Military Needs Chaplains for Humanists, Atheists

Terra,

You question why the military does not have Pagan chaplains - the answer is complex, but I will attempt to 'hit the highlights.'
-Chaplains must have a college education AND an MDiv or its equivelent. There are no graduate seminaries that offer a three-year professional degree in Paganism that are recognized by the ATS.
-Chaplains must be endorsed for chaplaincy by the headquarters of their denomination. Pagans have no central authority from which this endorsement can be granted. When I left the Pentagon in 2001, they/we were still trying to get the various Pagan organizations to recognize or appoint a contact person or organization who could tell the military what Paganism is and who is qualified to represent it. That had been going on for at least ten years at that point. Each group wanted to be 'the' Pagan representative, but balked at the idea of telling other Pagans what is and is not authentic Paganism.
-The various Chaplain Corps have gone out of their way to facilitate worship for minority faiths, including Wiccan and other Pagan groups. Often this consists of using a Lay Reader, a non-chaplain of that denomination, who organizes and leads worship activities. The chaplain's office provides any reasonable worship aid and provides a space for the worship.

These are just three issues, but they also are at the heart of why there are not humanist/atheist chaplains.

To There Is Better - your post is pure Christian hyperbole of the first order. Nor is your understanding of humanism any more developed. When and how can the humanist philosophy be seen as reducing life to the mere chaos of matter and energy?

It can be said with some certainly that humanists, particularly the ones matriculating from Harvard, very likely have a better understanding of science than you've displayed here with your little religious hissy fit.

Or is that confabulation of yours based on the possibility that a humanist might disdain the idea of a higher power? Then of course, military or not, what need have they of an understanding ear in a time of personal crisis?

Being relatively sensible people, humanists of the secular kind understand that the only life that can be known for sure is the life that they're laying on the line for the defense of their country.

Do you imagine that non-religious humanists serving in the military are any less concerned with losing that life than, say, a born-again Christian?

We all bleed red - that's one thing we do know for sure.

Mr. Epstein,

I read your opinion piece with dismay - you seem to be well-meaning, but terribly uninformed as to the work and role of military chaplains. May I respectfully suggest that you contact one or more of the Chiefs of Chaplains and then contact the endorsing agencies for several of the denominations that provide chaplains to the military. At that point, I think you might be better prepared to write this op-ed.

Mr. Epstein,

I read your opinion piece with dismay - you seem to be well-meaning, but terribly uninformed as to the work and role of military chaplains. May I respectfully suggest that you contact one or more of the Chiefs of Chaplains and then contact the endorsing agencies for several of the denominations that provide chaplains to the military. At that point, I think you might be better prepared to write this op-ed.

A humanist chaplain would be laughable if it wasn’t for the sadness that strickens me in the awareness that such is the product of our most respected places of higher education. The once strong and gleaming pillars of thought now reduced to magnificent delusion and intelligent foolishness. A byproduct, no doubt, of our mechanical approach to humanity that postures in the understanding of composition, but sees not the soul; or worse yet, is aware of it, but seeks to sever it from within one’s own body without catastrophe. And to profess the vocation of chaplain? It is most perilous and sad.

But in this I am most perplexed: Why then does the humanist even need a chaplain if man is reduced only to a chaotically (yet functional) arrangement of energy and matter? Without being adversarial, it seems a most conflicting thought. The humanist believes in no higher authority, is given to no discipline, and needs no rite. So as one slips beyond this life; is there any assurance from a supposed chaplain? And if there is the need, does this person have anything to bequeath the traveler, or serve any particular purpose for that matter, even if the fatal might only then desire an explanation of the meaning of life, for which this chaplain would have no meaningful assurance and nothing more than condolences at their disposal. And if religion only exists to deal with death—although I would strongly suggest that you conveniently ignore that all religions deals in considerably more detail with how we should live—then it offers no real comfort, unless it has a basis in the experience from one who has seen death and found himself able to report back on this experience and record it for our benefit.

