29-Apr-11 - Military Archbishop Questions Need for Atheist Chaplaincy
WASHINGTON D.C., April 29 - Several atheist, agnostic, and secular humanist organizations are pushing to establish their own U.S. military "chaplaincy" for soldiers.Full Story
#1 Apr 29, 2011
Instead of atheist chaplins we should have NO chaplins. Atheism isn't a religion. Next there will be donations.
#2 Apr 29, 2011
not atheist, humanist chaplins
they are questining it, because they don't want to beleive that there's non-believers in the military
but there's almost 300,000 who do not identify as any religion in the US military
“Right click Left click Yay!”
Since: Dec 10
#3 Apr 29, 2011
When it comes to using military force, i think it's a force multiplier if the troops believe in the cause they have been sent to fight. It's a lot more difficult to provide just cause to go to war and motivate atheists than religious folk. The latter is much easier as all you need to say is that they are evil and/or ungodly.
A caveat here - this is assuming a bell curve. Sgt. York in WW1 is quite the notable exception. I would say strong anti-war religious conviction requires even stronger arguments to go fight. But, by definition, most of us fall inside the bell curve.
#4 May 2, 2011
not so much fight for - but theists are easier to convince to die for a cause if it's connected to a higher power that will reward them for their sacrifice.
To my mind, the phrase, no atheists in foxholes, should mean that no atheist was dumb enough to sign up for military service and risk their lives for nothing.
However, patriotism is not limited to theists, although, it is essentially, putting your idea of nation above all other nation ideas - so patriotism is essentially, the religion of citizenship.
And fundamentalist patriotism is that My Country Right or Wrong/Might Make Right mentality that dovetails into religious fundamentalism.
There is very little separating a Fundamentalist Christian/Patriotic soldier from a fundamentalist jihading suicie bomber - with the except that the suicide bomber is more dedicated to the cause in that they are absolutely laying down their life.
Whereas a soldier in a troop, may survive the various battles and war overall.
It is to the military's advantage to have religious/patriotic soldiers - soldiers who are dedicated to the purpose experience less post traumatic stress disorder because they can justify what they see as neccessary to the higher purpose.
When soldiers have joined for the career and training opportunities and it's their bad luck that a couple of wars are on - even the ones who initially joined after 9/11 to proect their country - once you question the purpose of the conflict, you neccessary can't ignore what's happening around you.
It starts a cascase failure of meaning and purpose - thus the soldier becomes traumatized.
It helps the US military avoid the expense and loss of manpower when they don't have soldiers who will become traumatized.
So in a way, it's to our advantage to send only the religiously motivated - they will experience less psychologically trauma, and it removes an aggressive segement of our society from the gene pool.
Add your comments below
|Veterans see VA scandal as key in Congress races||Aug 31||Le Jimbo||4|
|Cops: Child care operation was front for porn ring||Jul '14||Bob||10|
|Army general agrees to plea deal in sexual assa... (Mar '14)||Mar '14||boo ya||7|
|Defense: General's deal drops sex assault charge (Mar '14)||Mar '14||Honorable Justice...||1|
|Tumult Over Military Sexual Assaults Far From Over (Mar '14)||Mar '14||fatbacks x||1|
|Tumult over military sexual assaults far from over (Mar '14)||Mar '14||WeTheSheeple||1|
|White House bars media from Dalai Lama meeting (Feb '14)||Feb '14||swedenforever||33|
Find what you want!
Search Fort Bragg Forum Now