For many years, there has been controversy over the funding of military chaplains and the preferences given certain faiths. The problem is that as much 23 percent of our military list no religious association or preference. While many simply have no religious association with a particular faith, some are agnostics, some are atheists, and some are generally humanists. It would seem logical to have some chaplains who can relate to those groups. However, members of Congress are irate and insist that chaplains must believe in a deity to be funded. They warm that humanist or secularist chaplains would be traumatizing dying soldiers about being “worm food” and dying without hope.
The firestorm was triggered by an amendment introduced by Rep. Rob Andrews (D-NJ) to the 2014 National Defense Authorization Act:
The Secretary of Defense shall provide for the appointment, as officers in the Chaplain Corps of the Armed Forces, of persons who are certified or ordained by non-theistic organizations and institutions, such as humanist, ethical culturalist, or atheist.
Presumably, the military could order such appointments on its own authority but members are moving to bar any funding for such appointments.
For many years, the military and Congress has insisted that these chaplains serve a critical function for even those who are not of their faith as counselors for military personnel. It is hard to see why a humanist or atheist chaplain would not be able to serve the same function. Moreover, chaplains are there for spiritual and emotional support. A common misconception of agnostics and humanists is that they are not “spiritual.” These sailors and soldiers and airmen and Marines simply believe in a different source for spiritual strength that may come from being human or nature or other sources. They are moral human beings who have the same conflicts and concerns that other personnel have in combat or serving abroad. Countries like the Netherlands and Belgium supply humanist chaplains for this reason. Moreover, many “faiths” are dramatically different with some rejecting any deity while others embracing multiple deities. If the military is going to fund ministries in the military, it is hard to see how it can ignore the beliefs of such a sizable portion of the military ranks.
Rep. John Fleming, R-La insists that “the idea of an atheist chaplain . . . is an oxymoron — it’s self-contradictory — what you’re really doing is now saying that we’re going to replace true chaplains with non-chaplain chaplains.” However, it is not a nonchaplain chaplain if you view their job as assisting in spiritual and moral concerns for the military personnel. Otherwise, you are telling many in that quarter of non-affiliated personnel that they need to see a priest or a rabbi discuss such questions.
Rep. Doug Collins, R-Ga., who is also an Air Force chaplain, admits that he has had to counsel atheists and that “so many times people in our world today just need someone to listen.” The question is why a humanist chaplain cannot perform that same function. Many personnel are reluctant to see a psychologist and psychiatrist because of the stigma. Moreover, they are not having any more of a psychological problem as religious members are in seeking counseling from priests or rabbis. They merely want to speak with some about their moral issues who is not trained to ultimately refer to the commandments or direction of a deity.
We have discussed the international attacks on atheists and agnostics in recent years (here and here and here). That intolerance was evident in the comments of some members seeking to bar humanists from the chaplaincy. Consider the comments of GOP Rep. Mike Conaway. Conaway express disbelief that the prospect and added:
“They don’t believe in anything. I can’t imagine an atheist accompanying a notification team as they go into some family’s home to let them have the worst news of their life and this guy says, ‘You know, that’s it — your son’s just worms, I mean, worm food.'”
Obviously, agnostics, atheists, secularists and humanists believe in something, just not what Conaway believes in. As for a notification team, the only reason a humanist chaplain would be on the team would be if the dead soldier was a humanist. As a general rule, the military would not send an Islamic cleric to a Jewish home or a Catholic priest to a Muslim home for the same reason. If there were no other available chaplains, all of these chaplains are trained to offer care and support without proselytizing in such circumstances.
Yet, the scene of a heartless humanist taunting dying soldiers was repeatedly raised by members:
Rep. John Fleming (R-La.). “The last thing in the world we would want to see was a young soldier who may be dying and they’re at a field hospital and the chaplain is standing over that person saying to them, ‘If you die here, there is no hope for you in the future.’”
