Posted on Nov 26, 2014
What Role Does Religion Play Within Our Military?
50.2K
499
380
23
23
0
With member of the military identifying with 98 different religions, it is evident our Armed Forces is extremely diverse. Unfortunately, religious differences sometimes cause feelings of animosity between service members. Are you less likely to trust another service member who does not identify with the same religion as you?
Religion
Infographic
Command Post
Posted 11 y ago
Responses: 138
0
0
0
I am not sure why this question should really even come up unless someone is being forced to do something they don't agree with? As an NCO, you really shouldn't be discussing religion or politics with your subordinates as that can lead to strife and cause issues with your leadership abilities. If a person wants Religion and looks to it for counseling, what is wrong with that, if you don't need Religion for counseling, that is also great. To many people Religion brings comfort and a sense of home. But like I say, just like in Business in the Civilian world, don't discuss Religion or Politics at work because it can cause problems and leave it to Each His/Her own! The Religious folks shouldn't be making anyone do something they don't like and the Aethists shoudn't be trying to totally shut out religion. Really simple here folks!
(0)
(0)
0
0
0
America was not founded as a secular nation. It is obvious from your post where your views lie. I would advise you to really research the founding documents of this country, the letters written, comments and quotes from Washington, the first Supreme Court, etc. Not just regurgitate revisionist history learned in school.
(0)
(0)
SGT (Join to see)
So if we are not secular, are we a theocracy? Where are the laws against worshiping graven idols and working on the Sabbath? I think you, like others, think secular means atheist. Our government can acknowledge the existence of a creator without naming it or ascribing arbitrary attributes to it, and therefore refrain from making any statement about what said creator is, wants, does, or cares about. This allows us to create laws based on what is good for all our citizenry, not just those that acknowledge the governments definition of our creator.
I honestly don't know how people can believe we were *founded* as a Christian nation, none of our founding documents gives special powers to the Christian church, or to Christians themselves, or makes any reference to Jesus or the Bible. There is nothing "revisionist" about the Constitution or the Bill of Rights, just the fundamentalist lunatics who interpret them to suit their agenda. Next you'll tell me we always had "In God We Trust" on our currency and in our pledge.
I honestly don't know how people can believe we were *founded* as a Christian nation, none of our founding documents gives special powers to the Christian church, or to Christians themselves, or makes any reference to Jesus or the Bible. There is nothing "revisionist" about the Constitution or the Bill of Rights, just the fundamentalist lunatics who interpret them to suit their agenda. Next you'll tell me we always had "In God We Trust" on our currency and in our pledge.
(0)
(0)
SPC D W
SGT (Join to see): why are you so bigoted against other beliefs?
\\just the fundamentalist lunatics who interpret them to suit their agenda.\\
Maybe because the Founding Father's speak something different than what you speak? I won't trust you to listen to facts and evidence, based on your very evidenced belief in your monopoly on truth, but at least as a Sergeant, as an NCO, maybe you can show a modicum of respect for others, even as you demand it from others? But hey, what does "I will earn the respect of those with whom I serve" mean, anyway?
However, I would challenge you to take your multiple of anti-religious, intolerant, and bigoted comments to your EO rep, and see what kind of training you should get. I doubt you will rise to that challenge, but hey, I can suggest it. "I will not forget, nor will I allow my comrades to forget, that we are PROFESSIONALS, non commissioned officers, leaders!"
“Human passions unbridled by morality and religion…would break the strongest cords of our Constitution as a whale goes through a net.”
– John Adams
”Without religion this world would be something not fit to be mentioned in polite company, I mean Hell.”
– John Adams, letter to Thomas Jefferson, Apr. 19, 1817.
“Our Constitution was made only for a moral and religious people”. It is wholly inadequate to the government of any other.”
– John Adams
\\just the fundamentalist lunatics who interpret them to suit their agenda.\\
Maybe because the Founding Father's speak something different than what you speak? I won't trust you to listen to facts and evidence, based on your very evidenced belief in your monopoly on truth, but at least as a Sergeant, as an NCO, maybe you can show a modicum of respect for others, even as you demand it from others? But hey, what does "I will earn the respect of those with whom I serve" mean, anyway?
