Religion in the military

I'm still working on being fully anonymous to myself. Alas I continue to fail.

hariaum

Hmmm, "Navin1" although giving substantial thinking to the topic is unfortunately on a list of potential imposters. Again, this is a semi-anonymous blog and imposters abound.

There doesn't seem to be much interest in this, another of Sally and Jon's inane topic/questions. Still, DANIEL12 and NAVIN1's comments are interesting and fun. In fact, I find the "Make a Comment" writers much more interesting than Sally and Jon's panel folks.

Way back, when I was a young man in the Marine Corps, they had a thing called "esprit de corps." That worked pretty good.

Most young men in the military know they have been hired to fight and kill people. Some of these young men recognize this idea goes against some of the teaching of their religion, and that's where each religion's chaplains come in. The chaplains are able to explain away certain teachings of the various religions.

I don't know if religions are necessary for our military, but the chaplains certainly are.

Not sure what defines a successful military. The revolutionary soldier of the US were a hodgepodge against a trained military. the hodgepodge won. The allies were a hodgepodge v the two attacks by the Germans who were ideological and culturally unified. The Indians are a hodgepodge holding off the culturally unified attacks of Pakistan and Bangledesh. Alliances brought down british and japanese rule in Burma.

also, If a military is successful at killing because of a united culture and ideology, isn't that the most dangerous military for humanity?

hariaum

The proper role of religion in the military?

First we have to ask what we mean by military. Do we mean successful military or failed military? If successful military history demonstrates that all members of the military should belong to a particular city-state, particular religion, particular ethnic group, particular nation.

History demonstrates the best way to ruin a military is to make it a jumble of various religions, ethnic groups, and so on. History demonstrates that the very word military is inextricable from a particular pattern of belief all the members of the military share.

In modern times--say America--there is less and less heart in the military because all the traditional beliefs by which a military would cohere are being disrupted. We have individuals in the military in America--individuals capitalized. We have no group identity worth speaking of. Each member of the armed forces is to his own.

The exception to this disintegration process are the elite forces. By being elite, by being in a clear category which is recognized as exceptional, they can stand the loss of all other forms of group identity such as religion, ethnic group, etc. They most of all members of the military fight for their unit, their pride. In other words, they cohere by pure warrior ethos.

And it is precisely these elite forces who are most hated by those that seek to eliminate any one religion, ethnic group, etc. dominating the military. In other words the entire leftwing trend in the United States is a force which disintegrates the military and only the elite forces are preserved from this disintegration. Everyone else does not add up to a group identity--not even identity in the sense of "fighting for our nation".

Why not even in the sense of "fighting for our nation" is because the U.S. is not a nation in the traditional sense. More and more it is insisted upon that it be a multiculturality. But this is the disintegration of all belief which gave heart to man all through history. This is the replacement of belief by bloodless abstract values such as human rights and tolerance of all. etc.

Quite simply the U.S. military is less and less an actual military--a successful one--because it is a hodgepodge, and those that celebrate hodgepodge do so precisely because they feel it is possible to get all peoples, races, ethnic groups, etc. to get along without the need for military action.

But actually it is difficult to see if the multiculturalists have a way to unite disparate peoples etc. or simply have no heart to fight for anything--even their very beliefs. To go into battle determined to succeed because one believes in multiculturality? Is that a contradiction or not? Yes, unfortunately it is.

The more a military is a hodgepodge the more it is culturally sensitive meaning it cannot organize with any heart to succeed against any one ethnic group, religion, nation, etc. Even in world war 2--when America was peopled with mostly white people no matter their ethnicity, religion, etc.--it was recognized that man for man the German and Japanese armies were superior--because they were united in traditional fashion, were not a hodgepodge. They were "nation" in the traditional sense. They were Japanese, German.

The U.S. military can only decline further. Everyone insists various beliefs or none at all must be held by military members. No one belief--nothing by which the members can truly cohere and believe in and fight for.

The role of religion in the military? Either choose one religion or none at all. Either is preferable to hodgepodge. But then again the course of no belief at all--and this extended to no particular ethnicity, etc.--is just as damaging to the military as hodgepodge. The fact is we moderns have no right to say what a military should be like, for we are all bent on destroying such, on reducing as much as possible all which made militaries successful in the past.

