Scoutfish Posted February 7, 2010 Share Posted February 7, 2010 - Merlyn_LeRoy Who is everyone? Can you cite specific examples? Is the government requiring soldiers to listen to the chaplins? I hardly think so! Is the government suggesting that all soldiers need religion? Not at all! Is the government providing a means to those who might find themselves unable to go to a religious service while under the employ of the United States Department of Defense? Isn't the government actually making sure that the government is not denying any religious servises, acccess to or participation by those employed and serving in the armed forces? And not everyone finds themselves under employment in the US military , now do they? Looks like to me, that by not wanting the government to hire chaplins, preachers and such, you are actually not wanting normal, every day US citizens to enjoy the Costitutional rights (that they fight to protect by the way) of their right to practice their own religion! To say that government cannot hire a chaplin - which they do for the soldier who wanted it/asked for it - that is to say that it's okay to prevent people from their constitutional rights in the name of Athiests! - Merlyn_LeRoy Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Merlyn_LeRoy Posted February 7, 2010 Share Posted February 7, 2010 Scoutfish writes: Who is everyone? Can you cite specific examples? Specific examples of everyone? Let's see, there's me, you, that guy over there... vol_scouter vaguely cited lawsuits over military chaplains as if that, itself, constituted an example of atheists attempting to stifle the free exercise of religion. I can't seem to find an actual lawsuit trying to remove military chaplains, just the ones in congress, and removing them wouldn't limit anyone's religious rights. I have seen atheists and atheist groups state that the government shouldn't be hiring military chaplains and suggest that religious denominations send their own chaplains instead of having the government do it. That wouldn't limit anyone's religious rights either, and it would get the government out of the chaplain business. See why I keep asking for specific examples? Removing "government-paid chaplains" doesn't impact anyone's religious rights, particularly if you don't confuse "removing government-paid chaplains" with the very different statement "removing chaplains." Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
boomerscout Posted February 7, 2010 Share Posted February 7, 2010 "For centuries the Royal Army Chaplains' Department (RAChD) has ministered to soldiers in times of peace and war. We are proud to provide spiritual leadership, moral guidance and pastoral support to all soldiers and their families, irrespective of religion or belief." military chaplains need to be government funded because they need to be under direct government control. If they were were in the military, but not paid, that would be unequal treatment of personnel. If they were not in the military, but on the battlefield, there would be the great chance of civilian "insubordination" while the group is under fire. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
evmori Posted February 8, 2010 Share Posted February 8, 2010 Specific examples of everyone? Let's see, there's me, you, that guy over there... Well that sure isn't everyone now is it! Why aren't you going after the government chaplains your tax dollars are directly paying for with the same intensity you are going after the BSA, Merlyn? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Scoutfish Posted February 8, 2010 Share Posted February 8, 2010 Well, the government is not paying for me to have a chaplin. They have yet to send one to my house or let me just drive on any bases to recieve that chaplins services. So I am not part of everyone. I can pretty much assume you are not military or you would understand the need for, even if you didn't use those services. Either way, the government isn't providing you one either. Nor for my neighbors or anybody else on my block for that matter. Now, my dad was in theUnited States Coast Guard for 22 years 3 months. I had 5 uncles who served in the USCG, USMC, USA and USN. 4 cousins who served and are still serving in te USA, USMC, USCG , and USAR. I have one brother in law who served in the Army. Not a single one of them ever complained about being forced to pray, go see a chaplin, or be forced to confess sins, take part in Mass or communion. Not a single one of them even had to be actively religious. So, it seems the government provided a service to only those who FREELY CHOSE to participate in said activity. And the government chose to offere it for logistical reasons: It's hard to go to church or see a chaplin or preacher if you are going to battle in less than 5 minutes - and you happen to be on the other side of the world fighting for freedom that ALLOWS people to choose to not be religious or PRACTICE religion without OTHERS INTERFERING as the US CONSTITUTION GARANTEES! And if the government denied that service..It would be preventing United States citizens from practicing their religious freedoms as garanteed under the US Constitutuion!!!!! So your answer is no good, not valid, incorrect! JUST FLAT OUT WRONG! I'm still waiting!(This message has been edited by scoutfish) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Merlyn_LeRoy Posted February 8, 2010 Share Posted February 8, 2010 scoutfish writes: Well, the government is not paying for me to have a chaplin. They have yet to send one to my house or let me just drive on any bases to recieve that chaplins services. So I am not part of everyone. You missed my point. If not having government-paid chaplains constitutes "denying religious freedom," then most Americans are being denied religious freedom. It's a reductio ad absurdum. I can pretty much assume you are not military or you would understand the need for, even if you didn't use those services. Well, if you want to talk to atheists in the military, you can check out www.maaf.info . The quality of military chaplains with regard to atheist soldiers varies wildly. And the government chose to offere it for logistical reasons: It's hard to go to church or see a chaplin or preacher if you are going to battle in less than 5 minutes - and you happen to be on the other side of the world fighting for freedom that ALLOWS people to choose to not be religious or PRACTICE religion without OTHERS INTERFERING as the US CONSTITUTION GARANTEES! But again, not providing chaplains is not denying people their right to practice their religion. It makes it more difficult in a lot of cases, but even with the current situation, there are areas where chaplains aren't available, or where non-Christian chaplains aren't available. And if the government denied that service..It would be preventing United States citizens from practicing their religious freedoms as garanteed under the US Constitutuion!!!!! Wrong. It makes it more difficult, but it doesn't prevent people from practicing their religion. And there are some minority religions that have no military chaplains of their denomination. And MAAF has been pushing for some years for atheist/humanist chaplains, but there aren't any of those yet, either. I'm still waiting! For what? (fixed typo) (This message has been edited by Merlyn_LeRoy) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
