You Can't Have it Both Ways on Atheism

[Géza Echs]

Chaplains is just a name though. I mean say we take a British army unit with Sihks, Jews, Muslims, Ghurkas, Christians and aethists you going to cart round a whole bunch of religious types... no probably not. You are going to have one or two probably Christian with the odd exception. Therefore they can't cover rituals for everyone.

Insofar as I know, chaplains are (generally speaking) trained in the religious services of a variety of denominations that they have sanction to perform (so a Sikh chaplain may also be able to give Anglican communion if called upon to do so, for example). I think that they're assigned to groups of soldiers that they will, on the basis of said training, be able to serve.  

I would argue that just pulling all chaplains out of the military is simpler.

I can't disagree more. Speaking from a Christian perspective, I would never deny a soldier about to enter combat the chance to participate in holy communion beforehand. Or, if worse comes to worst, deny said soldier the last rites as they lay dying.

[jibbajibba]

Insofar as I know, chaplains are (generally speaking) trained in the religious services of a variety of denominations that they have sanction to perform (so a Sikh chaplain may also be able to give Anglican communion if called upon to do so, for example). I think that they're assigned to groups of soldiers that they will, on the basis of said training, be able to serve.  



I can't disagree more. Speaking from a Christian perspective, I would never deny a soldier about to enter combat the chance to participate in holy communion beforehand. Or, if worse comes to worst, deny said soldier the last rites as they lay dying.

How odd ... a Muslim chaplain giving a bunch of Christians communion before they go out and shoot a load of Muslims.... surely there is something in the Koran about that.

I don't think blessing a solider before combat is really very moral.

By all means have religious fellows in military hospitals but they don;t need to be miliary personel. I supect the image of the chaplain wandering round the trenches giving last rites to chaps is a little outdated. Most deaths in war are caused by advanced ordnace that leaves little more than smears and body parts behind.

I guess I find it odd than anyone holding strong Christian views would enter the military. The ten commandments for example don't say 'thou shalt not kill unless ordered to by a superior'.

[Géza Echs]

How odd ... a Muslim chaplain giving a bunch of Christians communion before they go out and shoot a load of Muslims.... surely there is something in the Koran about that.

I don't know.

I don't think blessing a solider before combat is really very moral.

It may not be, but I'm not about to deprive a soldier who's fighting on behalf of my nation the chance to receive absolution for his sins if he wants to seek after it.

By all means have religious fellows in military hospitals but they don;t need to be miliary personel.

That defeats the purpose of the chaplaincy - insofar as I know, chaplains are often assigned to groups of soldiers themselves, meaning that they're at the front along with the troops. Relegating them to rear-guard figures would render large swaths of their duties impossible to attend to.

I supect the image of the chaplain wandering round the trenches giving last rites to chaps is a little outdated. Most deaths in war are caused by advanced ordnace that leaves little more than smears and body parts behind.

Perhaps. I'll ask my Godsister the next time I speak with her; as I said upthread, she recently served two tours in Afghanistan as a chaplain.

I guess I find it odd than anyone holding strong Christian views would enter the military. The ten commandments for example don't say 'thou shalt not kill unless ordered to by a superior'.

It's not up to me to judge the quality of another person's soul. I'm not in the military, myself, and likely never would be (barring certain exceptional circumstances), but I know several devout Christian soldiers and they seem to have no issue rectifying their profession with their faith.

[Ghost Whistler]

I don't know.



It may not be, but I'm not about to deprive a soldier who's fighting on behalf of my nation the chance to receive absolution for his sins if he wants to seek after it.



That defeats the purpose of the chaplaincy - insofar as I know, chaplains are often assigned to groups of soldiers themselves, meaning that they're at the front along with the troops. Relegating them to rear-guard figures would render large swaths of their duties impossible to attend to.



Perhaps. I'll ask my Godsister the next time I speak with her; as I said upthread, she recently served two tours in Afghanistan as a chaplain.