What is the role of religion in the military? Try a more honest question: What is the role of the military?

Just some corrections here about a previous post because some civilians dont know:

* The military is a branch or part of the government and therefore must abide to all government rules and regulations.

----Only such laws that are Constitutional. We are obligated by our oath to abide by the Constitution and by our morals. The military is part of the government only in so much as the government is required to raise and sustain it. However it is not a tool of governance like every other "branch or part" of the government. We should not and dont have political or a governmental function.

* Military personnel took the oath of protecting, defending, and serving the US Constitution and the nation.

----- "and the nation" is not part of our oath. We only swear to protect and defend the Constitution. i.e. and idea, not a dictator or piece of ground.

* Military personnel took the oath of honor in protecting, defending, and serving the people.

-----No we dont. We never swear to protect the people.

* Military personnel took the oath of honor in protecting, defending, and serving the military institution.

----No we dont. We are loyal to our service and serve it , but there is no "oath".

* Military personnel took the oath of honor in protecting, defending, and serving each other (military personnel).

----No we dont. We serve with each other. But ultimately in our chain of loyalties, our comrades rank below the Constitution, the Country, and the Service, but above ourselves.

* Military personnel took the oath of solidarity, unity, and oneness.

-----No we dont. I dont know when or where we were supposed to take all these oaths, but never took this one.

* Military personnel acknowledged and signed to the commitments and oaths.

-----This one is correct, we sign a copy of our oath of service which is a printed copy of our oath.

* The military is more than an institution. It can affect culture and be the way of life for many. And therefore, a good conducts, noble and honorable military culture would tremendously help and advance society, civilians, military personnel and their families.

* Must appreciate and honor the sacrifices and sufferings of past as well as current military personnel, their families, and the nation (the people).

---People need to understand the unique position the military is in. It is not a social test tube for the government to experiment with (though it is repeatedly treated that way), it is not a tool of government that should be used to curry favor with the people (as it often is). It is an institution dedicated to one goal, the defense of the principals of the Constitution. In doing that it translates to the defense of the nation. The individual rights of the military are severely restricted (freedom of speech, assembly, press, etc). Individuals personal beliefs, religions, etc are private and should always remain so.

Chaplains are not a "humane" inconvenience of the military but a REQUIRED facilitator of a RIGHT. There are ways the military is REQUIRED to facilitate other rights that are restricted, the same with religion. Things are the way they are because its necessary.

Just some corrections here about a previous post because some civilians dont know:

* The military is a branch or part of the government and therefore must abide to all government rules and regulations.

----Only such laws that are Constitutional. We are obligated by our oath to abide by the Constitution and by our morals. The military is part of the government only in so much as the government is required to raise and sustain it. However it is not a tool of governance like every other "branch or part" of the government. We should not and dont have political or a governmental function.

* Military personnel took the oath of protecting, defending, and serving the US Constitution and the nation.

----- "and the nation" is not part of our oath. We only swear to protect and defend the Constitution. i.e. and idea, not a dictator or piece of ground.

* Military personnel took the oath of honor in protecting, defending, and serving the people.

-----No we dont. We never swear to protect the people.

* Military personnel took the oath of honor in protecting, defending, and serving the military institution.

----No we dont. We are loyal to our service and serve it , but there is no "oath".

* Military personnel took the oath of honor in protecting, defending, and serving each other (military personnel).

----No we dont. We serve with each other. But ultimately in our chain of loyalties, our comrades rank below the Constitution, the Country, and the Service, but above ourselves.

* Military personnel took the oath of solidarity, unity, and oneness.

-----No we dont. I dont know when or where we were supposed to take all these oaths, but never took this one.

* Military personnel acknowledged and signed to the commitments and oaths.

-----This one is correct, we sign a copy of our oath of service which is a printed copy of our oath.

* The military is more than an institution. It can affect culture and be the way of life for many. And therefore, a good conducts, noble and honorable military culture would tremendously help and advance society, civilians, military personnel and their families.

* Must appreciate and honor the sacrifices and sufferings of past as well as current military personnel, their families, and the nation (the people).