However, I would challenge you to take your multiple of anti-religious, intolerant, and bigoted comments to your EO rep, and see what kind of training you should get. I doubt you will rise to that challenge, but hey, I can suggest it. "I will not forget, nor will I allow my comrades to forget, that we are PROFESSIONALS, non commissioned officers, leaders!"
“Human passions unbridled by morality and religion…would break the strongest cords of our Constitution as a whale goes through a net.”
– John Adams
”Without religion this world would be something not fit to be mentioned in polite company, I mean Hell.”
– John Adams, letter to Thomas Jefferson, Apr. 19, 1817.
“Our Constitution was made only for a moral and religious people”. It is wholly inadequate to the government of any other.”
– John Adams
(0)
(0)
0
0
0
What is a religion? If boiled down to simple belief in a higher order, many atheists become religious in their belief in nothing more than the natural order. Just as Christians believe in Christ, Muslims believe in Allah, so atheists believe in something completely untraceable in the scientific process (as science is defined as something both observable and repeatable). All of us use science in the modern world to understand the modern world, but the world of the past (whether designed by a creator or happened by chance and natural selection) is neither observable nor repeatable...it is a faith proposition (and I say this as an anthropologist). So...how could religion be taken out of the military? Force everyone to simply adhere to the atheist religion?
(0)
(0)
1SG (Join to see)
Atheists that are religious are not Atheists.
Atheism is not a belief system or a religion. It is becoming tiresome have to point this out. Facts are not beliefs. I reject anything that can't be proven without evidence or facts. Belief is acceptance that a statement is true or that something exists. To say atheism is a belief is a reach. Atheism is the rejection of the theistic claims and not a belief that the theistic claims are not true. Sloppy wording accounts for much of the confusion on this topic.
Atheism is not a belief system or a religion. It is becoming tiresome have to point this out. Facts are not beliefs. I reject anything that can't be proven without evidence or facts. Belief is acceptance that a statement is true or that something exists. To say atheism is a belief is a reach. Atheism is the rejection of the theistic claims and not a belief that the theistic claims are not true. Sloppy wording accounts for much of the confusion on this topic.
(0)
(0)
(0)
(0)
SGT (Join to see)
Aronra The Foundational Falsehoods of Creationism -- Complete Series
This an excellent series of educational videos by Youtube user Aronra. http://www.youtube.com/user/AronRa In addition to providing a great deal of interestin...
Oh boy here we go with this again...
Atheism is not a religion, it makes no claims and has no tenets or dogmas. It is not synonymous with evolution or science. Just because someone is atheist does not mean they believe everything scientists say, and just because someone believes in science does not make them atheist. The only way you can be a "bad atheist" is to believe that a god exists, but as was previously pointed out it does not make the claim that God DOES NOT exist (until you move into "hard atheist" or "anti-theism" which can be dogmatic), it simply does not accept the positive claim make by theism. This is much like saying people who don't collect stamps are non-stamp collectors and are passionate about not collecting stamps, when in fact we just don't believe that collecting stamps is a worth-while hobby. Another helpful analogy might be car-ownership: if you have a car you have to adhere to a certain set of rules and guidelines to keep your car in working order (change it's oil, put gas in it, don't crash it, etc), but those who do not own a car do not have to follow those rules. As it's been said time and time again, "everything else is something else." That is to say, everything that isn't about the rejection of theistic claims is labeled as something else; the belief in evolution is not atheism, neither is secularism. Many religious people can (and do) agree that secularism is the best model of government and the best way to achieve a peaceful coexistence within a multicultural society.
The scientific method is not simply what is observable and repeatable, or at least not in the way you think it is, otherwise we wouldn't know the orbital period of Pluto since we have not observed it make a full rotation around the sun. The scientific method is about making reliable models of predictions based on observations. There are laws in science (such as the laws of thermodynamics), but it is careful not to label anything as a fact, exactly because science is not something you can be dogmatic about in the same sense as religion. I can extol the benefits and virtues of science, but I can't entrench myself in any theory because they are always subject to change. What we know today might change tomorrow, and then again the day after, exactly because it is a learning process, not a set of codified beliefs.
