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
2
2
0
For anyone to say that religion should play no role in the military concerns me. It concerns me because we should be free to practice our religious beliefs without those being restricted as long as those religious beliefs do not contradict the Constitution.
Having chaplains in the US military does not force those who do not wish to take part in religious services to do so. However, to remove chaplains from the military and to remove religion from the military would force those who did want to do so not to.
Keep things the way they are. It's there, and it's voluntary.
Having chaplains in the US military does not force those who do not wish to take part in religious services to do so. However, to remove chaplains from the military and to remove religion from the military would force those who did want to do so not to.
Keep things the way they are. It's there, and it's voluntary.
(2)
(0)
2
2
0
I see your point but disagree. Religion plays a large role in the moral and welfare of the majority of our servicemen and women. Since atheism is not a religion I don't really see how you can have an atheist chaplain, also all chaplains have to be able to interact on religious (spiritual) level with military members who request it regardless of the religion of chaplain or the service member requesting the chaplain's help/advice. By the very tenant of atheism it would be anathema for an atheist to do this. However that should not prevent you from having some sort of support mechanism in place for your own spiritual well being (spiritual not having anything religious in this context) In that vein of thought no person serving in the military in or out of combat should be denied the opportunity to speak with someone concerning their faith or spiritual well being and be able to do so free from persecution or ridicule. (This would mean don't substitute mental health for chaplains)
(2)
(0)
SGT (Join to see)
Finally a response I can agree with! Still, are atheists given the same resources and access as the faithful, or are we expected to pick up the slack every time one of our battle brothers and sisters is having a crisis of faith (or is in need of spiritual guidance/counseling etc) and needs to talk to a chaplain?
(1)
(0)
SMSgt Bryan Raines
Atheists should be given some sort of resource other than mental health if they wish. I have known some atheists who do talk to chaplains for privileged counseling purposes only. No religion involved. But at some time everyone has something physically wrong or mentally stressful going on and needs the support of their battle brother or sister. We should all be ready to cover for one another, it's part of our military culture.
(0)
(0)
2
2
0
You're joking with this question right? This is why people need the word. Yes! I'm a southern baptist! I talk about my GOD on and off duty and can't no regulation make me do otherwise! I am not ashamed of my GOD. But yall really gotta stop making stuff about religion. Like what does that have to do with anything??
(2)
(0)
SGT (Join to see)
SPC D W Should have seen that coming, not the first time I've been told that since I don't believe the bible that I can't understand it (and indeed, not the first time that's been used to defend it against all inquiry and criticism). Granted, I am no biblical scholar (though I find it strange that I need to be one to understand the inerrant word of a supreme being).
I could really care less if Mr. Jillette ascribes to my way of thinking, or if he would consider me a pleasant person. You seem to imply that his approval carries some kind of intrinsic value to atheists around the world, when really I find his position quite stupefying, even after trying to understand it. This isn't because I dislike him, but simply because I understand that not everyone is going to like me or even agree with me, and I have learned to accept that, and I have grown accustomed to it. Hey, it's almost like I was able to learn and grow!
I actually find it quite amazing that you can define "ad hominem" and then give an example that is exactly not what you just defined. Feeling ostracized by my comrades for their religious belief is not the same as automatically discrediting any argument they might present due to their religious belief, and I honestly don't know how you feel they are remotely equatable. Though at this point I will admit that I mistook you for another pictureless user who was throwing around the same rhetoric and actually made ad hominem attacks in an attempt to simply discredit any argument I could present from the start (though I dare say you are treading dreadfully close with your shenanigans of refusing to converse if I fail to accept your version of history), so I apologize.
As for your strawmanning, however, that I still charge you with most grievously. At no point did I state that I was offended by my comrades religious belief, you made that up and argued against it. At no point did I state that service members should be stripped of their beliefs and never be allowed to practice them even while off-duty, you made that up and argued against it. At no point did I claim to hold a monopoly on truth, you made that up and argued against it. At no point did I state that all religious belief is wrong, you made that up and argued against it. My "deeply religious" beliefs are not equatable to yours in this context, and you full well know it, as I will demonstrate with a simple question; "What would change your mind about Jesus?" If your answer is, "nothing can change my mind, I am a Christian," you've demonstrated strong religious belief. My answer is, "He probably didn't exist, though I haven't seen enough evidence to come to a conclusion either way," which demonstrates pretty much NO religious belief, or are you going to argue that I'm "religious" in my uncertainty?