---People need to understand the unique position the military is in. It is not a social test tube for the government to experiment with (though it is repeatedly treated that way), it is not a tool of government that should be used to curry favor with the people (as it often is). It is an institution dedicated to one goal, the defense of the principals of the Constitution. In doing that it translates to the defense of the nation. The individual rights of the military are severely restricted (freedom of speech, assembly, press, etc). Individuals personal beliefs, religions, etc are private and should always remain so.

Chaplains are not a "humane" inconvenience of the military but a REQUIRED facilitator of a RIGHT. There are ways the military is REQUIRED to facilitate other rights that are restricted, the same with religion. Things are the way they are because its necessary.

Religion has nothing to do with this, the guy's a nutcase. I once read a forum post somewhere, about a fried of the poster who also happened to be a former psychoanalyst. She said that a point came in his life when he realized that he should either quit being a psychoanalyst or shoot all his patients. I presume this last bit means that he realized that this would be the only way to end their misery, being of no real help whatsoever. So he quit.

This doesn't mean that Hasan thought the same literally, it means that he ended up being the focal point of way too much misery, but didn't really understand any of it or find a way to deal with it (it also means that he was probably not too smart). All else, religious banter etc., is a justification and rationalization for his actions, but not the cause for them.

That said, religion can be a problem, but in a broader context. Someone I know who lived in Muslim country for a long time once told me that you never ever say that you are an atheist in a Muslim country. This would be equivalent to admitting to be a hardened criminal. You should always claim a belief in some God (and identify as lutheran, catholic, evangelical etc.).

Because if you don't believe that God watches you 24 hours a day, and sees all, whats to stop you from lying to everyone, cheating in everything, stealing whatever you can, etc.? Or so the reasoning goes.

What this kind of reasoning reveals is, of course, a complete lack of an inner moral core. It's that same association of morals with the existence of an external total power that destroys the moral core - it's not like people can barely restrain themselves from being antisocial or immoral on their own.

That's what you get in the majority of Muslim societies - lift the veil a bit and you find deep corruption.
So, leaving religion aside, I'd say a major cause for the failing of Muslim societies, in general, is some really bad popular theology.

I saw a stand up lady (Sally Quinn) on fox news tonight

But a person is not a civic institution. The person is a complex whole. To this, the Mahabharat offers some guidance:

There are numerous kings who need to side on war. They base their decision on the past loyalties and expected returns. That is natural.

At the time God, Krishna, has an army. Two men go to God and ask for his help, though on opposite side of the ensuing battle. Krishna says he will not fight in the battle but offers a choice. The two sides can pick either Krishna's army or to have Krishna as a charioteer. To the one that arrived first, and thus has first choice, the army is the natural resource. But he argues that Krishna's army will not be loyal against the side of Krishna. Krishna commands his army that loyalty is to follow the orders and join this side.

The other person, Arjuna, is overjoyed. He does not see God as a resource to build his army, he welcomes god's guidance in the chariot.

(one chooses materialism, one chooses the spiritual force of God's presence - but that's not the point here)

The point is that a soldier's religious duty is to follow orders. Once having joined a side of the battle, the soldier needs to be a part of the mission. The US military has found out that a cog is not a good part. A thinking soldier executes his/her mission better. But the mission is that of the Government, not that of the soldier.

But this ethic, requires a deeper understanding of morality than the us v them idea. Krishna's soldiers fought on the side against god by order of god. It is not that one side is hated or one side is loved. It is that we have a part to play in this world. Krishna loves both sides. It is the choices that we make that put us on one side of the other, not god's siding with one side or the other. Thus Hector and Achilles could respect each other in battle without moral indignation.

Indeed, moral indignation is the problem. Once that sense of righteousness falls on a person, they are willing to do anything to prove they are right (inquisitions, crusades, jihads, mountain meadows massacre...). A soldier, and any person, seeking to live life in the most truthful way (satvic) is one who detaches his/her ego and renounces the results. In this way, there is no room for moral indignation, there is no room for scheming for personal gain, there is no room for ego satisfying falsifying ideology. For a soldier this is most poignant, as it is for the doc in the ICU, the cop on the beat, the fireman who needs to choose which life to save, etc.