Evolution is evolution, there is no such thing as "macroevolution" (especially since my computer doesn't even recognize it as a word). I've had this discussion more times than I care to count, and it gets really tiresome to explain the whole thing again and again, so I'll just link you to an amazing series that can explain much better than I ever could https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bmQZ4f9f_Yw (you can skip to number 5 if you're short on time, but the whole thing is worth watching)
Atheism is not a religion, it makes no claims and has no tenets or dogmas. It is not synonymous with evolution or science. Just because someone is atheist does not mean they believe everything scientists say, and just because someone believes in science does not make them atheist. The only way you can be a "bad atheist" is to believe that a god exists, but as was previously pointed out it does not make the claim that God DOES NOT exist (until you move into "hard atheist" or "anti-theism" which can be dogmatic), it simply does not accept the positive claim make by theism. This is much like saying people who don't collect stamps are non-stamp collectors and are passionate about not collecting stamps, when in fact we just don't believe that collecting stamps is a worth-while hobby. Another helpful analogy might be car-ownership: if you have a car you have to adhere to a certain set of rules and guidelines to keep your car in working order (change it's oil, put gas in it, don't crash it, etc), but those who do not own a car do not have to follow those rules. As it's been said time and time again, "everything else is something else." That is to say, everything that isn't about the rejection of theistic claims is labeled as something else; the belief in evolution is not atheism, neither is secularism. Many religious people can (and do) agree that secularism is the best model of government and the best way to achieve a peaceful coexistence within a multicultural society.
The scientific method is not simply what is observable and repeatable, or at least not in the way you think it is, otherwise we wouldn't know the orbital period of Pluto since we have not observed it make a full rotation around the sun. The scientific method is about making reliable models of predictions based on observations. There are laws in science (such as the laws of thermodynamics), but it is careful not to label anything as a fact, exactly because science is not something you can be dogmatic about in the same sense as religion. I can extol the benefits and virtues of science, but I can't entrench myself in any theory because they are always subject to change. What we know today might change tomorrow, and then again the day after, exactly because it is a learning process, not a set of codified beliefs.
Evolution is evolution, there is no such thing as "macroevolution" (especially since my computer doesn't even recognize it as a word). I've had this discussion more times than I care to count, and it gets really tiresome to explain the whole thing again and again, so I'll just link you to an amazing series that can explain much better than I ever could https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bmQZ4f9f_Yw (you can skip to number 5 if you're short on time, but the whole thing is worth watching)
(0)
(1)
SPC D W
\\ This is much like saying people who don't collect stamps are non-stamp collectors and are passionate about not collecting stamps, when in fact we just don't believe that collecting stamps is a worth-while hobby. \\
False analogy, SGT (Join to see): people who don't collect stamps don't go around defining themselves by their not-collecting stamps.
So when you quit defining yourself according to what you don't believe in, and when you quit insulting people for not believing as you do, as when you quit trying to force everyone else to hide their beliefs, then you can start making the claims that atheism isn't a claim.
But as long as you define yourself as a "non-stamp collector", or describe stamp collectors as "fundamentalist lunatics", or describe yourself as ostracized by stamp collectors, you are defining yourself as opposing stamp collecting; ergo, you claim you are an atheist, you are claiming that you believe God doesn't exist.
Otherwise, change your claim, and your title.
False analogy, SGT (Join to see): people who don't collect stamps don't go around defining themselves by their not-collecting stamps.
So when you quit defining yourself according to what you don't believe in, and when you quit insulting people for not believing as you do, as when you quit trying to force everyone else to hide their beliefs, then you can start making the claims that atheism isn't a claim.
But as long as you define yourself as a "non-stamp collector", or describe stamp collectors as "fundamentalist lunatics", or describe yourself as ostracized by stamp collectors, you are defining yourself as opposing stamp collecting; ergo, you claim you are an atheist, you are claiming that you believe God doesn't exist.
Otherwise, change your claim, and your title.
