# Religion in the Canadian Forces & in Canadian Society



## Jarnhamar

This for the most part is a hypothetical question.

The canadian army has people from different religions serving. Some religions require their followers to do certian things such as not eating pork, washing their feet twice a day, maybe praying 15 minutes at sunset or dawn etc..

The army does it‘s best to cater (sp?) to these individuals religious beliefs by offering them special meals or time off to pray which is great.

Now say a certian religion states that it‘s followers must not eat meat, must pray twice a day for 30 minutes, not consume alcohol and not engage in pre-martial sex.  Supose this soldier from this religion has pre-martial sex, drinks alcohol like a viking and a host of other infractions but still insists that he or she be given an hour each day (when possible) to pray and have special meals made for them (or any other specific treatment)?  Is it fair that this soldier can pick and choose what religious rules they follow and which they break?


----------



## D-n-A

I think if you get the "special" treatment for lack of better words, you have to stick to your religion an not break it‘s rules(?)

if you do, you shouldent get your special food, etc

if you‘ve broken the rules, that shows that you dont care enough about your religion, an the army shouldent cater to you anymore


----------



## Etown

Here‘s a topic that‘s sure to get ugly. 

No. People should not be allowed to choose which religious rules to follow and then decide that the army should accomodate them. 

I was going to write more but I‘d rather argue with Lui than argue religion.


----------



## Zoomie

The CF will NOT discriminate against religions, however, they will not bend over back-wards to a religious persons beliefs either.  If you are jewish and can only eat sanctified food, then you will starve while on Ex!  Most people of those faiths eat Mac and Cheese and that‘s it.  As for taking off time to bow for 30 minutes every so often.  Just make sure it coincides with your lunch-break.  Don‘t plan on take a break in the middle of combat. Turbans are permitted in the CF, just don‘t join a combat arms, because it sure as ****  won‘t fit under the kevlar.  If you‘re Catholic, and can only eat fish on Friday, good luck trying to find the only fish IMP while on EX.
The point being, the CF will NOT infringe on your rights to practice religion, however, it had better be compatible with your MOC, or your religion will certainly lose out.


----------



## humint

How many Protestants and Catholics out there pick and choose which rules to follow and then still insist on going to service for an hour or so on Sundays or mid-week? Loads, I tell ya, loads.


----------



## Jarnhamar

Exactly my point.  I‘ve worked with people who thought they could get some time off of sorts by going to church on sunday (when we were on course etc..).


----------



## Fader

I dunno; on course they‘ve ALWAYS done everything they could to accomidate people with various religious practices.  The first day of basic and 3‘s, our instructors came up and asked "Does anyone have any religious convictions that require special attention?"  

I think the CF does everything feasible these days to respect the rights of it‘s members, including religious ones, even if it‘s members don‘t.  Again, in the sea of bureaucracy, should someone living in sin and vice (relative to thier religion) file a serious complaint about thier religious rights being violated, someone will hear about it, and it won‘t necessarily be the guy who filed the complaint.  I think that‘s why the CF tries to accomidate people, just a CYA thing.


----------



## humint

According to the Charter, and followed-up by the Canadian Human Rights Commission, the gov (including the military) must accommodate the various religious traditions of its members -- if at all possible. 

However, if this accommodation is too costly, would be prohibitive (i.e. in the sense that the member could not complete assigned duties), or dangerous to the member and/or other CF members, than the CF would have cause (i.e. justification) to limit or not permit a religious service, act, or form of observance. 

But, the onus is on the CF to prove that the religious act/observance, etc would endanger the members or would be too costly to accommodate, etc.

At the same time, the CF member (or any gov employee for that matter) cannot simply say he or she is "such and such religion" and "I need this and that." She or he must show that they belong to a certain religious faith, that they follow the principles of the religion, and that the CF (or other gov service) is prohibiting them from engaging in religious acts/rituals.


----------



## Infanteer

The Military will not bend over backwords.  We had guy from some Christian Sect show up for work-up training who would not work on Saturdays for religious regions.  He was on a bus home the next weekend.


----------



## WINDWOLF

I have been told that God is all round us.
So it should not be to difficult to pray/
worship where ever you are.

As you can probably tell i am not big on
organized religon or any religon of any kind.
But it is your right to pray to who ever
is out there. Religon & war seems to me to be
counter productive. Love all men but toast
whoever does not pray to me.
But that,s just my iceage opinon.


----------



## nbk

But if there was no religion, there would be no wars, and everyone would be friends, so we‘d all be out of a job.


----------



## Fader

Now that‘s quite debatable, but quite a huge debate to get into


----------



## klumanth

If people didn‘t fight over religion, they would fight over something else.  Basic human nature I guess.


----------



## WINDWOLF

And this would be a bad thing how? nbk.
Fighting a group of religious fanatics
is not the way most would want to go.

Combat against trained professionals
who have some type of honor is alot better
then fighting a bunch of Alla ackbar nuts.

At least pro,s keep the death toll of innocents
to the bare minimum. If God does exist then he
should reach down a twist a few necks.

It,s all the same God that they serve,other then
ideology,there is basicaly no difference between
them. Religious wars are just another way to 
force feed the masses ideology ideas that they
may find offensive.It,s a waste of time,men &
resources.     

This may seem like a contradiction of my other 
posts,but the word religion just gets me going.


----------



## PsychoE

Whether it is fair for someone to chose what parts of their religion they will follow is unfair to the rest of their peers.

If you are going to practice religion - then f‘n do it.  Don‘t him and haw over what parts of it u want to follow.

Just my $.02


----------



## nbk

I never said it would be a bad thing. Can you think of a single war started by an Athiest?


----------



## klumanth

I‘m tired of seeing religion getting a bad rap because there is fighting over it.  Just looking at the big five religions, they all teach peace but they get twisted by fanatics to suit their own purposes.  Even so, if you look back on the past century, religion has not played that large of a part.  World War I and II were more about power than anything.  The Cold War was about communism and our opposition to it.  Not religion.  Korea and Vietnam were a direct result of the Cold war.  Once you quit wrapping your mind around current events, you will see many, many conflicts and wars which really have nothing to do with religion.


----------



## humint

For me, if you make a commitment to the CF, your duties and responsibilities to the CF come before religion (I‘m not talking about one‘s God, but rather the ritual form of faith). Now, this is of course easy for a Godless atheist, moral relativist, lost and ****ed to ****  soul such as myself to say -- but that‘s my personal view. 

Of course, you can never totally eliminate religion and spirituality from humanity. Some have tried, such as Stalin and Pol Pot, and failed. 

I think that the approach used by the CF is actually quite good, offering flexibility to accommodate for diversity but, at the same time, establishing limits for safety and security as well as function. Not too sure if everyone agrees, but from my experience, the treatment seems pretty equitable.


----------



## nbk

WW2 hand no religous aspect to it? Unless your Ernest Zundel, you must acknowledge the JEWISH holocaust by the ROMAN CATHOLIC Nazis? These same Nazis who justified their crazy ideas because it was "Gods will". Don‘t forget the ATHIEST Soviet Union that tried to stay out of the war, until the ROMAN CATHOLIC Nazis attacked them. 

I‘ll give you World War One, as it was a result of too many large powers in too much of a confined space, and it was unavoidable, but most of the countries involved in that war had religion in some level of their government hierarchy.

The cold war and Vietnam, etc, also had a religous factor. The ATHIEST communists wanted to expand and the CHRISTIAN Americans and Australins, etc, did not want the ATHIEST Communist system to spread to any more countries, because it threatened their right to practice religion.

If you don‘t want current events, lets look into history. The crusades maybe? The fall of the Roman Empire due to Christianity? The Reconquesta? Cortez and the Myan/Aztec genocide? The slaughter of our own native people who were considered as savages?

You are correct that most religions advocate peace, but most followers are twisted fanatics, who use it to get into conflicts. So doesn‘t this tell you that something is wrong with the religion themselves? If it can allow this sort of warped interpretation of its message?


----------



## Gunnar

Wars started by Atheists...hmm....how about almost every communist "revolution" since the definition of the word "communist"?  Or don‘t civil wars count?

And as long as we‘re on the topic, it wasn‘t the Nazi‘s Catholicism that led them to slaughter Jews.  It was their twisted and warped ideology, which in and of itself, was essentially Atheistic.  I mean, how could you have personal ideals or morality before the wonder that was the Fuhrer?  The State, or the Fatherland was all.  Religion, such as it was used in the war, was used as a propaganda tool or to avoid being labelled a Jew (or anyone else the Nazis didn‘t like).



> I‘ll give you World War One, as it was a result of too many large powers in too much of a confined space, and it was unavoidable, but most of the countries involved in that war had religion in some level of their government hierarchy.


Ad hoc, ergo propter hoc?  C‘mon man.  The fact that they had religion doesn‘t necessarily imply that religion was the cause.  I mean, I bet almost all the parties to the war had flush toilets too....  




> If you don‘t want current events, lets look into history. The crusades maybe? The fall of the Roman Empire due to Christianity? The Reconquesta? Cortez and the Myan/Aztec genocide? The slaughter of our own native people who were considered as savages?


The Crusades were religious in nature, but motivated, as usual, by a struggle for power.  It just so happened that the Church had power at that point.  Kings on Crusade aren‘t consolidating their secular power, they‘re increasing the long arm of the Church.

As far as the Fall of the Roman Empire due to Christianity, that‘s another Ad hoc fallacy.  The reason for the Fall of the Roman Empire has never been substantially proven, although some have linked it to the welfare state and wage & price controls.

Reconquista:  I‘ve heard the term, but I don‘t know to what it refers.

Slaughter of Aztecs:  Hmm...Aztecs had boatloads of gold, Spain had guns and no gold.  Oh, yeah, it was religiously motivated all right....

Our native population?  In Canada, we have treaties with almost all of the native bands here.  I don‘t recall a lot of wholesale slaughter, apart from times when they attempted to rebel against the government and/or the treaties they signed.  Did they get screwed?  Sure.  Did it have anything to do with religion?  Not really.  They had land we wanted.  

In all these cases, religion may have been used to salve the concience of those who did the deeds, but in every case the wars were about power.  Just like when the Atheist Vietnamese Communists decided they should own everything in their own country.


----------



## klumanth

Most followers of religion are twisted fanatics???  nbk, you‘re suggesting that a fair chunk of the Canadian population and probably a good percentage of CF personnel are twisted fanatics?  That‘s just absurd.  The twisted fanatics are by and far the small minority of religious groups.  They just get the most press so, to the unperceptive eye, it might appear that they are a larger percentage of the whole than what they really are.


----------



## WINDWOLF

I have a feeling that i should
have kept my big,fat mouth shut about this.

About the only good thing to come out of
this,is that i have learned alot about
history (right or wrong)from all of you.

This started out as a hypothetical question by
Ghost778 & turned into a religous debate.

Lets agree that most leaders are just power
hungry fools & soldiers are the ones who
pay the bill, shall we.

We are trending into quicksand & sinking fast.

Just a suggestion on my part.
Regards.


----------



## Redneck052

Religion is no longer the striving force behind society, it is now merely a guideline for those that believe to follow.

I have said this many times with family and friends.

In the CF, religious freedoms, and the right to practice is a right that needs to be protected, just as mush as the right to vote.

Canada is made up of many nations in a nation.  This notion is an important one for Canada, we are durieved from peoples for else where, but we are now ALL Canadian.

Should a person be allowed to practice his particular religious parctice, even though he does not see it to the letter?  I say yes.  That person has the right to.  How many Catholics (for example) do their daily prayers?  Do we condem them from celebrating their faith on sunday in the feild.

Whether a person lives and breathes his faith does not imply for the rest of us to cast judgement.

What do you really believe in, what higher being do you pray to?  What makes you faithful?

Should these religious preferences be announced unit wide?  No, I don‘t think so.  How would you feel if were announced that you are Prostant/ Catholic/ Anglican/ or any other religion?  How would you like that you can only eat veggies on this day, fish on that, or steak on that day.  How would like if your personal belief and martial arrangement is annouced.  It is no ones business, nor should it be.

If a person is required to observe certain arrangements so that he may celebrate his faith, that is his business and highers.  If the person feels to tell his section, platoon, company, unit or organization, that should be at his discreetion.

Does the civilian world have these isues/ problems?


A few thoughts......


----------



## Infanteer

This is going nowhere, moderater want to shut this one down before it gets out of hand (if it hasn‘t already...)


----------



## WINDWOLF

Agree.


----------



## klumanth

come on now, as long as we‘re not openly insulting each other it‘s still a just a debate.  I think we‘re still at least three posts away from name calling.


----------



## McInnes

You have your faith. If you have chosen your faith to be an organised religion, then you should follow all of its rules. 
Now, somewhat going back on what i just said,
as a christian (basically), i dont go to church every sunday, and i keep some of my own rules, and reject others, to tailor it to my beliefs. I dont expect to have time given to me every sunday for church. God is everywhere, if you believe in God. I pray anywhere, if you feel the need to pray, then pray. No need to go to a building, or see some old guy. For people who have dietary needs, i think that god will forgive you, if you eat something taht you need to eat in order for you not to starve. If have completly and utterly devoted yourself to your religion, and follow it to a T, you probably shouldnt be in the CF, for in the CF at some point, you are expected to kill, or help kill, other human beings. That is definatly a no no in almost all religions.


----------



## Tyler

> WW2 hand no religous aspect to it? Unless your Ernest Zundel, you must acknowledge the JEWISH holocaust by the ROMAN CATHOLIC Nazis?


Germans? Roman Catholic?

Ever heard of a guy named Martin Luther? circa: 1500‘s ?

Before you go spouting off about religion, it would help if you got your facts straigt to begin with.

The cold war wasn‘t exclusively fought over freedom of religion either. How about freedom of the press, speech, association, etc? How about communism vs. capitalism? opression vs. freedom?
If you focus only on religion for a cause, then you have to ignore everything else.  As it‘s been said before, religion has been mainly used as a propaganda tool by governments and assorted wack-jobs.

I doubt that even the crusades was fought purely for religion either. Land played a key role. Weren‘t the christians trying to stop the expansion of the muslims?

Tyler


----------



## WINDWOLF

And you wonder how holy wars start?

I personaly don,t care if you worship God
or some carved wooden idol as long as it
does no harm to others & you do not force it
on me.

To each his/her own.
And we are about 2 more post shy of name
calling,so lets end this on a high note guys.

Just trying to keep the peace.
Regards.


----------



## nbk

Yes I have heard of Martin Luther, have you ever heard of the Holy Roman Empire? Just because Martin Luther led the Protestant reformation of the church in Germany in the early 1500s, does not mean the entire country was protestant. In fact looking at the CIA world factbook 2002, Germany is split 34% protestant and 34% Roman catholic. 

My grandfather was a roman catholic living in Germany during the second world war (thats why I said Roman Catholic, as I believe this is what Hitler professed to be, as well as many other Nazis), sent to the eastern front (Minsk), to fight for god (in his his own words) against the "godless" Soviets. Luckily he made it through and got captured by the americans when he was re-deployed to Italy and brought to a pow camp in New Mexico. He told me that he was told by his Kommandant that they would win this war because they had god on their side. Once he was exposed to all the horrors which took place in the name of god after the end of that war, it caused him to renounce his religion and become an athiest.

Just for the record I am not flaming or name calling anyone, this just happens to be a topic that interests me.

Communist revolutions were just that--revolutions, not wars. I said no *wars* have been started by athiests.

The Reconquista (I may have spelled it wrong, I am German not Spanish) was basically a successful Christian ploy to drive all the Muslims (Called the Moors) out of the Iberian penninsula in southern Spain. Along with getting rid of all the Muslims, they also got rid of most of the skilled trades and crafts-persons. This area of Spain had a lot of trouble after this, because the christians were not as skilled as the Moors were. If the Moors and the christians were athiests, they would have had no issues with eachother, and everyone would be happy.

As for the Aztecs, there was a huge factor played by Christian missionaries in that genocide. Not to mention the Aztec‘s religion left them open for attack because they thought Cortez was their god, and they trusted him, when they should have been more cautious.

As for the possible over generalizations I made, it was not my intention to offend anyone, it just comes from personal experience. Besides from a few Muslims and Buddhists that I knew in high school, every religous person I have met has been a complete basket case. I can not think of one christian I have met who has not preached to me about how much I am going to burn in **** , and how he or she is going to pray for me, and how he hopes I "find jesus and save myself". I hate the elitist attitude that these people have. I found this webpage earlier today, and even though the guy is half joking, it sums up my feelings on religion much better then I could type out.


----------



## klumanth

> I can not think of one christian I have met who has not preached to me about how much I am going to burn in ****


Chances are, you have met many more christians but you don‘t know it because they didn‘t preach to you.  I went to church growing up and while there certainly were some who went out of their way to preach to others, most would only talk about God or religion if you asked them about it.


----------



## bossi

Frankly, this story pisses me off - It's a shame that a commissioned officer seems to think that being rude is more important than being polite.  
When I visit a church, a synagogue, a mosque or a temple ... I do what's polite (even if it's not my religion).  Whatever happened to "when in Rome, do as the Romans"...?



> *Can't order sailor to doff hat at prayer, court rules*
> 
> By ROBERT MATAS - Friday, December 10, 2004 - Page A13, The Globe and Mail
> 
> VANCOUVER -- There may be no atheists in foxholes, as a U.S. Army chaplain said in a famous Second World War field sermon.
> 
> But there are sailors in the Canadian military who are prepared to confront death without belief in God, and the Canadian Forces has been ordered to change its regulations to accommodate them.
> 
> In a precedent-setting decision forcing the military to reassess its procedures, the Court Martial Appeal Court of Canada also set aside the conviction of Lieutenant (N)Darryl Scott for refusing to obey a lawful order.
> 
> Lt. (N) Scott, who joined the military in 1978, had been court-martialled for refusing to take off his hat while the unit's chaplain recited a prayer during a military parade at Canadian Forces Base Esquimalt.
> 
> "Obedience to lawful orders is essential to maintaining necessary discipline in the military. Here, however, there was no clearly military purpose," the court ruled.
> 
> The order required Lt. (N) Scott to make a public gesture of approval for a religious ceremony in which he did not believe, the three-judge panel stated. "The order was not lawful, and [Lt. (N) Scott's] disobedience of it was justified."
> 
> The Canadian Forces allows those whose religious beliefs require head coverings to keep their head covered during prayers. However, the regulations make no provision for those who reject religion.
> 
> The event on Nov. 28, 2002, was the first time in more than a decade that Lt. (N) Scott, 51, had been required to participate in a parade.
> 
> Lt. (N) Scott anticipated having a problem when he would be required to remove his cap during prayer. He told his superior officer more than a month before the parade but was ordered to attend and remove his headgear when ordered.
> 
> "I thought it was not quite right," Lt. (N) Scott said in an interview. "It was around the time people were talking about the 20th anniversary of the Constitution and religious freedom."
> 
> Lt. (N) Scott, who is married and has two children, said he broke from religion in his early teens. The military court called him an atheist. "I'm more an agnostic, with atheist tendencies. I have not found any convincing proof," he said.
> 
> Lt. (N) Scott worked on ships deployed to Europe and Asia for more than a decade before specializing in computer work in the early 1990s. He recalled being deployed in harm's way during the Cold War.
> 
> But he does not agree with U.S. Army chaplain William Thomas Cummings, who said there were no atheists in foxholes.
> 
> "You are there as a unit. It has nothing to do with religion," Lt. he said. Sailors think about their close relationship with their shipmates, who they are willing to die for, not about religion, he said. "Religion is not relevant."
> 
> In light of the appeal court decision, the military is reassessing its manuals for drills and ceremonies, said Major Laurie Kannegiesser, a Canadian Forces media official in Ottawa. The military has not decided whether to appeal. The manuals will be changed to reflect the ruling if no appeal is launched, she said.


----------



## Kat Stevens

here we go... the slope just keeps getting steeper and slipperier every day.  I guess the basic concept of respect has been lost somewhere.  Almost glad that I'm retired now.  I wonder how this "gentleman" would feel if a soldier refused to salute him, because his personal belief is that soldiers don't need to salute sailors.  Rediculous prospect, I know, but it's only a matter of time......

Chimo,  Kat


----------



## buzgo

What about respect for him and all of the other non-religous members of the CF? Isn't it somewhat insulting to assume that everyone is a Christian or follows some religous practice? 

I've never agreed with prayer on a parade either, and I think its good that he had the balls to stand for his beliefs (or lack of). It may have been the wrong way to go about it, but at least he took a stand, and he DID tell his superiors that he had a problem with it...


----------



## Michael Dorosh

Wow, a 51 year old Captain (Naval Lt).  What a shining career he must have had.  Guess he needed to get his name in the papers somehow.


----------



## Michael Dorosh

signalsguy said:
			
		

> What about respect for him and all of the other non-religous members of the CF? Isn't it somewhat insulting to assume that everyone is a Christian or follows some religous practice?
> 
> I've never agreed with prayer on a parade either, and I think its good that he had the balls to stand for his beliefs (or lack of). It may have been the wrong way to go about it, but at least he took a stand, and he DID tell his superiors that he had a problem with it...



How is keeping your hat on in any way a stand?  The hat was ordered off, it should have come off.  The act of removing a hat doesn't imply you have any kind of belief system; it is a drill movement just like present arms.

What next, conscientious objectors refusing to present arms because it is too aggressive looking?


----------



## buzgo

The point is, why even have PRAYER on the parade? I think that the remove headress command really has nothing to do with it. We have separated the church and the state, why not in the military?


----------



## Lazy W

I would be interested to find out why the court deemed the the order to be unlawful.  Wether you agree with it or not, is it an officers right to challenge military law through civil disobedience?


----------



## HItorMiss

*shakes head*   Am I still in the bloody Military or what?   ???

Do what your told it's what has gotten me through 6 years in the service and stood me well, I believe this not obeying a lawful command provision was taken to far this time. That provision I believe was instituted so as to stop such orders and "No Quarter shall be given" or for a laughs sake "Do the whole Fing Village!" in case of the Navy machine gunning survivors or a sunken enemy vessel, this is silly I don;t believe in god myself but I still remove head dress when ordered for a prayer out of respect for others belief nothing unlawful about that command not in the slightest. You show me where taking off my head dress violates Canadian and international law, pure human rights crap is what this is!


----------



## Inch

signalsguy said:
			
		

> The point is, why even have PRAYER on the parade? I think that the remove headress command really has nothing to do with it. We have separated the church and the state, why not in the military?



It's tradition, the church has always been a part of the military, no better example than the existence of Padres. Religion also plays a big role in Royalty, since we're still part of the Commonwealth and the Queen's representative, the GG, is our Commander in Chief, religion stays part of the military.   I'm NRE as well, but I don't mind taking my hat off on parade for the benefit of those that do believe, nor am I going to make waves just for the sake of making waves. As my first platoon commander said, "we're here to defend democracy, not practice it." So I say suck it up buttercup and take your hat off like everyone else.


----------



## Michael Dorosh

signalsguy said:
			
		

> The point is, why even have PRAYER on the parade?



To invoke the blessing of God Almighty.  You really don't know what a prayer is?



> I think that the remove headress command really has nothing to do with it. We have separated the church and the state, why not in the military?



Because the military isn't a social program.... Inch said it much better than I could, really.


----------



## buzgo

If Canadian society is secular, and the CF is representative of Canadian society (well its supposed to be, instead of the good old white boys club that the reg force seems to be) then shouldn't the CF be a secular organisation?

(please don't slam me too hard!)


----------



## Michael Dorosh

signalsguy said:
			
		

> If Canadian society is secular, and the CF is representative of Canadian society (well its supposed to be, instead of the good old white boys club that the reg force seems to be) then shouldn't the CF be a secular organisation?
> 
> (please don't slam me too hard!)



Since when is Canadian society secular?  And how are you judging it to be so?


----------



## buzgo

There is no prayer in public schools, the church and the state are seperate, there is no state religion, no religous council advising the gov't...

Legalized abortion, same-sex marriage, decriminalized pot...


----------



## Blackhorse7

How far do you need to take "rights" in the Military?   I had heard (and I may be wrong), that in Basic, troops were issued with time out cards that were to be used when they felt they were being pressured too much.   Now some guy has a problem taking his damn headress off?

What the hell is this country coming to?   I for one, am one the suck it up side.   This is the Military you joined.   If you don't like it, go find a job civvie side, that is more accomodating to you're prissy, self fufilling needs.

SUCK - IT - UP!   And start being a damn soldier, Sir.


----------



## bossi

signalsguy said:
			
		

> ... I think that the remove headress command really has nothing to do with it ...



So, in other words ... you're saying that on Remembrance Day it's okay to disrepect fallen comrades if you feel like it?   Or, if you don't particularly like some words in the national anthem, you don't have to stand at attention or salute the flag?   The inability of a commissioned officer to follow a simple command is a disgrace.

Having said that, I've seen Jewish, Muslim, Buddhist, Catholic, Anglican, and other soldiers march willingly into the Regimental church - out of pride, and respect for fallen comrades.   In Afghanistan I saw soldiers from 24 nations stood side by side on Remembrance Day (and they weren't all the same religion).

It's all about mutual respect - this court ruling essentially condones rude, ill-mannered behaviour. If somebody doesn't want to go on a church parade, so be it - all they have to do is tell the CO, and they can wait on the sidelines instead.


----------



## Michael Dorosh

signalsguy said:
			
		

> There is no prayer in public schools, the church and the state are seperate, there is no state religion, no religous council advising the gov't...
> 
> Legalized abortion, same-sex marriage, decriminalized pot...



Have you sung the national anthem in English lately?  ;D

Public schools still have Christmas, and we still have a lot of Catholic school boards, so you're being awfully selective...you said society, not government.