BTW it should be quite easy to tell I am being facetious when I take your own words and change only a few of them to show you how ridiculous your line of argumentation is. But I'll grant you that I violated my own standards of communication by invoking Poe's law and then demonstrating it's validity.
At any rate, this has become an exceedingly futile back and forth. I state something, you misrepresent it, I clarify, you misrepresent my clarification, I re-clarify, you misrepresent my re-clarification, etc. Let me go through this one more time and see if I get a valid response.
Though I have many of my own personal beliefs that I often enjoy discussing, I don't find it to be for the good order and conduct of our armed forces to have discussions of a religious nature WHILE ON DUTY. It is my sincerest wish that soldiers of faith continue to believe as they will, but I also wish for these beliefs to be a private matter, unrelated to their military service. To this effect, I would have the chaplaincy disbanded and prohibit leaders from leading company-wide prayer so as to maintain the privacy of these beliefs.
If you feel this is unjust, please tell me why.
I could really care less if Mr. Jillette ascribes to my way of thinking, or if he would consider me a pleasant person. You seem to imply that his approval carries some kind of intrinsic value to atheists around the world, when really I find his position quite stupefying, even after trying to understand it. This isn't because I dislike him, but simply because I understand that not everyone is going to like me or even agree with me, and I have learned to accept that, and I have grown accustomed to it. Hey, it's almost like I was able to learn and grow!
I actually find it quite amazing that you can define "ad hominem" and then give an example that is exactly not what you just defined. Feeling ostracized by my comrades for their religious belief is not the same as automatically discrediting any argument they might present due to their religious belief, and I honestly don't know how you feel they are remotely equatable. Though at this point I will admit that I mistook you for another pictureless user who was throwing around the same rhetoric and actually made ad hominem attacks in an attempt to simply discredit any argument I could present from the start (though I dare say you are treading dreadfully close with your shenanigans of refusing to converse if I fail to accept your version of history), so I apologize.
As for your strawmanning, however, that I still charge you with most grievously. At no point did I state that I was offended by my comrades religious belief, you made that up and argued against it. At no point did I state that service members should be stripped of their beliefs and never be allowed to practice them even while off-duty, you made that up and argued against it. At no point did I claim to hold a monopoly on truth, you made that up and argued against it. At no point did I state that all religious belief is wrong, you made that up and argued against it. My "deeply religious" beliefs are not equatable to yours in this context, and you full well know it, as I will demonstrate with a simple question; "What would change your mind about Jesus?" If your answer is, "nothing can change my mind, I am a Christian," you've demonstrated strong religious belief. My answer is, "He probably didn't exist, though I haven't seen enough evidence to come to a conclusion either way," which demonstrates pretty much NO religious belief, or are you going to argue that I'm "religious" in my uncertainty?
BTW it should be quite easy to tell I am being facetious when I take your own words and change only a few of them to show you how ridiculous your line of argumentation is. But I'll grant you that I violated my own standards of communication by invoking Poe's law and then demonstrating it's validity.
At any rate, this has become an exceedingly futile back and forth. I state something, you misrepresent it, I clarify, you misrepresent my clarification, I re-clarify, you misrepresent my re-clarification, etc. Let me go through this one more time and see if I get a valid response.
Though I have many of my own personal beliefs that I often enjoy discussing, I don't find it to be for the good order and conduct of our armed forces to have discussions of a religious nature WHILE ON DUTY. It is my sincerest wish that soldiers of faith continue to believe as they will, but I also wish for these beliefs to be a private matter, unrelated to their military service. To this effect, I would have the chaplaincy disbanded and prohibit leaders from leading company-wide prayer so as to maintain the privacy of these beliefs.
If you feel this is unjust, please tell me why.