Of course, a minister or priest could tell someone from another faith that they are going to Hell for not embracing the true God. I doubt that would ever happen because such a person would be a monster. Yet, these members believe that a humanist or atheist is capable of such abuse. Conversely, if the dying soldier is an atheist, Fleming would guarantee that his last moments is spent with someone who rejects his very philosophy or beliefs. It does not appear to be viewed as equally traumatic to have someone using those final moments to assure an atheist that he will be soon in paradise in heaven with an almighty being.
Moreover, many soldiers and sailors do not have to be told that they will go to a heavenly paradise if they die for their country. They believe that they are doing the moral thing for their country. Conaway obviously does not like such views but he seems unwilling to allow brave men and women access to a ministry that speaks to their beliefs. They need to go to someone who believes that they will ascent to heaven or assume an angelic state after death.
Notably, Pat Tillman, the NFL player who famously quit his lucrative position to serve in the Army after 9/11 was an atheist. Members of Congress fell over each other to proclaim his heroism and sacrifice. However, they would deny him access to a spiritual counselor in dealing with the extreme moral questions that present themselves in combat. His family did not view him as “worm food” simply because he does not believe in angels or almighty beings. He was a hero who led a moral life based on his own beliefs.
In the end, the question is whether we are willing to support our troops regardless of their beliefs and to give them the support that they deserve in the field. Soldiers like Tillman are dying as Americans, not as Christians, Jews or Muslims. They are moral beings who are prepared to give the final sacrifice for what this country represents. That patriotism is not grounded in the narrow mean-spirited views of these members but a pluralistic society of tolerance and free exercise and free speech. For these brave men and women, the message could be seen as either adopt a faith or die in silence. When a Tillman is dying in a hospital, I would like to think that we can honor his service by supplying a chaplain who shares his general beliefs. My guess is that those final moments will not be discussing “worm food” but a life lived well and a sacrifice that honors and inspires us all.
Oro,
According to Geertz, a religion is “(1) a system of symbols which acts to (2) establish powerful, pervasive, and long-lasting moods and motivations in men by (3) formulating conceptions of a general order of existence and (4) clothing these conceptions with such an aura of factuality that (5) the moods and motivations seem uniquely realistic.”
It’s an interesting definition of religion. I also think it’s overly broad and can apply as an analytical framework to any social control system, but it so broad in fact as to violate the law of identity if applied literally. It has less value as a definition than as analytical tool. However, to draw an equivalence between the Rule of Law and a religion shows a fundamental misunderstanding about the nature of the Rule of Law.
Not only is the Rule of Law not a singular concept, it’s not the only basis for a legal system. There is, for example, the concept of Divine Right which puts the rulers above the law and was the social norm for many societies through out history. The Rule of Law itself is a slippery concept to define and not to be confused with the Rule by Law. The Rule of Law has two basic flavors; formalism and substantive. The formalist definition of the Rule of Law is closer to what the Founders created: it’s not about the “justness” of laws, but about procedure that must be followed to to have compliance with the law. Consider their focus on Due Process. Consider that Due Process was further explained by the 14th Amendment in the terms of Equal Protection (which is actually a restatement of values found in the non-binding Declaration of Independence – “We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.”) Now contrast this to the substantive Rule of Law formulation where substantive rights are derived from the law. That definition is contrary to the natural law tradition which the Declaration and Constitution adopt in treating rights as inherent to the individual. In fact, that was one of the larger arguments surrounding the Bill of Rights and part and parcel of the reason the Bill of Rights contains the 9th Amendment. Some were afraid that by enumerating rights that others might seek to limit rights to only those enumerated (a righteous fear as it turns out, but I digress) instead of recognizing the larger concept of inherent rights that exist at the state of nature. Now contrast this with the notion of Rule by Law. This is a concept found in the Asian legal traditions, particularly the Chinese and Japanese, where royals and aristocrats were still above the law and law was viewed simply as form of social control (governance) over the masses.
Now let’s revisit Geertz’s definition.
