, there are very few differences between those humanists who embrace the term “religion” and those who reject it (and let’s not forget the third group, which is probably the largest: those who are indifferent to the term). These are all people who strive to be good without a god-belief. > > … > > In fact, the classification of humanism and atheism as “religion” for constitutional purposes is nothing new. The judge was just following long-established constitutional standards going back at least to the landmark 1961 Supreme Court case of Torcaso v. Watkins, where an atheist successfully challenged a Maryland law banning atheists from public office. > > … > > The important thing for seculars to bear in mind on the “humanism is religion” issue is that the judicial categorization of atheism and humanism as “religion” is purely legal. When a court calls atheism or humanism “religion” it is doing so only in a constitutional context that does not necessarily extend elsewhere into ordinary life. Atheists and humanists who cringe at the “religion” classification might be comforted to consider that courts frequently impose contextual, legal definitions on terms. A pencil can be categorized as a “deadly weapon” in a legal context, even though in ordinary life we would rarely consider it as such. And a corporation can be considered a “person” even though it lacks every essence of humanity. > > Another important thing to remember is that the legal definition of atheism and humanism as “religion” is often necessary for constitutional protection. If the government is discriminating against an atheist, that discrimination is based on a religious issue—the individual’s disbelief in deities. If we couldn’t call anti-atheist prejudice “religious discrimination,” it would be hard to frame a coherent legal argument. > > So when considered fully, this is not an issue that should divide the secular community. [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/should-the-u-s-military-allow-humanist-secularist-atheist-chaplains/774801.md?page=10) [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/should-the-u-s-military-allow-humanist-secularist-atheist-chaplains/774801.md?page=12)