(0)
(1)
SPC D W
\\Should have seen that coming, not the first time I've been told that since I don't believe the bible that I can't understand it\\
And now you are blatantly lying, SGT (Join to see). Have you no honor? No decency?
I explicitly stated that there is no wonder you don't believe, BECAUSE you don't understand it, or know it.
\\So it's no wonder you have a problem with Christianity: you know nothing about it but what your atheist sources have told you.\\
The exact opposite of what you are now saying.
So yes, you need to work on your respect, and discipline, and reading comprehension.
And you need to quit lying.
And now you are blatantly lying, SGT (Join to see). Have you no honor? No decency?
I explicitly stated that there is no wonder you don't believe, BECAUSE you don't understand it, or know it.
\\So it's no wonder you have a problem with Christianity: you know nothing about it but what your atheist sources have told you.\\
The exact opposite of what you are now saying.
So yes, you need to work on your respect, and discipline, and reading comprehension.
And you need to quit lying.
(0)
(0)
SGT (Join to see)
SPC D W Oh is that lying now? I thought that was drawing the logical inference from your comments? Thanks for clarifying, shall I completely ignore all that and call you an intolerant bigot because you attacked my reading comprehension? That seems to be the style you support; take only one piece of a comment because it's all you have an "answer" for (and be sure it's not the piece that has anything to do with the actual topic at hand).
Take care SPC, I hope terminal leave treats you well.
Take care SPC, I hope terminal leave treats you well.
(0)
(1)
SPC D W
Well, you accused me of blaming you for something that I never accused you of. In fact, the evidence shows that I stated the exact opposite of what you blamed me of accusing you of.
So yes, SGT (Join to see), either you can't read/understand what I wrote, or you are lying. Maybe both?
Now you get all hissy that you get called out on it. Really? How professional is that?
So yes, SGT (Join to see), either you can't read/understand what I wrote, or you are lying. Maybe both?
Now you get all hissy that you get called out on it. Really? How professional is that?
(0)
(0)
2
2
0
Religion is much like Politics. It will always be there under the surface. You should push your Religious point of views or believes onto anyone, no one has those Rights. Those Rights are spelled out in the Constitution and Bill of Rights. No other laws Federal, State, or Local and even local Military regulation are suppose to be able to deny these Rights. Yet, even in to many school districts, it seems you can't find anything related to Christianity in any subject, but Islam creep into many subjects in the name of diversity. Which is wrong, for if you can't teach information or facts of one Religion, you shouldn't teach facts or information from any. It should be the same in the Military, the only person(s) are the Chaplain and their assistants who speak and provide any type of information. Even then the individual soldier should have the right to end any conversation they don't want to be part of.
(2)
(0)
2
2
0
I am personally Asatru and have found it very difficult to practice in the Army, When I was at Fort Riley I was in charge of the Pagan group and was told to remove the group from the post as they could no longer support us. I was frustrated because there were only a few groups asked to not practice on the post, Jewish, Pagans, Muslims, and any other small groups were told there were groups outside of post where we could go. However the Christians, Baptists, and Catholics were allowed to stay. I feel we should be allowed to practice how we want and I will not force my beliefs on another. I was even told by my OIC that I could not longer talk about or bring my books to the work place as it offended people. My response to her was then I do not want to see any bibles at work or hear about the bible in anyway. I knew who I offended because she would always try and convert me to her beliefs. I think that everyone should be allowed to believe what they want, no one religion is 100% correct. No one in a place of power should ever tell another that they can not believe or follow their practices just because it bothers one. Should she have come to me, yes I would have been more careful about not discussing it in front of her. Well my soap box, anyway every soldier has a right to believe whatever they want but not force it on another.
(2)
(0)
SPC Joshua Heath
CPT, I am not sure you know, but I run the Open Halls Project, an organization specifically for Asatru/Heathen service members. Please check us out on Facebook: https://www.facebook.com/groups/ [login to see] 75046/
Or at http://www.openhalls.org
Or at http://www.openhalls.org
Log into Facebook to start sharing and connecting with your friends, family, and people you know.
