Having spoken several times to Chaplains, they don’t tend to default to a spiritual advice, instead they are much more of a counsellor role, at least in the Cdn military. They can offer spiritual guidance, of course, but are usually just great listeners and advisors.
It’s also one of the only personal requests that you can make on a course that will get honoured within 24 hours.
Not based on my SDMB interactions with Catholic and Baptist and Jewish posters on the SDMB. The vast majority are pretty respectful of other religions-as a matter of fact, it’s easi. The outspoken SDMB atheists, though, largely are wildly unpleasant to anyone who has faith.
In your little imaginary world, what would an SDMB style atheist say to a soldier who was having “a crisis of faith”? Something about how he/she’s not a “god-botherer”?
In the real world, I think an atheist/humanist chaplain would go through the same training other chaplains would go through in regards to the religious backgrounds and ceremonies of the various religions out there, and be prepared and be prepared to administer those ceremonies as needs be(just as the other chaplains are trained to do), as well as counsel and aid soldiers to the best of their professional abilities, just like every other chaplain.
BTW, thank you ever so much for your display of pleasantness-nice example.
An “SDMB style atheist” or an atheist chaplain?
The atheist chaplain would say, “Okay… Let’s talk about it. What’s happened in your life to make you doubt? How does that make you feel? Are you feeling any social or peer pressure? What do you want to believe? What can we do to get you back on the track you want to be on?”
The SDMB style atheist would say, “There is no evidence for the existence of any god, angel, devil, heaven, or hell.”
ETA: well, duh! That’s why we aren’t chaplains!
In general, interviewers are not allowed to ask that sort of question. I mean, they can, but it they get caught, it can be a big problem for them. If the employer eventually discovers that an employee is atheist (or the wrong faith), their typical recourse is to gin up some valid-looking excuse to demote or dismiss them. It can be quite difficult to prove religious discrimination.
See, this is why atheism is not a religion: there is no fucking doctrine. “Atheism” literally means not believing in one or more gods. That is it. Buddhists are atheists (cf., Sam Harris) who have spiritualistic inclinations. I am pretty sure Taoists are atheists, but they have a sort of spiritual/mystical aspect to their belief system. And I have known atheists who earnestly use tarot cards, astrological charts or ouija boards. All the atheist part means is that there is no deity involved.
And really, that should be straightforward enough. There are around a billion different versions of what “Christian” means, and probably more versions of what “Muslim” means. Atheists are not more uniform or less diverse than religious folk.
If this board is about fighting ignorance, then why should we be pleasant to those to promote it (e.g. god botherers)?
If a person has a ‘spiritual’ crisis about whether to kill people it isn’t likely because god told him not to. It is more likely because he doesn’t want to as that tends to be the default human programming on such things. Anyone can pick portions of the bible (insert holey text of choice) and find justifications to kill others. The discussion is really about over-riding their innate desire to not do things that harm others. That’s the root of why they are seeking guidance and a psychologist should do just fine answering those sorts of questions without resorting to fairy shit.
Once again, ladies and gentlemen, Czarcasm in particular, I give you exhibit A.
<looks around> Nope, no sign of me being in a profession that requires me to nod politely to hogwash. I imagine a psychologist would be so trained. Again, it doesn’t take a priest to ask what they think god’s plan is for them or what they should do given what they know of god. Wouldn’t it be better to have people that can help all soldiers rather than some who only cater to a subset?
I’m interested in that you disagree that people don’t want to kill others because that is how we are built, but it takes a god to tell them not to, though.
You’re listening to voices in your head again, aren’t you? Because you won’t find one word I wrote that even remotely supports that the gibberish above is my position.
Next time, please try to read the words I actually typed, rather than words that you think you have an adequate rebuttal to.
And I’d be interested if you actually looked at the main point of my argument rather than the incidentals that seem to upset you.
Does it take another believer to address issues that would concern soldiers in the performance of their duties? Or could a psychologist do the majority of it just as well (or better)?
A psychologist could do the job perfectly well.
Is that a reason to deny equal treatment under the law? Does the constitution cease to apply when it becomes inconvenient?
Not sure who you are asking here.
A psychologist is medical staff. What does equal treatment have to do with anything here as everyone is treated the same regardless of their religion? A christian, muslim, or buddhist can all go to the doctor.
(Spell check wants me to capitalize the latter two, but not the first. A google thing? baptist, catholic, sunni, shia, quaker, mormon, taoist, hindu. Christian based sects don’t get the red underline squiggle saying I’ve spelled it wrong. Weird)
Where in the constitution does it say anything about medical staff?
Not hiring people who are employed based solely upon their religious affiliation should remove constitutional issues, not create them. The government would no longer be supporting and promoting specific religions.
I was talking about chaplains. If the argument is, “a psychologist can do everything an atheist chaplain can do,” I acknowledge this is true…but still object to it being used as an excuse to deny atheist chaplains.
Denying chaplains to atheists is violating equal treatment, on a religious basis.
(Denying chaplains to religions observed by only three guys in the entire U.S. military is not a religious reason, but a practical one. Denying chaplains to followers of the Jedi faith can be defended on trade-mark grounds.)
The military chaplains are not “hired solely on their religious affiliation”. Anyone who meets the requirements (I’m certain I provided a link to those in the previous thread) can become a military chaplain.
Both of these are bordering on insults. Please dial it back. If you feel you must, the BBQ Pit is right around the corner.
[/moderating]
I agree. I’m just taking the opposite approach saying that removing all chaplains doesn’t infringe anyone’s rights.
Well, there are some things which do not require a Catholic priest to be performed, others which do not require the Roman Catholic rite to be followed.
Weddings: the performers are the spouses; while it is recommended that one of the witnesses be a priest, it is not required.
Mass, with Consecration: there are rites other than the Roman one and Churches other than the one with the Pope on the top which are in full communion with the RCC. Their priests don’t need to perform the Consecration by the Roman rite for Communion to be valid for an RCC member.
Distributing previously-consecrated Eucharist: the person doing so doesn’t need to be an ordained priest, but should be in full communion (ideally but not necessarily a deacon; note that this detail gets disregarded daily). In theory, if possible, etc etc, it would be more canonical to give a box of consecrated Hosts to a regular RCC soldier for distribution than to a priest/pastor/rabbi of a different religion.
For other Sacraments, see “list of Churches which are in communion with the RCC”. They don’t need to perform the Roman versions of the rites, as their own are valid.
Regarding counseling, the cross-training is to give the chaplains a base to start from, but they can always use the Socratic method. The best counselors (priests or not) that I’ve known were very good, not at giving solutions to people, but at helping people find their own solution. The cross-training is for things such as knowing that if someone claims to be a Hindu and to think that Ganesh has a plan for him, the chaplain should realize that’s not standard Hindu theology.
Nope.
If it improves troop morale, which is pretty much what chaplains are there for from the perspective of the government, then go for it. And I would certainly imagine that those troops who are atheists would feel more comfortable seeking council from an atheist leader than a theistic chaplain.
Again, the Armed Forces DO provide secular psychologists and therapists and counselors for servicemen who want them.
Why the need to call them “chaplains”?