----------



## McG

signalsguy said:
			
		

> If Canadian society is secular, and the CF is representative of Canadian society (well its supposed to be, instead of the good old white boys club that the reg force seems to be) then shouldn't the CF be a secular organisation?


The Padre Corps has definitely become more diversified, but this has seen some of its traditional symbols become more secular.   There is now at least one Muslim padre.   "Onward Christian Soldiers" has been replaced with "Ode to Joy" as their march.   The capbadge is now being changed to something not aligned to a specific religion.


----------



## JBP

In anycase, I am what people would label an "Athiest" also, I have no believe in any religion at all or any higher powers. I'll probably be in a "fox hole" one day, will it change the way I operate, no. I am who I am and I'll pull that trigger just as fast as the next guy!

If you really get specific, having to "respect" everyone else's religions could be taken in this example.

A person doesn't believe in pornography or want to view it but unfortunately it's everywhere at his friends house and they're all watching it, knowing full well he doesn't like it. They say, "Suck it up pal! It's nothing".... He can choose to stay and watch or remove himself from the situation.

Previously atheists had no way to "remove" themselves from the situation and were forced by direct order to remove thier hats. No they can choose to not remove it and that's that. Everyone is then happy. Why should someone else have to bow-down just to make everyone else happy because of a religious preference. I think the reason why the military has been so closely affiliated with religion is because people die in the military at war etc etc... And people are afraid to die and also afraid at the concept of death. Because I'm an athiest does this mean I don't fear death? BULLSH*T! I am afraid to die, I do not want to die. But am I afraid of the concept of death? No, it's a fact of life. It happens, it will happen, there is no way around it and that's that. Religion gives everyone a nice soft cushion with the idea of death. So when your bleeding to death, feeling cold, going numb and about to loose conciousness, it'll make it easier when the chaplain is blessing you before you die and you think, "Well, at least I'll go to heaven now!"....

 :

Just an athiests view folks. Flame me and freak out all you want.

This reminds me once when I was having a conversation with a friend about how "Black culture" (ie> Hip hop, rap etc etc) is so "Cool" now to the teens and stuff. I said to her, "I'm not racist or anything but maybe I'm missing the point of why it's so cool to be an african american now days... Is it just a new fad? I would rather think it's "Cool" to be yourself and individual, not any colour". She responded with, "Well it's about time! It's been cool to be white since the sun shone! Give them thier time!"....

Interesting point. We've been honouring religion since then too, and maybe it's time for a change. Not everyone simply "Follows the leader" blindly anymore. You older army guys were brought up that way I suppose, with religion deeply ingrained in your education and everyday life. I was too, but I chose the other way. I didn't want to be a roman-catholic. I don't care about the church and neither do the other athiests! We don't want prayers, we don't need them.

Why should we have to put up with them?
 ???



> So, in other words ... you're saying that on Remembrance Day it's okay to disrepect fallen comrades if you feel like it?  Or, if you don't particularly like some words in the national anthem, you don't have to stand at attention or salute the flag?  The inability of a commissioned officer to follow a simple command is a disgrace.



No, what he was saying is that it's okay by all our superior officers and the law now, that we don't have to take off our hat if we don't want to because that's not our way. It won't change anything else and I doubt many people will start not taking off thier hats. Just like how in Ontario it's legal for women to go topless in public. Ya don't see that happening now do you? It's the POINT of it all, the fact of the matter... 

PS> I will "SUCK IT UP" and follow along with my mates in ceremony etc etc. Why? It doesn't bother me one bit. It doesn't effect me, others I suppose it does. I'm just trying to make a point. I'm not against any religion at all and neither is a true athiest, I'm just not involved in them or follow them.


----------



## bossi

Pte (R) Joe said:
			
		

> ... Previously atheists had no way to "remove" themselves from the situation and were forced by direct order to remove thier hats ...



What?  Maybe "once upon a time" - i.e. without the benefit of this court decision, there have been numerous instances where soldiers would voice their concern and then the chain of command listened.

But, ya know ... this is a momentous occasion in Canadian military history!  Unwittingly, a weapon more powerful than nuclear bombs has been discovered.  From now on, just prior to being beheaded/gutted/shot/killed, all we have to do is say "sorry old chap, my religion doesn't believe in dying like this" - and of course, the bad guys will have to respect that or else they'll have the Human Rights Commission to deal with ... Jeez - why didn't we think of this sooner?  Launch the Human Rights Commission to Afghanistan, Iraq, and all points East ... and let's make "Kumbaya" the march of the Canadian Army!


----------



## SHELLDRAKE!!

IMHO the Canadian armed forces needs to convene a board to review all policies regarding the armed forces and start putting into place some basic rules that cannot and will not waiver.Canadian society is ever changing but I believe there are certain ways things are done in the CF that should never be challenged.It seems every aspect of the CF is being challenged these days and our military policies are bending to the social preassure.

    Yes we need to be flexible to change to seriouse issues but the fact remains, in this case maybee the officer in charge could have simply told the person in question that he will remove his headress because he was ordered to and not because everyone else might be doing it based on religiouse beliefs.After all if we lose our sense of discipline, we have relegated ourselves to an organized gang and not the proud CF that we are.


----------



## JBP

> What?  Maybe "once upon a time" - i.e. without the benefit of this court decision, there have been numerous instances where soldiers would voice their concern and then the chain of command listened.
> 
> But, ya know ... this is a momentous occasion in Canadian military history!  Unwittingly, a weapon more powerful than nuclear bombs has been discovered.  From now on, just prior to being beheaded/gutted/shot/killed, all we have to do is say "sorry old chap, my religion doesn't believe in dying like this" - and of course, the bad guys will have to respect that or else they'll have the Human Rights Commission to deal with ... Jeez - why didn't we think of this sooner?  Launch the Human Rights Commission to Afghanistan, Iraq, and all points East ... and let's make "Kumbaya" the march of the Canadian Army!



LOL!!!   :blotto:

Bossi, I do enjoy your sense of humour. But that's not what I was getting at! You guys are blowing it all way outta proportion!!!!

My _god_! This little threat has sure taken off fast hasn't it?   :

Gee, I suppose we can always leave religion at the forefront to get people to fight amongst eachother! Great tool it is! It's been working for,... .ohh... Hrm.. Thousands of years!

 ;D

Anyway, I get what you mean Bossi, and I am glad to know that CO's listened from time to time. I can only hope my CO will be as nice. If not I'll have to suck up and ruck on!
 :warstory:



> IMHO the Canadian armed forces needs to convene a board to review all policies regarding the armed forces and start putting into place some basic rules that cannot and will not waiver.Canadian society is ever changing but I believe there are certain ways things are done in the CF that should never be challenged.It seems every aspect of the CF is being challenged these days and our military policies are bending to the social preassure.
> 
> Yes we need to be flexible to change to seriouse issues but the fact remains, in this case maybee the officer in charge could have simply told the person in question that he will remove his headress because he was ordered to and not because everyone else might be doing it based on religiouse beliefs.After all if we lose our sense of discipline, we have relegated ourselves to an organized gang and not the proud CF that we are.



I agree 110%, couldn't have said it better. Good job.


----------



## Michael Dorosh

It's only a matter of time before the act of issuing a legal order becomes unconstitutional in itself, at this rate.  Shelldrake, you are correct, though don't the QR & Os and CFAOs currently supercede things like the Criminal Code, etc. (ie killing an enemy soldier is an exemption from murder statutes).

Pte Joe, if you've never been in a life threatening position, you have no damn way of knowing whether or not you'll turn to religion just as a religious person has no way of knowing if his faith will remain unbroken under fire.  So give it a rest.


----------



## McG

signalsguy said:
			
		

> The point is, why even have PRAYER on the parade?





			
				Michael Dorosh said:
			
		

> To invoke the blessing of God Almighty.


Are you prepaired for the day when the prayer may be from the Koran or the Torah?



			
				bossi said:
			
		

> I've seen Jewish, Muslim, Buddhist, Catholic, Anglican, and other soldiers march willingly into the Regimental church - out of pride, and respect for fallen comrades.   In Afghanistan I saw soldiers from 24 nations stood side by side on Remembrance Day (and they weren't all the same religion).


Is that only because there was no venue for honouring our fallen in an other religion's ways (or a religion free way)?

I think two things have come from this court decision (one good, and one bad).   It is good that the CF will have to re-evaluate how it may impose religions into peoples lives (as I said above, are you ready for an Islamic Padre on Remembrance Day?).   It is bad that we may have set a precedent for civil disobedience as a means of changing CF policy.   However, I cannot know that the Capt(N) had the intent of changing policy so I cannot predict if he could have been successfully charged for that.


----------



## McG

Michael Dorosh said:
			
		

> It's only a matter of time before the act of issuing a legal order becomes unconstitutional in itself, at this rate. Shelldrake, you are correct, though don't the QR & Os and CFAOs currently supercede things like the Criminal Code, etc. (ie killing an enemy soldier is an exemption from murder statutes).


No!

The QR&O and CFAO are not leagal works.  The QR&O are directed for in the National Defence Act.  They are not legislation themsleves and they cannot overide legislation.


----------



## JBP

> Pte Joe, if you've never been in a life threatening position, you have no damn way of knowing whether or not you'll turn to religion just as a religious person has no way of knowing if his faith will remain unbroken under fire.  So give it a rest.



Actually, yes, I have been in 1 life threatening incident where I and my friends had to be rescued by the fire dept at night in a steep ravine/gorge that we'd fallen into. None of us said any prayers and I simply thanked the fireman and myself for being able to climb enough to get to a rescuable point! The firemen were the heroes, not god. If that doesn't qualify as life-threatening then you tell that to the dead teenagers and hikers who died there and the firemen who have had to rescue people like me, sometimes not successfully...

Also, every negative incident that has happened during the course of my life has served to reinforce my athiest views. I have grown up through a horrible childhood and set of teen years. Many years of continous domestic violence, phsycological and emotional abuse. Am I a crybaby? No, I sucked it all up, moved on and learned from it and I'm 10X stronger than I would have been without those experiences.  Everything I've experienced has served to reinforce my beliefs, why, because I fixed it myself. No "God" led me the proper path out of those dangers and problems. Common sense, logic and a little help from friends prevailed. You have no idea what a person has been through so don't tell me to "give it a rest". 

I was simply pointing out the fact that religion has caused wars throughout all of known history across the world. A valid point in the context of where the thread has gone! Which I may mention away from the original topic and I apologize.

I will not post on this thread anymore because when people talk about religion it almost always invariably ends up the same way. With people arguing, which was my point and that isn't my intent.

Joe
PS> Mr. Dorosh, go ahead and give me a damn verbal if you like, it'll only serve to show that you have no understanding of another person's viewpoint or no tolerance for anyone with a different opinion. Now I'll give it a rest as you mentioned and is now fair...  :-X


----------



## Infanteer

If the service is to be given by a Jewish or Muslim Padre, then so be it.  Though the message may be different, the intent is the same.

Personally, I think the guy is a wanker for the reason that he put his own selfish reasons over simply removing his hat.  I don't hold any religious outlook what-so-ever, but it doesn't give me a license to be rude and discourteous.  I stand at dinners when people want to say grace, remove my boots in a mosque (did it once), and swapped my tuna sandwhich with a roast beef one that the soldier next to me (a Hindu) got in his box-lunch.

That being said, religious people can be equally polite towards be and refrain from getting me out of bed to give me the latest edition of "The Watchtower"....


----------



## McG

Infanteer said:
			
		

> I don't hold any religious outlook what-so-ever, but it doesn't give me a license to be rude and discourteous.


That about sums it up in the fewest possible words.


----------



## CivU

"I don't hold any religious outlook what-so-ever, but it doesn't give me a license to be rude and discourteous. "

I agree completely with this sentiment, as I hold no religious beliefs or affiliation.  What may be the issue is that, according to the article, the Officer in question informed his superiors of the parade (which I believe was going to be his first in a decade and therefore the issue would not have came up recently) that this would be problematic for him, as it contradicted his religious beliefs, or in this case, a lack thereof...

Perhaps if the issue had been addressed prior to the Officer having to make a personal stand by not removing his headdress, the instance would not have evoked such debate.  Though I think it lacks some degree of courtesey and example setting, as he was an experienced officer, taking a stand against practices you deem discriminatory and unacceptable is encouraged through CF SHARP training...where does this fit in?  You have to wonder, if he didn't take a stand, would this issue have merely fallen into the bureaucratic abysses...In doing so, this act has certainly paved the way for changes in regards to the amalgamation of church and military that continues to exist in an ever-changing Canadian Forces...

How would a Christian person feel if we did away with Roman Catholic and Anglican services as they discriminate against Jews, Muslims, Hindus, etc. or if, as was already suggested, different forms of prayer, or reading from different scriptures, were instead implemented...you have to question if eliminating religious affiliations is not the easiest and least discriminatory step...


----------



## Pugnacious

Michael Dorosh said:
			
		

> Pte Joe, if you've never been in a life threatening position, you have no darn way of knowing whether or not you'll turn to religion just as a religious person has no way of knowing if his faith will remain unbroken under fire.   So give it a rest.



I would hope that if I was in a Foxhole under fire with Pte (R) Joe that I wouldn't look over to hear him rambling on about imaginary demons, devils, and Angels. What he said indicates to me is that he doesn't deliberatly hallucinate medieval peasant fantasys while under stress.  Which IMHO is a good thing.   As how I see it if there as a God we wouldn't be in a foxhole in the first place. ;D

Why not have a CAF hanger left open for Santa's sled, and equip light infrantry with Unicorn harness, and Bridle also. LOL! ;D

Choose your own myth.
Cheers!
P.


----------



## winchable

By the same token, I'd rather be stuck in a foxhole with someone who has the courage to put faith into something that they can't see or touch. :
Your post is littered with ;D faces, perhaps in an attempt to convey a tongue in cheek tone and attacking PC Nazis, but your message goes beyond ignoring annoying PCness and into the realm of being outright offensive, ignorant of the world around you and sounding like a complete and utter twat in the process.
Don't believe in god etc. that's absolutely fine, equate my beliefs with Santa, hallucinations and midevial peasant fantasies and you're just being a jerk.

As for the gent not taking his hat off, I would agree with the idea of "When in Rome, do as the Romans do" as well as the fact that the order to remove headress is an ORDER.

Have a great day.


----------



## Pugnacious

I'll be sure to consult my tarot cards and rune stones on the next Nav course, and replace the field radio for an Ouiji board.
St. Red pants the garden gnome will protect me.
LOL!  ;D

But I do have to agree with you on the hat thing.  
I mean really, how much trouble is it to take off ones freekin' hat?
Methinks he has too much time to be worried about these things.

Cheers!
P.


----------



## Infanteer

Pugnacious said:
			
		

> Choose your own myth.



You don't seem to live up to the outlook I alluded to earlier:

_I don't hold any religious outlook what-so-ever, but it doesn't give me a license to be rude and discourteous._

It is fine to debate the philosophical notions of religion with people who are willing to do so in a civil manner (although this forum is probably not the most appropriate place for it) but it is not _kosher_ to be a douche-bag.

Watch yourself.


----------



## Pugnacious

"You don't seem to live up to the outlook I alluded to earlier:
I don't hold any religious outlook what-so-ever, but it doesn't give me a license to be rude and discourteous."

Well calling someone a douche-bag certanly rings of courteous eh? 
 :blotto: lol!

Cheers!
P.


----------



## McG

Pugnacious,
STOP.


----------



## Reccesoldier

signalsguy said:
			
		

> The point is, why even have PRAYER on the parade? I think that the remove headdress command really has nothing to do with it. We have separated the church and the state, why not in the military?



Do we really? Read the Constitution act of 1982 (Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms)





> Whereas Canada is founded upon principles that recognize the supremacy of God and the rule of law



doesn't sound like much separation to me.

As an atheist I have absolutely no problem with prayers on parade. I remove my headdress as a sign of respect. I do not however bow my head in prayer.

This guy is being an obstinate a$$hat for no reason whatsoever.

Having said that though I would gladly be charged if today someone were to order me to go to a church service (as happened to me when I was a young trooper).

I believe personally that this does not set a dangerous precedent, we would have to have a military full of obtuse idiots like this guy for that to happen. 

The only reason that this is able to cause such a stir in the first place is that QR&O's are out of step with the Charter. Although all Canadian Laws have to be applied against the charter we haven't adjusted QR&O's in that manner. 

AAMOF I recently wrote my MP and mentioned to him that as a serving member of the reg force I was not permitted to become a card carrying member of a political party according to QR&O's this goes against the Charters freedom of association and political rights.

About a month later I received a letter in the mail from my MP with an attached letter from the MND stating that I was indeed allowed to exercise my political rights. That was almost 3 months ago. I've been waiting to hear about a revision to the QR&O's... good thing I'm not holding my breath.


----------



## McG

It only takes a few "obtuse idiots" to exploit a precedent like this.


----------



## a_majoor

This is a difficult subject to approach w/o being offensive to someone, and I hope the next "revision" of the QR & O doesn't simply take the lazy PC way out and ban all religious observence.

If people have special wants or needs, they should be able to approach the chain of command (in good time) and request an Iman, Rabbi, Druid or whatever. In this guy's case, he should have asked to be excused. As long as the Chain of command takes these requests seriously, then I don't see there is a problem. One year, I instructed a course where we did have soldiers claiming Jewish, Islamicand even Wiccan faith. The practical translation was we had separate hayboxes for their meals, and the Witch had to eat Mac and Cheese 3X daily in the field. At the course party, one of my candidates told me that he was Jewish as well. I was horrified, since he had been eating pork cutlets with the rest of us all summer. "Why didn't you tell me?" I demanded.
"I know how hard you must have had to work, so I didn't want to be a burden", he said, "Besides, God understands".

What a good man.

As for political rights, our right to vote in Municiple, Provincial and Federal elections is the expression of that right.


----------



## McG

a_majoor said:
			
		

> I hope the next "revision" of the QR & O doesn't simply take the lazy PC way out and ban all religious observence.
> 
> If people have special wants or needs, they should be able to approach the chain of command (in good time) and request an Iman, Rabbi, Druid or whatever.


This may be a difficult approach when we consider how religious ceremony is included in much of our military ceremony.  Should guys be permitted to opt out of Remembrance Day parade because the Padre is not of their faith (or should we ensure every faith is represented and only the atheists & agnostics can opt out)?  What about mess dinners?  I don't have the answer, but it cannot be one that allows people to opt out of significant functions such as these.


----------



## Blackhorse7

I think the point is being missed here.  The fact is that the man was ordered to remove his headdress, and refused.  I am all for the right to have you're own personal beliefs, but to insult others (not to mention the basic rank structure of ANY military) by refusing to take off you're hat at a parade with religious undertones is above and beyond.

Someone else mentioned earlier "Fine.  Have you're beliefs.  But taking off you're hat isn't going to change those beliefs.  So take off you're hat."

For the love of Pete, IT'S AN ORDER!!!  He wasn't ordered to kill innocent non-combatants, burn hooches down, or call arty on his own men.  He was ordered to take off is hat.  Seems to me this whole mess would have been avoided if he simply followed orders.  I said it before... this is the Military you have joined.  It has it's own society, beliefs, and way of doing things.  If you don't like it, I'm sure there is a door with an exit sign within walking distance.


----------



## Michael Dorosh

Pte (R) Joe said:
			
		

> Joe
> PS> Mr. Dorosh, go ahead and give me a damn verbal if you like, it'll only serve to show that you have no understanding of another person's viewpoint or no tolerance for anyone with a different opinion. Now I'll give it a rest as you mentioned and is now fair...   :-X



AT NO TIME DID I EVER THREATEN PTE JOE WITH A VERBAL - WE HAVE NOT PMed.     Have no idea what he is talking about.


----------



## Dogboy

[quote author=Reccesoldier]
As an atheist I have absolutely no problem with prayers on parade. I remove my headdress as a sign of respect. I do not however bow my head in prayer.
[/quote]

this is a good way to go about it 

he was told to remove his hat 
but he dose not have to pray 
its not like he was ordered to get on his knees in front of a minister or something. 

also all the Remembrance day services iv bin to don't have prayers, they have a moment of silence.


----------



## winchable

> since he had been eating pork cutlets with the rest of us all summer. "Why didn't you tell me?" I demanded.



Very familiar with, god bless for the proper approach to.


----------



## Shec

The real problem is not with the officer in question, he is just playing barrack-room lawyer.     The real problem lies with the system itself - the court system, whether military or civil, which by following a PC rights-based agenda is undermining rather than reinforcing societal structures.     

You can't run a society, whether its an organization or a country without some form of discipline.     Somewhere along the line, as we on this board all know too well, the individual has to play ball.     And justifiably so for it is the individual who has joined the voluntarily joined the organization/country,   not the organization/country which has joined the individual.     Therefore one either respects the dominant ethos or leaves.   And its not an issue of minority rights because they are generally respected as a prinicple of wise leadership, fair play, and comradeship.   As a member of a religious minority I can and will attest to that.      

Yet court rulings like the one in this case are undermining these basic principles.      I can't believe the judges' decision, they have pissed all over the codes of service discipline .   They are paving the way for some little Herbie to go whining to his lawyer because he is on orders for deployment to some hot spot and is afraid he might get a boo-boo.   So it is the court system that is the culprit here.


----------



## Peace_Keeper

I think that peoples relgious beliefs should be respected.......but then that leads to a conflict with equal strength. To respect the atheriest (or other religion) would be to let him not remove his head bress or aknowlagde the prayer, but to respect the Christians you would have to....Its unending


Really, if it means nothing to you, then why not do it?


----------



## Blackhorse7

EXACTLY.  You take your boots off when you walk into someone's house, don't you?  You say hello back when someone says it to you, don't you?  

It's a gesture of respect, simple as that.  And Peace_Keeper summed it up just right.  As an atheist, does the religious tone of a service matter to you?  No, but you still take off your hat as a sign of respect to the others around you.  At least you should, if you have any manners or common sense.


----------



## Michael Dorosh

Shec said:
			
		

> The real problem is not with the officer in question, he is just playing barrack-room lawyer.   The real problem lies with the system itself - the court system, whether military or civil, which by following a PC rights-based agenda is undermining rather than reinforcing societal structures.
> 
> You can't run a society, whether its an organization or a country without some form of discipline.   Somewhere along the line, as we on this board all know too well, the individual has to play ball.   And justifiably so for it is the individual who has joined the voluntarily joined the organization/country,  not the organization/country which has joined the individual.   Therefore one either respects the dominant ethos or leaves.  And its not an issue of minority rights because they are generally respected as a prinicple of wise leadership, fair play, and comradeship.   As a member of a religious minority I can and will attest to that.
> 
> Yet court rulings like the one in this case are undermining these basic principles.    I can't believe the judges' decision, they have pissed all over the codes of service discipline .  They are paving the way for some little Herbie to go whining to his lawyer because he is on orders for deployment to some hot spot and is afraid he might get a boo-boo.  So it is the court system that is the culprit here.



YES YES YES

By all rights, the order to take his hat off should have been obeyed.  Some johnny behind a bench has decided it is ok to break the law.  The problem is with the courts.

We see it with everything, from this to the "right" to sex change operations, same sex marriages (at least make them call it a union for heaven's sake), and as I pointed out, next thing you know, killing our nation's enemies will be illegal because it goes against the Charter.

As for the reply to my "beseeching the blessing of God Almighty'" and what happens when we recognize other religions on parade - I suspect most religions have one supreme deity in common, no matter what His name.  I am cool with that.  We were founded by the UK, and their belief systems.  I wear a kilt on parade (and I'm Ukrainian) so I have bought into the UK aspects in many ways.  If we had a Buddhist or Muslim  regimental padre, I'd still bow my head.  The padre can refer to God as Allah if he wants, would still be the same prayer and wouldn't bother me a bit.


----------



## mo-litia

Michael Dorosh said:
			
		

> I wear a kilt on parade (and I'm Ukrainian) so I have bought into the UK aspects in many ways.   If we had a Buddhist or Muslim   regimental padre, I'd still bow my head.   The padre can refer to God as Allah if he wants, would still be the same prayer and wouldn't bother me a bit.



Well said . . . Allah, Budda, Jesus, Krishna, Yahweh, Zeus, etc, etc,  - they're all just different cultures viewpoints on dealing with a commen unknown factor about human existance.


----------



## NavyGunner

I was on parade when this happened and was working for the Base Disciplinarian. This took months to go to court because of the intricacies of the case. There were a LOT of pissed off people, trust me. Religion is one thing but obeying orders is another. I believe in the freedom of religion but he was wearing the same uniform as I do. He was ordered to remove his hat. He was NOT ordered to pray. I feel saddened by events like this, it really sucks!


----------



## Ex-Dragoon

Michael Dorosh said:
			
		

> Wow, a 51 year old Captain (Naval Lt).   What a shining career he must have had.   Guess he needed to get his name in the papers somehow.



Sorry, just noticed this. Plenty of reasons why he is 51 and only a LT(N) but the main one I can think of he was a PO or a Chief that decided to take his commission.


----------



## Brad Sallows

"Obedience to lawful orders is essential to maintaining necessary discipline in the military. Here, however, there was no clearly military purpose," the court ruled.

Doesn't that conclusion worry anyone?  Is that all it takes to disobey a command: that it have no "clearly military purpose"?  I suppose I should try to find and read the entire judgement in case that quotation is far out of the context lane.

Removal of headdress is a ceremonial aspect of "drill & ceremonial".  The removal of headdress was incidental; why was the case not brought forward on the grounds of being forced to participate in a prayer ceremonial?  Apparently it is no imposition upon his belief system to be present on parade during an officially sanctioned prayer, but the removal of headdress is a grave insult.  My contempt is unbounded.


----------



## Michael Dorosh

Ex-Dragoon said:
			
		

> Sorry, just noticed this. Plenty of reasons why he is 51 and only a LT(N) but the main one I can think of he was a PO or a Chief that decided to take his commission.