(0)
(0)
MAJ (Join to see)
Joshua,
Thanks I sent a request to become a member, I am hoping to be moving to OK this coming summer so I will need to find a group there.
Thanks I sent a request to become a member, I am hoping to be moving to OK this coming summer so I will need to find a group there.
(1)
(0)
2
2
0
A persons religious affiliation is probably one of the last thing that I would learn about a person. Ones affiliation does not make them a good or bad Soldier. I have had the opportunity to talk with a few different views of who you someone may call "God" but it never leads to not being able to trust that person. I believe most everyone in the military has a general understanding that you can have your own beliefs and practices and not be judged by that. I always look forward to the opportunity to talk with different religions so I can learn more and be more educated with people.
(2)
(0)
2
2
0
As with all other posts, I speak only for myself and my experiences. The one experience that I will share now is that in 2003/04 in IRAQ as a CO 1SG... this shows trust that transcends religion.
I, as a non practicing Methodist, had a orderly room SGT that was Wiccan, his clerk was LDS, my driver was an Iranian muslin (1st Gen. American), my Supply SSG was Southern Baptist, one of the supply clerks with a practicing Buddhist the other was Lutheran, my CO was Catholic and his driver was Jewish.
We shared many a hairy night in Baghdad, Mosul, Tal-Afar... you get the idea.... and a few other events like... Thanksgiving and Christmas.... and yes Ramadan and Hanukah... This was respect for the soldier and the person... like LDRSHIP says. I had their backs and I knew they had mine.
This did not change back in the states. We of course all went our separate ways as is life in the service... retiring, ETSing... a few are still in... and we talk all the time on various social forums.
Freedom of Religion is our right... not to trust because of someone's religion is not conducive to team building.... and building trust... and frankly... rather sad. That's our job in the military... building trust and building teams.
Oh, if the above doesn't show that trust and team building can transcend religious affiliation... I don't know what does.
my 2 cents
I, as a non practicing Methodist, had a orderly room SGT that was Wiccan, his clerk was LDS, my driver was an Iranian muslin (1st Gen. American), my Supply SSG was Southern Baptist, one of the supply clerks with a practicing Buddhist the other was Lutheran, my CO was Catholic and his driver was Jewish.
We shared many a hairy night in Baghdad, Mosul, Tal-Afar... you get the idea.... and a few other events like... Thanksgiving and Christmas.... and yes Ramadan and Hanukah... This was respect for the soldier and the person... like LDRSHIP says. I had their backs and I knew they had mine.
This did not change back in the states. We of course all went our separate ways as is life in the service... retiring, ETSing... a few are still in... and we talk all the time on various social forums.
Freedom of Religion is our right... not to trust because of someone's religion is not conducive to team building.... and building trust... and frankly... rather sad. That's our job in the military... building trust and building teams.
Oh, if the above doesn't show that trust and team building can transcend religious affiliation... I don't know what does.
my 2 cents
(2)
(0)
2
2
0
Regardless of one's religion (or lack of), proselytizing has NO PLACE in the service or by anyone in a uniform except for a Chaplain during a religious service or when counseling for a service member of their faith. It shouldn't happen between colleagues and it certainly shouldn't happen between superiors and their subordinates.
As a member of any service, enlisted or officer, you cannot make any sort of political statement in uniform or in a way that reflects your position in the military, the same should go for religion. Your religion has nothing to do with the execution of your duties and shouldn't come up.
As a member of any service, enlisted or officer, you cannot make any sort of political statement in uniform or in a way that reflects your position in the military, the same should go for religion. Your religion has nothing to do with the execution of your duties and shouldn't come up.
(2)
(0)
PO3 (Join to see)
Proselytizing is much different than extending an invitation (even repeatedly asking someone to attend church when it has been politely declined). Don't get me wrong, I was raised Roman Catholic and, while I am not currently a practicing member of that faith, I am by no means an atheist or even against religion. However, I feel spreading the Word in any official capacity, such as while on duty or even making professional decisions (especially those that affect others) based upon one's faith, should be explicitly forbidden.