It's not up to me to judge the quality of another person's soul. I'm not in the military, myself, and likely never would be (barring certain exceptional circumstances), but I know several devout Christian soldiers and they seem to have no issue rectifying their profession with their faith.

Soldiers aren't fighting on behalf of any nation, they are fighting on behalf king/state.
Your godsister can't be much of a Christian if she's 'serving' in Afghanistan.

[Bedrockbrendan]

Soldiers aren't fighting on behalf of any nation, they are fighting on behalf king/state.
Your godsister can't be much of a Christian if she's 'serving' in Afghanistan.

This depends entirely on the what kind of christian they are. There are christians who believe violence can be justified and there is even just war theory. I was raised by a pretty strict non-violent interpretation of the gospels, so I would have a hard time reconciling going to war and being a Christian (my father even opposed me participating in boxing and martial arts). Despite this I can see that there are lots of alternate interpretations out there and plenty of people who consider themselves christians are also soldiers. There is a lot of room for different conclusions when you examine the entire old and new testament as a whole.

[Marleycat]

This depends entirely on the what kind of christian they are. There are christians who believe violence can be justified and there is even just war theory. I was raised by a pretty strict non-violent interpretation of the gospels, so I would have a hard time reconciling going to war and being a Christian (my father even opposed me participating in boxing and martial arts). Despite this I can see that there are lots of alternate interpretations out there and plenty of people who consider themselves christians are also soldiers. There is a lot of room for different conclusions when you examine the entire old and new testament as a whole.

I agree given I am one of those that is Christian and was raised and believe that going to War is completely justifiable in certain conditions. There are many flavors of Christians just like anything else. Being a chaplain or nurse in a battle theatre even allows for those that believe in non-aggression to participate and not go against their beliefs or morals.

[Géza Echs]

Soldiers aren't fighting on behalf of any nation, they are fighting on behalf king/state.

There's a distinction between "nation" and "state" now? Outside of academic works by Benedict Anderson, that is.

Your godsister can't be much of a Christian if she's 'serving' in Afghanistan.

She's a chaplain in the Canadian Forces. They deployed her, as a chaplain, to Afghanistan for two tours. She's not a combatant. She's also one of the best Christians I've ever had the privilege of knowing. I suspect that if she retires from the Canadian Forces she will, being a devout Roman Catholic, go the whole nine yards and take her vows as a nun.

Wait... you do know what a chaplain is, right? I'm not being snarky; what you're saying here suggests that you don't, if you think that her serving in Afghanistan as a chaplain means that she's a regular soldier.

[Ghost Whistler]

There's a distinction between "nation" and "state" now? Outside of academic works by Benedict Anderson, that is.



She's a chaplain in the Canadian Forces. They deployed her, as a chaplain, to Afghanistan for two tours. She's not a combatant. She's also one of the best Christians I've ever had the privilege of knowing. I suspect that if she retires from the Canadian Forces she will, being a devout Roman Catholic, go the whole nine yards and take her vows as a nun.

Wait... you do know what a chaplain is, right? I'm not being snarky; what you're saying here suggests that you don't, if you think that her serving in Afghanistan as a chaplain means that she's a regular soldier.

The distinction is quite simply that it's politicians that start wars but it isn't them that does the fighting. It's not the nation that democratically votes to invade Afghanistan/Iraq or wherever the military industrial complex wants to go next, it's not the people. If only those signing up for 'service' (a laughable euphemism) knew this, they could at least make an informed choice.

Sounds to me she's there to absolve the consciences of those that kill other human beings, and she does so from a perspective of superstition and fairytale morality. At least and atheist chaplain would be operating from a dishonest position, even though they are still attached to a service that seems to be causing more problems than it solves.

[Ghost Whistler]

This depends entirely on the what kind of christian they are. There are christians who believe violence can be justified and there is even just war theory. I was raised by a pretty strict non-violent interpretation of the gospels, so I would have a hard time reconciling going to war and being a Christian (my father even opposed me participating in boxing and martial arts). Despite this I can see that there are lots of alternate interpretations out there and plenty of people who consider themselves christians are also soldiers. There is a lot of room for different conclusions when you examine the entire old and new testament as a whole.