(0)
(0)
0
0
0
Non-issue
No one is forced to pray. No one is forced to say "I swear..." You can now say, “I affirm..." We now say "Happy Holidays" rather than Merry Christmas. We have done enough to satisfy Atheists.
Don’t believe in God? No problem. But, I can guarantee that a believer’s need to be allowed to believe far outweighs a need to make it a religious free zone. Why does the mass majority have to subside for the sake of the very small minority? The believers in the military are not pushing religion down your throat. So, why are Atheists pushing their agenda down ours?
Religion within the military is not evil. Religion throughout history was not the source of evil. What makes religion so problematic are the fanatics and extremists that use religion as an excuse to commit evil atrocities.
There are so many other pressing issues that we need to address within our ranks. In my opinion, taking away something that is so sought over for support and strength is foolish. What does an Atheist rely on for comfort, or strength, or spiritual guidance? Regardless of the answer, are we looking to take that away from them?
No one is forced to pray. No one is forced to say "I swear..." You can now say, “I affirm..." We now say "Happy Holidays" rather than Merry Christmas. We have done enough to satisfy Atheists.
Don’t believe in God? No problem. But, I can guarantee that a believer’s need to be allowed to believe far outweighs a need to make it a religious free zone. Why does the mass majority have to subside for the sake of the very small minority? The believers in the military are not pushing religion down your throat. So, why are Atheists pushing their agenda down ours?
Religion within the military is not evil. Religion throughout history was not the source of evil. What makes religion so problematic are the fanatics and extremists that use religion as an excuse to commit evil atrocities.
There are so many other pressing issues that we need to address within our ranks. In my opinion, taking away something that is so sought over for support and strength is foolish. What does an Atheist rely on for comfort, or strength, or spiritual guidance? Regardless of the answer, are we looking to take that away from them?
(0)
(0)
SGT (Join to see)
"Don't believe in God? No problem." Unless you're in the AirForce, apparently. http://archive.airforcetimes.com/article/20140909/NEWS05/309090065/Atheist-airman-must-swear-help-me-God-get-out-November (Many additional sources can be found with a quick google search on "airmen must swear to god")
But what, in your own words, is the "atheist agenda" anyway?
"What does an Atheist rely on?" Myself, mostly. With respect, sir, I don't need a higher power to determine right from wrong or to draw strength upon. I didn't need faith to make it through my deployment or my training, I have the internal fortitude required to do what is needed.
"Religion within the military is not evil." I agree, it's not evil within OUR military, and I hope it stays that way, but I will disagree with your assertion that, "Religion throughout history was not the source of evil. What makes religion so problematic are the fanatics and extremists that use religion as an excuse to commit evil atrocities." Because it is patently absurd to claim that anyone who did evil in the name of religion (or because of it) EVER was a fanatic or extremist. But, and again, with respect, I don't think a RallyPoint thread is the place to rewrite history.
"No one is forced to pray." Sure, I just have to be in attendance while the chaplain leads my unit in prayer.
"No one is forced to say "I swear..." again, the swearing or affirmation part isn't the problem, its the "So help me God" part that I don't agree with.
"We now say "Happy Holidays" rather than Merry Christmas." Perhaps that's because America is a melting pot of different faiths and practices, some that have religious holidays that fall within the same season as Christams and we want to be inclusive instead of exclusionary and condescending? But I know, "Christian Nation founded upon Judeao-Christian principals, blah blah blah."
"There are so many other pressing issues that we need to address within our ranks." Never said this was a pressing issue, just what I am passionate about.
But what, in your own words, is the "atheist agenda" anyway?
"What does an Atheist rely on?" Myself, mostly. With respect, sir, I don't need a higher power to determine right from wrong or to draw strength upon. I didn't need faith to make it through my deployment or my training, I have the internal fortitude required to do what is needed.
"Religion within the military is not evil." I agree, it's not evil within OUR military, and I hope it stays that way, but I will disagree with your assertion that, "Religion throughout history was not the source of evil. What makes religion so problematic are the fanatics and extremists that use religion as an excuse to commit evil atrocities." Because it is patently absurd to claim that anyone who did evil in the name of religion (or because of it) EVER was a fanatic or extremist. But, and again, with respect, I don't think a RallyPoint thread is the place to rewrite history.