CFR....good point; didn't reallize (don't know why) the Navy does that.  We've had some excellent WOs take their commission in our unit...

DOH. I stand corrected yet again.


----------



## Michael Dorosh

Brad Sallows said:
			
		

> "Obedience to lawful orders is essential to maintaining necessary discipline in the military. Here, however, there was no clearly military purpose," the court ruled.
> 
> Doesn't that conclusion worry anyone?  Is that all it takes to disobey a command: that it have no "clearly military purpose"?  I suppose I should try to find and read the entire judgement in case that quotation is far out of the context lane.
> 
> Removal of headdress is a ceremonial aspect of "drill & ceremonial".  The removal of headdress was incidental; why was the case not brought forward on the grounds of being forced to participate in a prayer ceremonial?  Apparently it is no imposition upon his belief system to be present on parade during an officially sanctioned prayer, but the removal of headdress is a grave insult.  My contempt is unbounded.



What was their definition of "clear military purpose"?   I don't imagine one exists.  What a cop out.   I can interpret everything we do, from saluting, to putting on clean underwear, as having a "clear military purpose."   I thought the catch-alls were supposed to be in our favour, not against them.   "Conduct prejudicial to the maintenance of good order and discipline" used to catch all this stuff; apparently no longer.


----------



## pbi

> Obedience to lawful orders is essential to maintaining necessary discipline in the military. Here, however, there was no clearly military purpose," the court ruled



Apparently "respect" no longer has its place as an important military virtue nor as a basis for discipline. The removal of headdress is recognized as a gesture of respect without any real religious baggage. The order was a lawful one. Hopefully this judgement (which I agree should be reviewed in its entire form) is not the thin end of the wedge. Cheers.


----------



## McG

Brad Sallows said:
			
		

> Apparently it is no imposition upon his belief system to be present on parade during an officially sanctioned prayer, but the removal of headdress is a grave insult.


I wonder if the court could have found that it was within his right to reffuse attendance on a parade including religious proceedings that he did not believe in, but that once on said parade he would be fully obliged to participate?   Such a finding would have removed religion from any mandatory parade.   Would we have been more comfortable with a finding like that?



			
				pbi said:
			
		

> The removal of headdress is recognized as a gesture of respect without any real religious baggage. The order was a lawful one.


Yes.


----------



## 48Highlander

pbi said:
			
		

> Apparently "respect" no longer has its place as an important military virtue nor as a basis for discipline. The removal of headdress is recognized as a gesture of respect without any real religious baggage. The order was a lawful one. Hopefully this judgement (which I agree should be reviewed in its entire form) is not the thin end of the wedge. Cheers.



    Teaching an SQ course I had 10 soldiers in the platoon state they weren't religious and had no desire to be present for the padre's hour.  I promptly informed them that I am not religious either, but that I would be there.  I went into a little speech explaining that the CF has always prided itself in tolerance and understanding of other peoples beleifs.  And I concluded by stating that respect demonstrated through a willingness to listen, wether or not you agree with someones beleifs, will never harm you, but can do you a lot of good.  I left the decision up to them, but for the rest of the course the entire platoon was present for the padre's hour, and they seemed unusualy attentive at least that first time 

    It's too bad this clown didn't get the same message.


----------



## Brad Sallows

Here is the CMAC "Reasons for Judgement":

http://www.cmac-cacm.ca/decisions/CMAC-476_e.shtml

I will continue to be amazed that a person of "no religious beliefs" (a nullity) could claim to care one way or the other about participation in any particular ceremony - there is nothing to be supported or contradicted.  I have always thought it best to be considerate of others even when it costs me a little inconvenience, and certainly if it costs me none.  I am, however, pleased to see a rare occurrence in Canada in which the tolerance of the many is subordinated to the tolerance of the one.

I suppose he must be of sufficiently strong integrity to never before or hereafter invoke a religious utterance in a moment of weakness, despair, or pain.  Otherwise, he would be merely a posturing hypocrite.


----------



## Michael Dorosh

> The fact that the appellant kept his hat on not because of religious convictions, but because of a lack of them, seems to us to be quite irrelevant. The order that was given and that he knowingly disobeyed was one with the acknowledged purpose, according to both prosecution witnesses and section 3 of the Canadian Forces Dress Instructions was to show "respect" for what was being done and not mere passive toleration. That is to say, it was designed to constrain him to make a public gesture of approval for a religious ceremony in which he did not believe.



??



> Here, however, there was no clearly military purpose, but simply the impermissible one of having the entire parade show some level of participation in and assent to the prayers that followed. The order was not lawful and the appellant's disobedience of it was justified.



Anyone agree?


----------



## Reccesoldier

Brad Sallows said:
			
		

> Here is the CMAC "Reasons for Judgement":
> 
> http://www.cmac-cacm.ca/decisions/CMAC-476_e.shtml
> 
> I will continue to be amazed that a person of "no religious beliefs" (a nullity) could claim to care one way or the other about participation in any particular ceremony - there is nothing to be supported or contradicted.  I have always thought it best to be considerate of others even when it costs me a little inconvenience, and certainly if it costs me none.  I am, however, pleased to see a rare occurrence in Canada in which the tolerance of the many is subordinated to the tolerance of the one.
> 
> I suppose he must be of sufficiently strong integrity to never before or hereafter invoke a religious utterance in a moment of weakness, despair, or pain.  Otherwise, he would be merely a posturing hypocrite.



Brad, as for the nulity of his religious beliefs to a fanatical Athiest asking them to display any respect for any religious ceremony would be the same as asking a fanatical islamist to participate in a Hindu ritual. the participation does (for these people ) lend creedence to the "false belief".

I wonder how many devout christians, jews or moslems would remove their headdress out of respect for the tooth fairy. 

As I said before, I'm a  non-believer but I'm also a soldier. It costs me nothing to remove my headdress and I just go to my happy place while the ceremony takes place. I'll respect your right to believe and I won't make a stink as long as others respect my right not to believe and act in a similar fashon.


----------



## Brad Sallows

He did not claim to have any particular religious belief; he claimed to have none.  If his argument is that he has no religious beliefs, he can not believe that an order to remove headdress during prayer has any religious meaning for or against him - he has no basis for that interpretation.  The act of removing headdress and standing during prayer was neither more nor less of an imposition on his lack of beliefs than being ordered to stand on one leg (equally devoid of military purpose).  For him, it can only ever be a gesture devoid of meaning; he should follow words of command and mark time in his own mind as he desires during prayer or other religious rituals on parade.  Otherwise, he should have objected entirely to being present on parade for the duration of the religious portion.

I suspect that if pressed, he would have to admit to not having a complete lack of religious belief.  You have to have a frame of reference to make a measurement, even a philosophical one.


----------



## Reccesoldier

I disagree Brad (It's in my nature  )

As I said before for a die-hard athiest just being ordered to participate in such a ceremony is an insult. If you to think of Athieism as a "belief" all on it's own, then you are on the right track. In essence what these peiople see themselves as fighting for is the equivalent right to religious expression. They do not want to have to be subjected to the beliefs of the believers, included in their rituals or discriminated against because of their lack of belief. 

I'm willing to bet that had this "soldier" (and I use the term loosely) been a devout Muslim, Hindu or freaking Wiccan and asked (as he did) to be excused from the parade, his superiors would have accomodated him.

Perhaps I'm just obstinate but I see the guys point to a certain extent. I have, as I said earlier, asked not to participate in a regimental parade in a church to dedicate a stained glass window. I was refused that requet and told "It won't hurt you to attend", well guess what, that isn't the point. The freedonm to ones religious beliefs also includes the freedom for others to not believe. 

I would never deny any of my soldiers their right to attend services of whatever denomination so then what *right* would any leader have to *demand* for someone *to* participate in a purely religious ceremony?

There is in my opinion a certain amount of hypocracy in thinking that the right to religion excludes the right of not having religion.

Cheers,
Zip


----------



## 48Highlander

If you do not HAVE a religion, then how can you be offended by participating in someone elses ceremony?  If I take part in a Church Parade, it has no religious meaning to me, but why would it offend me?  It's just another parade.  Same goes for your window dedication ceremony.  If you're not religious, then you're there to support your regiment, not for the religious aspect.  Refusing to do something just because it's religious is damn foolish.  What if every athiest, muslim, jew, buddhist, and moromon in your unit had also requested not to take part in that parade because the window was in a church which did not teach their religion?  You would have had what, 6 people on parade?  Being an athiest is not an excuse to be ignorant and disrespectful.


----------



## aesop081

48Highlander said:
			
		

> If you do not HAVE a religion, then how can you be offended by participating in someone elses ceremony?   If I take part in a Church Parade, it has no religious meaning to me, but why would it offend me?   It's just another parade.   Same goes for your window dedication ceremony.   If you're not religious, then you're there to support your regiment, not for the religious aspect.   Refusing to do something just because it's religious is damn foolish.   What if every athiest, muslim, jew, buddhist, and moromon in your unit had also requested not to take part in that parade because the window was in a church which did not teach their religion?   You would have had what, 6 people on parade?   Being an athiest is not an excuse to be ignorant and disrespectful.



I have no religion and i dont like being at religious ceremonies !  I have my reason why i have given up on the RC religion and everytime i got to a parade where the padre says a prayer, my blood boils because to me, it is a bunch of bull !  So to answer your question, religion *can* be offensive to someone who has none.

no offense to anyone


----------



## Shec

If you're not religious, then you're there to support your regiment, not for the religious aspect.   Refusing to do something just because it's religious is darn foolish. .

Bravo 48th Highlander 

Insights from a Jew who   attendeded   Regimental Church Parades at an Anglican Cathedral:

The practical and most beneficial outcome of attending a Church parade is to further bind the members of the Regiment to it and to their comrades.   And for that reason anyone who raises objections to attending is only serving to alienate himself from the Regimental family.      Going on Church Parade does not mean religious conversion or attempts to prosleytize.    Nobody is trying to deny you your human rights.   It means respect which begets respect and that translates into tolerance, acceptance, and unit cohesion.      And, as a collateral benefit you may even learn something and gain some insights into another faith.   But if you're not interested in that, fine, who says you have to listen?


----------



## aesop081

Don't get me wrong, i wasn't playing devil's advocate or anything.  I hate it but still attend them, i just found my mental happy place.

I agree that diobeying an order on religious grounds is foolish ( excuse me , is there a soldier here that is not of _________ religion so that we can kill the guys in that trench over there ??) but why is it that we go to such lenghts to accomodate this situation ?


----------



## Michael OLeary

aesop081 said:
			
		

> ..... but why is it that we go to such lenghts to accomodate this situation ?



It's nothing new to try and balance religious beliefs and military service:



> Apr 27, 1913 - The March of the Lone Baptist. "As the Headquarters' file of Regimental Orders for 1913 and most of 1914 was destroyed in the Halifax explosion in 1917, and as a prolonged search has failed to discover copies in Ottawa, or at any of the Regimental Depots, the exact sequence of events in this period is now difficult to ascertain, but, thanks to private diaries and similar memoranda, a record of some incidents has been preserved. There was, for example, the March of the Lone Baptist, an event unparalleled in the Regiment's, or perhaps any other regiment's, history.
> From the time when the unit assumed garrison duties in Halifax in 1905, it had been the custom of the band to march in the church parades of the Church of England, Presbyterian and Roman Catholic detachments in rotation, leaving the smaller denominations to proceed without musical accompaniment. On the complaint of certain Ministers in Halifax against what they considered unfair discrimination, the Honourable the Minister of Militia and Defence ruled that all denominations must be treated alike and that the band must accompany each detachment in turn. In accordance with these orders, Sunday, April 27, was allotted to the Baptist denomination. There were three Baptists serving in the Regiment in Halifax at the time, two of whom were on detached duty, but the orders were explicit. Accordingly, the lone Baptist was paraded, Lieut. H.T. Cock assumed command of the parade, the Regimental Sergeant-Major took his appointed post, two police joined the detachment as usual, the band of approximately 40 pieces struck up an appropriate air, and off the Baptist was marched to his place of worship more than a mile away. Flattering as the escort must have been, the service would have seemed to have displeased him. No exact explanation is now available, but it is on record that he paraded before the Commanding Officer and changed his religion on the following day, an example which the adherents of other minor denominations were prompt to follow. - The Royal Canadian Regiment, 1883-1933, R.C. Fetherstonaugh, 1936





> Divine Service.
> 2.  Soldiers of the Roman Catholic, or Presbyterians persuasions, are to be regularly marched to, and from, their own places of Public Worship under the command of an officer if their number shall exceed twenty; and in charge of a Sergeant if not exceeding that number; and the Officer or Sergeant is to remain with them during the performance of the service. - Standing Orders for the Regulation of all Duties in the Garrison of Halifax, Nova Scotia, 1857



Or soldiers' reactions to being paraded for divine services:



> Ninety-five percent of the Battalion heartily detested Church Parade and would do anything in reason to get out of it. - Private Frank Richards, 1857 quoted in J.M. Bereton, The British Soldier; A Social History from 1661 to the Present Day


----------



## aesop081

Even i , as unreligious as one can get, manage to find a reason to go to padre's hours during basic......it was the only hour of peace and quiet i could get......the padre was understanding...he told us non-religious guys that we could sleep if we wanted, that he understood........


----------



## Brad Sallows

Atheism does not mean "without religious belief", it means "disbelief in existence of a deity".  The CMAC document cited "...the appellant, who says that he has no religious belief...", which is not the same as being an atheist.

I wonder if he, or any other avowed non-Christian, has observed Christian grace during a mess dinner or removed headdress during a Remembrance Day parade.  That would tend to nail one down as a posturing hypocrite if one objects to participating in religious observances under other circumstances.

To refuse to participate in someone else's religious observance, irrespective of one's own beliefs, ultimately just strikes me as very small.  "Tolerance", for those of you who profess to embody the supposed Canadian Value of Tolerance, is the quality of putting up with things to which you object.


----------



## the 48th regulator

I Think we should not get faith and religion mixed up.   I have had discussions with various padres (our regiment has been blessed with some very good ones) and one Padre posed that question to me.

"Where is your faith at?"   

I proceeded to tell him of my not being involved as much in my religion, R.C, as I should but that I have a great belief in the divine, He explained that ones faith and ones religion are two different things.   Religion is just a method to express ones faith, but faith is the belief, whatever it is, that keeps us going.   You did not necessarily have to follow a divine being to explain some of the mysteries in life, as long as you find an explanation that satisfies you.

It made a hell of a lot of sense.   I may send you an e-mail using Microsoft Outlook, but you may open it with Express or any other program, but in the end you still are able to read my msg.

That's my opinion, and I have one request, stop bashing the RC order you Godless heathens otherwise you will feel the wrath of my Dio...


hehehehe

tess


----------



## aesop081

i have given up not only on RC but on all religion as well............ but you don't see me making a public big deal out of it.


----------



## the 48th regulator

aesop081 said:
			
		

> i have given up not only on RC but on all religion as well............ but you don't see me making a public big deal out of it.



hmmm then what do you call your posts on this thread?

tess


----------



## aesop081

Simply expressing that the individual we are all talking about should have simply done what he was told.........i'm a prime example that you can be non - religious and not open up pandora's box.......

is that alright with you 48th ?


----------



## camochick

The whole thing boils down to the fact that this man is suffering from a lack of respect. What harm would it really do to take off your hat during a prayer. I'm non religious, I actually think religion is a huge joke, but I am often invited to religious events with friends. I attend them, even though I dont believe and I show respect for what these people do believe in. I think this guy probably lacks a few brain cells and just wanted to make a big deal out of nothing for a little attention. It's sad and pathetic that this bonehead got away with this. 

Oh and tess, this is a forum of discussion so I think that is what aesop is doing. He is not making some big hoopla about it in public, which I believe is what he meant.


----------



## McG

> The order that was given and that he knowingly disobeyed was one with the acknowledged purpose, according to both prosecution witnesses and section 3 of the Canadian Forces Dress Instructions was to show "respect" for what was being done and not mere passive toleration. That is to say, *it was designed to constrain him to make a public gesture of approval for a religious ceremony in which he did not believe*. Since that is a purpose which is clearly inimical to the freedom of religion guaranteed by paragraph 2(a) of the Charter, the order given fails the first branch of the test laid down in R. v. Big M Drug Mart, [1985] 1 S.C.R. 295.



I don't think that removing ones hat is respect in the sense of "a public gesture of approval for a religious ceremony" so much as courtesy for those who do believe (much like the respect shown when removing hats at the dinner table or shoes when visiting someone's house).  However, given the appeal court's interpretation, the removal of headdress is equivalent to an approval of the ceremony and so indirectly an acceptance of the religion it represents.  I don't agree with this interpretation of the act of removing headdress, but I agree whole heartedly that we cannot order members of the CF to make an act of acceptance of a religion they do not believe in.



			
				48Highlander said:
			
		

> If you do not HAVE a religion, then how can you be offended by participating in someone elses ceremony?


If your belief is that there is no religion, then you may be offended if you feel your are seen as agreeing with an organized religion.



			
				Shec said:
			
		

> The practical and most beneficial outcome of attending a Church parade is to further bind the members of the Regiment to it and to their comrades.  And for that reason anyone who raises objections to attending is only serving to alienate himself from the Regimental family.


I would suggest there are better ways to bind soldiers to regimental families.  Especially if a significant element within the regiment do not share the beliefs of the religion.



			
				Brad Sallows said:
			
		

> I wonder if he, or any other avowed non-Christian, has observed Christian grace during a mess dinner or removed headdress during a Remembrance Day parade. That would tend to nail one down as a posturing hypocrite if one objects to participating in religious observances under other circumstances.
> 
> To refuse to participate in someone else's religious observance, irrespective of one's own beliefs, ultimately just strikes me as very small.


I cannot agree with this, though it may be a matter of semantics.

We cannot & should not ask any soldier to participate in someone else's religious observance, and we should not expect them to do so.  However, I see nothing wrong with expecting soldiers to be respectful & quiet in the presence of others that are involved in their own religious observance (including on parade).

I'll also add that I've never observed Christian grace during any dinner.  I just stay quiet and allow those who want to observe to do so.


----------



## bossi

Ironically, I'd overlooked something during this discussion ...
Highlanders routinely carry weapons into church (it goes back to the Campbells and some nasty business in The Old Country ... but, I digress ...)

I just ran across a modern day example of this - perhaps not directly pertinent, but ... that's the beauty of The Indirect Approach, eh?

I've only quoted the pertinent excerpt, but you can read the entire article via this link:

http://globalspecops.com/sws.html



> *On Sheep, Wolves and Sheepdogs
> by LTC. Dave Grossman, USA (Ret)*
> 
> ... As a human being, you can be whatever you want to be.  It is a conscious, moral decision. If you want to be a sheep, then you can be a sheep and that is okay, but you must understand the price
> you pay.  When the wolf comes, you and your loved ones are going to die if there is not a sheepdog there to protect you. If you want to be a wolf, you can be one, but the Sheepdogs are going to hunt you down and you will never have rest, safety, trust or love.
> 
> *But if you want to be a sheepdog and walk the warrior's path, then you must make a conscious and moral decision every day to dedicate, equip and prepare yourself to thrive in that toxic, corrosive
> moment when the wolf comes knocking at the door. *
> 
> For example, many officers carry their weapons in church.  They are well concealed in ankle holsters, shoulder holsters or inside-the-belt holsters tucked into the small of their backs.  Anytime you go to some form of religious service, there is a very good chance that a police officer in your congregation is carrying. You will never know if there is such an individual in your place of worship, until the wolf appears to massacre you and your loved ones. I was training a group of police officers in Texas, and during the break, one officer asked his friend if he carried his weapon in church. The other cop replied, "I will never be caught without my gun in church." I asked why he felt so strongly about this, and he told me about a cop he knew who was at a church massacre
> in Ft. Worth, Texas in 1999.  In that incident, a mentally deranged individual came into the church and opened fire, gunning down fourteen people.  He said that officer believed he could have saved every life that day if he had been carrying his gun. His own son was shot, and all he could do was throw himself on the boy's body and wait to die. That cop looked me in the eye and said, "Do you have any idea how hard it would be to live with yourself after that?"
> 
> Some individuals would be horrified if they knew this police officer was carrying a weapon in church. They might call him paranoid and would probably scorn him.  Yet these same individuals would be enraged and would call for "heads to roll" if they found out that the airbags in their cars were defective, or that the fire extinguisher and fire sprinklers in their kids' school did not work.  They can accept the fact that fires and traffic accidents can happen and that there must be safeguards against them.
> Their only response to the wolf, though, is denial, and all too often their response to the sheepdog is scorn and disdain. But the sheepdog quietly asks himself, "Do you have an idea how hard it would be to live with yourself if your loved ones were attacked and killed, and you had to stand there helplessly because you were unprepared for that day?"  ...


----------



## LF(CMO)

It's with great sadness that I've read some of the comments on this topic.   The CF has been on a degenerative spiral starting with the   Militia stand down of 1965-66 followed by the UF nonsense of the 70's and now the final emasculation by the PC cops of the day.   
 But in a way Christianity has been the author of it's own destruction.   Our British legal system guaranteeing our individual rights and freedoms evolved from a balance of   common law and Christian principles.     It's ironic that in this situation one persons self serving behaviour attacks the system that allows for this in the first place! 
 In the mid part of the last century we witnessed what happened when Germany, one of the great Christian nations, was separated from it's traditional Christian origins and replaced it with a state religion called Nazism based on wild eyed nonsense!   Is it coincidence that all nations that have preserved democratic goverment have emerged from Christian origins? 
 As emphasized by Dorosh, 48th H and others, the key word here is RESPECT.   Because of our respect for individual freedom, we allow everyone to have their own personal religious view or none at all.   However, the individual in this case did not return this respect for CF tradition in kind.   The situation also resulted in a disrespect for authority which all successful military structure is ultimately based on.   The CF is on it's way to becoming a sterile, bureaucratic civil service.


----------



## Fishbone Jones

Excellent summation.


----------



## McG

LF(CMO) said:
			
		

> ...  Our British legal system guaranteeing our individual rights and freedoms evolved from a balance of  common law and Christian principles.   It's ironic that in this situation one persons self serving behaviour attacks the system that allows for this in the first place!


How has he attacked our system of common law or our system of rights?



			
				LF(CMO) said:
			
		

> In the mid part of the last century we witnessed what happened when Germany, one of the great Christian nations, was separated from it's traditional Christian origins and replaced it with a state religion called Nazism based on wild eyed nonsense!   Is it coincidence that all nations that have preserved democratic goverment have emerged from Christian origins?


I hope that I have misconstrued what you are trying to say above because to me it smacks of supremacist opinion & arrogance.  Specifically, I cannot help but sense a suggestion that all non-Christians are ethically inferior.


----------



## bossi

MCG said:
			
		

> I hope that I have misconstrued what you are trying to say above because to me it smacks of supremacist opinion & arrogance.



I guess it's all in how one reads it ... 
(i.e. to me, it definitely didn't smack of anything improper or incorrect - it seems fairly accurate)


----------



## Roger

bossi said:
			
		

> So, in other words ... you're saying that on Remembrance Day it's okay to disrepect fallen comrades if you feel like it?   Or, if you don't particularly like some words in the national anthem, you don't have to stand at attention or salute the flag?   The inability of a commissioned officer to follow a simple command is a disgrace



Being an agnostic myself I have always felt certain distaste to removing my headdress at a remembrance parade, in most cases it was a protestant padre who was saying prayers in his full protestant regalia. I removed my headrest in respect to my fallen brothers in all of our wars and peacekeeping missions. I also would have been more comfortable if the padre was in uniform. But religion is a sticky subject and when I needed certain help the padre was always there when the DND was not and I never asked the padre what religion he was. I know that most members of the forces in the two world wars where protestant, but there are many religions in the forces now and everyone needs to be respected.

But just to throw a screw into the subject, what about the jerk that this officer complained to, why did he not care what his religious feelings where and did not respect his wishes. He should be charged, or at least respected his wish and maybe had him stand in the back out of the away or had him come in a civy suit with no headdress. This incident is proof of what is the mater with the forces today, an a#$ of a supervisor taking stupid decisions then being backed and covered by the brass for stupid behavior.


----------



## LF(CMO)

"*I removed my headrest in respect to my fallen brothers in all of our wars and peacekeeping missions."*

 Again, RESPECT is the key word.   Chop, I don't have to know any more about you other than the above and I know that you would be there for your brother no matter the situation.

BTW: Do you know 'Duke' Cuthbert (former CAR)?   He was the Jumpmaster on our 05, 06 June, 2004 60th Anniversary Jump.   Another guy that has my complete and total trust and RESPECT.


----------



## 48Highlander

Chop said:
			
		

> But just to throw a screw into the subject, what about the jerk that this officer complained to, why did he not care what his religious feelings where and did not respect his wishes. He should be charged, or at least respected his wish and maybe had him stand in the back out of the away or had him come in a civy suit with no headdress. This incident is proof of what is the mater with the forces today, an a#$ of a supervisor taking stupid decisions then being backed and covered by the brass for stupid behavior.



    A stupid decision?  How is telling someone to take off their hat a stupid decision?  If you feel ofended having to take off your headdress in the mess, should you be exused from having to do that too?


----------



## Brad Sallows

>How has he attacked our system of common law or our system of rights?

Directly, he has not.  However, as with all other social changes there are likely to be unforeseen, unintended, and undesirable consequences.  I am not sure I will see in my lifetime the full impact of the ongoing erosion of the values and traditions - religious or not - which laid the fertile ground for our laws and rights.

>In the mid part of the last century we witnessed what happened when Germany, one of the great Christian nations, was separated from it's traditional Christian origins and replaced it with a state religion called Nazism based on wild eyed nonsense!  Is it coincidence that all nations that have preserved democratic goverment have emerged from Christian origins? 

