Rep. Robert Andrews (D-NJ) will be introducing an amendment in Congress to create atheist chaplains in the Armed Forces.
D.G.: Interesting! I'd hope for maybe "humanist" rather than atheist? At least that's how non-religious celebrants/officiants usually describe themselves.
Me: I was hoping you had a comment about the hilarious stupidity of this.
D.G.: I suppose you also believe that a "spiritual atheist" is an oxymoron. This all goes back to our magnum opus about whether transcendence must involve an external reality. :)
Me: If by "spiritual" you mean something supernaturally transcendent to material existence, then of course the honest atheist should refuse any sort of spirituality.
The duties of a chaplain are to offer (1) prayer, (2) spiritual counseling, and (3) religious instruction.
An intellectually honest atheist (1) lacks belief in a god or gods to pray to (2) has no spirituality, and (3) no religious beliefs.
D.G.: (1) Prayer needn't be to a god. I sometimes say Buddhist meta, or other affirmations, and I find they have the same effect on me that prayer did when I was a believer. It's about a focusing of the mind, emotions, and will; and a surrender of what one cannot control.
(2) Like many atheists, I define spirituality in terms of the mind and the sub-conscious, not anything external.
(3) I don't know how often military chaplains perform religious instruction; but an atheist chaplain could certainly lecture on ethics.
(4) You forgot performing ceremonies to mark major life events; there are many humanist officiants who do this.
Me: Redefining the conventional meanings of terms in order to suit your worldview is ex post facto.
"Prayer is an invocation or act that seeks to activate a rapport with a deity, an object of worship, or a spiritual entity through deliberate communication."
"'Spirituality' is derived from the Latin spiritualitas and the Biblical "roeach/pneuma". It means to be put in motion, to be a living person, and being driven. In a Bibilical context it means being animated by God."
F.S.: prayer |pre(ə)r|
noun
a solemn request for help or expression of thanks addressed to God or an object of worship
Since prayer by definition is addressed to another entity, it would assume the ability of said entity to act upon the prayer.
Do not confuse prayer with meditation.
D.G.: By that definition, many Buddhists don't pray either, which I think would surprise them.
I don't care so much if we take an expansive definition of "prayer" and "spirituality", or if we take an expansive definition of the role of the chaplain. Either way:
- The purpose of the chaplain is to see to psychological needs of the troops that are more abstract and subjective than those addressed by medical psychologists.
- The methodology for doing so is personal counseling, lectures, and public and private rituals.
Traditionally these roles have been served by religion. If some significant portion of military personnel would prefer have these be addressed in a non-religious framework, I am glad that the military is serving their needs.
Me: The purpose of a chaplain is not to see to psychological needs of the troops. That's what psychologists do. The Chaplin attends to the religious needs of the troops.
F.S.: Expansive definitions only dilute actual definitions, and most often are born of laziness or obscurity. Just because someone wants to chant or meditate or flap their arms and call it prayer doesn't make it so.
A chaplain's purpose is NOT to see to "psychological" needs. Where ever did you get such a notion?
If people have "non-religious" needs, then create some new office to deal with them, but don't water down a chaplain's actual role to accommodate people who want the benefits but not the responsibilities of something that is inherently spiritual.
Earlier you mention "performing ceremonies to mark major life events". These too are simply aping the "religious" ceremonies but squeezing the accountability out of them. I find it interesting that if non-believers want to have ceremonies, why don't they simply come up with original ones rather than appropriating others'?
Me: Frank, do you think it's any different when atheists appropriate the morality of Christianity?
D.G.: The constitution forbids the establishment of religion. So why does the government pay for chaplains? Because they serve important emotional needs of the troops.
If the government's goal in hiring chaplains is to save the troops' souls, rather than tend to their emotional needs, then why are there both Christian and Hindu chaplains? (Among many others, of course.) According to Christianity, the Hindu chaplains are useless.
The only justification for government-funded chaplains is the needs of the troops. If atheist/secular troops have the same needs, then let them have chaplains.
Me: Since chaplains come in all sorts of persuasions, what religion would you say is being established? And since it was the founders who first mandated military chaplains, would you say that they wanted chaplins to serve psychological purposes, or religious? Or perhaps they just didn't understand the constitution?
D.G.: Religious purposes are either psychological, or non-material. A person without spiritual counseling is not going to starve, or build up water in their brain, or any other physical consequence.
