Joe Carter can speak with more authority about this question than I can. I’m merely an Army brat, having spent the first sixteen years of my life living on or near Army bases in the U.S. and Germany. I was indifferently churched, but did spend time in a variety of Army-sponsored Sunday School, cathechism, and youth group activities (including a pilgrimage led by Jesuit seminarians–now mostly ex-Jesuits–to Rome). (Some might now be thinking that that explains almost everything about me.)
But this isn’t about me.
Consider this passage:
Joining the chaplain corps is part of a broader campaign by atheists to win official acceptance in the military. Such recognition would make it easier for them to raise money and meet on military bases. It would help ensure that chaplains, religious or atheist, would distribute their literature, advertise their events and advocate for them with commanders.
But winning the appointment of an atheist chaplain will require support from senior chaplains, a tall order. Many chaplains are skeptical: Do atheists belong to a “faith group,” a requirement for a chaplain candidate? Can they provide support to religious troops of all faiths, a fundamental responsibility for chaplains?
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.”
While this position has some support in a remarkably problematical Supreme Court opinion, it’s hard to see how the denial of God can serve the same role as one or another version of belief in God. The varieties of humanism are just varieties of secular ideology, are they not? And doesn’t the military already provide all sorts of secular social services, like counseling, where the credentials don’t come from a seminary or divinity school, but from an M.S.W. or psychology graduate program? (Or am I wrong about this?)
Chaplains, we’re told in the article, are not supposed to proselytize, only to support. But given the array of secular social services presumably already available, I have a hard time seeing how this could be about anything other than proselytizing. And where do we draw the line? Are there any secular ideologies that can’t claim admission to the Corps of Chaplains?
April 27th, 2011 | 1:54 pm
What a waste of time and energy for everyone involved in this nonsense. Are there no more pressing problems right now than “subtle pressures on non-Christians to convert?” Is every minor irritation and annoyance in life something which must be remedied through legal action?
Also, I wonder what insignia an atheist/humanist (which is it?) “chaplain” would wear. Christians wear a small cross to identify their affiliation, Jews a star of David, etc. Would it be a circle with a line through it, or…?
April 27th, 2011 | 3:28 pm
Patrick, I’m an atheist and agree that the effort toward an ‘atheist chaplain’ is misguided. On the other hand, making some facilities available to people of similar philosophy strikes me as sensible.
As to symbols, there’s already one the U.S. military uses; number 16 here: http://www.cem.va.gov/cem/hm/hmemb.asp
April 27th, 2011 | 4:51 pm
Romans 10:9
“If you confess with your mouth that Jesus is Lord and believe in your heart that God raised Him from the dead, you will be saved.”
April 27th, 2011 | 5:13 pm
Oh good, the old “aren’t there more pressing problems” canard!
Well sure. And aren’t there better uses for our tax dollars than paying for evangelists to be embedded in our military to proselytize to both our own citizens and to locals in occupied regions?
April 27th, 2011 | 6:43 pm
[...] Atheists and Secular Humanists, …Atheists Seek Chaplain Role in the MilitaryNew York TimesAtheists in Foxholes?First Things (blog)Atheists, Humanists, Continue Push for Equality in MilitaryBJC Blog from the [...]
April 27th, 2011 | 7:47 pm
Ms. Girl, the chaplains are not allowed to proselytize. The article suggested that they were doing so. I’ve seen pictures of Gen. Petraeus in Arab garb schmoozing with the locals; he’s just another liberal and I would be surprised if he didn’t err on the side of “respecting multiculturalism.” Do you have any evidence to suggest otherwise? Whether they are always able to save each and every person from “subtle pressures,” I’m not sure. When the majority of the military is Christian such “pressures” are likely unavoidable.
The purpose of the military is to win wars. The leadership evidently believes that chaplains contribute to that cause by improving morale. Therefore, they are a perfectly valid use of taxes.
Would you deprive a soldier of religious service in a combat zone because of your concern that someone, somewhere might hear a good word about Christianity?