This is the role of a person's religion - to educate them into living life more truthfully. When a soldier can not do this, their moral life is not going to be improved when faced with the critical decision to disobey an order when a ranking officer says to shoot small children, or a psychiatrist that chooses to kill others in a twisted form of protest against violence. An army that supports moral indignation builds itself up in the beginning but falls apart in the end (unfortunately that can take a few hundred years sometimes).

A soldier's moral beliefs / religion must inform that soldier on the rightness of egoless, renounced, conscientious decision making. If the religion instead says you will get into heaven (ego attached to results) because of your passion for this book or that (attachment) it is a religion that is very dangerous to the military ethic. It is a belief system that says the military is my vehicle for personal gain (say a psychiatrist with no intention to deploy but willing to take the money for his education). That is a belief system that our military should exclude.

(and yes, if it is hard to recruit people for your war using this higher ethic, perhaps your war is not worth the fighting)

hariaum

The question blurs the players.

The military is a civic institution. As such, it is obligated by the duties of all other civic institutions as Universalcitizen points out. Our construct of civic includes that there is no law above the constitution. When someone swears to the constitution of the United States of America, we swear an allegiance to that idea. The military has the right to believe a person when that person makes such an oath. As such, once a person joins the military voluntarily, they are obligated by their own commitment to that constitution. Once the person is in the military, they no longer have an official religion. They are there to defend the constitution. Thus formally, the military has no obligation to support your personal beliefs.

The fact that the military has chaplains is a compromise from the rigid formal interpretation to a more humane interpretation recognizing the human need to belong to a greater being. The military's obligation is to help soldiers be better soldiers in their free agent choice to defend the constitution. In this way, if you need pain medication, or a salve for your immortal soul, the military can help. But once you turn on the mission to defend the constitution, there is no obligation from the military onto a traitor. It does have an obligation to justice, being a civil entity, and thus rules of law apply. But the core of the US military is the US constitution and no other belief systems.

hariaum

Military institutions exist mainly to protect, defend, serve, and advance the people, US Constitution (or laws of the land), societies, civil rights, human rights, dignity, and well being. Discriminations, bigotry, divisiveness, intolerance, or abuses of power or circumstances/conditions must not be tolerated or allowed for the following reasons:

* The military is a branch or part of the government and therefore must abide to all government rules and regulations.

* Military personnel took the oath of protecting, defending, and serving the US Constitution and the nation.

* Military personnel took the oath of honor in protecting, defending, and serving the US Constitution and the nation.

* Military personnel took the oath of honor in protecting, defending, and serving the people.

* Military personnel took the oath of honor in protecting, defending, and serving the military institution.

* Military personnel took the oath of honor in protecting, defending, and serving each other (military personnel).

* Military personnel took the oath of solidarity, unity, and oneness.

* Military personnel acknowledged and signed to the commitments and oaths.

* The military is more than an institution. It can affect culture and be the way of life for many. And therefore, a good conducts, noble and honorable military culture would tremendously help and advance society, civilians, military personnel and their families.

* Must appreciate and honor the sacrifices and sufferings of past as well as current military personnel, their families, and the nation (the people).

For the above reasons, proselytize and all forms of bigotry or discrimination are unconstitutional and have no place in the military. And therefore, must be made illegal and prohibited. Military chaplains are necessary. However, sharing life experience and counseling are totally different from proselytizing. Proselytize to a vulnerable person under such circumstances as stress, pain, sorrows, despair, disarray, insecurity, loneliness, or fear can be considered as unethical, uncivilized, taking advantages of the vulnerable, and depending on circumstances, can be immoral. Even in civil societies, laws against racism, bigotry, sexism, intimidation, and harassment, xenophobia, and discrimination (against such as culture, religion, belief, gender) are being advanced and enforced, even in private organizations and institutions. Furthermore, solidarity, unity, and oneness imply maintaining the code of conducts and oaths of honors and no such thing as discrimination, bigotry, sexism, xenophobia, divisiveness, intolerance, or hatred.