As for our men at arms, the noblest of our citizens, it seems necessary that they who risk the precious gift of life would be afforded most the opportunity to freely reason through their own frail nature and conflicted thought. And your efforts to lobby Congress to cut them off from these meaningful deliberations serves only as an attempt to remove the heart that is within them, from which the courage to fight is found, thereby sending them to battle without armor. I hope that this is an effort of misapplication and not intention. For if it is ignorance, you shall yet have the hope of salvation and truly serve men; but, if it is intention then you have nothing to avail yourself to in times of trouble, and you suffocate the hope of others, as well. Therefore, I pray that you may know the God that you ignore and He would make things well with you and your service to men might have great effect.

RICH

You wrote, " And yes, of course you would expect soldiers to keep their religion a private matter--they're government employees.", I don't know exactly what you mean by this, but this is a country founded on among other things, freedom of religion and the right to the free exercise of religion.

There is a difference between trying to cram your "religion" down other people's throats and having the right to speak about it.

Some don't seem to know the difference.

I have every right to speak about what I believe and also to speak about what I know, these are some of the things that this country was founded upon. Also, common courtesy, which doesn't seem to be as common as it should be, tells me that: I do not have the right, whether it is legal or not, to force myself on anyone, whether it is my beliefs, my knowledge or my actions.

God is real and God is a Trinity and God is a Being of Pure Love and the "job" that God has given to me is to speak: whether it is on-line or in person or by letter or any other way. God forces Himself on no one and we are not to try to force God on anyone either.

Take care, be ready.

Sincerely, Thomas Paul Moses Baum.

MIKE L

You wrote, "thomas baun, I believe the author knows what he wrote.", yes, I also believe the author knew what he wrote but I was making comments about what he wrote if you read my post.

You also wrote, "As for atheists needing chaplains, why not.", I don't know if they would be called chaplains but everyone in the military should have access to speak with someone about things that concern them and it should be confidential even to the point of it not being written down so that the service person can speak freely.

Take care, be ready.

Sincerely, Thomas Paul Moses Baum.

JHTLAG wrote: "We must provide justice b/c no supernatural force will" Why?

Because we have a moral conscience.
Duh!!
Apparently JHTLAG doesn't know what a moral conscience is, and presumably has none.
You believers are so disgustingly pitiful, if you need a magical, invisible friend to teach you the difference between right and wrong. We atheists have no such need. I guess we're just better people that way.

To Philip Smith:
"Whether as a chaplain, college professor or religious leader, one filters thoughts and words through a set of basically untestable premises (e.g. belief or non-belief in God)."

Your logic here appears to be that it is equally rational to eith believe or not believe in something for which you can find no testable evidence. This flies in the face of any logical method of contemplation of a problem.

By your logic, it is equally reasonable to either believe or not believe in elves, leprechauns, and the tooth fairy, because no one has ever PROVEN that they don't exist.

Why do you care? That is, if you are an atheist what is your rationale for doing "good"? I agree with the previous comment that chaplains for atheist is an oxymoron, the "without" means there is no system of thought to support their ministering. And yet, Mr Epstein implies some system by statements like "we have one life so we must make it count." Why then? What does "count" mean? Party til you drop? "We must provide justice b/c no supernatural force will" Why? I thought the only purpose in the world was to get our genetic code to the next generation. (Funny how people throw Darwin at religious people but don't really "believe" at least not honestly think out the consequences of their belief)

His belief that everyone in the military should have a chaplain equivalent springs from a belief in equivalency, equal justice that his belief doesn't even support, that is, is silent on.

May I ask why I am being blocked?

I mean, frankly, Nelson, I darn near enlisted, myself, just to get *away* from abusive and coercive Christians, and I lived in a pretty 'liberal' area. What's a Pagan kid from, say, Euless, TX, or Rocky Top, Tennessee, supposed to do?