>I hope that I have misconstrued what you are trying to say above because to me it smacks of supremacist opinion & arrogance.  Specifically, I cannot help but sense a suggestion that all non-Christians are ethically inferior.

To suppose that absence of democratic government necessarily makes a people ethically inferior would be incorrect.  Not all variations of democratic government have arisen in nations with Christian origins.  However, a Christian (particularly, Protestant) heritage does seem to be correlated.  I haven't really read enough yet to decide whether cultures with values which encourage democratic systems of government are naturally amenable to Christianity, or vice versa.


----------



## 48Highlander

Well, Israel and Pakistan are both functional democracies which seem to defy the idea that only Christians can behave democraticaly.  I'm sure there are more, but none I can list without doing some fact checking first.


----------



## LF(CMO)

*"Is it coincidence that all nations that have preserved democratic government have emerged from Christian origins? "*   Please fellows, I purposely posed it as a question.     It is not a defining statement, so therefore nothing can be inferred from it in any way other than the question it poses.

*" Well, Israel and Pakistan are both functional democracies which seem to defy the idea that only Christians can behave democratically.   I'm sure there are more, but none I can list without doing some fact checking first"*   
 Actually '48', we can add Japan and India in there as well.   Pakistan and India from the British.   Japan from Gen MacArthur.   Israel would slide in under Judeo-Christian, as politics and Government are a function of the Old Covenant.   Concepts such as private ownership of land, individual worth and accountability, compulsory military service, King by the grace of God, fair judgement with the right of appeal, respect for women etc. are all part of our British Heritage derived originally from OT concepts.   I'm not in any way implying that other cultures and religions don't embodie some of these principles.   But who has put them together in a system that has functioned as well as ours has??? 

 BTW: The Americans owe everything they have to their British roots as well.   There was nothing revolutionary in the American Revolution!! ( remember Americans believe all kinds of crazy things, like they won the War of 1812 etc.)   The AR was just a replay of the Civil War a 100+ years previous.   It really could not be justified and only time will tell whether it was the right thing or not.


----------



## 48Highlander

That's a meritles argument.  Just because democracy started in a christian society doesn't mean that it couldn't have evolved under other religions.  And the fact that it's developing in other places due to the influence of primarily christian countries does not mean that those countries aren't legitemate democracies.  You may as well state that only christians can make propper weapons since they were the first to create firearms.


----------



## McG

Brad Sallows said:
			
		

> To suppose that absence of democratic government necessarily makes a people ethically inferior would be incorrect.


That is true.  However, my concern is based on the entire quoted paragraph and not just its final sentence.



			
				LF(CMO) said:
			
		

> Please fellows, I purposely posed it as a question.   It is not a defining statement, so therefore nothing can be inferred from it in any way other than the question it poses.


As you were trying to make an argument against the court's decision, I can only assume we are supposed to infer something from it.  I am most concerned with where you were trying to go with linking the Nazi success to the absence of a Christian government.



			
				48Highlander said:
			
		

> That's a meritles argument.


And unless it was intended to present some inferiority on non-Christions, I still do not see how it was expected to further an argument that in a free & democratic society we should allow military personnel to have someone else's religious beliefs imposed on them.


----------



## Infanteer

Considering that the idea and functionality of democracy (and the related political dialogue) predates Judeo-Christian culture in the West by a good four centuries, I hardly see the direct correlation between Judeo-Christian values and a democratic system.

However, the flavour of democracy that we currently practice is more then likely got a good injection of influence from 20 centuries of the presence of Christianity in the West - if one is to believe Weber and _The Protestant Ethic and the Spirit of Capitalism_ (but what does this say for all those lazy Catholics? ).

Gress' From Plato to NATO is a good look at the different contributions to the composite picture that is Western society.


----------



## Roger

48Highlander said:
			
		

> A stupid decision?   How is telling someone to take off their hat a stupid decision?   If you feel ofended having to take off your headdress in the mess, should you be exused from having to do that too?



When I was told to remove my headdress is was to say a prayer, not a tradition of removing my beret to go in a mess. I was never comfortable removing it for prayer, in fact it pissed me off that I had to listen to a prayer when I did not pray. Its all in perpesctive. But I am a minority and you are in the majority, because of this I am forced to do a behavior I dislike and do not believe in. Yes I sucked it up and changed my perpective to a positive one, when all the others where praying I thought of all of our brothers that had died before us to give us what we have in Canada, a free country to live in freedom, yes freedom to have a choice.


----------



## Blackhorse7

Chop, I think your missing the point here.

You can not be religious all you want (I myself believe in God, but I'll be damned if I can remember the last time I was in a Church or prayed).  Being pissed off about having to remove your headdress and listen to a prayer is a little ignorant of others in my eyes.  Nobody said you had to pray, or for that matter, pay attention to the prayer.  This Officer's actions is akin to sticking your thumb in someones eye.  Nobody was saying "Pray!  That's an order!"  But to refuse what in my eyes was a lawful command generated out of respect for others is not acceptable.  It is a gesture of respect for those others around you that you remove your headdress.

And you are right... Canada is a land of freedom and free choice, but it is also a country of tolerance and respect for others beliefs.  Those are some of the other things those fallen brothers died for.


----------



## 48Highlander

Chop said:
			
		

> When I was told to remove my headdress is was to say a prayer, not a tradition of removing my beret to go in a mess. I was never comfortable removing it for prayer, in fact it pissed me off that I had to listen to a prayer when I did not pray.



    And you're telling me you've never had to follow orders from an NCO or Officer which pissed you off?  Wether it be doing pushups in the mud, being yelled at to keep running when you just want to give up, or being told to get your ankles together while said NCO reams you a new one over whatever shortcoming you may have.  There's plenty of times in my military career where I've been uncomfortable and pissed off.  We're in the fucking ARMY!  What'd you think it was gonna be like, hand holding and singing songs?  Free pedicures every wednesday?  Give me a break.  Wether or not you have a good reason for feeling that way, being uncomfortable or pissed off doesn't give you the right to refuse an order.


----------



## Reccesoldier

I understand and agree with those that have equated this to respect. But I also can't help but wonder how the response in here would have been different if a superior had ordered a soldier not to attend church because "it wouldn't hurt him"

You can't have it both ways, either you are tolerant or you are not, and as I've said before that tolerance has to include those that do not believe or who abhor religion as this individual appears to.


----------



## Roger

48Highlander said:
			
		

> And you're telling me you've never had to follow orders from an NCO or Officer which pissed you off?   Wether it be doing pushups in the mud, being yelled at to keep running when you just want to give up, or being told to get your ankles together while said NCO reams you a new one over whatever shortcoming you may have.



I have actually been pissed off many times in the military, but my point is I understand how the guy feels, I get pissed off every time I have to do prayer. And as I said I believe there is a place for padres in the forces beside prayer. All I am saying is that refusing to do a push up is refusing to do the order from an NCO, if you do not believe in doing the push ups then maybe you do not believe in the forces and maybe you should leave the forces. I did not join the forces to pray and every time I am told to pray I am pissed off, I feel that I am being forced to conform to the majority and I am agnostic. But like I said I go through the motions, on rremembrance even more so because of what the event is about, it is not about prayer but a parade to remember our fallen brothers. 

I am just saying to think of how this guy feels and I am proud he stuck to his convictions and was proved right, maybe he is braver than me. And again I have no respect for his supirior for trying to force him to go and pray.


----------



## camochick

I guess to me, i just dont understand what the big deal is. So he's not religious, just take the damn hat off for the few minutes they pray. You dont even have to pay attention. I am not religious, I dont believe in god but I was invited to hanukah celebrations this year and part of that is wearing a scarf on your head, so I wore the scarf out of respect for my jewish friends. I think this guy was making a big deal out of nothing. Perhaps he needed a little attention, maybe a visit to the shrink would clear him up.


----------



## 48Highlander

Chop said:
			
		

> I have actually been pissed off many times in the military, but my point is I understand how the guy feels, I get pissed off every time I have to do prayer. And as I said I believe there is a place for padres in the forces beside prayer. All I am saying is that refusing to do a push up is refusing to do the order from an NCO, if you do not believe in doing the push ups then maybe you do not believe in the forces and maybe you should leave the forces. I did not join the forces to pray and every time I am told to pray I am pissed off, I feel that I am being forced to conform to the majority and I am agnostic. But like I said I go through the motions, on rremembrance even more so because of what the event is about, it is not about prayer but a parade to remember our fallen brothers.
> 
> I am just saying to think of how this guy feels and I am proud he stuck to his convictions and was proved right, maybe he is braver than me. And again I have no respect for his supirior for trying to force him to go and pray.



    Well, I guess I must be unusual or something because I've never been told to pray.  I've been told to remove my headdress.  I've been told to sit in a church.  I've listened to lots of prayers and sat through many a song.  But never have I once been ordered to pray, prostrate myself, take communion, or sing a religious song.  If taking off my cover when entering the mess doesn't offend me, it's certainly not going to offend me when I have to do it during a service.  And if sitting through a lecture on the rules of engagement for the 573rd and a half time isn't going to offend me, then listening to a preacher talk about God certainly won't either.


----------



## Gilligan

I am curious as to why it is of distaste to you to remove your headdress during Rememberance Day (not to beat a dead horse or anything).  You are not removing your headdress in any way for prayer, it's for rememberance, a moment of silence for those to just think, not pray, to think.  It is out of respect, not for religion. 
  I have never been told to pray, I have on a few occasions been given the option of attending church services while on course, however it has never EVER been manditory and no one looks down on you for your decisions.  I am not religious, which shouldn't be relevant in the military at all, especially in Canada.  Canada is a country rich with diversity and multiculturalism, and before last year I had never been to a Rememberance Day ceremony where I was actually offended.  My unit went to a civilian service (change of pace from the usual downtown Vancouver Victory Square ceremony), and the padres went on and on and on about how we were there because of all that God had done for us, and how God allowed the men to fight for his truths, and they fought for the true spirit of God and his overall path for everyone on Earth.  Rememberance Day should not be centered around any particular religion, it should encompass everyone's thoughts and feelings.  I've rambled on about that for far too long I think.

  Overall, I believe that if someone tells me I should attend any kind of religious service, I will not be rude, I will be respectful, I do not agree with others pushing their religion on me, and I will tell them that fact, but if I have no choice, I'm not gonna put up a stink about it, I'll do what I have to do out of respect for others, and move on.


----------



## Meridian

I think the issue here comes down to one of conflicting values. Interestingly enough, as a student of political science and law, Canadians as a whole have recently been faced with an onslaught of confusion and confliction when it comes to nailing down common mores and values.  (Someone else mentioned same sex marriage, as an example....)

While I respect much of what you all have had to say on the subject, I still disagree with some of it, and I'd probably have some issues with having to sit around listening to a sermon on it.... but I digress.

my tags said (well still do) NRE. When I recited the "oath" on joining, I chose the non religious one, sans-bible. Ive spoken with Padres, never on a religious or metaphysical level. Rememberance Day to me has always been about a day for REMEMBERANCE .... The name in and of itself does not invoke religious thoughts for me. 

Alright.. lets look at why we salute.  "You salute the commission, not the person" is what Ive heard so often. Usually true, since often you dont even know who you are saluting, but in the best of times, often not. Effectively, you salute because it is the respectful thing to do. You respect that person's position as a leader in your organization, and respect the responsabilities they have accepted. Whether they fulfill their end of the bargain is unfortunately up to them, but in any event, you are exercising respect for someone else, who you may disagree with on a very highly personal level.

Effectively what we are looking at here is a microcosmic evolution of the old liberal-democratic debate.  liberalism and democracy are entirely two differnt ideologies, and they rarely coexist without significant upheaval.

Turning to our illustrious Prime Minister, on questionning regarding a potential referendum on same-sex marriage, the PM expounded on why such a referendum would  be counter productive to the principles the Charter is based on. Democratic, sure. Majority rule. But what about the minority?


Ok...so then we get to the military. Definitely not a democracy. 

YOu know, when I sat in those QR&O lectures, and then got an ethics lecture, I didn't really have all that much problem with the idea that as a commissioned officer I shouldn't also be heavily involved in politics. Did I really like my "rights" being a little quashed?  No. But as the ethics professor pointed out - *I volunteered for the military. 
*
Can I vote? Damn right. But is voting a purely political action? Does my vote for Harper because I think he will bolster the military mean I agree with his entire platform? Is my one vote the equivalent of running for office in my spare time when not commanding troops?  

The military (along with peace officers and corrections officers) represent the government's monopoly on the use of force. As such, the military is expected to be impartial with respect to how it EXECUTES the orders of the duly elected government. This delves deep into the whole principle of following orders.  Shoot, what if I don't want to be deployed to Afghanistan? What if I think they should be left alone to figure it out themselves, and that I feel that a great minority of Canadians agree with me? I suppose I shouldn't have agreed to be an agent of the Canadian state then, should I?

Look... I personally do not agree with Padres dressing up in full religious garb when addressing formed troops. I also think that I can stand for 20 minutes and respectfully support the beliefs of my fallen comrades.  I think the tribunal has confused the public acknowledgement for one of religious acknowledgement rather than support for the beliefs of others.

As military members, I would expect Canada's Forces would represent tolerance to the world, personally one of the things I think Canada represents beyond all else to the world. We are the troops that go out and talk to the people, we are the ones that can proudly wear our flag around the world, and have curious people ask about our homeland with interest... and we are the people who are much more often to modest to talk just about ourselves and instead curiously interrogate others about their homelands, and welcome them to stop in when they travel within our borders.

Should I be ordered to listen to a sermon, for the sake of listening to a sermon? No. Should religious-military ceremonies be based on one majoritary religion only? No. Should I be ordered to stand beside by comrades (Majority or minority) and salute their beliefs? No. I should do it willingly. 


Just my .02 cents.


----------



## Roger

Thanks Meridian, that is exactly whay I wanted to say.....


----------



## Brad Sallows

Minority, majority, progressive, conservative...

I have noticed that progressives don't particularly care whether a desired degree of change is obtained by majority or minority means, and that they become decidedly conservative about the policy area once their ship has come in.


----------



## Blackhorse7

I give up.

I think the guy was wrong to do what he did, period.  It has NOTHING to do with religion, and it has EVERYTHING to do with respect for others.  

As for standing up for himself, bully for him.  I hope I don't get a warning for this (probably will), but I think all the officer did was prove what an a**hole he is.


----------



## LF(CMO)

"I think the guy was wrong to do what he did, period.  It has NOTHING to do with religion, and it has EVERYTHING to do with respect for others."   The PC/SS have NO RESPECT!


As for standing up for himself, bully for him.  I hope I don't get a warning for this (probably will), but I think all the officer did was prove what an a**hole he is.   Attracting attention to himself was merely self serving.  I would quess that it was probably calculated ahead of time.  There was likely other issues between these two people prior to this.  It wasn't an act of bravery of any sort, as in todays PC world if you violate traditional values, particularly religion, you are classified as some sort of crusader ( OH, another PIC word).  It takes much more resolve to confess that you believe in the traditional Christian tenets of your forefathers than the other.

The assesment of the OIC is probably accurate and that may have precipitated the incident.  However, I will admit that 'in my younger days', I reacted to situations differently than I would now.  ( I've worked in a high risk occupation for over 36 yrs and have been for the majority of that time in positions of authority.  I've made lots of mistakes!)


----------



## muskrat89

Well, to muddy the waters a bit... I've been tossing a scenario around in my mind. Now that we have pried the lid off of Pandora's Box....

Set aside the Christian/Atheist/Agnostic for a moment - there are varying degrees of commitment/faith within a denomination. For example, I'm an Anglican. Like most denominations, some Anglicans go to church every Sunday, some go regularly, but not every Sunday; some only go on Easter, Christmas, etc.  Is it that much of a stretch (now) that forcing someone to a church parade, or whatever - may *exceed his preferred degree of participation*? Is that the same as making a Hindu attend a Baptist service? I can see Gunner Bloggins making the argument now that "Yes, Sir - I am a Christian, but my personal faith choice is to only attend formal services once per month, and I have already been to Church this month. It is my right to be excused from participating". I'm not saying it has merit - just saying that I don't think it is much of a stretch from the current argument(s).


----------



## axeman

as a non christian let me put my 2 cents in too . the line is LET us pray it doesnt say to whom . the padre prays to their gods and i pray to mine . doesnt matter that mine make war not peace or do they make peace through war . ? but thats neither here nor there. the head dress removal well now that ive done a little more then just an ex here and there.{roto 0-1 tours} and been in a war making zone  i respect what the vets did . the moment of silence is for rememberance of what they did . after knowing that one of my high school teachers went over the hill at vimy and now knowing what fortitude that musta take to mearly make it to that point  i will certanly take my hat off to them i had a vetrearan of many years service but peace time service salute me on rememberance day because he put the fact of my uniform together. he saw the rack of medals AND the CinC pin which has only been given to ground troops and figured i did OP APPOLLO and saluted me and thanked me . given that if just changed uniform and and was at the time in a navy uniform the kicker was that i had no trade badges. he put all this together and saluted. when i think of NOV 11 i dont put myself in that catagory it was always marching as a formation not putting my self into the picture like that. I'VE always done it for the WW1 WW2 Korea etc vets not myself but in honouring them we honour ourselves. but back to the track i am not a Christian but the padres are  , they are also SUPPOSED to be trained in social working in the milatary needs . so it doesnt always have to be about religion  just problems . ive taalked to them and the matters of religion were brought up merely as a way that they found guidance not me  the explain things the way they understand and then let YOU make up your mind .


----------



## gunner56

YOU TAKE YOUR COVER OFF IN THE MESS,YOU TAKE IT OFF AT MOM'S HOUSE, SO TAKE IT OFF IN THE FATHER'S HOUSE. HE WON'T FORCE YOU TO PRAY,SO NO MAN HAS THE RIGHT TO TELL YOU TO PRAY. JUST RESPECT THE RIGHTS OF THOSE WHO WANT TO.
NO ATHEISTS IN FOXHOLES,YA KNOW.

P.S.  YES,I AM A CHRISTIAN!


----------



## muskrat89

Gunner - if it's all the same to you, we can do without the caps  

On the internet, it signifies "yelling"... silly I know, but when in Rome


----------



## gunner56

Sorry,Muskrat. I,m still learning about computers and the email thing. I'll try to remember to speak softly and keep the big stick in my tank hangar.


----------



## sigpig

LF(CMO) said:
			
		

> It takes much more resolve to confess that you believe in the traditional Christian tenets of your forefathers than the other.



Are you saying it takes more resolve to state your beliefs in the "traditional Christian tenets of your forefathers" than to state you are an atheist? 

Really?!?! How much resolve does it take to go along with the majority and the comfortable, "normal" way of things? Not near as much as it takes to take a minority, unpopular position such as being an atheist. 

Look at the posts on this thread, thiests demanding he show respect for the beliefs of others. What about others showing respect for his beliefs? I don't recall reading where the Lt said to hell with veterans and those who have fallen, he just objected to the religious nature of the occasion. I wish I had the balls he had and refused to enter the church at the end of the parade for the ceremony at my units Remembrance Day events. Of course, being that it was usually about -20 with the wind howling in Banff maybe I would have just ducked into the foyer   

It is too easy to blast him for not following orders and tell him to shut up and soldier on. Nothing ever changes until someone speaks up against the way it always was and makes people stop and think. You don't have to be an athiest to think that it's time for some things to change since Canada is no longer a nation of christian soldiers marching onward. And it's not like the order he refused was to board an enemy ship or charge a machine gun post - no battles or lives were going to be lost. It was a ceremonial parade that had aspects in it that don't belong in a modern military.


[quote author=gunner56]JUST RESPECT THE RIGHTS OF THOSE WHO WANT TO. NO ATHEISTS IN FOXHOLES,YA KNOW.[/quote]

As I mentioned before, I'm a little tired of the majority theists demanding their rights be respected while ignoring those who have differing views. As for the second statement, it is really too stupid to bother replying to, so I won't. 

P.S. Yes, I am an atheist


----------



## gunner56

So be it,sigpig. Those who don't believe in prayer have indicated that all others MUST respect their rights,so why can't they (including yourself) respect ours?


----------



## Roger

gunner56 said:
			
		

> So be it,sigpig. Those who don't believe in prayer have indicated that all others MUST respect their rights,so why can't they (including yourself) respect ours?



You do not get it, we have to respect yours. We have to respect your views or risk the wrath, either being charged or being a non-conforming individual.


----------



## McG

gunner56 said:
			
		

> Those who don't believe in prayer have indicated that all others MUST respect their rights,so why can't they (including yourself) respect ours?


Which of your rights have been restricted and how?


----------



## gunner56

O.K.,MCG. You must not read newspapers,or watch tv.I.E.,no prayer in schools,no posting of the 10 Commandments in public,discussion of banning the BIBLE as hate literature.That ok for starters?


----------



## McG

gunner56 said:
			
		

> no prayer in schools,


How is this a violation of your rights?  Should we make every student recite prayers in school even if they do not have religious beliefs or if their beliefs are of a different faith or denomination?  If you need your kids to say a prayer in school, do what the Jew, Muslims, Buddhists, etc must do: send your kids to a private school (or would you be okay with your kids praying to Allah because that was what their school chose?)



			
				gunner56 said:
			
		

> no posting of the 10 Commandments in public


I don't know where you've lived, but I see the commandments & versus from the bible posted in public all over the place (from NB to BC).  



			
				gunner56 said:
			
		

> discussion of banning the BIBLE as hate literature.


This could never happen.  Even if some fools did try (which I've never heard of), the Charter would protect it.



			
				gunner56 said:
			
		

> That ok for starters?


I'm not convinced.


----------



## gunner56

I'm not saying kids should have to pray in school,only that they should be allowed to without having to attend a private school.Besides,if we could only pray in soecific places,like private schools,that would be a violation of our rights.What say you to that?


----------



## Infanteer

Who says a kid can't pray in school?  Last time I checked, prayer was a pretty simple affair - all you have to do is pray, it doesn't need to be on the curriculum for kids to do it.  Do they need an allotment of special time to pray?  I'm sure if anyone asked to be excused for 5 minutes to pray, they wouldn't be refused.

If parents wish an organized religious presence in their child's schooling, private schools exist for that reason - remember, seperation of the Church and State.


----------



## McG

Sure, if the kids want to pray at lunch or at recces then let them go ahead and do that (I've even known schools to have private prayer rooms that allow this).   However, the problem with prayer in schools is that it has traditionally been an organized event where everyone stops to observe a prayer from one denomination of one faith.   That is not right.


----------



## bossi

My five-year-old son was telling me all about Hannukah and Kwanza during our Christmas vacation ...
(he learned about it in kindergarten).
Thus, I'm hopeful this is a sign for the future of better understanding, and perhaps even tolerance ...?
(I'm sick and tired of intolerance, especially when any religion preaches it ... Death to intolerance!!!)


----------



## Pugnacious

"I'm sick and tired of intolerance, especially when any religion preaches it ... Death to intolerance!!!"

Me too, and yet the catch 22 is I can think of 3 big name religions that preach intolerance, and other things that lead to such mentality. ("chosen people", "enemies of god", etc etc).

IMHO Church, and state have to be kept apart.
As the bible prverb goes a slave cannot have two masters...;D

Also I have no problems with kids,and adults praying in school IF it is their choice, and their religion to do so.

Cheers!
P.


----------



## 48Highlander

Speaking of children, here's a bit of a tangent....

    How do you feel about children of certain cultures/religions being excused from having to stand while O'Canada is played at schools in the morning?  And how does that compare to the actions of this soldier who refused to remove his headdress during a prayer?

    To me, both are a clear sign of disrespect, and nothing to do with individual rights.  But I'd like to hear some more opinions...


----------



## gunner56

MCG said:
			
		

> How is this a violation of your rights?   Should we make every student recite prayers in school even if they do not have religious beliefs or if their beliefs are of a different faith or denomination?   If you need your kids to say a prayer in school, do what the Jew, Muslims, Buddhists, etc must do: send your kids to a private school (or would you be okay with your kids praying to Allah because that was what their school chose?)
> I don't know where you've lived, but I see the commandments & versus from the bible posted in public all over the place (from NB to BC).
> This could never happen.   Even if some fools did try (which I've never heard of), the Charter would protect it.
> I'm not convinced.


Did I read this right...that if I need my kids to pray in school that I MUST send them to a private school ??? I recall Hitler segregating people based on religeous, and ethnic grounds.We don't do that in my CANADA,how about yours?


----------



## McG

gunner56 said:
			
		

> Did I read this right...that if I need my kids to pray in school that I MUST send them to a private school ??? I recall Hitler segregating people based on religeous, and ethnic grounds.We don't do that in my CANADA,how about yours?


Clearly, you are now only trying to start a fight as my next following post would have preclude you from reaching that conclusion and comparing me to Hitler.
If you want your kid to participate in organized prayer in school, send them to a private school.   If they want to do it on their own, they can do it wherever.


----------



## 48Highlander

Sorry gunner, you're off base here.  I mean, sure, we could have forced prayers in public schools, but unless you had a prayer from a different faith every day it wouldn't exactly be fair now would it.  Religious classes could be offered without being mandatory...but the point is, schools aren't meant to teach about religion.  That's what Churches are for.  I saw a video clip today that shows even some Iraqis are finally starting to grasp that concept, so I woulda thought all Canadians would have got it a long time ago.


----------



## gunner56

I believe that you should be allowed to opt out of church parades if you wish.After all,GOD doesn't force you to believe or pray,so whence do we,or our officers and nco's get the right?(I use nco because in my day,we didn't have ncm's)However,if you opt to attend,please remember to remove your headgear.My dad taught by example that gentlemen remove hatsin church,eating establishments,and in the presence of a lady.


