Atheists Seek Chaplain Role in the Military

[Meshuga]

The "Many Atheists Don't Want to Hear That Their Loved Ones Are in Heaven" thread made me think of the role of chaplaincy (since their most useful role, in my opinion, is comforting people when people are grieving among other services) and how it is also important to provide atheist/humanist chaplaincy in hospitals and the military as well. Not because I want to equate atheism with religion but because the religious in the military and hospitals around the country enjoy a service that should be enjoyed by all. I don't mean the religious part of it but the need for like mindedness in time of crisis (perhaps happy lifecycle events as well).

I googled the subject (atheism and chaplaincy) and I found this article:

Atheists Seek Chaplain Role in the Military
By JAMES DAO

FAYETTEVILLE, N.C. — In the military, there are more than 3,000 chaplains who minister to the spiritual and emotional needs of active duty troops, regardless of their faiths. The vast majority are Christians, a few are Jews or Muslims, one is a Buddhist. A Hindu, possibly even a Wiccan may join their ranks soon.

But an atheist?

Strange as it sounds, groups representing atheists and secular humanists are pushing for the appointment of one of their own to the chaplaincy, hoping to give voice to what they say is a large — and largely underground — population of nonbelievers in the military...

...Jason Torpy, a former Army captain who is president of the Military Association of Atheists and Freethinkers, said humanist chaplains would do everything religious chaplains do, including counsel troops and help them follow their faiths. But just as a Protestant chaplain would not preside over a Catholic service, a humanist might not lead a religious ceremony, though he might help organize it.

“Humanism fills the same role for atheists that Christianity does for Christians and Judaism does for Jews,” Mr. Torpy said in an interview. “It answers questions of ultimate concern; it directs our values.”


Full article:

http://www.nytimes.com/2011/04/27/us/27atheists.html?pagewanted=all

[humblebum]

1. The military already has secular counselors. nt

[darkstar3]

2. Recognized on the same level, and deployed with the same frequency as chaplains?

Nope.

[Dragonfli]

3. well they do have satanists as chaplains (really) so atheists should not be too controversial

Atheist that I know tend to be far more moral and capable of counseling then adherents to religions that appear to always HATE some group or other.

[Ozymanithrax]

4. Seems to me Atheists would not want a religious role in the military...

It would be better to create their own organization without the military, then to become a sky pilot to console the dying and convince the living to join them.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Y_VJoDOdJH0

[Kalidurga]

6. I don't think they want a religious role...

They want access to the same services the religious get without the stupid platitudes.

[Ozymanithrax]

10. Chaplin's fill an inherently religious position.

That deals with the religious needs of the military members. It doesn't make sense to me.

[skepticscott]

24. Except

in silent movies

[Meshuga]

12. Exactly

It is not about need for religious role.

Ironically, an atheist service member would need an atheist "chaplain" to escape religion being pushed down his/her throat when he/she needs the service. That point is in the article.

[provis99]

5. well, that's just plain dumb.

As well as being an oxymoron. Soldiers don't need atheist chaplains; psychologists and psychiatrists should fulfil the role, not some bizarre New Age humanists.

[demosincebirth]

7. I agree. I call your dumb and raise you a dumb...

"A chaplain provides pastoral and emotional support for service personnel, including the conduct of religious services at sea or in the field."

[Meshuga]

11. I disagree

From the article:

As an example, cite the Army’s Comprehensive Soldier Fitness program, created to help soldiers handle stress and prevent suicide. The program requires soldiers to complete surveys assessing emotional, social, family and spiritual well-being. Based on their answers, some soldiers are asked to take “resiliency” training.

Atheists say the survey and training are rife with religious code words that suggest a deity or afterlife. The Army counters that the program is intended to determine whether a soldier has “a strong set of beliefs, principles or values” that can sustain him through adversity — and not to gauge religiosity.

The safest bet in my opinion is to have an atheist group within the army handle "resiliency" training for atheists. Jewish, muslim, etc. service members are lucky they are a religious group since they can then have their own chaplains to escape the "one size fits all" Christian approach.

Apparently, atheists in the army cannot scape that at the moment.

[darkstar3]

8. Boy, did YOU miss the point.

Chaplains currently serve in the capacity of therapist and counselor, and yet they all do it from the position of one faith or another. Those without faith should have equal access to such counselors who share their worldviews.

More importantly, it might cause some to realize that it's time to re-evaluate the idea of faith-based counseling tied to military action.

[Meshuga]

9. I do not picture an "atheist chaplain" as a "new age" humanist

Like mindedness when there is need for coping is the idea and I think a "new age" humanist would defeat the purpose.

Who says that an atheist "chaplain" would not be a trained psychologist or psychiatrist? And who says that a trained psychologist or psychiatrist in the army is not going to be religious and therefore the wrong choice for an atheist client?

