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
1
1
0
I think that as long as you have confidence in your team and they are not proselytizing, you should drink water and rub some dirt on it.
It was your choice to debate religion with your commander. You could have said, "Sir, I don't want to have this discussion with you - it makes me feel weird."
Don't get me wrong - I'm am atheist. I just don't think religion has any place being discussed in the workplace (particularly our workplace). I understand that you might be offended by their beliefs, but maybe you should check why you were offended, as well as why you now feel like you don't belong. It's not that you should hide your non-belief - it's just that it's your business and nobody else's.
It was your choice to debate religion with your commander. You could have said, "Sir, I don't want to have this discussion with you - it makes me feel weird."
Don't get me wrong - I'm am atheist. I just don't think religion has any place being discussed in the workplace (particularly our workplace). I understand that you might be offended by their beliefs, but maybe you should check why you were offended, as well as why you now feel like you don't belong. It's not that you should hide your non-belief - it's just that it's your business and nobody else's.
(1)
(0)
SGT (Join to see)
Again, never said I was offended by their beliefs, just ostracized, but thanks for agreeing with me; religious discussion has no place in our line of work.
(0)
(0)
1
1
0
There are no vegans in Ethiopia and no atheists in a Fox hole!
(1)
(0)
1
1
0
I'm confused. what founding father or signer of the "living document" told you it was a "living document?"
(1)
(0)
1
1
0
Society is reflected within the ranks of the Military, you have people from all walks of life, all religions are represented, to include atheists, and agnostics and Wicca. So, even more so, Religion will and always play a role within the military, because of those people who follow a religion
(1)
(0)
1
1
0
And by religion I mean 'Christianity'. Not only should it be mandated but it should be 'Do ask, do tell'. I just hope President Clinton can allow us to use DADT.
(1)
(0)
1
1
0
Forcing a particular religion on anyone should never happen nor should there be repercussions on those who do or do not believe in a particular God. I remember hearing something a while back of people getting in trouble for not saying "So help me God" during their swearing in. I myself am a Christian and am fine with saying it but I do think that people should be able to swear to their own individual God or just remain silent during that part if they do not believe in any.
As far as Chaplains go, it is my understanding that even though they have their particular faith that they represent, they are supposed to accommodate to anyone of any faith with out discriminating. I know that if I was struggling with something and needed someone to talk to I will still have the trust to speak with a Chaplain whether they be Christian, Jewish, Muslim, Buddhist, Sith or whatever else they follow because they all serve the same purpose which is to help you.
If people in your unit are making you uncomfortable due to you being an atheist then that is something you should bring up to the chain of command to correct as we all agree to not discriminate based on anyone's religious preference or lack there of. If the chain of command is no help then there are plenty of other resources to correct the action.
As far as Chaplains go, it is my understanding that even though they have their particular faith that they represent, they are supposed to accommodate to anyone of any faith with out discriminating. I know that if I was struggling with something and needed someone to talk to I will still have the trust to speak with a Chaplain whether they be Christian, Jewish, Muslim, Buddhist, Sith or whatever else they follow because they all serve the same purpose which is to help you.
If people in your unit are making you uncomfortable due to you being an atheist then that is something you should bring up to the chain of command to correct as we all agree to not discriminate based on anyone's religious preference or lack there of. If the chain of command is no help then there are plenty of other resources to correct the action.
(1)
(0)
1
1
0
I served honorably for 26 years, while not a deeply religious person, I have served with those that are and have served with those like the OP that are Atheist. I can never remember a time during my career where religion impacted or interfered with mission readiness or accomplishment. I have seen units bend over backwards to ensure that the religious needs of everyone of it's members were tended to as best they could without having a negative impact on the mission. Are there individuals that maybe express their religious views too openly, yes there are, however I feel that the military overall and the Army more specifically has done an overall good job of ensuring that this is the exception and not the norm. To the OP, I am sorry that you feel that one of your commander's personal religious views to impact you so negatively, but I can assure you that your Soldiers will not care what your views are, they only care that you train them properly and care for their needs and those of their family's.
(1)
(0)
1
1
0
Faith or lack thereof is a personal thing. While we all have our own distinct and personal perspectives, we should respect others so long as it does not impede the mission or the good order of the service. The only time it would become an issue if it is used a way to evaluate someone who is of a different faith, but we have EEO representatives to take care of such an incident.
(1)
(0)
1
1
0
If it brings comfort to those that want it, leave it alone. It's a choice to be atheist. It's not a matter of church and state or 'religion' in the military. You don't have to use a deity to enlist or reenlist, if it makes individuals feel better to have chaplains nearby, so be it.
(1)
(0)
1
1
0
"Perhaps what is most interesting about all of these events is the great importance that Washington placed upon the presence of chaplains in his army. He thought they served a valuable function, and he advocated for them consistently. Remember that Washington often faced shortages of supplies and funds. Yet he thought it important to spend some of these valuable funds on chaplains." - Tara Ross
I disagree with the modern concept that the U.S. was a "secular" nation, but rather one that was "impartial" toward religion in general. There is a difference, I think. Regardless, it is impractical, if not impossible, to remove religion from the military without denying a large number of servicemembers the right to practice their faith. The line is drawn when you require others to conform to your beliefs, and limiting and denying chaplains is doing just that, in a way.
I disagree with the modern concept that the U.S. was a "secular" nation, but rather one that was "impartial" toward religion in general. There is a difference, I think. Regardless, it is impractical, if not impossible, to remove religion from the military without denying a large number of servicemembers the right to practice their faith. The line is drawn when you require others to conform to your beliefs, and limiting and denying chaplains is doing just that, in a way.
