Military Chaplain: ‘It Must Have Been God’s Will for Her to Be Raped’

[LAGC]

Several women are suing former Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld and current Secretary of Defense Robert Gates because of “the military’s repeated failures to take action in rape cases created a culture where violence against women was tolerated, violating the plaintiffs’ Constitutional rights.”

The lawsuit can be read here (PDF).

A reader pointed out one particular story about a military chaplain that warrants special attention on this site. Read the disturbing story of what happened to Sergeant Rebekah Havrilla… and the awful way it was handled by the chaplain:

http://friendlyatheist.com/2011/02/17/military-chaplain-it-must-have-been-gods-will-for-her-to-be-raped/

Someone tell me why we have these people (chaplains) on the military's payroll again? I mean, unless you can accommodate ALL religions, why give special preference to just the one that each particular chaplain happens to believe in? I'm sure this guy isn't that unique. How many goof-balls holding backwards views are there in the military?

[PDJane]

1. Sigh. Far too many.

And that is as a result of the move to 'Christian Soldiers.' There's a lot of this crap going around out there.

[backscatter712]

2. Aaaaand we're right back to the Epicurean Dilemma...

Is God willing to prevent evil, but not able?
then he is not omnipotent
Is he able, but not willing?
then he is malevolent
Is he both able, and willing?
then whence cometh evil?
Is he neither able nor willing?
Then why call him god?

[krispos42]

4. Nice.

I will have to look up this dilemma.

[trotsky]

5. Oh, but that's so easily dispatched, dontchaknow.

"God works in mysterious ways!"

Ta da!!!

[backscatter712]

9. Translation: "Stop asking questions that have no answers and make us look awkward!" n/t

[M155Y_A1CH]

3. I'll bet he's wearing...

a real shit eating grin over that little prank. LOL

[cleanhippie]

6. I find it curious that our resident apologists never arrive to discuss these things.

:wtf:

[trotsky]

8. They get tired of typing the same thing.

"He wasn't a *REAL* Christian."

[struggle4progress]

15. It's a lawsuit. Lawsuits often involve parties with different versions of events.

I'm generally disinclined to think I know the facts in such cases

[cleanhippie]

16. Right, because its outside the realm of both possibility and plausibility that he said that.

[struggle4progress]

17. Don't put words in my mouth. I have no difficulty expressing myself.

I'm not particularly enamored of the military myself: it's my general suspicion that, in an organization largely devoted to teaching my fellow citizens how to kill other human beings, there are likely to be some people who are insensitive and even lacking basic human decency. There seems to be a long history of sexual harassment in some military circles. But I have no opinion about the merits of this particular case, not having studied any of its details carefully

I don't feel a need to have an opinion about every allegation in every lawsuit filed: I lack the time or energy for that. I don't know when or where or with whom the plaintiff had the alleged conversation; I didn't witness the conversation; and I don't have a transcript of it. I don't know if "he" (whoever "he" may be) said what the plaintiff alleges or if the plaintiff understood him correctly. It is not a matter of whether I consider it possible or impossible, or plausible or implausible, that some military chaplain did tell the plaintiff as she alleges: it is a matter of whether I know enough facts to have an opinion here. Perhaps if I knew the facts or thought I knew them -- by being privy to some investigation, or because I believed in my own ESP powers, or however else -- then I might have an opinion. I simply don't know the facts

Many people hold views I find strange. Some (for example) think every untoward experience indicates some inscrutable will; I find this view strange. Others (for example) think it is possible to skim a plaintiff's initial brief and immediately determine its merits; I also find that view strange

[cleanhippie]

18. You seem to be missing my point. Generally, I agree with you.

But in cases like THIS one, there is no reason to think that it DIDN'T happen this way. In fact, there is PLENTY of reason to think that it happened EXACTLY like it states.
But again, I generally agree with your sentiments.

[Bad Thoughts]

7. Doesn't the structure of the military share some blame?

First, the story is absolutely disgusting. There's no way to get around it.

Second, military chaplains seem to be, in themselves, a poorly constructed corps. They certainly aren't Father Mulcaheys who can dispense advice but contain his denominational peculiarities to his asides. But like in many matters, the military is not inviting to people who might be talented at lending personal and spiritual advice on the battlefield. Desiring discipline among the ranks, the military will use whatever tool--primarily exaggerated patriotism--to get soldiers to perform. Why would someone who went to Harvard Divinity school (and I know quite a few atheists who attended) support such a system at the expense of one's mortal being? As a result, the military chaplaincy is likely filled with the lowest ranks of divinity students--the one's who will be more swayed by the politics of the culture war rather than seeing their military service in terms of the individual.

[ZombieHorde]

10. I agree, we should not have paid military chaplains. nt

[REVSALTY]

11. Military Chaplains

Lg said "unless you can accommodate ALL religions,..."

First the military does go out of its way to accommodate all religions.

In the Army (anyways), there is one chaplain for about 1,000 troops.
It would be impossible for each religion to be accommodate. However, in the typical Army combat unit - a Brigade which has about 5-6000 troops, there will be about 6-7 chaplains. The Army will attempt to have a corresponding cross section - ie 2 Roman Catholics, 3 Protestants - 1 Rabbi, 1 other

But now to the heart of the matter - Disclaimer I am neither defending the Chaplain nor accusing the victim!

First - was this an actual attack - unfortunately a very few false reporting requires that all reports be fully investigated in order that the (original) accused is not falsely convicted. - and so far even the Chaplain has not been identified.

Second - is that what the Chaplain actually said- it may have been "filtered" the wrong way. Keep in mind that this young lady was in shock and may only have heard part of the counseling and / or taken out of context.

Third - if the Chaplain did in fact make that statement as a primary point, I would endorse his elimination from the service. I believe that rape is the worst thing to ever happen to a person.

Fourth - suppose the chaplain was a woman - how would that play into the equation?

From the Army Times report I read it appears this was a valid reportable incident. I shall keep this young lady in my prayers.

Finally lets do it the American way - let all the facts come out - have a proper trial and then the guilty should pay the price.

I would like to point out that I have over a decade of active US Army service(non-chaplain), and as as minister of the Gospel I feel somewhat qualified to address this issue.

[Deep13]

12. Then indict God for complicity. nt

[cleanhippie]

13. He would fail to appear for the summons.

[Deep13]

14. True, but my point is that claiming something is holy does not make it right.

Rape is about as wrong as something can be and saying that god wanted it does not make it any better. It makes god worse, not rape better. Of course if god did not want it, it becomes a a question of why god allowed it to happen. If he chose not to intervene then he is as bad as he would have been if he wanted it to happen. If he was unable to intervene, then he's not really god.

[GKirk]

19. Without having to read the transcript

what does the chaplains statement have to do with the lawsuit?