Military institution requires its personnel to signed and take oaths of honor and therefore must not contradict or confuse itself and its personnel by allowing or tolerating such as discrimination, bigotry, divisiveness, unethical, and uncivilized behaviors to take place or be part of the military culture. Breaking the oaths of honor to a single individual (is not recommended of course) is quite different than to a nation, its people, the whole military institution, and its personnel. And since the oaths of honor are taking under or during rituals and ceremonies, breaking them are almost like committing perjuries or bear false witnesses. Therefore, the military institution for all the above reasons must be much more noble and honorable. The military must have good regulations, laws and enforcement to ensure its institution comply with federal or government laws (US Constitution and we the people) and military personnel conducts and oaths of honor are not being contradicted or unnecessary compromised. And at the same time, ensure that its missions or activities are well protected or organized. Therefore, well legislated federal laws and military institutions regulations must exist to monitor, regulate and enforce military conducts, pluralism, wellness, and culture.

Why no Muslim to include Ms. Taylor can be trusted:

Allah is an enemy to unbelievers. - Sura 2:98

On unbelievers is the curse of Allah. - Sura 2:161

Slay them wherever ye find them and drive them out of the places whence they drove you out, for persecution is worse than slaughter. - 2:191

Fight against them until idolatry is no more and Allah's religion reigns supreme. (different translation: ) Fight them until there is no persecution and the religion is God's entirely. - Sura 2:193 and 8:39

Fighting is obligatory for you, much as you dislike it. - 2:216
(different translation: ) Prescribed for you is fighting, though it is hateful to you.

..... martyrs.... Enter heaven - Surah 3:140-43

If you should die or be killed in the cause of Allah, His mercy and forgiveness would surely be better than all they riches they amass. If you should die or be killed, before Him you shall all be gathered. - 3:157-8

You must not think that those who were slain in the cause of Allah are dead. They are alive, and well-provided for by their Lord. - Surah 3:169-71

Let those fight in the cause of God who sell the life of this world for the hereafter. To him who fights in the cause of God, whether he is slain or victorious, soon we shall give him a great reward. - Surah 4:74

Those who believe fight in the cause of God, and those who reject faith fight in the cause of evil. - 4:76

But if they turn renegades, seize them and slay them wherever you find them. - 4:89

Therefore, we stirred among them enmity and hatred, which shall endure till the Day of Resurrection, when Allah will declare to them all that they have done. - 5:14

O believers, take not Jews and Christians as friends; they are friends of each other. Those of you who make them his friends is one of them. God does not guide an unjust people. - 5:54

Make war on them until idolatry is no more and Allah's religion reigns supreme - 8:39

O Prophet! Exhort the believers to fight. If there are 20 steadfast men among you, they shall vanquish 200; and if there are a hundred, they shall rout a thousand unbelievers, for they are devoid of understanding. - 8:65

It is not for any Prophet to have captives until he has made slaughter in the land. - 8:67

Allah will humble the unbelievers. Allah and His apostle are free from obligations to idol-worshipers. Proclaim a woeful punishment to the unbelievers. - 9:2-3

When the sacred months are over, slay the idolaters wherever you find them. Arrest them, besiege them, and lie in ambush everywhere for them. - 9:5

Believers! Know that idolators are unclean. - 9:28

Fight those who believe neither in God nor the Last Day, nor what has been forbidden by God and his messenger, nor acknowledge the religion of Truth, even if they are People of the Book, until they pay the tribute and have been humbled. - 9:29 (another source: ) The unbelievers are impure and their abode is hell. (another source: ) Humiliate the non-Muslims to such an extent that they surrender and pay tribute.

Whether unarmed or well-equipped, march on and fight for the cause of Allah, with your wealth and your persons. - 9:41

O Prophet! Make war on the unbelievers and the hypocrites. Be harsh with them. Their ultimate abode is hell, a hapless journey's end. - 9:73

Allah has purchased of their faithful lives and worldly goods, and in return has promised them the Garden. They will fight for His cause, kill and be killed. - 9:111

Fight unbelievers who are near to you. 9:123 (different translation:
Believers! Make war on the infidels who dwell around you. Let them find harshness in you. (another source: ) Ye who believe! Murder those of the disbelievers....

As for those who are slain in the cause of Allah, He will not allow their works to perish. He will vouchsafe them guidance and ennoble their state; He will admit them to the Paradise He has made known to them. - 10:4-15

Allah has cursed the unbelievers and proposed for them a blazing hell. - 33:60

Unbelievers are enemies of Allah and they will roast in hell. - 41:14

When you meet the unbelievers, smite their necks, then when you have made wide slaughter among them, tie fast the bonds, then set them free, either by grace or ransom, until the war lays down its burdens. - 47:4
(different translation: ) When you meet the unbelievers in the battlefield, strike off their heads, and when you have laid them low, bind your captives firmly.