The military starts looking pretty attractive, that way.

All I can say to this:

"it would be extremely difficult to imagine such a person, being allowed to minister on a basis equal with those of the Judeo-Christian ethic."

Is, Oh, yeah? Watch this! :)

As for this:

"I am puzzled that a person would want to join the military, if he/she had a faith such as this,"

People join the military for a whole lot of reasons. Understand that people of alternative religions often have fewer choices than those who demur to the dominant faiths, and all the supports and immunities from discrimination that can come with them. Many sign on because under the American ideal, the citizen soldier can gain some acceptance there, and until recently, a fair deal.

The idea that the military would have chaplains for those soldiers who are non-religious or of a faith that is not Judeo-Christian, is a hard pill to swallow. The military has a hard enough time recruiting those men and women who minister to the soldiers on a Jewish or Christian basis.
I am sure that those chaplains that are Muslim, find it hard to minister to their flock in the middle of a war against Islam. For those of us that have a pantheistic or theistic faith, but not one of a nature which would be recognizable to the fundamentalist Christian, it would be extremely difficult to imagine such a person, being allowed to minister on a basis equal with those of the Judeo-Christian ethic.
I am puzzled that a person would want to join the military, if he/she had a faith such as this, but furthermore for the military to find someone for whom the military would be an occupation, it would be extremely difficult to find chaplains that are qualified and would be able to be vetted to have the credentials necessary to join the military on such a basis.
If this happened, and well it should, this would be the start of an opening in the wall of religion in the military that would bring fresh air into the life of the foot soldier and those who are the backbone of the military.
Pie in the sky thinking, but one can dream!

I don't believe in a God. I do believe in and venerate whatever force it is that differentiates living organisms from dead meat. Call me a Primitive Animist.

I don't think I would seek spiritual guidance from a Chaplin but if I did, I probably could find one that would do in a pinch.

I would rather see Chaplins removed altogether, especially in a military setting. Like minded individuals, within the organization proper can seek validation from each other.

I found the Chaplins when I was in the service to be totally lame. Worse than useless and regarded that way by almost everyone.

Stop man, you're killing me with this stuff. The very idea of a CHAPLAIN for non-believers shows you don't get it, you're just serving as a tool for the religious establishment that can't imagine a world not divided up along the lines of its own religious bureaucracies. And yes, of course you would expect soldiers to keep their religion a private matter--they're government employees.

If you're truly an atheist and a humanist then you don't pimp for the wrong-headed views of the religious establishment. Atheist and humanist clergy are called Psychologists or psychotherapists, and the army could use a few more of those...

July 28, 2008

To: Greg Epstein:

As a member of a Christian religion, The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, I find your article interesting, highlighting as it does the fine line between the cherished freedoms of speech and religion on one hand, and the distinct possibility on the other hand that acting on these may make some other people uncomfortable. No one should, in any public or university setting, speak negatively or seek to question unfairly others’ beliefs, religious or otherwise.

I empathize with your unhappiness with humanists being exposed, in an educational captive-audience setting, to religious ideas with which they do not agree. We should always couch our language “such as to acknowledge the dignity, equality and worth of non-Christians, whether they be present or not.” I assume you would also insist that we hold non-Christians to the same standard with regard to Christians. If, as you state, we need to eliminate public-funded religious proselyting, should in fairness the same apply also to secular proselyting?

Whether as a chaplain, college professor or religious leader, one filters thoughts and words through a set of basically untestable premises (e.g. belief or non-belief in God). All are arguing for and from their particular perspectives, in effect proselyting. To foster true learning, educational forums like Harvard need to treat all ideas fairly, even unpopular views with which one disagrees. Only in this way can learners come to form good opinions..