----------



## Pugnacious

Side note: Hitler also advocated gun control, and Breed specific bans, but that is another topic. (damn Fiberals!)

Now onto this...


			
				48Highlander said:
			
		

> Speaking of children, here's a bit of a tangent....
> 
> How do you feel about children of certain cultures/religions being excused from having to stand while O'Canada is played at schools in the morning? And how does that compare to the actions of this soldier who refused to remove his headdress during a prayer?
> 
> To me, both are a clear sign of disrespect, and nothing to do with individual rights. But I'd like to hear some more opinions...



I agree with you...IMHO this is very disrespectful, and part of the problem with Canada today.   

Everwhere I go I hear about Canada being talked about as if it is a holiday desitnation for way ward nations.   
For the record...I'm not anti multicultural..in fact I'm a huge supporter of multiculteralism, I believe it makes us stronger as a country, BUT IMHO one should respect the country they are now living in, and be willing to pitch in when asked to do so, and at the least show some national respect.

Somehow I don't think other countries would be less understanding if I took such a disrespectfull attatude of their nationalism.

Cheers!
P.


----------



## gunner56

Hey,MCG,I'm not trying to start a fight,just exercising my right to state my opinion.After all,if we agreed on everything,life would be a crashing bore,wouldn't it.BTW,I wasn't meaning that you were(or,are) like Adolf,just kinda suggesting that we don't go where he did.


----------



## the 48th regulator

> but the point is, schools aren't meant to teach about religion.   That's what Churches are for



I don't agree with that one mate, what do you call the catholic school board, as well as the schools that cater to other religions (Jewish, Muslim, various Christian).   I feel these provide a service and need for families.

I agree with the fact that if you choose to have religion part of a daily event for your children, there are many institutions for you to pick from.   If you chose to send your children to a public school, then you must come to realize that these schools are diverse, and must be there for everyone.

Therefore if you want prayer and schooling, then go and find it.

tess


----------



## Pugnacious

Methinks a private school is private, and what they choose to do is up to them as long as it is legal.
One would have to be pretty dumb not to think your kid is going to have to pray in class if they enroll them in a private Catholic school.

And a public school is public, and should reflect common  "public values, and rights".

Hold on wasn't this about religion in the Military?
Sorry I'm lost.

Cheers!
P.


----------



## the 48th regulator

religion, politics and money

three very dangerous subjects..

tess


----------



## 48Highlander

the 48th regulator said:
			
		

> I don't agree with that one mate, what do you call the catholic school board, as well as the schools that cater to other religions (Jewish, Muslim, various Christian).   I feel these provide a service and need for families.
> 
> I agree with the fact that if you choose to have religion part of a daily event for your children, there are many institutions for you to pick from.   If you chose to send your children to a public school, then you must come to realize that these schools are diverse, and must be there for everyone.
> 
> Therefore if you want prayer and schooling, then go and find it.
> 
> tess



Catholic schools are a compromise.   They work because they cater only to Catholics.   That's fine.   I still think it's a bad idea to mix schooling and religion because of, for instance, the inability of many overly-religious people to reckognize evolution.   It's too easy for those teachers of "stronger beleifs" to brainwash the children.   For instance, some US organizations have attempted to change public-school curriculums in order to have them teach creationism in science class.   Similarily, what would stop a catholic teacher from taking 5 minutes out of every class to expound on the sins of homosexuals/blacks/muslims/insert-choice-minority-here?   For the most part though Canadian catholic schools are fair and balanced in the material they teach, and the canadian people are rational in their beleifs, so if these people want to send their children to catholic schools and have religion and prayer as part of their daily routine, I have no problem with it.   I was speaking about public non-denominational schools.   If anything, the existance of catholic, jewish, and other religious schools is just another reason to NOT have any sort of mandatory religious programs or policies in non-denominational schools.


----------



## Glorified Ape

Pugnacious said:
			
		

> Side note: Hitler also advocated gun control, and Breed specific bans, but that is another topic. (damn Fiberals!)



He also liked dogs and breathed air...... uh oh.


----------



## MZCDN

Hey, I'm just wondering if there are any Christians out there or what the general feeling is about being in the military and being a Christian?


----------



## chaos75

Back to the subject of religion in the military, there is definately a problem.  The military being a large institution, is so slow moving to adapt to its changing diverse culture, and the present form of military religion is outdated.  We dont have ministers of all faiths available for whoever needs to pray/services/advice/consultation etc.  If the military wants to keep padres and chaplains as a viable trade they need to relfect the whole CF community. As for prayers and religious ceremonies on parades and such, it is more of a traditional/notional gesture these days as im sure a good number of CF members are non-believers. They should either elimninate prayers from parades, or allow those who do not believe to have their rights respected and not be forced to participate.  Its a matter of principale and respect, show it for those who do believe and those who dont.  I think forcing anyone to goto a church parade is ridiculous, can you imagine ordering a religious soldier to an atheist celebration?.  Just my .02 on the subject.


----------



## George Wallace

chaos75

If we were to substitued "language" for "religion" in your statement, would you still hold it true?

The CF has Chaplains in the major religions of the nation.  It is bordering on the rediculous to think that every Base/Unit/Ship should have a Chaplain for every conceivable religion in Canada.  We would have to have more Chaplains than soldiers.  As a democracy, we have to ensure the rights of the majority first, before minorities (I know we do it ass backwards in Canada) to maintain our society.  As our Armed Forces reflect our society, that is the way things are.  Besides, the cost and administration would be enourmous.  To abolish all forms of Faith in the Forces would be unacceptable to the majority of Faiths in our society.

GW


----------



## a_majoor

The military is a large institution, but it is not homogeneous. A unit in the Maritimes will probably be less "diverse" than one raised in Toronto, for example. Edmonton and Vancouver are both part of LFWA, but a walk through the streets will tell you there are very different recruiting pools.

We do not need to try to create a "one size fits all" policy for religion and Padres, you end up with a situation like having government employees trained at considerable expense to be bilingual working in Calgary...who are they going to talk to?

Most padres I have ever met and worked with are quite comfortable dealing with people from other religions and cultures, and it isn't difficult for someone with "special needs" to approach the chain of command with sufficient advanced notice to request representation from a certain denomination, sect, religion or whatever. I have had Islamic soldiers, Sikh soldiers, Jewish soldiers, Atheist soldiers, Native Canadian soldiers and even one Wiccan soldier under my command, and I always made it a point to let them know they could put in the request any time, and that I would accommodate any special needs as best I could so long as they did not interfere with operational  issues. The other caveat was I would not try to convert them, but they better not be trying to convert me either. We did our jobs, respected each other's beliefs and that , as far as I am concerned, sums it up.


----------



## chaos75

GW

Language is a service entry requirement, you must either speak english or french.   The fact that you speak of the "big two" religions in Canada, just goes to show how a## backwards religion is.   If there is only one god, why isnt there only one religion.   I wasnt advocating abolishing religion in the military, just that non-believers should be given the same rights that religious types enjoy.   We shouldnt be forced to listen to prayers, or remove our headress, or to attend church parades, say grace or any of that.   No one cares that people want to practice their religion, but some not all, of atheists feel their rights are ignored because they are forced to do these things.   

A Majoor summed it up good, everyone should be respected, believer or not, and since I dont think taking of headress is an operational requirement, it shouldnt be a problem not doing it.  Yes its an order, but when done for the purposes of saying a prayer afterwards, it becomes a religous affiliated order.  I think it is good that padres are willing to help out anyone, but I doubt they could give all the spiritual advice needed by someone who is muslim or hindu.


----------



## Bruce Monkhouse

Quote,
  The fact that you speak of the "big two" religions in Canada, just goes to show how a## backwards religion is.  If there is only one god, why isn't there only one religion. 

Chaos 75, 
This is a moderator warning, anymore inflammatory remarks about peoples faith and I will invoke the warning system.
If you cannot debate this issue without throwing mud , then don't debate this issue.
Bruce


----------



## George Wallace

First off Canada is a country of many languages.   Don't you think with your reasoning that the Inuit should have the same rights?   What about Mandarin, which now out numbers Quebecois?

As for me mentioning the "big two" religions of Canada; I did not.   There are Rabis and Mullahs in the Service (Although not many).   Don't warp things to your point of view.

As for the removal of headdress for a ceremonial function, it has already been covered as being a "Courtesy" and sign of respect.   You don't have to pray.   If you enter a Japanese home you are expected to pay the courtesy of removing your shoes--now using your logic about religion, you would be discourteous to your hosts by refusing.   Or perhaps on a visit to a Synagog, you would be discourteous as not to wear a skull cap (whatever its' correct name is).   

Courtesy is the big word here, no matter your beliefs.

GW


----------



## Cliff

Religion in the military...

Most of our Regiments have ties to churches. To ignore religion is to ignore our military tradition = since Christianity did play an important role.


----------



## chaos75

My apologies if I misworded that statement about the big two, and while there may be the odd rabbi or mullah, the main two are Roman Catholic and Protestant, which since I just looked, are the only two listed on the recruiting website for chaplain trade.  Like I said before, I dont have any disagreement with respecting anyone's beliefs or customs, but I object to being forced to partake simply for that reason, im being forced.  You bring up Jewish or Hindu people, you couldnt order them to take off their yamakas or turbans, that would violate their rights.  Again, the military is slow evolving dinosaur when it comes to religion in the forces, no matter what you say about just be respectful and go along with the parades, and ceremonies, I shouldnt have too, thats my right as a non-believer.

And to respect my warning for inflammatory remarks, I wont comment on Christianities role in the military/war.  

However, tradition is great and all, but cultures and societies evolve....including the military however slow it may be


----------



## Meridian

Saying you wont comment on a specific issue is often a comment in itself.

At any rate, I think the very length of this thread goes to show that this is a delicate issue.


----------



## 48Highlander

By your logic, you shouldn't have to salute either.  If saluting is a show of respect, and you don't respect the individual you're forced to salute, then your personal beleifs are being infringed on.  They may not be religious beleifs, but they're still beleifs.  If I beleive some guy's a butthole, why should I be forced to show him respect, right?

Chaos, the more you argue this issue the more it shows your ignorance.  Nobody in the military will EVER force you to beleive ANYTHING.  However, you WILL be told to DO certain things.  You might not enjoy all of them, but that doesn't give you the right to refuse the order.  You can give your soul to God, or to the Big Bang if you want, but your ass belongs to the army.  And if your beleifs are truly as strong as you claim, then taking off a goddamn hat and listening to a prayer certainly isn't going to change them, or do you irreparable harm.


----------



## chaos75

Apples and oranges 48, but its easy for someone to say that conforming to religous policies is fine with them when they believe them.  As for my soul and my ass, they both belong to me thank you.  Questioning outdated policies and traditions is not ignorant, its enlightened.  However since this debate is going nowhere, we can all agree to disagree.


----------



## 48Highlander

I suppose your "someone" is refering to me.  FYI, I'm not in the least religious.  However, I'm really glad to know that we have such "enlightened" members in the CF.  Makes me feel real good knowing that I may some day be deployed alongside someone who doesn't understand the importance of showing respect for the beleifs and customs of others.  Someone who doesn't even understand why refusing to removing his cover during a religious ceremony is an action unbefitting a member of the forces.  Now that's enlightenment for ya.


----------



## buzgo

I thought the whole headress issue had been flogged to death by this point. I still fail to see how, in the case that was originally the start of this thread, the individual in question was disrespectful. He notified his chain that he had 'issues' - that should have solved the problem there. 

There really is no problem with religion in the CF, but I don't know why it needs to be a part of parades (other than Remembrance Day - and its usually multi-faith now,) really, my experience in the regular force has been that its pretty non-existant. I've been ordered to remove headress in order to observe moments of silence when there have been deaths due to training/ops - not too many prayers though.

As long as people keep their beliefs to themselves, everything is cool. I had an evangelical Christian working for me last year, and everyone in the working environment made it very clear that they had no interest in his religion - so he kept it to himself. No problem. The only other topic that really causes conflict at work would be politics, and we don't talk about that either.


----------



## Glorified Ape

signalsguy said:
			
		

> As long as people keep their beliefs to themselves, everything is cool.



I think that sums it up pretty well - if everyone did their own religious/non-religious thing on their _*own*_ time, there wouldn't be a problem. Just my opinion, but it seems ridiculous to me that a secular government institution is conducting religious ceremonies. That's for private citizens to do on their own time, not government employees on the government's time.


----------



## chaos75

I think the last two posts were well made, and I agree with you both, keep religion separate and believe what you want on your own time.

While I bow to the obviously vast military knowledge of 48, I think we should let him become the head recruiter as he seems to know who and what makes a good soldier. All they have to do is follow orders, never question anything, and quote cheesy lines from movies.  I dont think you have to worry about us ever getting deployed together..but if we do ill be sure to come to attention and remove headress in your presence.


----------



## elbarto

I wonder if the Lt(N) who refused the remove headdress command would be willing to apply equal conviction to his values in other areas.   

For example, would it be unreasonable to expect him to be the first in line to volunteer for Base Duty Officer on the 25th of December? After all it _is_ a religious holiday.

Perhaps the actions on the parade would not seem to be as self-serving backed up with other actions â â€œ "walk the walk" as it were.


----------



## Bruce Monkhouse

Good line of thinking,...... of course does not get a long Easter weekend, etc.... ^-^
I hope those above him were thinking that smartly, ...well actually we have a few on this thread that should be in the same boat,...no?


----------



## George Wallace

No more Duties on Long Weekends....Great!   No more Duties on Religous Holidays.....Great!  Good Show Bruce.....Good points....  ;D

GW


----------



## muskrat89

"From April to June, I would be exempt from duty as that is spring. Spring is the time of fertility and new life for Mother Earth, and to work in that time, as opposed to celebrating the rejuvenation of Mother would be highly disrespectful. If, Sergeant-Major, you refuse to accept my point of view in this matter, I will appeal to the CO to have the Canadian Forces' Wiccan High Priest flown in from his earth-hutch in Northern BC, to set this straight....as is my right"


----------



## 48Highlander

I'm just waiting for a Rastafarian to sue the CF for not allowing him to smoke the holy-weed as his religion dictates.

I'm surprised some of the boys in Pet haven't thought of that by now


----------



## the 48th regulator

> As long as people keep their beliefs to themselves, everything is cool.



hehehe aye forty ate, mahn guess what....

tess


----------



## buzgo

Do many people really see religion as an active force in their lives anymore?

To me, Easter is just a long weekend - Christmas is a time for family, that has nothing to do with religion. I have a vague awareness that people might go to church, but honestly, the people in my social circle/family don't go to church and don't overtly practice any particular faith. I'm not baptised, neither is my wife, and our child will not be either - I can accept that people are religious but it really doesn't affect my life in any way.

And before you say "well, you can do the Easter weekend duty" - I'm a shift worker, so it doesn't really matter to me, chances are that I'm working half the stat days anyway!


----------



## LF(CMO)

I've been a bit reluctant to post this.  So if some see it as 'trite', please forgive me.

 When I was in grade 11, we got a new Socials teacher.  He told us that there was "no God", that was just "superstition".  When I told my Dad that at the supper table that evening, he just looked up and said, "let him spend one night in a foxhole with me and he'll know there's a God by morning!" 
 A brief disscription of my Dad's service WW II.  US Army Inf, pt Sgt, Two purple hearts, Bronze Star.  Guadalcanal, New Georgia, New Guinea, Northern Luzon, PI.

 Broke down and cried (in front of the Family) when informed by phone that his Padre Father John Mahoney had past away.  Just some  food thought for all of us that have never experienced 'the mournful cry' of the battlefield!


----------



## KevinB

signalsguy

 That is YOUR right to feel that way - I disagree with your line of thought but who am I.


Heck I don't believe in the chain of command - can I opt out and use the charter to protect me?  :


----------



## buzgo

Its fine to disagree, and I wasn't trying to push any buttons with my post. I really don't know if people are religous. I think that this site takes a very slim slice out of society AND the military so chances are that things are skewed anyway. Really though, is religion a part of peoples lives? Do you think  about it on a daily basis? Its totally foreign to me, thats why I ask.


----------



## KevinB

Well I go to church relatively often - and try to be a good Christian - well most of the time.

 I cant say I am the greatest follower of organised religions for I see failings in most at least from my perspective of the original intent.

For me, do I think about it on a daily basis - yes.


----------



## mo-litia

Hey, just for sh!ts and giggles I sent a link to this post to scott.d@forces.gc.ca

Hope Lt (N) Scott doesn't have a middle initial and it reaches the right person! 

Just doing my bit to spread the word about this site - a bastion of commen sense and good military values (Usually!) to someone who sorely needs a good kick in the pants.. ....   ;D


----------



## Stefan Moxness

I think one thing that is being forgotten here is that the military is not a democracy.  If it were, when your CO wanted to give an order you'd have a vote over whether you agree with doing that or not.  In that respect, the Lt. should have taken off his hat.  If this individual felt that attending prayer was not appropriate then he should have asked to be exempted from the ceremony or to stand off to the side while the prayer itself was happening.  

As far as respect goes the taking off of one's hat is simply that a matter of simple respect for those around you.  Perhaps I don't speak for everyone, but if i go to someone's house for dinner and they don't say grace, I don't freak out and get insulted, it's their traditions, their way of doing things then so be it.  Atheists and agnostics here are arguing saying that people should respect their lack of religious belief and not make him take off his hat.  Bearing that frame of thought in mind, shouldn't those same people show respect for their comrades by taking of their hat.  People have said that saying prayers pisses them off, well what about you not saying prayer, maybe that pisses them off! So don't ramble about respecting someone and then tell them that they should accomodate you and that you needn't accomodate them.  You have joined the Army, there are rules, traditions and rituals to be respected, if you can't stand the heat then get out of the fire, when in Rome do as the Romans (followed by a hundred other quotes stating you respect the traditions and habits of those around you).  

This is unfortunately a big gigantic circle, well if i respect him then he should respect me, so basically we wind up with 1) everyone doing prayers, or 2) no one doing prayer.  Either way not everyone is going to be pleased.  You can't please all the people all the time, it's impossible.  With that in mind, in an organization like the military where discipline, chain of command and tradition are the central players, does this ONE person really have any solid ground to stand on while still being able to truthfully say that he is a soldier?


----------



## buzgo

John Doe said:
			
		

> I think one thing that is being forgotten here is that the military is not a democracy.   If it were, when your CO wanted to give an order you'd have a vote over whether you agree with doing that or not.   In that respect, the Lt. should have taken off his hat.   If this individual felt that attending prayer was not appropriate then he should have asked to be exempted from the ceremony or to stand off to the side while the prayer itself was happening.



From bossi's original post (quoted from the article):

"Lt. (N) Scott anticipated having a problem when he would be required to remove his cap during prayer. He told his superior officer more than a month before the parade but was ordered to attend and remove his headgear when ordered."

I agree that the military is not a democracy, yet I still think that consideration has to be given to Lt (N) Scott in this situation - he raised the issue with his supervisor and was shot down. Who knows why it became an issue, we'll never know. I don't think that this has started us 'sliding down the slippery slope', that started long before this.


----------



## Stefan Moxness

I won't disagree with that, I must've missed that part wher he had brought it up prior. That is definitely ignorant Lt. Scott, but I stand by the fact that, being at the ceremony, him not removing his headdress was disrespectful.  Maybe he was trying to make a point, but I think he could've gone about it another way.  It runs in a similar vein (and I'll probably get reamed for saying this) as the flags being dropped in Newfoundland, to me that was very disrespectful.  They could've gone about it another way without doing something insulting to the rest of the people around them (in Lt. Scott's case his comrades in arms, and for NFld the rest of the country).  My two cents, feel free to rant and argue away against me, it makes for interesting discussion, just please let's keep this forum respectful religious arguments seems to bring flames to everyone's tongues, no need for insulting and irrespectful behaviour.

Cheers and be safe


----------



## LowRider

> For me, do I think about it on a daily basis - yes.



Same here KevinB,i really don't see how people can go through life without thinking about it.


----------



## sigpig

LowRider said:
			
		

> Same here KevinB,i really don't see how people can go through life without thinking about it.



It's quite easy to go through life without thinking about that which doesn't exist and the superstitions that support it. I stopped thinking about Santa Claus and Mother Goose a long time ago. 

On the other hand it's hard not to think about those religious types who feel the need to mock others who don't share their beliefs and spew forth all kinds of hate and loathing. Note the comments ridiculing Wiccans and Rastafarians on this thread alone. Apparently their man-made superstitions and beliefs don't coincide with yours so it is ok to put them down. And I won't even mention some of the comments made towards homosexuals. Nothing like religion for spreading the love...


----------



## LowRider

> On the other hand it's hard not to think about those religious types who feel the need to mock others who don't share their beliefs and spew forth all kinds of hate and loathing.



Just who exactly feels the need to MOCK others and spew hate and loathing?


----------



## sigpig

LowRider said:
			
		

> Just who exactly feels the need to MOCK others and spew hate and loathing?



If you are accusing me of mocking those who put down others beliefs because they are different than their own, and put down homosexuals because their superstitions tell them to, then I am guilty as charged.


----------



## Scott

sigpig said:
			
		

> It's quite easy to go through life without thinking about that which doesn't exist and the superstitions that support it. I stopped thinking about Santa Claus and Mother Goose a long time ago.



We know very well your points of view sigpig. I am seeing some of your comments as borderline trolling, please ease up. As I said, I think we are all well aware where your beliefs, or lack thereof, lie.


----------



## 48Highlander

sigpig said:
			
		

> It's quite easy to go through life without thinking about that which doesn't exist and the superstitions that support it. I stopped thinking about Santa Claus and Mother Goose a long time ago.



And you dare talk about "religious types" putting down others for their beleifs?  What the hell is wrong with you?You just insulted every religion in existance!  Don't you think that's a wee bit hypocritical?

I'd also love to see you explain how my comment was insulting to rastafarians.  And FYI AGAIN I'm not f***ing religious!


----------



## muskrat89

> On the other hand it's hard not to think about those religious types who feel the need to mock others who don't share their beliefs and spew forth all kinds of hate and loathing. Note the comments ridiculing Wiccans and Rastafarians on this thread alone. Apparently their man-made superstitions and beliefs don't coincide with yours so it is ok to put them down. And I won't even mention some of the comments made towards homosexuals. Nothing like religion for spreading the love...



*sigh* 

I made that post tongue in cheek, yes -  not to ridicule Wiccans, but to demonstrate that the CF is supposed to be a functioning, combat-oriented entity. They could not possibly accomodate every imaginable combination, or level, or denomination, or lack thereof -  without sacrificing operational capability. Somewhere, in the midst of all this, there is work that needs to be done....


----------



## LowRider

> I'd also love to see you explain how my comment was insulting to rastafarians.  And FYI AGAIN I'm not f***ing religious!



Insulting?I thought it was funny.


----------



## McG

sigpig said:
			
		

> It's quite easy to go through life without thinking about that which doesn't exist and the superstitions that support it. I stopped thinking about Santa Claus and Mother Goose a long time ago.


While your analogy may be true (that atheists see religious beliefs to be as real as fictitious characters), you have demonstrated a considerable lack of tactfulness in linking religious beliefs to fables that children believe in.   Essentially, you have told everyone on this site with any religious belief that they are not only wrong but childishly foolish.  Your choice of the word "superstition" is also insulting to anyone with any religious belief.

In the future (and this advise goes to anyone that wants to talk religion), don't argue religion as fact.   In you mind it may be fact that there is a god, or in your mind it may be fact that there is no god.   That debate does not belong on this site.   To give this thread some arcs, the debate should not stray from the following:


Does prayer in military functions detract from ones right to not believe?
Does prayer in military functions detract from ones right to believe something different?
Can the military expect everyone to participate in ceremonies that includes any religious observations?
If a soldier was denied the option not to participate, is removing headdress a sign of accepting the beliefs?
Is religion a military tradition?
What is gained/lost from religious observations in military functions?
Does respecting one belief require another to be suppressed, or can everyone be accommodated?



			
				muskrat89 said:
			
		

> the CF is supposed to be a functioning, combat-oriented entity. They could not possibly accomodate every imaginable combination, or level, or denomination, or lack thereof - without sacrificing operational capability.


If not everyone can be accommodated, then perhaps it is time for the military to stop accommodating any beliefs.


----------



## sdimock

No
No
Yes
No
Yes
Perspective
Everyone can be accommodated if tolerance and respect are shown toward everyone

My 2 cents


----------



## KevinB

I knew there was a God when I prayed (devoutly for the first real time) on my jump course...

 There are such things as customs of the service.  Rightly or Wrongly these are customs and as such should be respected regardless of your views - I take shit daily that I have to suck up because I am wearing green (well CADPAT now...).



Does prayer in military functions detract from ones right to not believe?
 No - Its called the ignore feature - I use it daily on people 
Does prayer in military functions detract from ones right to believe something different?
 No - See line 1
Can the military expect everyone to participate in ceremonies that includes any religious observations?
 Yes - It is the ARMY (well Maybe the Navy and Airforce can opt out  ;D )
If a soldier was denied the option not to participate, is removing headdress a sign of accepting the beliefs?
 No - It is a drill movement like and IA.
Is religion a military tradition?
 Yes - 
What is gained/lost from religious observations in military functions?
 Observing the tradtions and customs keep us with our roots as a Christian society
Does respecting one belief require another to be suppressed, or can everyone be accommodated?
 We went to church (when we could) in Afghan 
- I taught a course whiel at the RCR BSL (a Mo Basic) that had a Muslim student - we gave him his prayer times - and the guy had guts - I mean he stopped to pray on a BFT and then run with me to catch up to the rest of his course.