The rabbi chaplains I know are trained in psychology and/or psychiatry and they serve Jewish military members when coping is needed. Religious groups have these services and I think non-religious groups should enjoy the same. The difference is in the religious components of chaplaincy since it would be obviously discarded in the case of an atheist "chaplain."

Perhaps the terminology should be changed since many people get stuck on the label and cannot think past it. But the service (when removing religion and the supernatural baggage) is useful. At least in my point of view.

[Humanist_Activist]

14. What the hell is a "New Age" humanist?

First off, humanism is a philosophy that predates new age woo, second it is far removed from new age woo, and involves no supernatural components.

[provis99]

25. humanism is a crazy human worshipping cult invented by French weirdo Auguste Comte.

every bit as goofy and fanatical as anything created by the Catholic Church.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Religion_of_humanity

The New Age nonsense promulgated in the 60s is simply the most recent variation of it.

[Humanist_Activist]

26. Where the fuck is humanism mentioned in that article?

I'm a humanist and never heard of it. Why don't you learn about something before you criticize it?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Humanism

Oh, and it predates Comte.

On Edit: the fact is that I proved you wrong in all aspects regarding your statements on humanism. I expect a correction on your part, but most likely won't get it.

[saras]

13. Personally, I want a fundamentalist agnostic chaplain...

An agnostic doesn't know.

An evangelical agnostic tries to convince others that they don't know.

A fundamentalist agnostic asserts that it is categorically impossible to know.

A Gnostic agnostic has experienced the unknowing directly, but cannot tell what it is they don't know. You have to not know for yourself.

[cleanhippie]

15. Atheists don't know either, they just don't believe.

Those sure are SOME labels you have created there. Did you take a poll or something to be sure you have the definitions just right for everyone?

[saras]

17. About twenty reference books, plus my own creativity

maybe I needed something like the :sarcasm: warning, only DU doesn't have a :subtlety: flag.

Most atheists (not all, and frankly perhaps not even most, but certainly most of the visible public ones) assert strongly that they KNOW there is NO God. Many of them go so far as what I would consider religious belief (i.e. they can't describe any possible real-world events that would change their mind).

And I personally don't have any problem with the idea that there are things that we can NEVER "know". It's neither conceptually difficult nor practically hard to find examples. The primary one is the inside of another's consciousness.

And I'm not going to seriously get into the confusion most atheists show (in my experience) between the generic notion of God and the mean-daddy sky God common to the "religions of the Book".

[cleanhippie]

18. I RARELY see an atheist say that.

Most atheists (not all, and frankly perhaps not even most, but certainly most of the visible public ones) assert strongly that they KNOW there is NO God.

Like who? Can you provide examples of who and just what they said?

[Humanist_Activist]

27. What is it about religious people that they lie so much?

Thou shall not bear false witness.

[skepticscott]

16. As you define it, "Fundamentalist agnostic"

is an inherently unsustainable intellectual position. Anyone who takes that stance hasn't really thought about things at all, so I'm not sure why you'd want them counseling you.

[tortoise1956]

22. You lost me...

It seems to me that the definition of a fundamental agnostic mentioned in a previous post is the only TENABLE position. There is no way to be certain if a deity exists or not.

Please explain where my line of reasoning is incorrect, because I am not seeing it.

[skepticscott]

23. As defined above

a "fundamentalist agnostic" is someone who not only does not know anything about the existence or nature of god, but maintains that it is impossible to know anything about the existence or nature of god. But to say that "god" is such that nothing can possibly be known of its nature IS making a statement about the nature of "god". In some people's conception of "god", it IS possible to find evidence of his/her/its existence, and to know things about the nature/personality of "god". A "fundamentalist agnostic" is saying that they're convinced "god" is not like that, but something different. Do you see the inherent contradiction? If it's impossible to know anything about god, how do you KNOW that god is such that it's impossible to know anything about he/she/it?

To simply say that you are not convinced or aren't 100% certain that a god exists or doesn't , but are open to the possibility that further evidence in the future may convince you (what seemed above to be the definition of just an "agnostic") is no different than the position of most atheists. If agnostics don't believe in any gods at the moment, they really are atheists, they just are reluctant to call themselves that.

[riderinthestorm]

19. Chaplains in the military are a serious breach of church and state.

A constitutional one really. Our tax dollars are supporting explicit religiousness in order to greater facilitate the military industrial complex.

Do away with it all and make them ALL secular.

[Kalidurga]

20. Now that would be the most sensible solution n/t

[Meshuga]

21. I agree and disagree

I agree in regards to events, religious services, and the assessments with religious components that all service members have to go through even when they are not religious or members of the religion being established. Otherwise, I disagree since chaplains provide services that can more appropriately help service men and women in the military depending on their religious background or background where religion is irrelevant. I don't see how chaplancy itself (in this sense) is a breach of the constitution. Can you elaborate?

I can see the "one side fits all" approach as a breach of the first amendment and it happens in today's military when members of the armed forces are required to attend religious events, for example. However, if chaplaincy is done correcly and fairly it would not be a breach of the first amendment.