Mr. Epstein, given your position at Harvard, you can do us all a great favor. Please indicate to the administration the desirability of their faculty airing, in a fair and balanced manner, all types of views related to their disciplines, even religious ones as appropriate. This may require over time striving for balance by hiring faculty, particularly in the humanities and social sciences, with more moderate-conservative views. By doing so you might be the means of bringing to an end the present stifling or muzzling of certain views, and the prostitution of some areas of science that has so often characterized the present age of political correctness.

Thank you.

Phillip C. Smith, Ph.D.

I agree with Fate and GaryD, Atheists in the military don't need Chaplains. In times of need, a visit with a psychologist or a physician or a good friend or a mentor might be in order but not a Chaplain unless he/she happens to also be one of the former. But to be fair, if religious people are going to get taxpayer funded Chaplains, Atheists should get theirs too even if their duties are not exactly religious, per se.

I do agree Chaplains are necessary in the military to serve the religious soldiers, but why should taxpayers fund their service? Churches and religious organizations should pay for embedded Chaplains just like the news media pays for embedded reporters. That seems like a fairly simple fix to me. Why should anyone be taxed to support someone else's religion?

In response to FATE:

You have made a common error by equating religion with a belief in something supernatural. Humanists and Atheists can be (and some are) religious.

I am extremely religious. I have no God that I believe in nor do I believe in heaven, hell, angels etc.

Nerd,

I choose to give respect to all people until they prove they do not deserve it, by how they treat others.

Dignity is how a person handles themselves...do they behave with honor?

terra

ChuckB,

Thank you, you are correct we are not Atheists. We are not Christian, but we are not anti-Christian. We do not believe in the Christian version of God but we do respect others right to their belief...in fact it is a law for us.

"Our only animosity towards Christianity or towards any other religion or philosophy of life is to the extent that its institution have claimed to be "the only way" and have sought to deny freedom to others and to suppress other ways of religious practice and belief."

It would take moments for people to learn more about us...the right questions and Google would do it. But it's just so much fun to call us silly or to invalidate us completly.

terra

Terms,
Your circular logic has me laughing. Please explain how a humanist disagreeing with you proves your point, since I could equally say that all believers are insane, and your disagreeing with that statement proves my point.

Dignity is something everyone has a right to.

Respect, on the other hand, is something that must be earned.

I think the problem you are running into is your misuse of terms. Indeed, all human beings share equal dignity. Christ teaches that all human beings are equal in the eyes of God, but he clearly states that all views are NOT equally valid. We have free will to believe what we believe, and everyone has the right in this country to believe what they believe, but this does not translate into affirming all beliefs as equally true, or even equally good or desirable. The very fact that a humanist would disagree merely proves the point.

Hi,
I am a professional chaplain, working in a pediatric hospital setting. I have had the great privilege of ministering to people from a wide variety of faith traditions, as well as caring for people who are atheist and agnostic. I have been trained to provide care and support to all patients and families I meet in the hospital, regardless of their belief system. And it has been my experience that while some people do not believe in a particular religion, and others do not believe in God or a higher power, all of us believe in something. And when we are in a crisis, we are called as human beings to try and make some sense or meaning out of what is happening to us or to our loved one. This struggle for meaning is a spiritual task, and one that we all must face at some time in our lives. My job as a chaplain is not to try and make meaning for someone else based on my own faith or values, rather I am here to support and listen as families work to make their own meaning, based on their experience, their values, and their beliefs. I am also here to advocate for patients and families so that they can receive the spiritual care they need and want. I agree wholeheartedly that soldiers need and deserve spiritual support, whether they are religious or not.

Chaplains for atheists is an oxymoron. Trying to come up with a religious based service for the non-religious is like hiring translators for English speakers in the military.

Why don't people get it? "Atheists" are a-theists, meaning NO belief in the supernatural. Their moral guidance comes from many places, including some religious teachings, but there is no homogenous "atheist" teachings or morality, so servicing that group as a chaplain makes little sense. How in God's name (pun intended) would you know what to say to a tramatized atheist soldier as a chaplain? You would know nothing about his background except what he does NOT believe in.

