Inspired by the "Under God" thread

[AirForceRocks]

Since a few people are so opposed to having "under God" in the pledge because it is, in their opinions, government sponsorship of religion, how does everyone feel about the military chaplaincy?

There are a dozens, if not hundreds, of military chaplains currently serving. Are the people that want "under God" taken out of the pledge and "In God We Trust" taken off the money also in favor of dissolving the military chaplaincy and tearing down all of the military chapels in this country and abroad? If not, what exactly is the difference between the situations?

 

[Eeyore1954]

I believe that those in the armed forces have the right to the free exercise of their religion/faith, just as private citizens do. The chaplaincy program enables this free exercise by providing ordained clergy for these individuals.

 

[minniepumpernickel]

Thats an interesting question. I remember my friend, the marine, had to pick a religion because they have to say something in the service, right? He wasn't brought up with any religion, but he picked southern Baptist. it was such a shock to him, he couldn't stand the service, but he went anyway just to get a break on Sunday.



Personally, I really do take the "hookairs" approach. I just wander how it strongly affects Jews to be bombarded by the cross, or athiests to be surrounded by religion?

 

[NMAmy]

I am a former military wife and I've met many chaplains over the years. In my experience, they try to be as non-denominational as possible--providing assistance in many ways (not just spiritual) to those in the military and their families. One post had a Catholic priest--another had a Presbyterian minister. I am neither religion and never felt that that was a problem. I, in fact, have NO religious affiliation and felt that these chaplains were a great resource to the community. So, even though I DO feel that "under God" should be removed from the Pledge of Allegiance, I do not feel that chaplains should be removed from the military.

 

[kellyb2000]

No, because people want God around when they are scared or hurt or in danger - they just don't want Him around in the "normal", everyday things - like in the pledge

Sorry people - you can't have it both ways. It's all or nothing

 

[minniepumpernickel]

Originally posted by kellyb2000
No, because people want God around when they are scared or hurt or in danger - they just don't want Him around in the "normal", everyday things - like in the pledge

Sorry people - you can't have it both ways. It's all or nothing

I'm not trying to be argumentative, and I think that AFR started a really good debate. What rule says that it has to be all or nothing? Does GOD demand total attention, or nothing at all? Is that in the bible? I must have missed that part?

 

[AirForceRocks]

Originally posted by minniepumpernickel
I'm not trying to be argumentative, and I think that AFR started a really good debate. What rule says that it has to be all or nothing? Does GOD demand total attention, or nothing at all? Is that in the bible? I must have missed that part?

I think that the point that kellyb2000 is making is the one that I'm confused on also...

The main argument that I've heard from people that oppose "under God" in the pledge is that they see it as government sponsorship of religion, and they don't think that the government should be able to do that.

So, if simply having "under God" in the pledge is government sponsorship of religion, how can employing full time chaplains and chapel support staff, as well as building and maintaining chapels not also constitute government sponsorship of religion? And if that's the case, then shouldn't those opposed to the pledge also oppose the chaplaincy and the associated infrastructure?

 

[cardaway]

I'm going to guess they exist because it's hard, or even impossible, to let the people involved seek civilian chaplains or churches. In that case I can understand why they are needed.

I'm failing to see any connection between the two topics. The pledge is rather specific (unless you believe the "god in a general sense" crap) but I'm going to bet the military has to accomodate every religion represented in some way.

 

[minniepumpernickel]

Originally posted by AirForceRocks
I think that the point that kellyb2000 is making is the one that I'm confused on also...

The main argument that I've heard from people that oppose "under God" in the pledge is that they see it as government sponsorship of religion, and they don't think that the government should be able to do that.

So, if simply having "under God" in the pledge is government sponsorship of religion, how can employing full time chaplains and chapel support staff, as well as building and maintaining chapels not also constitute government sponsorship of religion? And if that's the case, then shouldn't those opposed to the pledge also oppose the chaplaincy and the associated infrastructure?

I have a question for you. My friend joined the marines after the first gulf war. Maybe things have changed since then. He said that he "had" to pick a religion. Do they really make you choose one?

 

[AirForceRocks]

Originally posted by minniepumpernickel
I have a question for you. My friend joined the marines after the first gulf war. Maybe things have changed since then. He said that he "had" to pick a religion. Do they really make you choose one?

I don't know what the Marines do, but I joined prior to the first Gulf War, and we didn't have to choose a religion.

 

[Big Dude]

by Minniepumpernickle

I'm not trying to be argumentative, and I think that AFR started a really good debate. What rule says that it has to be all or nothing? Does GOD demand total attention, or nothing at all? Is that in the bible? I must have missed that part?

I believe that John writes about this in Revelation Chapter 3 verses 14-22. John is writing to the church in Laodicea. These people chose to follow the Lord whenever convenient for them.