I can see two possibilities; I'd have to do some reading to figure out which is true (and likely both are true to some extent, sine the founders weren't homogeneous):
1. They established chaplains to watch over the souls of the troops. However, they felt that any form of Christianity was sufficient for this purpose, even though different forms don't necessarily accept each other's validity.
2. They established chaplains to see to the subjective needs of the troops. These chaplains were all Christian because the vast majority of troops were Christian.
If #1 is true, then either:
a) They were right, and we should eliminate non-Christian chaplains;
b) They were wrong, and the government needs to figure out the correct set of religions/philosophies to provide chaplains for; or
c) They were wrong, and the correct answer is #2.
If #2 is true, then the subjective needs of secular troops should be met via secular chaplains.
Me: New York, July 9th, l776
The Honorable Continental Congress having been pleased to allow a Chaplain to each Regiment, with the pay of Thirty-Three Dollars and one third dollars pr month - The Colonels or commanding officers of each regiment are directed to procure Chaplains accordingly; persons of good Characters and exemplary lives - To see that all inferior officers and soldiers pay them a suitable respect and attend carefully upon religious exercises. The blessing and protection of Heaven are at all times necessary but especially so in times of public distress and danger -The General hopes and trusts, that every officer and man, will endeavor so to live, and act as becomes a Christian Soldier defending the dearest Rights and Liberties of his country.
signed, George Washington
D.G.: This was before the constitution was even drafted, let alone the bill of rights approved. But broadly, I'd say it supports two notions:
- #1 above (the blessing and protection of Heaven);
- Another role of chaplains is to encourage ethical behavior among the troops. (Something that would also apply to atheist chaplains.)
So if we assume that at least some substantial number of founders held to #1 above, then do you accept any of the follow-up conclusions a, b, or c?
- #1 above (the blessing and protection of Heaven);
- Another role of chaplains is to encourage ethical behavior among the troops. (Something that would also apply to atheist chaplains.)
So if we assume that at least some substantial number of founders held to #1 above, then do you accept any of the follow-up conclusions a, b, or c?
Me: I guess George Washington is just not that important.
D.G.: Uh, really? I said that Washington represented the view of a "substantial number of founders", and you consider that "not that important"?
Me: You keep moving the goalposts.
Chaplains aren't religious. Yes they are, here's why.
Prayer doesn't need to involve the supernatural. Yes it does, here's why.
The constitution doesn't allow for religious chaplains. George Washington, the man who established the chaplaincy, disagrees.
George Washington wrote before the constitution was established. Oh, well then his views are irrelevant.
No, his views are relevant. Why then dismiss him because he wrote before the constitution?
Where to next, Dan? Shall we discuss the oxymoron of "secular chaplains?"
D.G.: So are we arguing definitions here, or are we arguing what the government should do? Because if you want to call secular chaplains "foobazes" instead, I don't really care, as long as they have the same role, employment, etc. as chaplains.
However, I still haven't seen you articulate a principle with historical and legal grounding that allows for non-Christian chaplains, but not secular chaplains.
Me: chap·lain (chpln)
1. A member of the clergy attached to a chapel.
2.
a. A member of the clergy who conducts religious services for an institution, such as a prison or hospital.
b. A member of the clergy who is connected with a royal court or an aristocratic household.
3. A member of the clergy attached to a branch of the armed forces.
D.G.: A dictionary is not an argument. In Washington's day, a chaplain was assumed to be Christian. Definitions change over time.
D.G.: And that doesn't mean that definitions change arbitrarily. But it means that when presented with an argument for broadening, you can't just dismiss it on definitional grounds.
Me: A chaplain is definitionally religious. An atheist by definition has no religious needs. What more do you need? Words mean things. And you are advocating an arbitrary change, a change which appropriates the common usage of the word in order to marginalize its meaning in favor of an ideology.
D.G.: Before there were non-Christian chaplains, the "common usage" of the word implied Christianity. That change wasn't arbitrary, because non-Christian chaplains performed a similar role as Christian chaplains, despite having wildly different belief systems. I don't see how the change I am describing is any different.
Me: Sure, let's change it. And taxes are contributions, the department of defense was the department of war, love = hate... whatever newspeak and neologisms the ministry of truth dictates to us.
No comments:
Post a Comment