boomerscout Posted February 8, 2010 Share Posted February 8, 2010 "not providing chaplains is not denying people their right to practice their religion. It makes it more difficult in a lot of cases," wrong! some religious sects require a chaplain. not providing one makes it impossible to practice their religion Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
evmori Posted February 9, 2010 Share Posted February 9, 2010 Merlyn, Why aren't you trying to eliminate tax payer funded chaplains with the same vigor you are trying to eliminate government chartered BSA units? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Merlyn_LeRoy Posted February 9, 2010 Share Posted February 9, 2010 How do you know I'm not, Ed? For that matter, how do you know my position on taxpayer funded chaplains, Ed? You can't learn things, but that doesn't stop you from just making up suppositions and pretending they're true. Not a good way to address reality, in my book. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
evmori Posted February 9, 2010 Share Posted February 9, 2010 Well are you Merlyn? And what is you position on taxpayer funded chaplains? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Merlyn_LeRoy Posted February 9, 2010 Share Posted February 9, 2010 Ed, I have zero interest in discussing issues with someone like yourself who starts out by assuming someone else's position without asking first. There's absolutely no point. If you want to pointlessly converse, try an online Eliza simulation like http://www.parnasse.com/drwww.shtml Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Scoutfish Posted February 9, 2010 Share Posted February 9, 2010 You missed my point. I understood you. As for a point, you didn't have one. You might have almost sorta thought you had one, but you didn't. As my answer..I was just dishing out your kind of responce: Ultra specific to the microscopic detail - you said everybody, yet did not give any worthy or remotely corect answer, Now, as for an athiest's opinion of a chaplin or any other religious figure...ell big surprise at that outcome. No more surprising than what a Chevy fan thinks of Toyota in NASCAR! Now, If it was the persuasion of my religion to go to confession, and as a military person, there was no chaplin, pracher, father, rabbi or whoever...then I woud be denied my religious freedoms due to the nature of my employment b y the US government. And we both know that the US Constitution just frowns on that! You are kidding right? A religios figurehead for people who just don't believe? I completely understand why n oibody is moving forward on such a complete wste of money! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Scoutfish Posted February 9, 2010 Share Posted February 9, 2010 Wow! Talk about arrogant: Read again! Every reference he made was a direct QUESTION to you about your position.... NOT a statement!!! But since you brought it up - YOU , o0f all people, ASSUMJED that I did not understand you only because I didn't agree with your non specific and consequently - incorrect as you stated only 3 examples as to what you called "everybody" - answer. See, we can all carry the same attitude you do, but all that does is have us argue about miniscule details that have no pertinance to the subject matter! Seems like when you are done being snide, rude and attacking others on a personal level...you actualy have nothing to argue concerning the subject matter except your emotions. Luckily, that too is also protected under the US Constitution under freedom of speach. Now, most people don't understand that right as they should.....but that's another arguement for another day!(This message has been edited by scoutfish) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Merlyn_LeRoy Posted February 9, 2010 Share Posted February 9, 2010 Scoutfish, no, you obviously did not understand my point, and you still don't. If not having a government-paid chaplain is a violation of someone's religious rights, millions of people are having their religious rights violated right now. As to this: Now, If it was the persuasion of my religion to go to confession, and as a military person, there was no chaplin, pracher, father, rabbi or whoever...then I woud be denied my religious freedoms due to the nature of my employment b y the US government. This actually happens in real life in the military, as I've already pointed out. It's also common to not have a chaplain of your denomination available. Guess what? You have to deal with it in those cases. There's also the fact that, currently at least, there's no draft, so being in the military is a choice, and if you choose to make your own religious practices more difficult by enlisting, you ought to understand that there may be times when chaplains etc may not be available. [atheist/humanist chaplains] You are kidding right? No, I am not. MAAF has advocated atheist/humanist chaplains for some years now. I completely understand why n oibody is moving forward on such a complete wste of money! Ah, so other people have religious rights that cannot, under any circumstances, be limited, but chaplains for other people are a "complete waste of money." Gotcha. And about Ed: Read again! Every reference he made was a direct QUESTION to you about your position.... NOT a statement!!! Read again. Every statement made an assumption about my position. You can argue with Ed if you like, I won't stop you. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
evmori Posted February 9, 2010 Share Posted February 9, 2010 Ed, I have zero interest in discussing issues with someone like yourself who starts out by assuming someone else's position without asking first. There's absolutely no point. Well, Merlyn, I'm gonna take that as you aren't going after the taxpayer funded chaplains with the same vigor you are going after the BSA. And yeah go ahead and claim I can't learn! That's you stock line when you have nothing else. All this tells me is your sole purpose is to destroy the BSA! Read again. Every statement made an assumption about my position. You can argue with Ed if you like, I won't stop you. And you refuse to answer any question regarding your position, Merlyn. I'll bet it's because you don't have a position on this matter! Kinda funny! As they say, Merlyn, s**t or get off the pot! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Create an account or sign in to comment
You need to be a member in order to leave a comment
Create an account
Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!
Register a new accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now