 I think the problem some have with religion is that some "religious" people are very intolerant - I find this is simply due to their own lack of faith/depth of faith.
 IMHO (Kevin up on the SoapBox - Again)


----------



## McG

KevinB said:
			
		

> Observing the tradtions and customs keep us with our roots as a Christian society


Are we really a Christian society?  I think we are more of a secular society but with a plurality of Christians.


----------



## Gunnerlove

I second that.


----------



## winchable

I disagree, perhaps its because I am in the skinny part of the demographic but Canadian society is somewhat ingrained with Christianity.

Perhaps things have changed a little recently but there's still a hint of Christianity wherever you go and this is, as was pointed out, because of the plurality of Christians.
Also, our roots are Christian there is no denying that.
Both the French and the English Colonial built their share of churches etc. when they arrived.


----------



## buzgo

MCG said:
			
		

> Are we really a Christian society?  I think we are more of a secular society but with a plurality of Christians.



I agree with you, but be careful, the last time I mentioned that - things got pretty warm in here!


----------



## Guardian

I'll point out that even though I'm a Christian, I've been on parade for ecumenical ceremonies where Muslim, native, Zoroastrian, and other prayers were offered. I didn't complain or object, because I understood that in a democratic society, if I wish others to respect and acknowledge my beliefs (i.e., public Christian prayer on parade), I had better be prepared to accord the same respect to others.

Respect does not mean acknowledging that competing belief systems are true. As a believing Christian, I by definition cannot believe that another belief system is "the true path." Some other belief systems (i.e., Unitarianism, Buddhism, etc.) might allow their adherents to believe this, but most major religions, like Christianity, do not. And that's fine - respect simply means acknowledgement that in our open society, anyone has the right to believe what they want and express that belief within reasonable limits.

Sigpig and others have every right under the Charter and Constitution to deny there is a God, and although their personal choice saddens me (they really are missing out) I'm prepared to fight for their right to believe that. God (if He exists) will judge - that's not my role. What disturbs me is the increasing intolerance for religion in society may someday mean that Canadians will not be willing to fight for MY right to believe what I want.

Religion purely in the personal domain? Is that really possible? Religious adherents, if they are serious, let their faith inform every aspect of their lives. It will affect their relationships with others at home AND at work. If it is appropriate that the CF encourage and celebrate racial plurality in its ranks - and it is, because it increases our cohesion and recruiting base and, therefore, our effectiveness - then, logically, we should treat religious differences the same way.

Or to put it in blunt terms, we would never advocate something so abhorrent as telling a CF member who is of African, Asian, or native descent to "leave his ethnicity at home." What, should they put on makeup to hide their skin tone? Of course not. So why is it acceptable when talking about, say, evangelical Christians or devout Muslims? As many less religious than myself would probably point out, hiding orientations in closets is something society's trying to move away from. Telling a Muslim or Christian to "hide his religion in the closet" is not progressive by any reasonable definition.  It's marching in the opposite direction.

I'm certain Muslim CF members have been great assets to operations in Afghanistan and elsewhere. Jewish CF members would, I think, add a great deal to a Canadian contingent in the Sinai or on the Golan. We need to take advantage of every asset we have in our arsenal, ladies and gentlemen, because we don't have much left in that arsenal. 

Kudos to MCG for the left and right of arc. It is greatly appreciated.


----------



## Glorified Ape

MCG said:
			
		

> If not everyone can be accommodated, then perhaps it is time for the military to stop accommodating any beliefs.



Hear hear. I don't think it should even be reliant on a condition where everyone isn't accomodated, though. The military is a government institution. If we were in a theocracy, I could understand (though not agree with) the presence of religion in the military. It's not an issue of religion being right or wrong, regardless of denomination, it's an issue of a government institution actively engaging in religious practices, which is to say nothing of requiring participation. 

Human Resources Canada doesn't, to my knowledge, hold religious ceremonies and require their employees to attend. Nor does the Ministry of Transportation, Environment, or Foreign Affairs. Why does the military? Sure, the institution serves a different purpose but this doesn't negate the fact that it is still a government institution, serving as the tool of a secular government. 



> If it is appropriate that the CF encourage and celebrate racial plurality in its ranks - and it is, because it increases our cohesion and recruiting base and, therefore, our effectiveness - then, logically, we should treat religious differences the same way.
> 
> Or to put it in blunt terms, we would never advocate something so abhorrent as telling a CF member who is of African, Asian, or native descent to "leave his ethnicity at home." What, should they put on makeup to hide their skin tone? Of course not. So why is it acceptable when talking about, say, evangelical Christians or devout Muslims? As many less religious than myself would probably point out, hiding orientations in closets is something society's trying to move away from. Telling a Muslim or Christian to "hide his religion in the closet" is not progressive by any reasonable definition.   It's marching in the opposite direction.



Firstly, race is different from religion - people choose their religion, you don't choose your race. No one's asking anyone to hide their religion. You're a Christian, Muslim, Jew, etc. - ok, fine. Why do we have to involve that in the secular work of the military? Treat everyone equally, regardless of religion. That doesn't mean we should involve religion in institutional ceremonies. The military should be neutral - neither endorsing or rejecting, just like politics. If you're liberal, conservative, or NDP - great, that's your decision, your personal choice. I don't expect the military to hold ceremonies endorsing my political party or giving me the opportunity to officially pay homage to my political party using military resources (EDIT: In fact, I believe there's a regulation strictly prohibiting the endorsement of any political party in a professional capacity). That's for me to do on my own time. It would unprofessional to do otherwise.


----------



## Bruce Monkhouse

Quote,
_Human Resources Canada doesn't, to my knowledge, hold religious ceremonies and require their employees to attend. Nor does the Ministry of Transportation, Environment, or Foreign Affairs. Why does the military? Sure, the institution serves a different purpose but this doesn't negate the fact that it is still a government institution, serving as the tool of a secular government. _ 

Pretty simple, from my view, none of those "institutions" might have to order you to what could amount to certain death either.

Scenario.....we put an inmate away for 6 months and he has the right to attend a religous service on Sundays, or have a prayer mat and east marked out in his cell or area,kosher food, etc.,...but you're saying we should take the brave men and women who serve their country with honour and deny them the same rights as INMATES?
...and that IS what you are saying[even if you don't mean to]


----------



## McG

MCG said:
			
		

> If not everyone can be accommodated, then perhaps it is time for the military to stop accommodating any beliefs.


You know, I don't really like this the way it reads.   Perhaps I should rephrase:

If the CF cannot practice all religions (including atheism), then perhaps the CF should stop practicing any religions.  It can and should accommodate individuals to privately practice their own religion, except where such practices would be detrimental to operational needs (ie: not wearing a helmet).

So, we do give everyone the same rights as the inmate of a federal prison.   This includes the right not to attend an institution run religious observance not of one's own.


----------



## Bruce Monkhouse

...and after reading McQ's post I realized the reason I used a 6 month inmate sentence was because I wanted to equate it with a six month tour,  some people here are suggesting that no religious service be available for 6 months to someone on tour but hey, no problem for a dirtbag?


----------



## Glorified Ape

Bruce Monkhouse said:
			
		

> Quote,
> _Human Resources Canada doesn't, to my knowledge, hold religious ceremonies and require their employees to attend. Nor does the Ministry of Transportation, Environment, or Foreign Affairs. Why does the military? Sure, the institution serves a different purpose but this doesn't negate the fact that it is still a government institution, serving as the tool of a secular government. _
> 
> Pretty simple, from my view, none of those "institutions" might have to order you to what could amount to certain death either.



I knew someone was going to argue that.   ;D

I don't see that as necessitating religious endorsement in institutional ceremonies. I don't have a problem with the military making religious ceremonies or counselling available (IE the padres, etc.) to soldiers, but I don't see why ceremonies outside the church should include religion - that's precisely what the base churches and clergy are there for. Providing the instruments for religious observance on the soldier's own time is one thing, bringing it into mandatory-attendance, broader institutional ceremonies is another. 



> Scenario.....we put an inmate away for 6 months and he has the right to attend a religous service on Sundays, or have a prayer mat and east marked out in his cell or area,kosher food, etc.,...but you're saying we should take the brave men and women who serve their country with honour and deny them the same rights as INMATES?
> ...and that IS what you are saying[even if you don't mean to]



Good point. I was a little too broad in my "don't use military resources" bit. 





			
				MCG said:
			
		

> You know, I don't really like this the way it reads.   Perhaps I should rephrase:
> 
> If the CF cannot practice all religions (including atheism), then perhaps the CF should stop practicing any religions.   It can and should accommodate individuals to privately practice their own religion, except where such practices would be detrimental to operational needs (ie: not wearing a helmet).
> 
> So, we do give everyone the same rights as the inmate of a federal prison.   This includes the right not to attend an institution run religious observance not of one's own.



I'm just gonna stop typing (maybe shoulda done that a couple posts ago) and let you argue it since I'm in full agreement and you manage to put it much more articulately and with about 80% fewer words.


----------



## buzgo

That sounds like a good solution. I think thats basically what happens in the reg force now anyway. I don't ever recall a regular unit having a "regimental" church parade...


----------



## Strike

We're all suposed to be in a tolerant society.  I'm sure it's been mentioned in an earlier post but here is my 2 cents.

Rant on.

Tolerance does not just mean allowing someone to practice their own beliefs.  We do that and we risk becoming ignorant as to the basics of said religion.  Tolerance also includes education.  IE: just because a Wiccan may use a knife in their religious practice does not mean they worship Satan, or because your religion may have promised so much room for your people does not necesarily mean everyone else is going to Hell.

What gets me about the article that started off this whole thread was not that this Lt(N) practiced a religion that required him to be absent from the ceremonies of other religions, but that he just did not want to go because of HIS OWN beliefs.  That shows true intolerance.  If he began dating a Jewish girl and was invited to Sinagogue with her family would he refuse to wear a Yamuka?  That shows disrespect and intollerance.

When RMC decided to have representatives of several religious communities attend their Colours parade what would have happened if all the good Christians had walked off the parade when the Native American Elder started smudging with the sweetgrass, or the Amman began his prayers?  This is essentially what we are saying we should do when we agree that the Lt(N) in question was right in not removing his headdress on parade.

Rant off.


----------



## Strike

> we have a situation where the choice to observe a religious custom is removed from the individual!



Int,

I guess I am looking at it in a less pessimistic view.  I see it as a chance to educate ones self in the view that others may hold.

BTW, I am by no means religious.  I do take the time to try and educate myself on the views/religions of others.

I hope you wouldn't think that my views mean that I think we need to eliminate Christmas pageants and such to make those of other faiths feel less threatened.  Quite the opposite.  We should all celebrate our differences.  What I am trying to point our is that, by experiencing these customs (of quite possibly a faith that one might not agree with or believe in) we are not only learning about other cultures, but also showing the greatest for of tolerance.  After all, I think you would be hard pressed to find one battle/war/conflict that did not have religious undertones to it.  Imagine what would happen if we were a little more tolerant -- other than having absolutely no need for a military of course.   

What can I say, I am an idealist.

I guess that's why work, politics, and religion have historically been taboo topics at mess dinners.  ;D


----------



## Armageddon

I for one, have not and will not ever ignore an order to remove my headdress; however, if I were to say, be ordered to bow my head for prayer i would refuse in a second.  I myself am not religious, but I do my best to respect those of all religions. I do take offence when somebody tries to force religion upon me.  I know there are those present that will tell me on here that prayers are here for respect of those who we think of during remembrance day.  If this is the case, why do we not have multiple prayers for those of various faiths that have fallen.  It is bordering on forcing religion upon those who choose not to believe.  Now I know that I will never win this argument with most people on here as it has already been said that "this is the way it is done or has always been done".  But I just want you to think that if you aren't forced to listen to a lack of religious commentary, why are so many of us force to listen to prayers?
  As I said earlier, I do not wish this to become a question of respect for those of us who have fallen before us.  I have no intention of dishonouring them, ever, but I do no believe that I need a religion to honour their sacrifice.


----------



## Radop

Religion is a personal issue but I have noticed a steady increase in our Chapel.  In the mid '90s, there were only 10 regular families that attended it.  Now there are 25 or so regular attending families and 10 others that are semi-regular.  We regularly have 60+ persons at church.


----------



## Radop

signalsguy said:
			
		

> The point is, why even have PRAYER on the parade? I think that the remove headress command really has nothing to do with it. We have separated the church and the state, why not in the military?


I definitely agree with the prayer on pde for rememberance day and momorials such as for the guys who died in Afghanistan.  Depends on what the pde is for.


----------



## George Wallace

I am getting the feeling that some of the people here are arguing against religion and religious traditions in the military simply because they are young and know it all.   Traditions have been developed and passed down through thousands of years.   Just because you don't understand them, doesn't mean that they are obsolete or useless.   Perhaps, you just haven't fully grasped what they mean.

I have heard Senior Officers denounce the practice of Drill as being obsolete on the modern Battlefield.   "We no longer line up in three ranks and fire volleys at our enemy." they say.   Well, Drill does serve a purpose.   It teaches the Soldier many subliminal lessons.   Sure there are some "Tactics" involved in Drill movements, but mostly it teaches the Soldier to work together with his peers as a Unit and able to respond without hesitation to "Familiar Orders".   It teaches small things like balance, but also build confidence.   It gives young leaders the opportunity to practice leadership and instructional skills when they are tasked to give drill.   Good Drill has made Canadian and Commonwealth Soldiers stand out as professionals in the eyes of foreign soldiers.   

Our traditions are our history.   To denounce our traditions because of one's own ignorance is no excuse.   To not respect the traditions of others is an insult.   During our religious services, many of our prayers are in silence.   What you do or do not do in your moment of silence is your business.   This business of not removing headdress is an affront to all sensible people.   It is a slap in the face, made by an ignorant person.   That person, thinking he has made a great step forward in "Human Rights" has just proven himself to be the worlds biggest ass.   Just look at the dissension being proglamated here.

GW


----------



## McG

George Wallace said:
			
		

> I am getting the feeling that some of the people here are arguing against religion and religious traditions in the military simply because they are young and know it all.   Traditions have been developed and passed down through thousands of years.   Just because you don't understand them, doesn't mean that they are obsolete or useless.   Perhaps, you just haven't fully grasped what they mean.
> 
> ...
> 
> Our traditions are our history.   To denounce our traditions because of one's own ignorance is no excuse.   ...


Horses were a Cavalry tradition.   Do you think tradition is a worthy justification to fight with horses instead of tanks?   Tradition is not an argument.   It is a smoke screen for those who cannot defend their position.

You've found a reason that goes beyond tradition to justify drill.   What reason beyond tradition exists for making organizationally chosen religions a part of every soldier's lives?


----------



## George Wallace

MCG said:
			
		

> Horses were a Cavalry tradition.   Do you think tradition is a worthy justification to fight with horses instead of tanks?   Tradition is not an argument.   It is a smoke screen for those who cannot defend their position.



This is a totally illogical and ludicrous rebuttal.   Surely you can come up with something more relevant and thoughtful.



> You've found a reason that goes beyond tradition to justify drill.   What reason beyond tradition exists for making organizationally chosen religions a part of every soldier's lives?



Let's see......Have you or do you ever plan on celebrating Christmas, Thanksgiving, Easter, Lent?   Have you ever celebrated Mardi Gras, Fauschin, Carnival, Halloween?   Do you celebrate or believe in St Patrick, St Barbera, St Michel, or any Patron Saint?   Have you set up a Christmas tree?   Have you celebrated Strove Tuesday, Ash Wednesday, or Dirty Thursday?  Would you go to the Olympics?   If you have answered "Yes" to any of these, then you have proven yourself to be a hypocrite.   All of these have some Religious origin, not necessarily Christian.   

When it comes to traditions, many have their roots in ancient religions.   Many of our Military traditions are also from ancient rites.   You seem to feel that we don't need these traditions.   How can you say that with any conviction, when you have been perpetuating one with every post you make?

Chimo!


----------



## buzgo

My 'celebration' of Christmas hasn't got much to do with any religious belief system, other than the fact that the 25th of December is the day I give gifts to my family and have a big dinner. Easter = long weekend, same with Thanksgiving except that there is turkey. I honestly DO NOT pay any heed to so called religious holidays because they are NOT religous to me or my family and never have been. Besides, I think the vast majority of these days have been absolutely corrupted by corporate greed. My wife and I do not recognize 'Hallmark' holidays. 

I agree that much of what defines us as a Military and specifically as a Canadian organization lie in the traditions that we observe. Religion doesn't need to be a part of it, it should be there if you want it but should never be forced.


----------



## George Wallace

Unfortunately, no matter how much you want to deny it, there are Religious undertones to most of our lives.  Many of our military traditions are religious in origin, some predate Christianity.  In many Combat Arms units there are ceremonies involving the stacking of drums to form an alter.  There are ceremonies to consecrate Unit Colours.  Church Parades are very rare now, but you may find them for the dedication of memorials, or funerals.  There are Remembrance ceremonies.  There is Grace said at the beginning of Mess Dinners and then the toast "God Save the Queen" at the end.  Some want a Military Wedding or the entitlement to a Military Funeral.  They colour our lives.  Traditions are what make us.  Without them we are colourless, dull, meaningless.  Even the air you breath, could be Religious, if you follow some religions and believe in Wind Spirits.

Deny your wife or girlfriend a small gift, flowers, or a dinner out on the fourteenth and see how much religion plays a part in your life.  You are free to go through life and deny its' existence, but it will always be there, whether you like it or not.  St Valentine's Day, although arising more out of a Pagan religion, is still a religious event.

I do agree with you on many points, but I feel that some respect and courtesy towards the beliefs of your comrades is a lot better than the sham that this Officer pulled off.  It no doubt lost him friends and credibility.  Although he did try to get out of the ceremony, I feel he showed bad taste in his actions.  I do agree that his superior, who knew of his beliefs, showed poor leadership qualities in not exempting him and is also "guilty".  I am really peeved at the PC way that this incident played out, and feel the whole thing was wrong--both parties are guilty.

GW


----------



## 2 Cdo

It has been said countless times before me but the bottom line is about showing respect! Many on this site have no respect for anything different or anything that "infringes" on their rights. If you are a serving member and have a problem with removing your headdress for a prayer on a parade you don't deserve to serve. If this "officer" is what we are recruiting these days then I fear for what will become of the Forces.
A little phrase "service before self" seems lost on these idiots, who place self before service. They have shown that they only care for themselves and to hell with anything they don't like. What he was in good need of was a punch in the teeth for being a jackass!
If you don't like what I've said, too f***ing bad. I am also an agnostic person, but I have NO problems showing respect for others beliefs. Maybe some of you can do the same! :threat:


----------



## sigpig

2 Cdo said:
			
		

> If this "officer" is what we are recruiting these days then I fear for what will become of the Forces.



The Lt(N) in question joined the forces in 1978. So he wasn't recruited lately and is certainly no reflection of some kind of problem with Canadian youth or the type of people joining the CF today.


----------



## sigpig

George Wallace said:
			
		

> Deny your wife or girlfriend a small gift, flowers, or a dinner out on the fourteenth and see how much religion plays a part in your life.  You are free to go through life and deny its' existence, but it will always be there, whether you like it or not.  St Valentine's Day, although arising more out of a Pagan religion, is still a religious event.



A religious event? For who? My kids will exchange Valentines cards with school friends, I will get the wife a card and some candies. In my entire life I've never head of anyone making a religious event out of Valentines Day in any way, shape or form.


----------



## sigpig

George Wallace said:
			
		

> I am getting the feeling that some of the people here are arguing against religion and religious traditions in the military simply because they are young and know it all.  Traditions have been developed and passed down through thousands of years.  Just because you don't understand them, doesn't mean that they are obsolete or useless.  Perhaps, you just haven't fully grasped what they mean.



Being young[er] than others doesn't mean you can't understand something they do. Being old[er] than others doesn't mean you can mysteriously grasp concepts that others can't. 

Just because one disagrees with a particular tradition does not mean you don't understand or comprehend it. Institutions don't evolve over the years? Do we still carry on with the same activities and traditions that the army did 100 years ago? 50 years ago? 10 years ago? The usefullness and practicalities of various traditions haven't been questioned over the years? Because something is a 'tradition' doesn't mean it is right now and can't be questioned.

41 year old whipper snapper....


----------



## George Wallace

sigpig said:
			
		

> A religious event? For who? My kids will exchange Valentines cards with school friends, I will get the wife a card and some candies. In my entire life I've never head of anyone making a religious event out of Valentines Day in any way, shape or form.



Let's see.....ST Valentine......Cupid....Just what were their origins?  

GW


----------



## George Wallace

sigpig said:
			
		

> Just because one disagrees with a particular tradition does not mean you don't understand or comprehend it. Institutions don't evolve over the years? Do we still carry on with the same activities and traditions that the army did 100 years ago? 50 years ago? 10 years ago? The usefullness and practicalities of various traditions haven't been questioned over the years? Because something is a 'tradition' doesn't mean it is right now and can't be questioned.
> 
> 41 year old whipper snapper....



So we have no need for Tradition or Heritage?  Did we not form up in three ranks 10, 50 100, 150 years ago?  I suppose you suggest we just form up in a gaggle now?  No need to follow tradition when it comes to drill.  No need to salute senior officers.  No need to pay any form of courtesy to a superior?  While we are at it, why not throw out all our tactics, they haven't changed much over the last hundred years?  They have adapted to new situations and advances in weaponry and defensive devices.  Armour tactics have remained fairly unchanged for the past sixty/seventy years, just the vehicles and weapons have changed.  

Are you sure your statement is valid, Sigpig?

GW


----------



## sigpig

George Wallace said:
			
		

> Let's see.....ST Valentine......Cupid....Just what were their origins?
> 
> GW



Well, lets see.... St Patricks Day. It has the name, but I don't recall a lot of whole lot of religiously significant events around green beer and parades. Because a day was given a name a long time ago, after co-opting it from the pagans, doesn't mean it has any religious significance today. 

This is an example of an event that may have started as a religious one but has become something else over time. Things change, it isn't always for the worse.


----------



## George Wallace

I might sum up this topic as saying that most of us must feel like we are standing in the middle of a desert arguing with a bunch of rocks........Well, I'm going for a drink!

GW


----------



## sigpig

George Wallace said:
			
		

> So we have no need for Tradition or Heritage?  Did we not form up in three ranks 10, 50 100, 150 years ago?  I suppose you suggest we just form up in a gaggle now?  No need to follow tradition when it comes to drill.  No need to salute senior officers.  No need to pay any form of courtesy to a superior?  While we are at it, why not throw out all our tactics, they haven't changed much over the last hundred years?  They have adapted to new situations and advances in weaponry and defensive devices.  Armour tactics have remained fairly unchanged for the past sixty/seventy years, just the vehicles and weapons have changed.
> 
> Are you sure your statement is valid, Sigpig?
> 
> GW



Where did I say we have no need for tradition or heritage? Where did I say don't salute superiors or a parade would be better with troops in a gaggle? I'm looking over my old posts but I can't find those statements. 

What I'm trying to say is that things do change over time and saying you can't change something because that's the way it's always been may not be the right way to look at it. If something still has value and purpose fine, if not why not at least entertain the idea of a change if a valid argument can be made. The armour tactics and tanks  you speak of were a radical change from it's calvary predecessor. Aircraft carriers and air power were a change from the tradition of battleships but they seemed to work out fine. 

There is one tradition I will agree with you on though, I think I'll have a drink too


----------



## sdimock

"value and purpose" vs "valid argument" are subjective to the individuals involved.

For myself I am not about to give up the Engineers prayer.

Chimo


----------



## muskrat89

I think George's concern is that for some of us, the line gets very murky regarding "it infringes on my rights" versus "I don't feel like doing it". That's why some of us (Me, at least) are so possessive about some of these topics.

As a young Gunner, I was not a regular Church-goer. Most of us probably "didn't feel" like going to Church parades. We went anyway. It didn't kill any of us, any more than marching to lunch, or polishing our boots. Granted, in our Unit, there was not the diversity of cultures and/or religions (or lack thereof) that there seems to be today. My perception is that now, it would be very easy to say "It's against my rights to force me to do this" - when in reality, the soldier is not being horribly wronged, but simply doesn't want to do it. I've been out awhile, and maybe I am mis-reading the issue... If someone is as fervantly agnostic or Buddhist, with the same degree that some are Christian, then of course there should be allowances made out of respect.

I guess, to understand "our" point of view - we see the erosions of traditions as the beginning of the erosion of military values, principles, etc - whether they are "religious traditions" or otherwise. The argument has been made about many impractical, old traditions falling by the wayside, and I agree. The continuance of a tradition should be evaluated on practicality and value to the soldiers and/or Unit - not the Human Rights Commission.


----------



## gunner56

14 Pages...my,my,how we do ramble on.Why not agree to disagree and get on with life?I go to church just about every week,but I don't feel as though that gives me the right to drag anybody else with me.Tell your CO that you don't feel that you should have to attend if it contradicts your beliefs(or lack thereof),and be done with it.It's neither a federal crime,nor a military crime to not go,is it?


----------



## Torlyn

gunner56 said:
			
		

> 14 Pages...my,my,how we do ramble on.Why not agree to disagree and get on with life?I go to church just about every week,but I don't feel as though that gives me the right to drag anybody else with me.Tell your CO that you don't feel that you should have to attend if it contradicts your beliefs(or lack thereof),and be done with it.It's neither a federal crime,nor a military crime to not go,is it?



Did you *READ* any of those 14 pages???

T


----------



## buzgo

Maybe a whole new thread should be started on "the erosion of tradition in the CF."

I agree that this seems to have started going in circles...


----------



## gunner56

I haven't read all of the posts,T,but I have read enough to get the general idea.Ya see,I've got a wife,6 kids,2 grandkids,1 more on the way.So,I guess I've got too much life goin' on to spend all my time reading every post in full detail.I skimmed enough to figure it out...y'all are goin' in circles,dontcha think?