"No one is forced to pray." Sure, I just have to be in attendance while the chaplain leads my unit in prayer.
"No one is forced to say "I swear..." again, the swearing or affirmation part isn't the problem, its the "So help me God" part that I don't agree with.
"We now say "Happy Holidays" rather than Merry Christmas." Perhaps that's because America is a melting pot of different faiths and practices, some that have religious holidays that fall within the same season as Christams and we want to be inclusive instead of exclusionary and condescending? But I know, "Christian Nation founded upon Judeao-Christian principals, blah blah blah."
"There are so many other pressing issues that we need to address within our ranks." Never said this was a pressing issue, just what I am passionate about.
(0)
(0)
0
0
0
Our country was found in judeao Christian principals, our chaplains are not allowed to pray in the name of Jesus, because we do not want to offend others, have some one bad mouth Mohammed or destroy a Koran
(0)
(0)
0
0
0
I think its a good thing to give our guys the ability and option to follow their religion in their service. I like the way it is, but some more chances to practice our various religions would be a nice change.
(0)
(0)
0
0
0
Currently I do not practice anything, but I do believe in a higher power then ourselves. I honestly believe that our men and women wearing the uniform need something to believe in, and who are we to judge them based on that particular belief structure, for the most part these beliefs have become who the are as a person. If they are able to function and complete the mission then why is their an issue?
(0)
(0)
SGT (Join to see)
That last sentence is the key to the discussion, "If they are able to function and complete the mission..." what happens when they are not? What happens when someone's religion prevents them from completing the mission? Or affects unit cohesion? (From my own personal experience) what happens when one member of the unit is a violent homophobe who brags about the time he hospitalized a gay class-mate because of his religion (and was later commended for it by his principal) and is assigned to work with an out-and-proud gay soldier? Can those soldiers show the necessary trust and confidence in each other? Can I, as an atheist, trust my overly religious superiors, peers, and subordinates to treat me with the same respect they show each other?
(0)
(0)
0
0
0
These types of questions come up quite a bit. I have spent some time reading documents from when our country was founded. The puritans and others came to the New World (US) to escape religious persecution. As John Winthrop stated, their goal was to create a new community that would be a "city on a hill" from Matthew 5:14.
As time went on, different denominations formed, there are hundreds of splinters of Methodists, Baptists, Presbyterians, Pentecostals, etc.
When Thomas Jefferson was addressing the Danbury Baptists, many in the audience were fearful that one denomination would be put over another. This is when he said there would be no sponsored religion...or in the context of his speech, no one denomination over the other.
Fast forward decades, and now the Supreme Court has interpreted this to be no religion over the other. I am fine with that, I think that no one should be forced to believe another person's religion. At the same time though, i think we have taken it too far where we are stymieing people's expression of religion in an attempt to not offend anyone.
I also believe in response to the question, only in the military will you be in a profession that you can face life or death in a way others will not (aside from police, etc) and your faith plays a profound role in how you face death.
For me and many I have served with, our believe in God is crucial to finding peace in making the best decision under pressure to accomplish the mission and also for the betterment of the unit.
As time went on, different denominations formed, there are hundreds of splinters of Methodists, Baptists, Presbyterians, Pentecostals, etc.
When Thomas Jefferson was addressing the Danbury Baptists, many in the audience were fearful that one denomination would be put over another. This is when he said there would be no sponsored religion...or in the context of his speech, no one denomination over the other.
Fast forward decades, and now the Supreme Court has interpreted this to be no religion over the other. I am fine with that, I think that no one should be forced to believe another person's religion. At the same time though, i think we have taken it too far where we are stymieing people's expression of religion in an attempt to not offend anyone.
I also believe in response to the question, only in the military will you be in a profession that you can face life or death in a way others will not (aside from police, etc) and your faith plays a profound role in how you face death.
For me and many I have served with, our believe in God is crucial to finding peace in making the best decision under pressure to accomplish the mission and also for the betterment of the unit.