(1) a system of symbols which acts to
The law is more than a system of symbols although it does at times a form of symbolic logic and symbolism. The law provides a necessary social framework for defining what a society considers crimes and non-criminal wrong acts (torts) as well as a framework for punishing said crimes and resolving conflicts that arise under tort in addition to providing normative regulations (when properly designed and deployed) act to discourage conflicts. In the West, our legal tradition isn’t based on belief – although theocracy has been tried from time to time – but rather on reason. Modern jurisprudence has moved from a purely philosophical base in its conception (which is a commonality it shares with some but not all religious traditions) to adopt a more reasoned and scientific approach, ever edging toward technocracy and law as a form of applied sociology – social engineering if you will. But its base has been empirical from the start. Religion may be a social control system, but it is most certainly not based in empiricism, but rather belief. Buddhism being the exception in not requiring faith be a component of practice.
(2) establish powerful, pervasive, and long-lasting moods and motivations in men by
True, there is no question that both religion and law operate as social control mechanisms. However, they are distinctly different forms of social control. Religion (except when the basis of theocracy) operates as an internalized social control mechanism shaping norms/mores and values to the individual by socialization. The law operates as an external social control mechanism defined by codes and regulation and enforced externally by the mechanisms of government.
(3) formulating conceptions of a general order of existence and
I think it is fair to say that (again with the exception of theocracy) that government and law – especially in a secular government – are not concerned with “the general order of existence” to much as the order of society which is a subset of existence confined to humans interacting in groups. It does not concern itself with “the general order” other than the natural law tradition does seek to define universal general truths as a basis of law.
(4) clothing these conceptions with such an aura of factuality that
The “clothing” aspect goes back to the issue of belief versus empiricism. Good law is based on reason and empirical fact, not an “aura of facutality”. Religion need only appear factual.
(5) the moods and motivations seem uniquely realistic.
Uniqueness is not at issue with law. There are many ways to formulate a legal system, some more realistic than others.
As you can see, Geertz’s definition works fine as an analytical framework, but it does not reveal all social control mechanisms to the equivalent of a religion.
I see that many new posters are incapable of grasping the point. Either that, or they are dishonestly trying to avoid it.
The issue is a double standard where those who have religion have benefits, privileges, rights, etc. that are being denied to atheists. This is NOT a philosophical issue about whether an “atheist chaplain” is a contradiction in terms.
Either everyone is entitled to the “benefits of a chaplain”, including atheists, or no one is. Anything else is a violation of the first amendment, which means the US government is promoting religion.
wow!, i can’t believe that any of you fine caring people has not heard of the Noahide Laws signed into law back on March 26, 1991 by then sitting president George H.W. Bush. House Joint Resolution Public Law 102-14 Education Day U.S.A. or simply the Noahide Laws. which comes out of the jewish Talmud Bavli (Babylonian Talmud). and as you read that many here has mentioned establishment clause;
Amendment 1
Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the government for a redress of grievances.
While the text of the First Amendment says “Congress shall make no law … abridging the freedom of speech,” it means that no federal, state or local government official can infringe on your free-speech rights. and by these 7 laws of noah, not the real true Noah, but a forgery noah/noahide laws. Congress has put all the american people under the yoke of judaism.
you see, if you break any one of these 7 laws, then it’s death by decapitation. oh yeah, folks, death by decapitation. so, so much for the constitution and any of the amendments. look it up, don’t take my word for it, which even after you people find the truth you’ll still reject what i’m telling you. so, no problem, at least now you’ll know. and if you want to cross cross reference, check out;
King James Version
Revelation 20:4 And I saw thrones, and they sat upon them, and judgment was given unto them: and I saw the souls of them that were beheaded for the witness of Jesus, and for the word of God, and which had not worshipped the beast, neither his image, neither had received his mark upon their foreheads, or in their hands; and they lived and reigned with Christ a thousand years.