----------



## George Wallace

gunner56 said:
			
		

> I haven't read all of the posts,T,but I have read enough to get the general idea.Ya see,I've got a wife,6 kids,2 grandkids,1 more on the way.So,I guess I've got too much life goin' on to spend all my time reading every post in full detail.I skimmed enough to figure it out...y'all are goin' in circles,dontcha think?



That attitude is a great way to stick your foot in your mouth... If you can't be bothered to read the posts, your comments most likely won't fall into context.....

However, you are right....this has gone in a circle....several times............

GW


----------



## McG

George Wallace said:
			
		

> When it comes to traditions, many have their roots in ancient religions.  Many of our Military traditions are also from ancient rites.  You seem to feel that we don't need these traditions.


No.  I have not said that, nor have I suggested that.  Traditions must be assessed on their individual merits (something you seem unwilling to do).  We cannot say all traditions are good and should be kept, and we cannot say that all traditions are bad and should be done away with.  This was precisely the point of my allusion to the cavalry tradition.  If it were kept solely for being a tradition, instead of evaluated against the ineffectiveness of horses against machine guns, artillery, and massed rifle fire, then we might still have been dying on horses instead of fighting in armoured vehicles.

You also fail to acknowledge that many traditions that were religious in origin are no longer religious.



			
				George Wallace said:
			
		

> Let's see......Have you or do you ever plan on celebrating Christmas, Thanksgiving, Easter, Lent?  Have you ever celebrated Mardi Gras, Fauschin, Carnival, Halloween?  Do you celebrate or believe in St Patrick, St Barbera, St Michel, or any Patron Saint?  Have you set up a Christmas tree?  Have you celebrated Strove Tuesday, Ash Wednesday, or Dirty Thursday? Would you go to the Olympics?  If you have answered "Yes" to any of these, then you have proven yourself to be a hypocrite.  All of these have some Religious origin, not necessarily Christian.


Yes, these have religious origins, but they can all be celebrated in a secular fashion.  Even Christmas, Easter, and Thanksgiving can be secular celebrations (and to many it would not make a difference if you renamed them as â Å“the great winter celebration of Friends and Familyâ ?, â Å“The Spring Celebration of Familyâ ?, and â Å“The Fall Celebration of Familyâ ?).  I realize this may be anathema to anyone of Christian faith, but Santa Clause and the Easter Bunny have been elevated above their holidays' religious roots in modern pop culture.  

. . . but, if it makes you feel better, I have volunteered for duty the past two Christmas holidays.



			
				George Wallace said:
			
		

> Unfortunately, no matter how much you want to deny it, there are Religious undertones to most of our lives. Many of our military traditions are religious in origin, some predate Christianity.  . . .
> 
> Deny your wife or girlfriend a small gift, flowers, or a dinner out on the fourteenth and see how much religion plays a part in your life. You are free to go through life and deny its' existence, but it will always be there, whether you like it or not. St Valentine's Day, although arising more out of a Pagan religion, is still a religious event.


Again, religious origin does not mean that a practice is still religious.



			
				George Wallace said:
			
		

> ... I feel that some respect and courtesy towards the beliefs of your comrades is a lot better than the sham that this Officer pulled off. ... Although he did try to get out of the ceremony, I feel he showed bad taste in his actions. I do agree that his superior, who knew of his beliefs, showed poor leadership qualities in not exempting him and is also "guilty". I am really peeved at the PC way that this incident played out, and feel the whole thing was wrong--both parties are guilty.


Agreed.  However, what is the long term solution?  I do not think that having an opt-out for parades is the way to go.  The alternative is for the military to stop introducing religion into ceremony.  



			
				George Wallace said:
			
		

> So we have no need for Tradition or Heritage? Did we not form up in three ranks 10, 50 100, 150 years ago? I suppose you suggest we just form up in a gaggle now? No need to follow tradition when it comes to drill. No need to salute senior officers. No need to pay any form of courtesy to a superior? While we are at it, why not throw out all our tactics, they haven't changed much over the last hundred years?


Once again, you highlight your inability to view specific arguments against a specific tradition.  To you they are all equal and unassailable.  We still form into ranks and do drill because it teaches discipline and reflective obedience to lawful command.  We still salute because it reinforces the importance of the chain of command.  We do not ride into battle on horses because we would be ineffective and die.  We do not fight in three ranks because we would be ineffective and die.  Note that I did not have to refer to anything as â Å“traditionâ ? to justify or dispute its practice.  Each tradition must be considered on its own merits.



			
				muskrat89 said:
			
		

> I guess, to understand "our" point of view - we see the erosions of traditions as the beginning of the erosion of military values, principles, etc - whether they are "religious traditions" or otherwise. The argument has been made about many impractical, old traditions falling by the wayside, and I agree. The continuance of a tradition should be evaluated on practicality and value to the soldiers and/or Unit - not the Human Rights Commission.


Agreed, but when the CoC is not evaluating those traditions on merit, what other course is open to a soldier?  Perhaps, If our Lt(N) had chosen to redress instead he would have found more sympathy from the rest of us.


----------



## George Wallace

I really don't know what your fixation with Cavalry Traditions and us going into battle with Horses is.  We have maintained our Cavalry Traditions, our Cavalry "TACTICS", etc and like other trades we have progressed from the Horse and become mechanized......what is your point?

GW


----------



## McG

That many argued we should keep horses because they were a "tradition."  If you are going to call something "tradition" and end your argument there, then you may as well accept your argument is no stronger than that used by those who wrongly wanted to continue to fight from horses.

Can you answer my previous question:


			
				MCG said:
			
		

> What reason beyond "tradition" exists for making organizationally chosen religions a part of every soldier's lives?


----------



## George Wallace

MCG said:
			
		

> That many argued we should keep horses because they were a "tradition." If you are going to call something "tradition" and end your argument there, then you may as well accept your argument is no stronger than that used by those who wrongly wanted to continue to fight from horses.



So following your logic, the LAV is a "tradition"?    ???

GW

To answer your question:  Discipline, Tolerance, Knowledge.  This could be a means to pass on Knowledge to our young soldiers of what to face in the world.  How to be tolerant and respect the rights and differences of others, not to reject them and walk away because they don't see any value in anything other than their own personal needs.  The "Me" Generation cares only for themselves and cares little if at all for anyone elses rights or opinions.  

You talk of being selective of what traditions we keep and which ones we get rid of.  Fine, I agree; but what gives you the right to have the final say?  Again, just because you don't see any reason for something, through lack of knowledge or whatever, doesn't mean that it isn't there for a damn good reason.  

Now back to horses.......


----------



## aesop081

Never mind the horses...i can't beleive that you and McG are still going at it !!!

The CEO of IVI must be rolling in it by now ............. ;D


----------



## George Wallace

I actually think we are on common ground, but are arguing the useless stuff now.......How many pages can we stretch this to?  

Gw


----------



## the 48th regulator

Here is something to help mark off the days for "Santa Day"  And "Search for the eggs in the grass left behind by the bunny rabbit day"

https://lightning.he.net/~atheists/catalogue/shop/prod5904.php

Godless heathens.....

tess


----------



## McG

George Wallace said:
			
		

> So following your logic, the LAV is a "tradition"?   ???


I wouldn't say so.   It was the Cavalry itself that claimed their tradition was on horses.



			
				George Wallace said:
			
		

> You talk of being selective of what traditions we keep and which ones we get rid of. Fine, I agree; but what gives you the right to have the final say?


I don't claim to have the final say.   Just trying to get past the label "tradition" and on to something of substance like:


			
				George Wallace said:
			
		

> To answer your question: Discipline, Tolerance, Knowledge. This could be a means to pass on Knowledge to our young soldiers of what to face in the world. How to be tolerant and respect the rights and differences of others, not to reject them and walk away because they don't see any value in anything other than their own personal needs. The "Me" Generation cares only for themselves and cares little if at all for anyone elses rights or opinions.


I think Discipline is covered through drill, saluting, & routine; tolerance through SHARP, Diversity trg, and ethics trg; and knowledge through mission specific cultural training.

However, I do think religion has a place in the military.   It is not at mess dinners, church parades, or other parades.   It is through interaction with elements external to the military (a "when in Rome" sort of thing).   When a guest in a community, it is fair to expect members to show respect for beliefs of that community.   If your unit is doing a freedom of the city parade and the municipality wants to include prayer, then we should respect that wish of our hosts.   The same thing would apply to contingents overseas.

Aside form those acts of community, I do not think there should be any compulsory religious observance in the military.


----------



## mainerjohnthomas

Before I start, let me just say that I am a practicing Asatru (Norse Pagan), and was during my military service.  I think that the refusal to remove the cap was an act of disrespect.  Military cermonials serve a military purpose.  Drill, banners, cap badges, dress uniforms, pipers, and padre's, all of them are seen by the civilian as being of no utility.  That is BS.  Esprit de corps, or knowing that you are part of something greater than yourself, an Army, a band of brothers united in defence of our homeland.  Our ceremonials bind us together, make of us a single people, and unify us with those who have gone before, especially those who fell in service.  As an Asatru I felt honoured to participate in regimental ceremonials (and yes I thought drill was a pain in the ass after basic, we all do), especially the Remembrance Ceremony.  I see no problem as an Asatru with Padres (of whatever faith) leading the prayers to remember the fallen, honouring our dead is something that all service men and women can find common cause in.  Does it matter to me if a Rabbi, a Catholic Priest or Sunni Immam is leading the prayer?  No, I am paying homage to those who have gone before, not the man at the podium, or the entity he is invoking.  Do I remove my hat for prayer, hell, I remove my hat in the mess.  It is about respect, it is about tradition, it is about discipline.  You follow your orders, show respect for the traditions of your service.  I will not pray to any gods but my own, but I will show respect for the beleifs of others.  If I can show respect for a Prime Minister who lead the charge to gut the Canadian Armed Forces during his tenure as Minister of Finnance, then I don't see how it's too much to ask somone to doff their cap on parade during a prayer.  We are here to defend democracy, not to practice it.


----------



## Infanteer

mainerjohnthomas said:
			
		

> Before I start, let me just say that I am a practicing Asatru (Norse Pagan)



Does this mean you believe in Valhalla?


----------



## mainerjohnthomas

Valhalla, the hall of heroes.   Yes I beleive that the souls of the honoured dead, the warriors who have given their all without flinching will be together in Odin's hall.   Do I think it resembles a fur clad Jr Ranks mess as described in the saga's? I doubt it.   One day I will find out for certain, but beyond doubt I expect to greet my Grandfather, great uncles, many of the friends I made in the service, and thier foes along side them.   If you examine half the centotaphs closely, you see a female angel carrying a dead soldier unto heaven.   That "angel" is a Valkyrie, and the heaven she carries that soldier to is Valhalla.   Courage, tenacity, loyalty, fidelity, honour, the virtues Odin, not so out of place in the CF.


----------



## Infanteer

Interesting.

I wasn't trying to poke fun, I was honestly asking (which I figured you understood with your response).

Sounds good to me - since most religious beliefs are basically human spirituality combined with individual faith, your interpretation of an afterlife seems as solid as any others.

Cheers,

Infanteer


----------



## Sailing Instructor

This incident is almost a parody of Immanuel Kant's essay _An answer to the question 'what is enlightenment?'_.  In the essay, he mentions persons are often told _don't argue!_ 

Kant's examples?  "_Don't argue!_ The officer says: Don't argue, get on parade!...The clergyman: Don't argue, believe!"  And Kant's solution to the following orders & arguing debate is rather quite simple (& agreeable to me): "_Argue_ as much as you like, and about whatever you like, _but obey!_"

As I see that maxim applying to this case, the lieutenant should have had explicit permission to not remove headdress when the order was said.  There is a damned obvious ready-made solution to this problem, which can be done with adept skill in the art of calling drill commands: the order ought to have gone as follows: [name Lt Scott's position here] STAND FAST, REMAINDER REMOVE--HEADDRESS

What do you know, at least the drill bible gives the commander a clear path to religious tolerance.  Sensible, considering drill is the formal summation of how soldiers conduct themselves.

PS. As I understand it, _agnosticism_ is not a belief, but more akin to a state of uncertainty with regard to the existance of God.  _Atheism_, on the other hand, is a belief that there is no God.  If Lt Scott is an atheist, the order offended his beliefs, whereas if he is an agnostic, he had no beliefs which could have been offended.  The court & he seem to have differing opinions on this, which is rather detrimental to having made a decision.

PPS.  Did the lieutenant not salute as he boarded ships?  That salute originating, of course, from paying respect to the crucifix that was present on the AX (quarterdeck).


----------



## truecanadian

are there any muslims in the canadian army and are there any muslim
chaplins there and also do you provide halal meals in the army


----------



## Edward Campbell

Serving soldiers will know more about how religious rules are accommodated today; I can tell you that, many years (decades) back, rabbis issued a _decree_ which allowed (still allows?) Jewish soldiers to ignore dietary laws when the exigencies of the service demanded.

Also, this may help, a bit:



> Page 4 - 5, Maple Leaf, 14 January 2004, Vol. 7 No. 01
> 
> page 4 - 5, La feuille d'érable, Le 14 janvier 2004, Vol. 7 No. 01
> 
> When the crescent meets the cross
> By Maj Tony Keene
> 
> BORDEN, Ont. â â€ The first non-Christian to serve as a chaplain in the CF since the Second World War is about to take his place in the ranks. And Captain Suleyman Demiray says, when it comes to doing his job in uniform, the matter of individual faith is not the main issue.
> 
> â Å“The number of Muslims in Canada, or in the Forces, is largely irrelevant, because my job is to minister to all,â ? he says. â Å“So I'm not expecting a mosque,and Friday prayers.â ?
> 
> Capt Demiray recently graduated from the CF Chaplain School and Centre at CFB Borden. He came to Canada from Turkey 10 years ago, and stepped forward when the Forces issued a call for non-traditional faiths to join the chaplaincy.
> 
> â Å“Am I a pioneer? Well, I am the first and I'm very aware of the responsibility I face. I prepared myself for it,â ? he says. â Å“There is no role model for me on this journey. But I am part of a group I trust, and myfellow chaplains encourage me.â ?
> 
> Although Muslims usually remove their footwear in order to pray, Capt Demiray admits the length of time needed to remove and replace high laced combat boots has required some modification.â Å“I only had five minutes to pray between classes, so I kept my boots on,â ? he said.â Å“I brought my own prayer rug with me, though.â ?
> 
> His clear desire to minister to all was echoed by two of his classmates, themselves also pioneers. Capt Greg Costen, from Alberta, is a minister inthe Evangelical Free Church of Canada, another first for the military chaplaincy. And Capt Patrick Lublink is an officer in the Salvation Army. There has not been a Salvation Army officer in the Regular Force Chaplain branch since the Second World War, although at least one other has served in the Reserve Force.
> 
> â Å“My church is non-liturgical, and we have a different form of governance than many other churches,â ? says Capt Costen. â Å“But again, that is not relevant because I bring no agenda here except to help all those who ask for it. I also think the Forces deserve kudos for this, for taking thisstep forward.â ?
> 
> In the past, it had to be shown that there were at least 500 members of a particular faith in the CF before a chaplain of that faith could be engaged. Now, the CF has opened the doors wider in order to have the chaplaincy better reflect the scope of society today.
> 
> â Å“I felt the call of the ministry for years, and I wanted to serve God,â ? says Capt Lublink, who served in the CF for 22 years before leaving to become a Salvationist minister. â Å“When I learned the regulations had been changed, it was a dream come true. I feel very fulfilled.â ?
> 
> The graduation of these three new chaplains heralds changes for the chaplain branch itself. Formerly made up entirely of mainstream Christian ministers, it features a Maltese cross on its hat badge. However, that will soon change. The Muslim badge will have a Crescent, and there are plans for one featuring a Star of David, although the basic design of the badge will not change. This is similar to what was done during the Second World War, for rabbis and chaplains of other faiths. As well, the branch march was recently changed from â Å“Onward Christian Soldiersâ ? to â Å“Ode to Joyâ ?, the main theme of Beethoven's Ninth Symphony, which stresses the coming brotherhoodof mankind.
> 
> â Å“The chaplaincy is working on these issues right now,â ? says Capt Costen.â Å“At the school the motto is Omnibus Ministrare, and we truly believe in ministering to all.â ?
> 
> â Å“Ministering to everyone was the vision of the founder of the Salvation Army,â ? says Capt Lublink. â Å“So I know why we are here. The doors must always be open.â ? As the first Muslim chaplain prepares to join the ranks of those serving on the front line of faith in the CF, Islam is becoming the fast-growing religion in Canada. Muslims today represent two percent of the population, or close to 600 000 people, almost double the figure of 10 years ago.


----------



## a_majoor

I have trained soldiers from many different religions, including Islamic, Jewish, Sikh, Hindu and even one person who identified herself as a Wiccan.

As far as possible, the CF will accommodate the religious and dietary needs of its members, but it is also a two way street, service members need to carry out their tasks, so hair and beards must be short enough to wear protective gear like helmets and gas masks, members must be physically fit and available 24/7 on operations and so on. 

There are very few Rabbis in the CF, only one Iman and no Wiccan priests, so the CF Chaplains will attempt to minister to your religious and spiritual needs, and can always request "outside" assistence for specific purposes.

I hope this helps, and good luck if you are considering becoming a service member.


----------



## truecanadian

Dear a_majoor,
  Sir thankyou for your response,i would just like to ask you that when you were in the military wer ethere any muslims with you,i hope that there would be as canada has a large number of muslims.NO PRoblem with the beard and the hair.i personally dont the like the beard.


----------



## John Nayduk

I can't speak for others but religion hasn't really been a factor.  If someone identifies themselves as needing a certain diet or whatever, we try to accommodate as much as possible.


----------



## Haggis

On Roto 13 in Bosnia I had two Muslim soldiers in my camp.  As my tour was during Ramadan, the chain of command sought them out as advisors on how to not unduly offend the locals during the holy month.

Not only was their advice invaluable, but their participation in ops during Ramadan alongside Bosniac police helped us to avoid many faux pas as well.


----------



## winchable

truecanadian;

Until recently I was in the Navy(reserve) and I am a Muslim.
I only met a few other Muslims during my short time in the army and the navy and we were always very close.
Staff were always accomodating, we were provided halal meals but you must request them of course!
And they were understanding of prayer times (they also were very helpful when it came to making it up for Fajr and Shorook ;D )

The Chaplains even though they're Christian know about all religions and you could talk to them about any faith related questions you have (don't expect them to help you in reciting your Qur'an but they will 'get' you)

Ramadan; Allah is understanding and compassionate when it comes to these things (he does not want to make it impossible) so if you must break the fast because you are in extreme heat running around and sweating and nearly dead he will forgive you of course and understand (fasting is important but so is being alive)
Fast when you can and make up for your broken days at the end of the month and by feeding the poor etc.
Don't forget you are also exempt when you're travelling!

The beard isn't a "Must have" the prophet (pbuh) himself only stated it was "desirable" that a man should have a long beard (don't quote me on that however) but it seems you don't like it anyway! Personally I grow one whenever I can, now that I'm no longer serving I keep mine!

The only part that really identifies you as a Muslim when you're training are prayer times, which only take a few minutes and can be done in private so even then they don't have to be a big factor.
If you have a few other Muslims serving with you it makes it easier as you can pray together and do the Call to prayer if someone can sing.
You'll find that everyone mushes together at the end anyway!

But be proud nonetheless brother and endeavour to stay the course of a good Muslim but remember that, as I said, Allah is forgiving and very understanding so don't panic when you can't meet the exact needs of prayer times and fasting.
The CF as a whole is very, very good about religion so you should have absolutely NO problems in that regard and you shouldn't let it stop you from applying and serving!

Good Luck and Ma'salaama


----------



## jbeach95

There are several Muslims in my unit, probably about a dozen or so.


----------



## Trinity

a_majoor said:
			
		

> There are very few Rabbis in the CF, only one Iman and no Wiccan priests, so the CF Chaplains will attempt to minister to your religious and spiritual needs, and can always request "outside" assistence for specific purposes.



REALLY?  We have Rabbis?  (not trying to show you up... just for info)

From the newest version of the  chaplains manual 



> Chapter 11 -  28. The Chaplain Branch has undergone and continues to undergo significant transformation. One of the most significant developments was the enrollment of the CF's first Muslim chaplain in 2003, and endorsement in 2004 of the first Jewish Chaplain applicants since the end of WWII.



I didn't know of any Rabbis.  But I am aware of one coming in to the army.  

I have dealt with muslims and issues on many occasions.  The military will provide spiritual care within the needs of your
denomination.  If you needed an Iman (hope I spelled that right) for guidance one should be provided upon request.
But the chaplains are knowledgeable and do have many resources to help.

(If you do know a Rabbi in the Army, then please let me know. I would be most happy)


----------



## TCBF

Units can order "Mom's Own Meals", a US commercial meal pack that is Halal/Kosher, in leiu of IMPs.  They are a nice change as well.

Recce Sqn LdSH(RC) has just returned from 6 mos in Kabul.  One of their Troop Leaders is a Muslim, as is another Strat Officer on the tour.

By all means, join up.  It's your country, and it's your Army too.

Tom


----------



## Strike

There is a Captain in Petawawa that is in the processes of organizing a Muslim association within both the base and the local community so that everyone can get see who's who in and around the area.

WRT hallal (sp?) meals, I'm not sure about eating in the locals messes (obviously a base located near a large metropolitan centre would have a better ability for this than a more remote location). There are hard rations available when on exercise and on deployments.   I have seen them and they are pretty robust.   You are less likely to get bored eating those than the rest of us would eating the IMPs.


----------



## Gunner98

DND/CF has a publications entitled Religions in Canada which discusses various topics related to each recognized relgion in Canada.   It serves as a comprehensive guide for supervisors, it can be viewed on the Internet @:

http://www.forces.gc.ca/hr/religions/engraph/religions00_e.asp


----------



## a_majoor

Trinity said:
			
		

> REALLY?  We have Rabbis?  (not trying to show you up... just for info)
> 
> From the newest version of the  chaplains manual
> 
> I didn't know of any Rabbis.  But I am aware of one coming in to the army.
> 
> I have dealt with muslims and issues on many occasions.  The military will provide spiritual care within the needs of your denomination.  If you needed an Iman (hope I spelled that right) for guidance one should be provided upon request.
> 
> But the chaplains are knowledgeable and do have many resources to help.
> 
> (If you do know a Rabbi in the Army, then please let me know. I would be most happy)



I may have posted a bit out of turn here; I remembered hearing the part about the CF accepting applicants, and may have (wrongly) assumed they are already serving at this point in time. Sorry for any confusion this may have caused.


----------



## Trinity

If it makes you feel any better.

Takes just as long for a Chaplain to enrol than anyone else....  :


----------



## the 48th regulator

Hey Trinity,

I would be afraid to give them pushups though....all they have to do is talk tot he great RSM of the Universe and I will lie in purgatory to extras...

I remember many years of us doing training whether I taught on course or even within the regiment.  There would be many people who do to religion were restricted on what they ate.  But the meal line was what it was, and all they were able to eat were copious amounts of salad, breads and fruit.  I felt bad, really, as the days work can put a drain on you

I did eventually see the change, where at the beginning of the courses peoples dietry needs were taken down, and measures made to provide proper meals.  

Mind you I( tried to convince them to add Haggis to the IMP's, saying it was a regimental thingy and that didn't fly, so I did not bother with the fish on Friday request.


dileas

tess


----------



## Lost_Warrior

> As far as possible, the CF will accommodate the religious and dietary needs of its members, but it is also a two way street, service members need to carry out their tasks, so hair and beards must be short enough to wear protective gear like helmets and gas masks, members must be physically fit and available 24/7 on operations and so on.



Not necessairly.  This summer in Meaford, I saw a soldier with a beard down to his chest and wearing a purple turbin (sp?)...so dress regs don't always apply.


----------



## winchable

There are dress regs for Sikhs so they can have long beards and turbans I think.

And you won't find many Muslims decked out in a proper turban.


----------



## DSB

Two Cents are as follows;

We have several Muslim members in our unit.  Most are not the strict 'orthodox' type.  One fella a few years back kept a trimmed beard, maintained a strict diet, and prayer 5 times a day.  The unit was very understanding of his needs and worked hard to address them.  I believe this was before kosser and halal meals.  The unit would instead provide money to cover the cost of supplmentry meals that the troop would go out and get himself.  They did this with other vegetarian members, ( sick, vegan, etc...).  

On a side note:
I've been in for a bit and and being a vegetarian, (I'm a religious Sikh, and no I'm not the guy with the purple turban from meaford), I can tell you eating mac and cheese for breakfast, lunch, and dinner for half a dozen years worth of ex's sucks.  


I think it comes down to a happy solider is a good solider.  These are very small accommodations.  Showing a touch of respect and understanding can make a world of difference to a solider.  The face of Canada is always changing and the CF needs to be somewhat adaptable.

DSB


----------



## the 48th regulator

amen to that.

I would go nuts too if all I had was the mac and cheese.

Canadian society is reflecting the the people who immigrate here, I beleive the forces should start to change to accommodate that.

I can wait for Pasta Fasul to be introduced to the IMP's

Pasta Fasul

1 cup dry great northern beans or white beans
1 16 ounce can Italian plum tomatoes
2 medium carrots, chopped
1 medium onion, chopped
dash of garlic salt to taste
3 cups beef broth or beef bouillon
2 cloves garlic, minced
1 teaspoon dried basil, crushed
1 teaspoon sugar
salt and freshly ground pepper to taste
1/2 cup elbow macaroni

Rinse beans thoroughly, place in a large pot and cover with cold water. Bring to a boil for one minute, shut off the heat, cover and let stand for 1 hour, then drain. Chop tomatoes and stir in with juice, carrots, onion, beef broth, sugar, salt, pepper, garlic, garlic salt, salt and pepper and basil. Cover and simmer about 1 1/2 hours or until beans are tender. Cook uncovered for another 1/2 hr to thicken. Mash beans slightly. Bring to broiling; stir in pasta. Cook uncovered, just until pasta is tender al dente. Serve immediately. Makes 4 main dishes or 8 side dishes. Serve with grated Romano cheese​


----------



## DSB

Che said:
			
		

> There are dress regs for Sikhs so they can have long beards and turbans I think.