(1)
(0)
(0)
(0)
SPC D W
SSG Robert Mustain: i was on my phone, too, saw the link, and clicked on it. So yes, if you were able to use RP on your phone, you can use the internet, and go to that link. There is no excuse.
Now, if it is a reprint as you describe, then why would you expect Webster to be quoting God left and right in a book that only teaches spelling and pronunciation, but provides no sentences or instructional usage?
That's as bad as Paulkovitch quoting an ancient gynecologist to prove that "hey, this guy didn't talk about Jesus, therefore Jesus didn't exist."
What, you expect a gynecologist to write a detailed excerpt about a religious event in his medical journal? You expect a book dealing exclusively with spelling and pronunciation to detail out the religious beliefs of the author?
So, too, unless you are able to provide evidence to the contrary, then the link I provided shows the spelling portions of the Blue-Backed Speller, and there is no reason that said book should have any place in discussing the religious beliefs of the author; if it is as you say it is. If it is only for spelling and pronunciation, then the presence or absence of "God" and related words has no impact on a testimony to the belief of the author. It is not a dictionary, a thesaurus, an encyclopedia, or anything related where such topics would be discussed.
Therefore your initial argument bringing it into the discussion was an unprofessional, or wholly uneducated, attempt to derail the conversation and get it off topic.
So, back to square one. Webster is known for being religious, as are all the rest of the Founding Fathers, with the exception of Franklin.
Next?
Now, if it is a reprint as you describe, then why would you expect Webster to be quoting God left and right in a book that only teaches spelling and pronunciation, but provides no sentences or instructional usage?
That's as bad as Paulkovitch quoting an ancient gynecologist to prove that "hey, this guy didn't talk about Jesus, therefore Jesus didn't exist."
What, you expect a gynecologist to write a detailed excerpt about a religious event in his medical journal? You expect a book dealing exclusively with spelling and pronunciation to detail out the religious beliefs of the author?
So, too, unless you are able to provide evidence to the contrary, then the link I provided shows the spelling portions of the Blue-Backed Speller, and there is no reason that said book should have any place in discussing the religious beliefs of the author; if it is as you say it is. If it is only for spelling and pronunciation, then the presence or absence of "God" and related words has no impact on a testimony to the belief of the author. It is not a dictionary, a thesaurus, an encyclopedia, or anything related where such topics would be discussed.
Therefore your initial argument bringing it into the discussion was an unprofessional, or wholly uneducated, attempt to derail the conversation and get it off topic.
So, back to square one. Webster is known for being religious, as are all the rest of the Founding Fathers, with the exception of Franklin.
Next?
(0)
(0)
SPC D W
\\His early works - of which there are many - were secular in design and DID have an impact on shaping the debate. His most memorable work is The Blue-Backed Speller which had nothing to do with the bible... in fact it never mentioned god, the bible, or sacred events. His writing in support of the constitution and specifically "An Examination into the Leading Principles of the Federal Constitution Proposed by the Late Convention Held at Philadelphia" are cited as helping to shape the narrative of the time.\\
Sorry, I must be missing something, SSG Robert Mustain, for you to have gone out of your way to utter this sentence: "His most memorable work is The Blue-Backed Speller which had nothing to do with the bible... in fact it never mentioned god, the bible, or sacred events." regarding a book that was not designed to mention any events, sacred or secular.
I mean, why else comment on how that book didn't mention God unless you were intending to do something with it? So what were you intending to do? Prove that he was secular?
That leads back to my argument: if the Blue-Backed Speller was written sans moral catchechisms, then it wasn't written with any events, secular or sacred, and therefore can be no support to your argument.
In other words, you were saying "in fact it never mentioned god, the bible, or sacred events." for the benefit of hearing yourself speak, and nothing else.
Otherwise, why did you include that sentence? I choose to believe that it was intelligent design that led to the creation of that sentence. Do you choose some other explanation?
Sorry, I must be missing something, SSG Robert Mustain, for you to have gone out of your way to utter this sentence: "His most memorable work is The Blue-Backed Speller which had nothing to do with the bible... in fact it never mentioned god, the bible, or sacred events." regarding a book that was not designed to mention any events, sacred or secular.
I mean, why else comment on how that book didn't mention God unless you were intending to do something with it? So what were you intending to do? Prove that he was secular?
That leads back to my argument: if the Blue-Backed Speller was written sans moral catchechisms, then it wasn't written with any events, secular or sacred, and therefore can be no support to your argument.
In other words, you were saying "in fact it never mentioned god, the bible, or sacred events." for the benefit of hearing yourself speak, and nothing else.
Otherwise, why did you include that sentence? I choose to believe that it was intelligent design that led to the creation of that sentence. Do you choose some other explanation?
(0)
(0)
MSG James Bartlett
SSG I took away my up vote because you changed your answer. Stick with it next time. The Maj was clearly playing favorites. Maj, if you are going to play nanny be fair about it. SSg, you are completely in the right as far as the SPC is concerned. He was being thickheaded. In my day if they dont get it after the third/fourth time, you gotta call an idiot an idiot its part of professional development! For my 2 cents: the United States is a nation founded under God-the Christian God. The preamble of the Declaration of Independance layed out the philosophy of government for our christian nation "We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness." It was their opinion that the creator gave them the rights, so whatever their motivations for anything they did later was based on a foundation of rights granted to them by God. Anyway, on't be a sissy and keep calling people stupid when they are stupid. The new Army needs more of that.
(0)
(0)
Read This Next
Continue with Facebook 
Continue with Google