if this is not true, then why have them made into law of the land? and since daddy Bush (Shrub’s Daddy) every President has signed these laws into a proclamation, which is the same as an executive order, same thing. and you were worried about losing the 2nd amendment, hmmmmm? folks, these basturds has stolen your nation, has by passed the whole of the constitution, wake the hall up. waken from your deep deep slumber. wake others. don’t take my word for it, search these matters out…
The penalty for violating any of these Noahide Laws is spelled out on page 1192 of the Encyclopedia Judaica, “… violation of any one of the seven laws subjects the Noahide to capital punishment by decapitation.” Wow, in other words, if one person steps forward to accuse a Gentile of violating any one of these seven laws, that testimony alone would be enough to decapitate the accused. A person could be put to death for the flimsy accusation of being cruel to animals,
see Tractate, Sanhedrin, Chapter 57.a …. violation of any one of the seven laws subjects the Noahide to capital punishment by decapitation. … babylonian tal_mud, Tractate Sanhedrin 57a Also know they have already established all Freemason Noachite Courts throughout all lands. see also the Sanhedrin website, Noahide.
“It is our duty to force all mankind to accept the seven Noahide laws, and if not—they will be killed.” (Rabbi Yitzhak Ginsburg, Ma’ariv, October 6, 2004)
The Seven Noachide laws are general commandments with many details. Transgressing any one of them is considered such a breach in the natural order that the offender incurs the death penalty. Apart from a few exceptions, the death sentence for a Ben Noach is Sayif, death by the sword / decapitation, the least painful of the four.
Well for one thing, the Noahide Laws require all Gentiles (Yes, Gentiles) to be “righteous.” Being righteous is defined as not worshipping idols. And Jesus is declared in the Talmud to be an idol! In summary, under the Noahide Laws, all Christians who worship Jesus Christ are idolaters and will be duly punished by beheading!
“The Seven Noachide laws are general commandments with many details. Transgressing any one of them is considered such a breach in the natural order that the offender incurs the death penalty.”
You don’t know what you are talking about. Yes there are Noachide rules in the Torah, but they are merely a voluntary guide for Gentiles who wanted to practice as Jews without being converted. The rest of what you write is nonsense and gross misinterpretation.
Clifford Geertz’s famous definition of religion excludes any mention of the sacred or higher power. It has no God. Since Christians proclaim the sanctity of human life, they provide humanism its holy cow — though the humanist don’t want it. Interestingly, Geertz’s definition lends credence to one particular poster’s claim that Western Civilization’s enshrinement of the Rule of Law may itself constitute a religion using Geertz’s definition.
http://isites.harvard.edu/fs/docs/icb.topic152604.files/Week_4/Geertz_Religon_as_a_Cultural_System_.pdf
“The purpose of separation of church and state is to keep forever from these shores the ceaseless strife that has soaked the soil of Europe with blood for centuries.”-James Madison
Personanongrata
1, July 24, 2013 at 2:04 pm
Correct. The House voted today to keep on funding the NSA illegal spy program on Americans… Oaths of Office be damned to them.
Ralph,
No consensus on who coined “United States of America.” All sorts of people are blamed for it.
It’s OK with me if Paine did it.
if they are embalmed…
… all the beef they consumed in a lifetime that cheated the worms out of a happy meal. not to mention the chickens and pigs.
the true worms are feasting off of the square holes full of st peters, that pass laws not knowing where the soul goes, or, if there is one.
look at who is going to drink the water in the future.
who’s getting pegged?
where is the logic…
… that people dred, is the fact is that the prophecies say that I will change a paper, and notto ashes…
… like the congress is doing.
Yes, Bob, thanks for that correction. Every now and then the myths that have been hammered into my head in school since my youth resurface from time to time. Like the famous quote from Theodore Roosevelt, wherein referred to Thomas Paine as a “filthy little atheist.” It’s always good to recheck these things, rather than assume they are so. What I should have said was that he rejected organized religions (which he must have envisioned as contrary to his concepts of freedom).