April 27th, 2011 | 7:50 pm
SOrry, I meant that the article didn’t suggest that there was proselytizing. Inviting Billy Graham to your base isn’t really proselytizing any more than inviting a rock band is proselytizing for rock music, unless you’re forcing people to go. Sorry, but to say it is just sounds like whining to me.
April 27th, 2011 | 9:45 pm
‘“Humanism fills the same role for atheists that Christianity does for Christians and Judaism does for Jews,” Mr. Torpy said in an interview.’
Evidence, if any more were needed, that the claim that many atheists make that their stated lack of belief is just that, and nothing more, is false. It is no co-incidence, of course, that so many atheists have so many other things in common (ex. support euthanasia), but all we ever hear from them is the same old nonsense that atheism is just a ‘lack of belief in god(s) of any kind’.
April 27th, 2011 | 11:13 pm
“Inviting Billy Graham to your base isn’t really proselytizing”
Here’s how Ft. Bragg’s chaplain described the show in writing to area churches:
“The Billy Graham Association is coming to Fort Bragg to offer a free concert and the Christian message to all of Fort Bragg and the surrounding community”
If bringing the Christian message ISN’T proselytizing, NOTHING is.
April 27th, 2011 | 11:56 pm
The military already provides all sorts of non-religious counseling services for its members. If an atheist soldier needs to see a Freudian psychotherapist, it’s a pretty safe bet the Army provides those. Where’s the necessity for a “chaplain”?
April 28th, 2011 | 2:00 am
Hi Brian,
Not to be pedantic, but for the sake of clarity please allow me to remind you that the word “proselytize” means “to attempt to convert.” It specifically indicates some action designed to make a person “come over” (this is the literal meaning of the Greek root) to your side.
Strict categorical judgment of this sort of thing is somewhat difficult, depending as it does on the subjective impression, however I would argue that merely “offer[ing] [...] the Christian message” falls short of proselytizing. The word “offer” in particular carries connotations of a consensual, indeed, subordinate relationship on the part of the offerer: a gift is said to be “offered,” (Latin offerre has plenary religious connotations, hence the offertory in Catholic Mass); a war, by contrast, is not said to be “offered,” but is “brought.” You are the only one to use the word “bring,” instead of “offer” which was the word used by Ft. Bragg leadership.
I would think that it would be perfectly legitimate to bring someone like Bertrand Russell, Carl Sagan, or Richard Feynman (if they were still alive) to a military installation to give a talk on the value of proof, evidence, and logical rigor. You must understand, however, that when speaking to soldiers rather than scientists, that sort of thing might not be very popular. Less popular still would be a Richard Dawkins, Daniel Dennet, or Christopher Hitchens type of character, since they go beyond traditional empiricism into the realm of anti-Christian diatribe. Undermining the worldview of the majority of your troops probably isn’t going to help them prepare for battle.
Like I said above, the function of the military is combat effectiveness, not providing a platform for every E5 pseudo-intellectual.
April 28th, 2011 | 5:31 am
[...] HT: Joseph Knipperberg, and see what he says about it. [...]
April 28th, 2011 | 7:30 am
You know, I can understand why someone might use the word ‘diatribe’ to discuss some of the writings of Dawkins or Hitchens. But could you please give me an example of something by Dennett you’d call a ‘diatribe’?
April 28th, 2011 | 7:35 am
Peter A. –
What if – and I’m going out on a limb here – there’s more than one kind of atheist? There’s more than one kind of monotheist. Heck, there’s more than one kind of Christian – sola scriptura, Calvinism (Mormonism?), etc.
April 28th, 2011 | 9:52 am
“If an atheist soldier needs to see a Freudian psychotherapist, it’s a pretty safe bet the Army provides those. Where’s the necessity for a “chaplain”?”
Because the Christian soldier might desire spiritual comfort in the same way an atheist wants the benefits of discredited forms of psychotherapy?
April 28th, 2011 | 12:16 pm
Pentamom – Just to be clear, note that it was a theist, astorian, who proposed the “Freudian psychologist” for atheists. I haven’t seen any actual atheists make such a request.