Give up this idea, its silly. But I did like the brief history of religion in the military.

GaryD, Pagans are not atheists. The pagan religions that Christianity replaced believed in gods, an afterlife, the power of prayer, etc. In short, they were religious, just not believers in your religion and God. Atheists do not believe in God or gods, true or false; usually pagans believe in many, i.e., they are not monotheists. Followers of the cult of Dionysus, Isis, Mithra, etc. were not atheists. They, had priests; todays pagans, unlike atheists, have priests. Psychiatrists and psychologists would not be suitable replacements for them as chaplains.

IDIOTS AS ADVISERS

If humanists don't believe in life after death, why would they need a counselor for?

All they need is a psychologist or a psychiatrist. Or somebody to "strengthen" the lies they are living on as it crumbles in the reality of facing death.

If humanists are just hunting for jobs, the Army has lots of janitorial openings.

Before a humanist can become some sort of an adviser, he must at least know HOW SOIL TURNED INTO BRAINS. It is dangerous to our military if it would hire IDIOTS AS ADVISERS.

Gary,
I have been on first name basis of many Christians...some are pure idiots, some loving and wonderful people...some mean and some sweet...some are my best friends, some family...I used to be one, a very long time ago.
You do not know me or my religion.

I do not need for you to approve of anything I do or believe...and as far as silliness? one person's peanut is another person's allergy.

terra

Terra My apologies for the confusion. My reponse was not intended for you but rather for the 'atheist chaplain' who began this particular conversation.

And Psychologists and counselors need not bear any religious trappings at all.

By the way I've been on a first name basis with more than a few Pagans and frankly I'm not much impressed by anything the ones I've known have had to offer.

Please understand, provided it doesn't preclude you leading a satisfying and enjoyable life or cause you to impact such possibilities for others you have my permission - not that you need it, mind you - to believe whatever silliness as pleases you.

Yes, this should be the solution.

Garyd,
I would say you need something else, it might do you a world of good...

a wider perspective of the universe and it's possibilities.

terra

That would be a psychologist and they've already got them.

There are more Pagans in the military then Muslims, yet we have no chaplains at all, the Muslims have 44.

When a Pagan in the military needs spiritual aid who can they go to, a fundamentalist Christian chaplain who has no understanding of our theology or foundation? Who does not know our feelings of the after life or even the words that comfort? When a Pagan is dieing we want Pagan clergy with us to guide us, can a Baptist do that?

If a Pagan in the military dies, who goes to the family to comfort them? A Christian chaplain that can not be of aid? Someone that thinks we are all evil and going to hell? Someone that might think that the death was his God's punishment?

July 4th of 2007 a rally was held out side of the Whitehouse by Pagans...they rallied to make known that there is a need of chaplains for military Pagans. Anyone hear about it? No I did not think so...MSM did not think it news worthy that there was discrimination in the military. That it took 10 years of fighting to get a Pagan spiritual emplem on our fallen military headstones...and still no chaplains.

As far as prayer at meals...we pray, just not in the same way to the same deity. Silent prayer works, my gods hear the most quiet pleas...so what god/s needs to be shouted at?

I took an intensive for Pagan ministers and did learn how to aid Christians in a hospital setting...now what Christian minister has learned how to aid the Pagan?

terra

thomas baun, I believe the author knows what he wrote.
As for atheists needing chaplains, why not. Why can't there be a discussion between opposing philosophies? A Catholic going to his priest, a Presbyterian going to his minister, etc. is like going home to Mom's cooking. A chaplain and an atheist can explore "why don't you believe, why do you believe, is there more to life than just life?" One may not convert the other, but will be opened to the other's beliefs.

chaplains for athiests?

??????????????????

I think it suffices to just call them counselors or friends. I am not sure that most Atheist would seek a person of faith.