By the way, correct me if I’m wrong, but I believe that Paine actualley coined the name “United States of America.”
Secular Humanism defines itself as a non-theistic religion, so I don’t see a problem with a secular humanist chaplain. However, just having an atheist chaplain who is not affiliated with any religion whatsoever does seem like an oxymoron. That is basically what we have already in the form of counselors, coaches, psychologists, etc.
For more info about secular humanism being a religion, see the following link:
http://www.americanhumanist.org/Humanism/Humanist_Manifesto_I
I would recommend pushing for a secular humanist chaplain.
Mike Spindell,
In case you haven’t already found it, The Buddha (the documentary, that is) is at http://www.pbs.org/thebuddha/
That’s what I watched, last night.
Thanks Bob.
Ralph,
I agree with everything else you said. Thomas Paine was not an atheist. He was a deist.
He believed that the Old and New Testaments were malarkey, and analyzed the Bible in “The Age of Reason.”
But he did profess belief in a deity.
Mike Spindell July 24, 2013 at 3:47 pm
…
As you may know Fritz Perls was heavily influenced by Buddhist and Zen teachings and utilized much of it in Gestalt Philosophy.
…
==================================
Do you think that the Athiest Chaplains are more likely to discover that the basic nature of nomadism on our planet is wiser for civilization than the stand your ground philosophical approach is?
The argument that chaplains must have a particular religious affiliation or believe in a deity to serve the armed forces of the USA is absurd on many levels. People who have truly studied American history, for example, will acknowledge that Thomas Paine has had a tremendous influence on the founding fathers of this nation and its great principles. In many ways, some of the best principles on which America was founded were originally articulated by Paine. The influence of Paine on the writings of Thomas Jefferson, for example, are profound.
However, Paine was an athiest.
Here are some good quotations to remember Thomas Paine by:
“I have always strenuously supported the right of every man to his own opinion, however different that opinion might be to mine. He who denies another this right makes a slave of himself to his present opinion, because he precludes himself the right of changing it.”
“It is always to be taken for granted, that those who oppose an equality of rights never mean the exclusion should take place on themselves.”
“I believe in the equality of man; and I believe that religious duties consist in doing justice, loving mercy, and endeavoring to make our fellow-creatures happy.”
I have more hope that the Atheist Chaplains will allow us to consider the Global Climate System Calendar but the Religion Based Chaplains will not.
OED defines spiritual as:
spiritual /ˈspɪrɪtʃʊəl, -tjʊəl/
adjective
1: relating to or affecting the human spirit or soul as opposed to material or physical things:I’m responsible for his spiritual welfare
having a relationship based on a profound level of mental or emotional communion:he never forgot his spiritual father
(of a person) not concerned with material values or pursuits.
2: relating to religion or religious belief:the country’s spiritual leader
One can be definition one without being the second and vice versa. One need look no further than the absurdities of “Prosperity Theology” to see a religious practice bereft of spiritual values or to any one of a number of secular programs and organizations (such as People for Ethical Government) concerned with encouraging ethical behavior as having spiritual values absent a religious doctrine.
Evidently there are a great many persons in the US Congress that have problems with their reading comprehension skills:
Amendment 1
Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the government for a redress of grievances.
“You can be spiritual without being religious.”
No question— that is, at least as the term is used today.
I scare-quoted because I have personal reservations about the usage.
After all, in the Greek pneuma simply meant “breath”, or “breath of life” (with certain metaphorical extensions, no doubt). The confused reading of Christianity, with its idea of the soul, might be responsible for the “ghost-in-the-machine”, mind-body dualism that has proved to be one of the most enduring conundrums in the history of philosophy.
All depends on what one means by “spiritual”.
mespo727272 1, July 24, 2013 at 1:44 pm
William Berry:
You can be spiritual without being religious.
orolee 1, July 24, 2013 at 1:47 pm
“You can be spiritual without being religious.”
It may even be easier.
__________
Yep.