Any Christian that can justify the invasion of Afghanistan isn't one whose values I share. Gone are the days of such things; notions of comparing Saddam or the Taliban to Hitler, as the government's 45 minute superweapon theory wwanted us to believe, are fatuous. That is not the world we live in anymore.

[Géza Echs]

The distinction is quite simply that it's politicians that start wars but it isn't them that does the fighting. It's not the nation that democratically votes to invade Afghanistan/Iraq or wherever the military industrial complex wants to go next, it's not the people. If only those signing up for 'service' (a laughable euphemism) knew this, they could at least make an informed choice.

Sounds to me she's there to absolve the consciences of those that kill other human beings, and she does so from a perspective of superstition and fairytale morality. At least and atheist chaplain would be operating from a dishonest position, even though they are still attached to a service that seems to be causing more problems than it solves.

I respect your position and recognize your right to hold it, but our obvious differences of thought on matters of military service, faithful observance, and secular principles make it pointless to discuss this matter with you further.

[Géza Echs]

Any Christian that can justify the invasion of Afghanistan isn't one whose values I share. Gone are the days of such things; notions of comparing Saddam or the Taliban to Hitler, as the government's 45 minute superweapon theory wwanted us to believe, are fatuous. That is not the world we live in anymore.

Saddam had... Nothing to do with the campaign in Afghanistan.

Saddam Hussein was the leader of Iraq.

In addition to what I said just above, it's now clear that it would be pointless to discuss broader issues of politics, warfare, and morality with you. No offense, but I hope this explains why I won't engage in discussion with you on those subjects any more. Cheers!

[Marleycat]

The distinction is quite simply that it's politicians that start wars but it isn't them that does the fighting. It's not the nation that democratically votes to invade Afghanistan/Iraq or wherever the military industrial complex wants to go next, it's not the people. If only those signing up for 'service' (a laughable euphemism) knew this, they could at least make an informed choice.

Sounds to me she's there to absolve the consciences of those that kill other human beings, and she does so from a perspective of superstition and fairytale morality. At least and atheist chaplain would be operating from a dishonest position, even though they are still attached to a service that seems to be causing more problems than it solves.

They know full well what they have to do when they sign up. It's very clear in the paperwork. By the way in the US the military does nothing without the government's express permission. Which will pay the piper if they keep going against the people that elected them, maybe not quickly but it will happen. And the rest of what you say is just silly so I will choose to ignore it given it doesn't deserve a serious response.

Especially since it has nothing to do with the actual topic anyway.

[Ghost Whistler]

Saddam had... Nothing to do with the campaign in Afghanistan.

Saddam Hussein was the leader of Iraq.

In addition to what I said just above, it's now clear that it would be pointless to discuss broader issues of politics, warfare, and morality with you. No offense, but I hope this explains why I won't engage in discussion with you on those subjects any more. Cheers!

Yes I know. I'm suggesting there was a connection. They are merely the two most recent military excursions of our time.

[Ghost Whistler]

They know full well what they have to do when they sign up. It's very clear in the paperwork. By the way in the US the military does nothing without the government's express permission. Which will pay the piper if they keep going against the people that elected them, maybe not quickly but it will happen. And the rest of what you say is just silly so I will choose to ignore it given it doesn't deserve a serious response.

Especially since it has nothing to do with the actual topic anyway.

Not always, that's what economic conscription means.

Of course the military acts with the government's permission; that's the point. Politicians start the wars not the people they are supposed to represent.

[Marleycat]

Not always, that's what economic conscription means.

Of course the military acts with the government's permission; that's the point. Politicians start the wars not the people they are supposed to represent.

There you are correct only because single people can't really start a war in the traditional sense, even if they want to. That's why they elect politicians. I am still wondering what this has to do with the actual topic though.