What next? religious school for atheists? their own temple?

I really liked this. I'd fully support such a measure.

Humanists and atheists should be able to have someone they can talk to and address their needs as well.

It is a good thing that in our enlighted age most institutions of higher learning have eliminated mandatory chapel attendence.
Such gatherings are simply to attractive a target for the annual series of mass murder/sucide collegiate events.
I'm such surprised they never figured that out decades ago.
My have we progressed.

I want chaplains for my Church of the Heebee Jeebees where we jump up and down, cheer and make fun the of right-wing Irish Catholic bigotry on Fox News.

GREG M EPSTEIN

You wrote, "• Humanists and the non-religious have no desire to eliminate all religious activity in the military or even shunt it all to the private side of military life. Any suggestion otherwise is a Right Wing red herring, or perhaps the more appropriate phrase here would be “decoy”.", some do whether you call it a "Right Wing red herring", or "decoy" and if you read some of the things written on this blog site, you would see it, I believe that is a small, probably very small, minority but nevertheless some of those can be quite vocal, at least in the printed word.

Then you wrote, "• I personally don’t have a problem with a fellow chaplain acknowledging publicly that his prayers are in the name of Jesus, as long as he is also capable of couching his language such as to acknowledge the dignity, equality, and worth of non-Christians, whether they be present or not.", if the chaplain actually was a Christian rather than calling him or herself a Christian than that chaplain would have to "acknowledge the dignity, equality, and worth of non-Christians" since we are all created in the image and likeness of God.

You also wrote, "So why does the military even have publicly funded chaplains? One of the most common justifications is that by taking servicemen and women out of the rhythm of everyday life and sequestering them for military purposes, undue burden is placed on their first-amendment right to free exercise of religion. This may pass muster from a legal point of view, but let’s face facts: it has little to do with why we have chaplains.", yes, let's face facts, have you ever been in the service? The service can at times be a completely different world then what you might suppose it is. There are times when people are restricted to base for one reason or another and it could be not only a burden placed upon someone's free exercise of religion but it could be that their free exercise of religion is eliminated.

Then you wrote, "But what about non-religious servicemen and women? Certainly they must not be proselytized to or forced to pray,", no one should be forced to pray or not to pray and also no one should be forced to speak or not to speak and also no one should be forced to listen or not to listen about beliefs. Common courtesy.

Then you wrote, " In today’s world, science provides better answers to some of our questions, such as where we come from.", actually, science does not answer that question, science may take us back in time a ways but then it stops because it does not know where to go from there, is that not right?

You also wrote, "(You may prefer a literal reading of Genesis to the Big Bang, but may I humbly suggest you would not want to fly in a fighter jet or pilot a nuclear submarine designed by an engineer with no respect for the scientific method.)", do you really believe that there aren't some engineers out there that not only believe in God and but also in the scientific method? And as you pointed out, science has its limitations.

Then you wrote, "We must treat our family, friends, and fellow human beings with loving behavior, because just saying we love them is not enough if we don't show it, consistently. These values make for good soldiers, and good people.", well said and I might add that it is important what you do, and why you do it and what you know whether someone believes in God or not.

Take care, be ready.

Sincerely, Thomas Paul Moses Baum.

I'm not sure that I agree that chaplains in the military is a good idea. (How many different religions/sects do you support? Is a Conservative Jewish chaplain "close enough" for a Reform Jewish or Orthodox Jewish soldier? Does the government make a distinction between religions and cults? Etc.)

However, surely if there are to be chaplains there should be humanist and/or atheist chaplains. Humanists and atheists (mostly the same people but not always) have as many emotional needs as anybody else, and those needs are complicated by our insistence that evidence guide belief, so for example we are not comforted by talk of any sort of heaven like some religionists are.

An excellent column. Fair, level-headed, sensible, WORKABLE and intelligently presented.

Prepare for a full frontal assault by the fundamentalists.