You clearly haven't interacted much with Unitarian Universalists.*


* "Unitarian Universalism is a liberal religion that embraces theological diversity; we welcome different beliefs and affirm the inherent worth and dignity of every person." www.uua.org



(Sorry, but I couldn't resist. :p)

Yeah, they've always intrigued me. If people of all theological faiths get together, what do they talk about?

No my goat is still where I left him, recovering from last night :eek: Lol at you though. I never changed my story or backtracked. I've had the same opinion and position through out this thread, I just clarified who I was speaking of in my second post. Get over it. :)

Read the news, these things exist.

So, you replied to tell me how wrong I am and how I don't get it, without bothering to actually try to clarify? Keep the smug and actually address the point or don't bother typing.

My understanding of military chaplains is that they provide worship services, and individual counseling to military members. I know, based on reports from gay and lesbian service members, that chaplains have preached, and continue to preach, against homosexuality within the units to which they're assigned. Please tell me where I'm wrong here. Particularly since some chaplains are freaking the fuck out about the DADT repeal.

I have no problem saying that the chaplains should be required to have their speech in the role of chaplain, restricted or GTFO. That's part of being in the military and working on the behalf of the government.

I only threw in the idea of a pacifist chaplain as a hypothetical. Regarding the 'black humanist chaplains' mentioned.. um.. 'cool' I guess? There's nothing wrong with that either, as long as they're not telling people that being religious is wrong. Although I question some of the validity of this since at least the Army's chaplain rules require being a clergy member, something most humanists don't have, except perhaps the UU I suppose. So, whatever.

So you say.

Many religions believe homosexuality is a sin. Requiring all those chaplains to go against their religious beliefs would be government interference in religion - unless they are running up to random service members and yelling "You are going to hell!". But those reports (link, please?) from homosexual members make me wonder - if you are gay and know that a denomination or religion believe homosexuality is a sin, why would you a.) go to that denomination's service or b.) to that clergy member for counseling. To the best of my knowledge (and my friend who is a retired chaplain) those are the primary duties of a chaplain. No one is forced to attend services or seek counseling. Do you have a problem with those who regard adultery as a sin? Because I can guarantee there are adulterers in the armed forces. If you require all chaplains to essentially have no beliefs with which someone might disagree I think only UUs would be able to serve, and it is my understanding that they wouldn't be able to include those who will not accept the validity of all beliefs.

Now if a chaplain were to rail against sin at, for example, a multi-denominational service that would be different. I am not comfortable with the idea of restricting religious belief or expression unless it violates the law. If the Flying Spaghetti Monster chaplain wants to preach against the evils of Alfredo sauce, he/she should be able to, even though I personally love the creamy richness, artery-clogging although it may be. I just won't go to his/her service.

That is apparently debatable.

Oh, I'll back 100% the right of any military member NOT to have to attend any services. THAT is completely wrong if it happens.

I assume you are saying it is debatable because some have claimed to have been forced - link? I would hope that everyone could agree that forcing someone to attend a service would be exactly what the founding fathers had in mind with the concept of no government instituted religion.

In quite a few military situations, particularly (perhaps ironically?) the ones that feature the highest incidence of situations that would bring someone to see a chaplain, there are few (if any) options. There may be one guy.

There's no "Mall of Chaplains" to choose from. If a guy wants spiritual guidance on how to deal with the death of a friend, or to clear his conscience should the unthinkable happen, he should be able to do so without someone railing against gays.

And that's not "going against [the chaplain's] religion" - they don't have to be pro-gay or anything (that would be going against it). Just not anti-gay. There's a world of difference.

Does the military not have non-religious counselors? They certainly should if they do not.

eta - found this: http://www.militaryatheists.org/chaplain.html

and this http://www.disinfo.com/2011/05/athei...ary-chaplains/

I'd like to see something a little less fuzzy than "Christian beliefs pervade military culture, creating subtle pressures on non-Christians to convert." Subtle? How subtle? 70% of the military is Christian, so it's not surprising that Christian beliefs "pervade" - of course, WHICH beliefs would be an important thing to know, and the form that pervading takes is important, too.

I have links, but I am out of town through Tuesday again, so if I have time not at a convention I'll update here.

I read a good book about the experiences of a now out former service member, and his experiences, along with those of the others he talks about in the book explain a lot.

Thanks, Drole - I am interested in knowing the exact situations and whether or not it is a case of undue pressure being put on a service man/woman (unacceptable) or another case of "I regard all expressions of Christianity (insert religion of your choice here) as being a personal affront", which is the philosophy I object to - I also want to know whether or not it is a case of a few anecdotal experiences or something more widespread and documented.

Let me be clear - I would not want any service personnel to feel obligated to have to participate in any religious services. I also do not want the government to deny those who serve the right to continue to maintain their religious observances if at all possible (I could imagine scenarios when that might conflict with military operations).

The accounts I've read include things like, the only way to not have duty/other obligations is to attend religious service, and your service is run by THE chaplain, not by the chaplain of the religion of your choice. There are other stories where it was very 'encouraged' to attend, even in the face of not technically being required or forced. If I can find the title of the books I've read I'll share as well. But for now, I'm back to the gaming con with the people dressed as comic book characters and steampunk awesomesauce ;)

(Thanks for the patience on the sources)

Maybe, maybe not. Simply because you assume certain employment doesn't really mean that you give your all your rights. I think people who work for the government have to be careful obviously because they run the risk of making it seem that the government has established a particular religion, but the flip side of the 1st amendment is that the government cannot make laws to restrict the free exercise of religion either.

We could claim that all speak by government employees reflects government action, but we'd all probably have to acknowledge that's not true. Someone at the DMV talking about cute haircuts isn't establishing government haircut position. An individual, even giving an address, wouldn't have to be assumed to represent a state position, especially if the forum is open to others of various beliefs.

I think military chaplains pose a particular challenge, a very fine line to walk.

Yes, they are military officers, but their job is not to act for the military per se, it's to serve the members of the military. The theory involved is not that the military (government) needs the chaplains, nor that the government is supporting any particular religion, but rather that the government has an obligation to those in its service -- especially those in combat situations or otherwise away from home -- to make sure that spiritual needs are met, just as it must make sure that other needs are met.

As you say, the Free Exercise Clause can come into play. Do we really want the government telling members of the clergy what can and can't be said in the context of religious services of worship or in the context of something like religious counseling?

I'm not suggestion that Drolefille hasn't raised some very serious and valid concerns. But if the current problem is one of sometimes coming to close to establishment, or apparent establishment, the cure is not for the pendulum to swing too far the other way and infringe on Free Exercise rights. The cure is to deal with the underlying military culture, to make an effort to ensure that all military personal who want the services of a chaplain have such services available from a chaplain they can be comfortable with and to ensure that military life is not structured in such a way as to effectively penalize anyone for their choices regarding chaplains and religious life.

I know there are challenges there -- there aren't enough chaplains to begin with, much less enough from the various traditions represented in the military. (Though many chaplains I have known of have been very aware of their obligations to those outside their own traditions and have tried very hard to be respectful to those outside their own traditions.) But that, I think, is where the answer has to be, not in telling chaplains what they can and can't talk about.