(0)
(0)
0
0
0
It sounds to me that you're not comfortable with your decision to be atheist. So the solution is to ostracize the people with religious beliefs like you feel. If we go back to multiple documents from the "Founding Fathers", most of them mention God or some form of religious reference.
(0)
(0)
SGT (Join to see)
There's nothing I'm not comfortable with in terms of who I am, but that's a nice strawman. What I'm not comfortable with, however, is others talking about their very personal beliefs. It's like listening to one of my soldiers give me a detailed description of their sex life, except afterwards they tell me that I have to join in or I'll be sentenced to eternal damnation.
Please, tell me exactly how many documents from our founding fathers mention God or religion, that will really help the conversation. Here, I'll even give you a hand. In the Treaty of Tripoli, President John Adams wrote, "As the Government of the United States of America is not, in any sense, founded on the Christian religion; as it has in itself no character of enmity against the laws, religion, or tranquility, of Mussulmen [Muslims]; and as the said States never entered into any war or act of hostility against any Mahometan [Muslim] nation, it is declared by the parties that no pretext arising from religious opinions shall ever produce an interruption of the harmony existing between the two countries." This was ratified unanimously by congress. But I'll grant, if you like, that because a later version took out any reference to religion, it doesn't count. Do you want to take a moment in there to mention that our founding fathers wrote these documents well before any theory existed that could explain the origins of our existence without the invocation of the supernatural? Or would you like me to explain that Deism was about as close to atheism as you could get back in those days?
Please, tell me exactly how many documents from our founding fathers mention God or religion, that will really help the conversation. Here, I'll even give you a hand. In the Treaty of Tripoli, President John Adams wrote, "As the Government of the United States of America is not, in any sense, founded on the Christian religion; as it has in itself no character of enmity against the laws, religion, or tranquility, of Mussulmen [Muslims]; and as the said States never entered into any war or act of hostility against any Mahometan [Muslim] nation, it is declared by the parties that no pretext arising from religious opinions shall ever produce an interruption of the harmony existing between the two countries." This was ratified unanimously by congress. But I'll grant, if you like, that because a later version took out any reference to religion, it doesn't count. Do you want to take a moment in there to mention that our founding fathers wrote these documents well before any theory existed that could explain the origins of our existence without the invocation of the supernatural? Or would you like me to explain that Deism was about as close to atheism as you could get back in those days?
(0)
(0)
PO3 Sharon Ford
Christians never argue nor debate religion but it's a freedom to be discussed by people of like minds. Unless you have to give or receive an official order, why are conversing with those who you know have a religion? It's bound to be discussed at some point.
(0)
(0)
0
0
0
This is so odd to me. The only time I ever felt anything negative toward my lack of belief was when I first joined and was told I could not have anti-theist on my tags. Other than that, there was not a single time I felt like any religion was against me.
You could look at my previous posts and see I do not like religion. I would be much happier if everyone simply stopped being religious. But that's not going to happen. Servicemen and servicewomen will be religious well past my lifetime.
I see no reason to impose any sort of religious ban as that would not just be a violation of our 1st amendment, but it would be a violation of our very basic human right of freedom of choice.
Also, I don't see a need for chaplains in the military. I don't see why we cannot all just speak with therapists, and if you want to see a priest, or any 'holy' man, there are thousands of churches in every direction.
You could look at my previous posts and see I do not like religion. I would be much happier if everyone simply stopped being religious. But that's not going to happen. Servicemen and servicewomen will be religious well past my lifetime.
I see no reason to impose any sort of religious ban as that would not just be a violation of our 1st amendment, but it would be a violation of our very basic human right of freedom of choice.
Also, I don't see a need for chaplains in the military. I don't see why we cannot all just speak with therapists, and if you want to see a priest, or any 'holy' man, there are thousands of churches in every direction.
(0)
(0)
PO3 (Join to see)
In regards to your last couple of sentences in respect to the need for chaplains. Your idea would be great except in a combat situation or out at sea on board a ship or submarine how would you propose a person could worship or speak to a "holy man" as you called them?
(1)
(0)
Read This Next
Continue with Facebook 
Continue with Google