And ‘astorian’ – unless I’m greatly mistaken – wasn’t suggesting getting rid of the chaplain corps, he was questioning the need for an atheist chaplain.
April 28th, 2011 | 4:24 pm
Ray Ingles read my meaning correctly.
My point was that an atheist soldier or sailor who needed some kind of non-religious counseling or emotional support can get that from many sources. He might use a psychotherapist or encounter group where a Catholic soldier might turn to a priest.
If that’s the case, the military ALREADY provides secular therapists and counselors. Is there really anything to be gained by calling such a counselor a “chaplain”?
April 28th, 2011 | 4:49 pm
Ah, thanks Ray and astorian, sorry for the misread.
April 28th, 2011 | 9:14 pm
“Not to be pedantic, but for the sake of clarity please allow me to remind you that the word “proselytize” means “to attempt to convert.” It specifically indicates some action designed to make a person “come over” (this is the literal meaning of the Greek root) to your side.”
That pretty much describes Graham’s entire purpose in life.
You know, it might actually be useful to read what atheists in the US military say about this:
http://blog.militaryatheists.org/2011/03/military-atheists-visit-chaplains/
http://blog.militaryatheists.org/2011/04/atheists-seek-chaplain-role-in-the-military/
Also, we *could* have compared how well Richard Dawkins can draw a crowd compared to Graham, except the military axed it at the last minute. See http://rockbeyondbelief.com
April 29th, 2011 | 9:36 am
That it is Graham’s entire purpose in life does not mean that when he shows up in a military environment, the military is cooperating with his purpose. They’re allowing him to speak; they are not requiring anyone to attend, to listen, or even to care whether he’s there or not.
So, of course Billy Graham is proselytizing, but Joe Atheist is no more “being proselytized” by Billy speaking on his base than by Billy speaking 2000 miles away, if he doesn’t care to show up and listen.
April 29th, 2011 | 5:12 pm
pentamom, proselytizing is not defined as being forced to convert. If Graham was there to proselytize and was allowed to do so (whether or not the audience was there voluntarily), then there is a problem. The problem is amplified by the discriminatory way the military treated the atheist group that tried to put on a comparable event.
As for Peter A. saying that humanism’s role in the lives of many (not all) atheists is proof that atheism is more than a lack of belief – did you even read what you wrote? You talk about humanism and then made conclusions about atheism. Not all atheists are humanist. Not all atheists are nihilist. Atheism is a blanket term that refers to anyone who does not believe in deities. Hell, there are Buddhists who are atheist, that doesn’t make atheists Buddhist.
Now, as for chaplains versus therapists, these are very different roles. A chaplain is someone who can help you find meaning in your life. That’s what religion is all about. Atheists reject religion but we don’t stop looking for meaning in our lives. Therapists are there to help people get over an issue. Think about it, many religious people see a therapist, shouldn’t they see a pastor first?
The point of having a humanist chaplain is to get equality of religion in the military. If you want to argue that atheists can just see the religious chaplains if they want support from a chaplain, then you could also argue that we don’t need African American chaplains because African Americans can just see the white chaplains. Why is there so much resistance to this?
April 29th, 2011 | 10:13 pm
I’m an Army chaplain. We don’t proselytize. If someone opens a door for us to talk explicitly about our faith, we will likely do so. But we do not force our views on others. We are, though, usually the first source of counseling for soldiers, because we are part of their units. We live and work with them daily, so they get to know, trust and love us. Army psychologists and social workers don’t form that kind of relationship. We also care for soldiers after there is a death or casualty. In addition, chaplains play a major role as advisors to the commander on a variety of issues. Atheist soldeirs have plenty of resources for secular counseling. And if an atheist soldier came to me seeking assistance to find a place for his group to meet, I would assist him.
May 2nd, 2011 | 2:12 pm
“pentamom, proselytizing is not defined as being forced to convert. ”
Nor is it defined as having someone utter words inducing people to conversion somewhere in your vicinity whether you hear them or not.
Links
Blogs
Find Us
Contact