(1)
(0)
PO3 (Join to see)
I would say a conversation (or debate, if you will) about religion should be fine unless someone is uncomfortable, but "proselytizing" goes well beyond just having a conversation. Proselytizing in uniform, regardless of religion (or the absence of one) should not occur. It has no place in a professional environment.
(1)
(0)
2
2
0
Let's look at the the underlying themes of each view of God's desire for our view of how we should look at each other. Jesus Christ said to love each other as ourselves. Neither the Hebrew or Muslim texts give that advice; there is a lot of vengeance there. I believe that is a large reason why we can't move forward in the Middle East. Islam and Judaism is about vengeance. Only Christ Jesus preaches forgiveness and turning the other cheek. This is not a supplication. If you read the text in Matthew if someone strikes your right cheek to turn the other cheek, it is a call to stand against someone who thinks you are inferior. If a right-handed person (typically the majority) strikes your right cheek (a back-handed slap), they are back-handing you (treating you as an inferior). The Gospel implies, stand up and make them strike you as an equal on your left cheek (a fore-handed slap). Jesus was not a pacifist. He wanted to challenge the status quo. He challenged the entire religion that was at the time. In his words, He came to fulfill the laws, not to please the Pharisees (the ruling elite).
(2)
(0)
SSgt (Join to see)
PO3 Ben Sackenheim You have a right to your views on Christianity.
But...
Christianity does not deal in animal sacrifices.
Since you obviously do not want to hear about the truth of what Christianity is about, or rather what it means to be a follower of Christ, I will spare you the details. Just be it known, you're misrepresenting what Christianity is truly about.
But...
Christianity does not deal in animal sacrifices.
Since you obviously do not want to hear about the truth of what Christianity is about, or rather what it means to be a follower of Christ, I will spare you the details. Just be it known, you're misrepresenting what Christianity is truly about.
(1)
(0)
SPC Stewart Smith
Christianity preaches slavery, infanticide, genocide, and human sacrifice. Just like the other big religions.
(0)
(0)
SPC Stewart Smith
You're kidding right? The whole premise of christianity is god raping a virgin so he could turn himself into a human so he could sacrifice his human self to himself to save humanity from himself. The entire premise of christianity IS human sacrifice.
And as a human, jesus, he tells salves to serve their masters well and their christian masters especially well.
He tells people to kill false prophets by tying a mill stone around their neck and drowning them in a river.
He tells you to bring non believers before him and slay them before him.
In the old testament he commands the slaughter of entire villages for the simple reason of there being a single false prophet. He commands the murder of babies by dashing them on rocks. Then tells the israelites to take the virgin women for themselves.
You know why the 10 commandments doesn't say anything about slavery or genocide? Because in the very next chapter god commands both slavery and genocide.
Source: The bible.
And you don't seem to understand what burden of proof means. If you make a claim, example: there is a god and it's my god, then the burden of proof is on you. You have to show that there is a god and that it happens to be the one you picked. The one out of millions that have come before him.
And as a human, jesus, he tells salves to serve their masters well and their christian masters especially well.
He tells people to kill false prophets by tying a mill stone around their neck and drowning them in a river.
He tells you to bring non believers before him and slay them before him.
In the old testament he commands the slaughter of entire villages for the simple reason of there being a single false prophet. He commands the murder of babies by dashing them on rocks. Then tells the israelites to take the virgin women for themselves.
You know why the 10 commandments doesn't say anything about slavery or genocide? Because in the very next chapter god commands both slavery and genocide.
Source: The bible.
And you don't seem to understand what burden of proof means. If you make a claim, example: there is a god and it's my god, then the burden of proof is on you. You have to show that there is a god and that it happens to be the one you picked. The one out of millions that have come before him.
(0)
(0)
2
2
0
I also would have to say it serves a learning experience. I had a very skewed view of Christianity and Catholicism coming in because i am Wiccan. All the same, some people had skewed views of my religion as well but they did not dwell on it. Rather, they wanted to learn what the religion was all about and see if their beliefs had any weight. Upon discovering it did not, for both of us, we each came out better informed.
(2)
(0)
Read This Next
Continue with Facebook 
Continue with Google