14 "To the angel of the church in Laodicea write:
These are the words of the Amen, the faithful and true witness, the ruler of God's creation.
15 I know your deeds, that you are neither cold nor hot. I wish you were either one or the other!
16 So, because you are lukewarm--neither hot nor cold--I am about to spit you out of my mouth.
17 You say, 'I am rich; I have acquired wealth and do not need a thing.' But you do not realize that you are wretched, pitiful, poor, blind and naked.
18 I counsel you to buy from me gold refined in the fire, so you can become rich; and white clothes to wear, so you can cover your shameful nakedness; and salve to put on your eyes, so you can see.
19 Those whom I love I rebuke and discipline. So be earnest, and repent.
20 Here I am! I stand at the door and knock. If anyone hears my voice and opens the door, I will come in and eat with him, and he with me.
21 To him who overcomes, I will give the right to sit with me on my throne, just as I overcame and sat down with my Father on his throne.
22 He who has an ear, let him hear what the Spirit says to the churches."

So according to this scripture, it is either all or nothing. Lukewarm will get you spat out of His mouth.

Adam aka Big Dude

 

[ErikdaRed]

The difference lies in the fact that children are forced to say the pledge (establishment), where in the military I would assume that they aren't forced to church on Sunday/Friday/Sunset. The chaplan is provided to comfort the soldiers, not to convert them.

 

[ErikdaRed]

And of course that bible quote refers to an individual's belief, not government funding.

 

[tonyswife]

Originally posted by ErikdaRed
The difference lies in the fact that children are forced to say the pledge (establishment),

Which children are forced to say the pledge?

 

[MICKEY88]

Originally posted by tonyswife
Which children are forced to say the pledge?

my question exactly, who's going to punish a child for not saying it..or simply omitting the words "Under God"

 

[minniepumpernickel]

Big Dude- I'm assuming that is part of the New Testament. It sheds light on a lot of things that I've read. I do believe the literal interpretation of that passage would back up what the person that I had quoted on here was saying. Do you believe in the exact, literal interpretation of the new testament? If so, I feel kind of bad because I think that I had misunderstood you in the other thread.

 

[ThreeCircles]

I think there are two main differences between the pledge controversy and the chaplaincy.

First, it's my understanding that one need not have any interaction with the chaplaincy if one does not wish to. With the pledge, children are required to listen to "under (some) god" day in and day out.

Second, doesn't the chaplaincy represent all faiths rather than just one?

 

[wvrevy]

1 - So far as I know, you do not have to pick a religion, per se, when you enter the armed forces. Yes, you have to choose what to have on your dog tags, but you can choose NOT to have anything on there as well (I chose catholic because my mother is catholic and if I am dead, I could really care less what they do with the body, but she'd feel better knowing that the mumbo-jumbo was done )

2 - "Nobody is forcing those kids to pray along with the rest of the class, so why can't they just shut up about it". What's the difference ?

3 - The military also provides for those of different religions OTHER than just Christianity, so there's no problem. Also, the men and women in the military aren't grade school kids, so nobody is likely to beat them up at recess because they don't want to say the class prayer Fact is, most of us went to church on Sundays in basic training....it allowed us to get an extra hour's sleep...lol

 

[ErikdaRed]

I was given detention countless times as a child for not saying the pledge. Also, the child is required by law to attend school and be forced to listen to/participate in the pledge. In my book this amounts to indoctrination of children to God and religion. That would be establishment in mine and the ninth circuit court's view. And one day we will get to hear the SC views on the subject (who have already determined that prayer has no place in our schools or school functions).

 

[WDSearcher]

Originally posted by ErikdaRed
The difference lies in the fact that children are forced to say the pledge (establishment), where in the military I would assume that they aren't forced to church on Sunday/Friday/Sunset. The chaplan is provided to comfort the soldiers, not to convert them.

There's a difference between being "forced" to say the pledge and being "expected" to say the pledge. No one is forcing kids to say anything.

Children in elementary school are taught the pledge and it's assumed that each day they stand and say it with their peers. But I've never heard of any child being punished for not partaking unless they or their parents made an issue out of it. Honestly, how many schools have teachers or teacher's aides walking throughout the classroom ready to spring on a child and force them to pledge allegiance? If a child's family doesn't object to the pledge in general but is adamant that they not say "under God", I'm thinking that any child over about 6 years old can understand the concept of simply omitting those two words without calling attention to themselves.

I was in elementary school in the 1960s and we had kids from immigrant families who didn't say the Pledge of Allegiance with us -- some because they weren't US citizens yet and a few because they just didn't want to. It was no big deal. I think the problem starts when someone isn't content to simply not say it or to omit "under God" if they find it offensive -- they have to literally make a federal case out of it. I'm not forcing anyone to recite the pledge the way I do, why does someone else think it's necessary to make me conform to the way they feel it should be said?