Those who are slain in the way of Allah - he will never let their deeds be lost. Soon will he guide them and improve their condition, and admit them to the Garden, which he has announced for them. - 47:5

Muslims are harsh against the unbelievers, merciful to one another. - 48:25

Muhammad is Allah's apostle. Those who follow him are ruthless to the unbelievers but merciful to one another. Through them, Allah seeks to enrage the unbelievers. - 48:29

Prophet! Make war on the unbelievers and the hypocrites and deal sternly with them. Hell shall be their home, evil their fate. - 66:9

The unbelievers among the People of the Book and the pagans shall burn forever in the fire of hell. They are the vilest of all creatures. - 98:51

Fight them so that Allah may punish them at your hands, and put them to shame. (verse cited in Newsweek 2/11/02)

"Should a particular religious affiliation disqualify someone from active military service?"

Based on the following, no Moslems should be allowed in any military service anywhere, anytime!!

1a) 179 killed in Mumbai/Bombay, 290 injured

1b) Assassination of Benazir Bhutto and Theo Van Gogh

2) 9/11, 3000 mostly US citizens, 1000’s injured

3) The 24/7 Sunni-Shiite centuries-old blood feud currently being carried out in Iraq, US Troops, 3,474 killed in action, 878 in non-combat accidents and 93,552 – 102,083 Iraqi civilians killed, http://www.iraqbodycount.org/ and
http://www.defenselink.mil/news/casualty.pdf

4) Kenya- In Nairobi, about 212 people were killed and an estimated 4000 injured; in Dar es Salaam, the attack killed at least 11 and wounded 85.[2]

5) Bali-in 2002-killing 202 people, 164 of whom were foreign nationals, and 38 Indonesian citizens. A further 209 people were injured.

6) Bali in 2005- Twenty people were killed, and 129 people were injured by three bombers who killed themselves in the attacks.

7) Spain in 2004- killing 191 people and wounding 2,050.

8) UK in 2005- The bombings killed 52 commuters and the four radical Islamic suicide bombers, injured 700.

9) The execution of an eloping couple in Afghanistan on 04/15/2009 by the Taliban.

10) Operation Enduring Freedom in Afghanistan: US troops killed in action 614 and 182 killed in non-combat situations as of 10/15/09.

11) The killing of 13 USA citizen soldiers at Fr. Hood by a Muslim fanatic.

i.e. what is the easiest way to gain access to a weapon of mass destruction??

Wiccan puts his/her finger right on. In the avoidance to blame islam for major idiot, we say don't generalize. Yet, here is a question that generalizes a problem to all religions based on one major idiot. That has to be the hallmark of liberality's over reach.

A religious nut brings attention to a religion's nuttiness. The more educated we are by evidence of religious nut factory, the better off we are. The more educated a religious nut factory manager is, perhaps s/he can fix their false manufacturing process.

Let us discriminate on evidence, not on generalization that can only obfuscate the real texture of the religious debate.

hariaum

"The Fort Hood shootings have raised questions again about how the military should handle the personal religious beliefs of its soldiers, whether they are evangelical Christians, Muslims, Wiccans, and so on."

HUH?! What the hell did the Wiccans do?

Making war is a tribal endeavor. Exposing oneself to danger for others is a Darwinian oddity. The reason it exists is that we evolved in closely held tribes in which personal sacrifice was rewarded genetically with propagation of shared genes of cousins in the tribe.

We have built elaborate structures upon this evolutionary psychology but it may break down if multiculturalism goes too far. If a soldier does not feel a common bond with those in his squad, will he expose himself to fire to act in concert with them?

In my neighborhood's second-hand bookstore is a half-century of titles along the lines of "The Current State of the Middle East in Biblical Prophesy" that someone apparently didn't need any more after its predictions failed.

Sam Harris quotes polling results that almost half of Americans think the world will end in their lifetime and half think the world will end when Jesus returns.

It makes me worry that a substantial fraction of the political support for continued engagement is motivated by a hope for nuclear destruction or dues ex machina involvement.