Its all in the dress regs, turbans and beards are allowed.  Examples of how everything should look is there in black in white.  Both should not interfer with the gas mask and helmet use.


DSB


----------



## chrisf

DSB said:
			
		

> Its all in the dress regs, turbans and beards are allowed.   Examples of how everything should look is there in black in white.   Both should not interfer with the gas mask and helmet use.



Isn't there an issued turban?


----------



## DSB

Just a Sig Op said:
			
		

> Isn't there an issued turban?



Yes, 

Army
-Rifle green,(it takes a long time to get in the system).
-Olive drab for the field, (i only got this issued once, and that was cause my Sect Comd on my JNCO worked hard on it)Usually you just wait till the Rifle green fads, (due to the sun) and use it in the field.  My unit will let me buy a turban and submit a receipt.


Officers wear ribbons on their turbans, I think MPS would do that as well.  Not sure about Navy and airforce, but i do know that turbaned Sikhs have been in both branches.

DSB


----------



## m410

DSB said:
			
		

> -Olive drab for the field, (i only got this issued once, and that was cause my Sect Comd on my JNCO worked hard on it)Usually you just wait till the Rifle green fads, (due to the sun) and use it in the field.  My unit will let me buy a turban and submit a receipt.


Coming soon in CADPAT?


----------



## Trinity

Easily done if you want...

The system may not have any, but I know someone who will make
up a few for you as long as you provide a sample.

PM if you're interested.


----------



## Infanteer

I changed the title to keep this one current - it is a good thread; some real interesting stuff here.

DSB, do you know if our regulations similar to Indian regulations?  I remember PBI talking about how both Hindu and Sikh observances were dealt with in the Indian Army and it seemed pretty reasonable (balancing personal faith with operational necessity).

Just curious to know if we took the lead from them or if ours are different.

Cheers,
Infanteer


----------



## DSB

Infanteer said:
			
		

> I changed the title to keep this one current - it is a good thread; some real interesting stuff here.
> 
> DSB, do you know if our regulations similar to Indian regulations?   I remember PBI talking about how both Hindu and Sikh observances were dealt with in the Indian Army and it seemed pretty reasonable (balancing personal faith with operational necessity).
> 
> Just curious to know if we took the lead from them or if ours are different.
> 
> Cheers,
> Infanteer



Heres how I see it;

1699 - Khalsa implemented by Siri Guru Gobind Singh, (this is when Sikhs get their religious 'uniform')
1846 - end of the first Anglo-Sikh war (essentiallythe end of the Sikh State)
1846 - 1st Sikh Regiment raised (first time Regiments fight for the crown)
1849 - complete annexation of Punjab

So Sikh military identity was instilledlong before an Indian Identity was formed.  The Sikhs fought for the Crown (hence, had regs in place ) long before the concept of a Sub-Continent identity  The Indian forces adopted the British standards, mind you Sikhs do not wear helmets over their.  They actually put helmet netting and scrim on their turbans.


They still make up a huge amount of the Indianforce, especially when you consider they are less than 2 percent of the popultion, (in Canada Sikhs make up about 1 percent of the population  Its a minority group that had 83 005 killed and 109 045 wounded in the two World Wars. 

DSB


----------



## a_majoor

The new Pope, like John Paul II before him, has warned against the "tyrrany of relativism". We as soldiers should understand this, since military doctrine is (or should be) like the examples in the article below; a set of principles that evolve slowly with time and experience, and that we mess with at our own risk.



> *The Pope Is Still Catholic*
> Gallup doesn't sit in the chair of St. Peter. Thank Heaven!
> 
> By Ned Rice
> 
> Last week's announcement of a new pope â â€ made maddeningly more difficult by the fact that St. Peter's Basilica was declared a "smoke-free zone" last year â â€ was greeted worldwide with groans of disapproval by the usual secularists, leftists, and other non-Catholics. Which is to say, mostly those whose lives were least likely to be affected, like Maureen Dowd. Oh, and Andrew Sullivan was "appalled" by Josef Ratzinger's selection as the new pope. As a frequent admirer of Sullivan's work I am appalled at Andrew's state of appallment â â€ and I'm not one to make up words like "appallment" lightly. I immediately assumed that Andrew's beef with the new pope concerns his favorite issue: gay marriage. But he assures us that that's not the case. Surprising, as a truly liberal Holy Father might have moved the Church towards the proverbial, doctrinal hat trick: allowing actively gay men to be Catholics, then ordaining them as priests, and then allowing them to marry their male partners. There's a name for churches that condone that sort of thing, and that name is "Episcopalian.â ?
> 
> It's striking how those who seem most upset that the Church hasn't taken the opportunity of a papal change to set a more liberal course on social issues are the same people who (in the realm of politics) favor a Constitution that's considerably more open to creative interpretation with regard to these same issues. Well, either striking or utterly, hellishly predictable.
> 
> In either case,* at issue here is the notion of a fixed set of standards versus the ebb and flow of public opinion over the course of time: *Which should have a greater role in determining public (or church) policy? In other words, are the Ten Commandments a living, breathing document that must constantly evolve in order to remain relevant in an ever-changing world? Or to put it another way, where is it written that we all the right to speech, religion, a free press, assembly, and gun ownership, among other things? Well, O.K., I mean besides the Constitution?
> 
> *The Founding Fathers knew that mores and customs come and go like fashion, and that a new legislature was bound to enact any number of bad laws guided by nothing more than the shifting winds of public opinion. Especially with a nutcake like John Adams in Congress. So they created a standard â â€ the Constitution â â€ with which all new laws would have to be compatible or else they couldn't become laws.
> *
> Among the many things the Founding Fathers wisely anticipated was that they couldn't anticipate everything. So they also built in a mechanism for amending the Constitution so it could be fixed and rigid, yet still capable of evolving. Which came in pretty handy when we finally figured out that women and non-white people have rights, that slavery is immoral, that alcohol is evil, that no alcohol is worse, and so on. They purposefully made it much harder to amend the Constitution than to just pass a law, though, which is why the Family and Medical Leave Act is something most people either laugh at or just ignore and not a God-given right.
> 
> Likewise our Founding Father (is it O.K. to call Him that?) realized the importance of having a set of rigid standards that would supercede the trends and whims of human behavior. Which is why, as the story goes, He dictated a set of Commandments to Moses. Which, over the millennia, among other things, gave rise to today's Roman Catholic Church. A church whose dogma (as described in its Creed) is almost impossible to change, and whose doctrine (the rules that evolved thereafter based on the Commandments and the teachings of Christ) is systematically dictated by the Vatican, through the ultimate in inspiration.
> 
> So having a "living, breathing" Constitution, whose meanings can shift as easily as, say, having an associate justice hear about some new trend in European law at brunch, obviously defeats the whole purpose of having a (relatively, not absolutely) fixed Constitution. Likewise, if you believe that your church was literally founded by the Son of God, based on principles he personally handed down to His followers (as Catholics do), why would you make your church's doctrine conveniently open to revision by its flock? It's like deliberately designing a bucket with holes in it, then wondering why it won't hold any water.
> 
> And that, folks, is pretty much how it works. The Catholic Church is not a democracy, or even a representative democracy. They don't decide things by a show of hands, other than Bingo, and even then all winners have to be verified. The Church doesn't use focus groups. The pope doesn't go on listening tours. There's no website that lets the faithful interactively change church doctrine based on how many hits it receives. Catholics don't choose new gods to worship with the help of their good friends at A. T. & T. Wireless â â€ although if they did the process would still look and sound remarkably like American Idol. The Church is not a democracy, and part of being Catholic is being cool with that.
> 
> So if you think this or any other pope is just plain wrong on celibacy or homosexuality or anything else big, and this upsets you so much it interferes with your spiritual life, you'd be well advised to find yourself another church. Otherwise you're like the orthodox Jew who, in light of recent developments, has taken it upon himself to decide that it's all right for him to eat pork. You can be an orthodox Jew, and you can eat pork. You're free to do either one. But folks, you just can't do both. There are names for Catholics who don't accept that they can't do certain things and still receive the sacraments, and one of those names is Senator John Kerry.
> 
> Andrew Sullivan points out correctly that the Catholic Church has changed over the years, offering examples such as Vatican II and absolving the Jews for Christ's death. But those changes weren't dogmatic, as a liberalization of the Church's views on abortion or homosexuality would be, and they certainly weren't the result of a town-hall meeting or an online poll. They came about as a result of years of prayer and reflection from within the Vatican, not because of a particularly meaningful Oprah episode.
> 
> As opposed to the changes that came about as a result of agitators demanding that the Church become more "relevant," such as barefoot guitar masses, bearded, "cool" priests, and the bashing of forearms combined with the muttering of "aw-ite" as the Sign of Peace. Come to think of it, wasn't the Sign of Peace itself added to the Mass right about the time the first Billy Jack movie was released? I rest my case.
> 
> If you have misgivings about leaving a church even though it no longer represents your more socially liberal views, consider the example of the new pope's namesake St. Benedict. Sent to Rome for his pastoral studies during the sixth century, young Benedict was so repelled by the debauchery he found there that he fled the city to pursue his studies in solitude. (How decadent was Rome back in those days? Their official slogan was "What happens in Rome, stays in Rome"). Lured out of retirement by a group of monks who wanted him as their leader, he soon wore out his welcome with them, too, by being too strict. (This guy Benedict was like the Larry Brown of guys who founded their own religious orders).
> 
> Finally, for those who would chafe under the yoke of commandments, or a catechism, or a constitution, or the mission statement every Taco Bell employee has to read, or any other articulation of first principles, consider the words of Cardinal Ratzinger shortly before he became the new pope. Warning of the "tyranny of relativism" that's become so pervasive, *Cardinal Ratzinger argued that it's better to be guided by time-honored principles of morality than to be endlessly buffeted about by the myriad whims of conventional wisdom in the name of "freedom." With the clear implication being, if you don't like these principles the rest of us here have agreed to live by, maybe this isn't the Church for you.* Or as my Dad used to say during dinner, if you don't like what we're serving here, try next door.
> 
> â â€ Ned Rice is a staff writer on the new and improved CBS talk show The Late Late Show with Craig Ferguson. Rice is also an NRO contributor.
> 
> http://www.nationalreview.com/comment/rice200504250753.asp


----------



## chaos75

Hence why we are supposed to have separation of church and state.  As I understand it, religion should be rigid, everyone who believes in it should abide letter for letter the bible, unless Jesus or God put out a new version I am not aware of.  Politics are a human creation which is evolving and ever changing, to reflect the majority wishes of society.  I dont see how the Pope's views on anything, should affect anything other than the way that catholics live their personal lives.  But this article is only one guy's opinion, as this is mine, and you know what they say about opinions.


----------



## larry Strong

Another article

http://www.canoe.ca/NewsStand/Columnists/Calgary/Ian_Robinson/2005/04/24/1010688.html


----------



## Infanteer

Blah, I guess Panzer-Pope doesn't like me.  "Time honoured principles of morality"?  WTF is that?  How is this guy equating Church doctrine to the evolution of political dialogue within a society?  Membership within the Catholic Church (voluntary) is far different then citizenship within Canada, so by default our state must be responsive to the goals and desires of the people who form the "Leviathan" today.

Liberal democratic prinicples with which we structure our lives by are not some inorganic "time honoured" meta-laws, they are evolutionary and completely beholden to the fact that most of us feel they are valid.

Anyways, this is a Catholic Church matter and Catholics can decide - I don't really care what they wish to do with their lives or afterlives....


----------



## Brad Sallows

>Liberal democratic prinicples with which we structure our lives by are not some inorganic "time honoured" meta-laws, they are evolutionary and completely beholden to the fact that most of us feel they are valid.

I don't consider them to be evolutionary.  The values have always been there; it has just taken us some time to recognize them and even longer to fully respect them.


----------



## I_am_John_Galt

Brad Sallows said:
			
		

> >Liberal democratic prinicples with which we structure our lives by are not some inorganic "time honoured" meta-laws, they are evolutionary and completely beholden to the fact that most of us feel they are valid.
> 
> I don't consider them to be evolutionary.  The values have always been there; it has just taken us some time to recognize them and even longer to fully respect them.



This could be an interesting argument ... the ideas of Rousseau, Locke and Thomas Paine were revolutionary (as was the US Declaration of Independence - obviously), but certainly the ideas of 'democracy' preceeded the Enlightenment by a few thousand years.  Nonetheless, I would be inclined to argue that the foundation of "Liberal democratic principles" as we know it is Humanism, which only really began in a meaningful way with the idea of the individual as a rational, skeptical being (rather than a simple meat-puppet of the Church, slave-owner, or whatever) ... e.g. Sir Francis Bacon (separatation of philosophy (reason) from religion (revelation - irrational)).


----------



## Brad Sallows

The idea of the rational human has been around a long time.  It just has taken us most of history to overcome the inertia of the temporal establishments that "human" isn't a subset of "all people" demarcated by skin colour, gender, economic status, divine rights, etc.


----------



## Infanteer

Brad Sallows said:
			
		

> I don't consider them to be evolutionary.   The values have always been there; it has just taken us some time to recognize them and even longer to fully respect them.



I think this is something I addressed on the "Natural Rights" comment you made in another thread.  How can rights and values "be there" (where "there" is, I am unsure of) when a society doesn't believe/comprehend/conceptualize/care for them?  Political concepts of how man relates to his fellow man are artificial; the only thing that validates them is the society of people who chooses to do so - principles such as the rule of law or political egalitarianism are as much of construct of human relations as slavery and _lex talionis_.


----------



## Brad Sallows

Do not think of inherent rights as political; they are moral.  That which is, is not a limitation on what should be.  It is the distinction between what is right and what is tolerated.  Societies and governments and people with less or no respect for natural human rights do not demonstrate that rights are abitrary.  That merely demonstrates that they (societies, government, people) are evil to varying degrees.  It is that contrast which the relativist seeks to obscure for political reasons.  The notion that we can objectively measure and compare societies' values and state that, yes, A is better on balance than B, is thought vile by some.  Practically, there are always going to be some compromises (liberty vs security).  People who are more willing to erode and infringe natural rights need to get over the conceit that they are more compassionate and enlightened: the opposite is true.


----------



## Sailing Instructor

Relativism is self-refuting: if the relativists say 'all viewpoints are relative & therefore none is more correct than the others,' then one can see that spells disaster to their own view point, which is no more correct than any other viewpoint.


----------



## Infanteer

Sailing Instructor said:
			
		

> Relativism is self-refuting: if the relativists say 'all viewpoints are relative & therefore none is more correct than the others,' then one can see that spells disaster to their own view point, which is no more correct than any other viewpoint.



That's why I always argue that Might=Right.  All moral viewpoints are relative to one another in terms of validity - if societies espouse them, then they are valid.  It is conviction and the will to back them up that determines if one's point of view contains any strength and resiliency.

Case in point - the Rights and Freedoms guaranteed by the United States Constitution are exceedingly strong and prevalent because the United States has been willing to expound and defend them with force throughout its history.  The Rights of every American citizen is guaranteed not by nature, but because they US Government will act on behalf of the citizenry to uphold the Constitution.  They are validated by Americans because they have been doing a fairly respectable job of providing both individuals and society as a whole in America with prosperity.  Canada's own system (which is quite similar in grounding) is also fairly resilient because we've prospered under the Aegis of world powers; first Pax Britannica and then Pax Americana.

Systems which aren't as forceful with their competitors either die a glorious death (as Nazi Germany did) or waste away in a sort of game of Social Darwinism (as Bolshevism/Communism did/is).



			
				Brad Sallows said:
			
		

> Do not think of inherent rights as political; they are moral.



I fundamentally disagree with this assertion.  Rights seem to be political to me.  They are the product of political discourse and consent between political figures and the interests (citizenry, landowners, tribes, whatever) they represent.  Rights govern how we are to act toward eachother - if we were all lived in a social vacuum (never coming into contact with others) or in a State of Nature (where instinctive survival overides rational cooperation), there would be no need for rights as their would be no relationships to govern.

What else guarantees your right to freely speak and assemble?  It surely isn't divine law, cosmic justice, or the force of nature.



> Societies and governments and people with less or no respect for natural human rights do not demonstrate that rights are arbitrary.  That merely demonstrates that they (societies, government, people) are evil to varying degrees.



Bullocks, I refuse to accept that other societies are "missing the boat" on ethical conduct because they haven't bought into the traditions of Modern Western political thought.  There is more then one way to skin a cat, and not all of these ways have to begin with _"We the People...."_



> It is that contrast which the relativist seeks to obscure for political reasons.   The notion that we can objectively measure and compare societies' values and state that, yes, A is better on balance than B, is thought vile by some.



I don't consider it vile at all.  As I alluded to above, in a sort of "Social Darwinism", some social orders offer more to their citizens then others.  Quite simply, they are stronger and more desirable traits.  It does not mean they are "good" in a ethical sense - only "stronger" in the sense that they appeal to a Hobessian "1st Law" in effect in that most humans desire peace and security first and foremost.  If systems that include Wahabism, Communism, or Slavery can't do this, they fall by the wayside as evolutionary failures.

There may be a universal set of basic desires in humans (even this is debatable, as cosmological outlooks tend to skew these), but these desires are in no way secured or guaranteed in Nature.


----------



## a_majoor

The danger of relativism is that you can "cherry pick" things which support whatever it is you are trying to do, and selectivly ignore the rest. (This is a natural tendency among people in general, by the way). Having a doctrinal foundation, constitutional or scriptual or whatever, at least forces you to carfully examine your plan against a fixed framework. Physical sciences are the best example, the laws of the Universe are fixed by the metrics of Space/Time and are not subject to appeal or majorety opinion. If I say something is so in the physical world, anyone can replicate the experiment/observation and should come up with the same answer.  

Politics seems to be an extreme example of the opposite tendency, since for every example of a trend, there seems to be an exception or counter example. The other danger is that unlike the laws of physics, there are ways to attempt end runs around institutional fixtures:



> *Alien Justice*
> Ruth Bader Ginsburg vs. the Declaration of Independence.
> 
> By Edward Whelan
> 
> Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg recently gave a speech defending the Supreme Court's increasing use of foreign law in support of its rulings on the meaning of the Constitution. The title of her speech â â€ "'A decent Respect to the Opinions of [Human]kind': the Value of a Comparative Perspective in Constitutional Adjudication" â â€ nicely encapsulates the core flaws in her position.
> 
> First is her thinly disguised contempt for the Framers. Obtusely appealing to the Declaration of Independence to justify the Supreme Court's dependence on foreign law, Ginsburg cannot resist the urge to purge the gender bias she perceives in the Framers' observation that "a decent Respect to the Opinions of Mankind" requires a declaration of the "causes which impel them to the Separation." Nor, apparently, did she notice that one of those stated causes was that King George III "has combined with others to subject us to a Jurisdiction foreign to our Constitution."
> 
> The rhetorical centerpiece of Ginsburg's speech is a crude attack against originalists â â€ those who adhere to the original understanding of the Framers' Constitution and of the various amendments to it. Here's the structure of her illogic: (1) Chief Justice Taney in Dred Scott stated the originalist principle that no "change in public opinion or feeling . . . in the civilized nations of Europe or in this country should induce the [Supreme Court] to give to the words of the Constitution a more liberal construction . . . than they were intended to bear when the instrument was framed and adopted." (2) This statement of originalist orthodoxy, Ginsburg asserts, is "extreme." (3) Notwithstanding the fact that the Civil War and the post-Civil War Amendments reversed Dred Scott, Chief Justice Rehnquist and Justices Scalia and Thomas somehow continue to share Taney's "extreme" position that constitutional rulings should not be based on foreign developments. With this glaring non sequitur, Ginsburg absurdly insinuates that the position espoused by her three colleagues has some special kinship with Taney and Dred Scott.
> 
> Taney's opinion in Dred Scott is deservedly infamous, but not because of its recitation of originalist orthodoxy. Besides its overt racism, the main legal defect in Taney's opinion is that, while pretending to be faithful to originalist principles, it in fact marked the Court's first use of the modern judicial activist's favorite tool, "substantive due process," to invalidate a statute â â€ the Missouri Compromise of 1820, which prohibited slavery in the northern portion of the Louisiana Territories. Notably, the dissenters in Dred Scott invoked and properly applied the very originalist principles that Ginsburg finds abhorrent: "I prefer the lights of Madison, Hamilton, and Jay, as a means of construing the Constitution in all its bearings," wrote Justice McLean. "_f a prohibition of slavery in a Territory in 1820 violated this principle of [due process], the ordinance of 1787 also violated it," explained Justice Curtis in exposing Taney's deviation from originalism.
> 
> In attacking originalism as "frozen in time," Ginsburg slights the genius of the Framers in setting up *a system in which the people, through their elected representatives and within the broad bounds established by the Constitution, adapt the laws to changing times.* She claims that judges "honor the Framers' intent 'to create [sic] a more perfect Union'" when they rewrite the Constitution to comport with their own understandings of the needs of the day. But it is "We the People of the United States," not judges, to whom the Constitution looks to "form a more perfect Union."
> 
> The second basic flaw in Ginsburg's speech is signaled by her elusive subtitle. What exactly does a "comparative perspective" in constitutional adjudication mean, and what is its value? Addressing a group of international lawyers, Ginsburg resorts to kindergarten talk â â€ "we can learn from others," "we can join hands with others," we should "share our experience" â â€ but never even attempts to explain how a foreign court's decision on how a foreign law measures up to a foreign charter can or should have analytical value in construing our Constitution. She emphasizes that she does not regard foreign decisions as "controlling authorities." Could those foreign decisions be the tipping factor in a particular case? Ginsburg doesn't expressly say so, but she gives no reason why that couldn't happen.* Nor does she offer any principle to determine what weight they should have. In short, she has no response to Scalia's criticism: "To invoke alien law when it agrees with one's own thinking, and ignore it otherwise, is not reasoned decisionmaking, but sophistry."
> *
> When Ginsburg's position is clear, her understanding is muddled. Ginsburg points out that the Framers understood that the United States "would be bound by 'the Law of Nations,' today called international law." But the Constitution's conferral of power on Congress "[t]o define and punish . . . Offenses against the Law of Nations" makes clear that it is up to Congress, not judges, to determine which obligations under international law should apply domestically.
> 
> Similarly, Ginsburg points out with pride that her separate opinions in the Michigan racial-preference cases cite two United Nations Conventions â â€ one that the United States has ratified, and one that "sadly" it "has not yet ratified" â â€ as evidence that the international understanding of racial preferences supports her application of the Equal Protection Clause. *But the very fact that she sees no effective difference between a ratified treaty â â€ which (whether or not it has any domestic effect) is part of "the supreme Law of the Land" under the Constitution â â€ and an unratified convention demonstrates the incoherence of her views.*
> 
> Ginsburg ends her speech by quoting Abigail Adams's comment that the "habits of a vigorous mind are formed in contending with difficulties." Alas for Ginsburg â â€ and for all Americans subjected to her dominion â â€ the habits of a flabby mind are reinforced in merely pretending to have contended with difficulties.
> 
> â â€ Edward Whelan is president of the Ethics and Public Policy Center and directs EPPC's program on the Constitution, the Courts, and the Culture.
> 
> http://www.nationalreview.com/comment/whelan200504260804.asp
> _


----------



## I_am_John_Galt

Brad Sallows said:
			
		

> The idea of the rational human has been around a long time.  It just has taken us most of history to overcome the inertia of the temporal establishments that "human" isn't a subset of "all people" demarcated by skin colour, gender, economic status, _*divine rights*_, etc.





			
				Brad Sallows said:
			
		

> Do not think of inherent rights as political; they are moral.  That which is, is not a limitation on what should be.  It is the distinction between what is right and what is tolerated.



I see the notion of rights fundamentally changing with the Enlightenment thinkers ... prior to that time all notions of Rights were something that was 'bestowed' rather than inherently existing: the Magna Charta was a huge leap forward from the (then) existing system, but the difference between it and the (US) Declaration of Independence was fundamental.  Rights came to be viewed in the meta-context of the individual (from the ground up), rather than of the church or state (top-down): people became "free" to test their beliefs with the scientific method, rather than simply living under the received wisdom of their spiritual/intellectual 'superiors' [insert snarky comment about modern socialism here].


----------



## Brad Sallows

I do not agree that strength and resiliency are equivalent to rightness.  If might=right, then all actions and outcomes are permitted and any means or end in service to might is morally good.  Are you sure this is what you intend?

If I understand what you mean by a moral viewpoint, it (moral viewpoint) does not define what is good.  A moral viewpoint defines which evils are tolerated and to what degree.  I can not make murder or theft or deceit any less evil.  I can only decide whether or not to be evil (whether by omission or condonement or commission) to a lesser or greater degree.  If I am strong in defence and promotion of evil, I am simply evil - I don't make evil thereby right.

Perhaps it is confusing, or I am confused, to describe natural rights as moral rather than political.  I suppose my point is that those rights can exist outside any political context and the closer we cleave to upholding the natural human rights, the greater the moral good.  That the rights exist and respect of them is good does not mean that evil can not triumph in the absence of the will and means to safeguard the rights.  Again, what is and what should be do not always align.

If you believe that what is good is analogous to an invariant then it must follow that judgement of how close we asymptotically approach the good is possible; if you also believe that what is good is morally desirable then it must also follow that those who value the good and uphold the good and promote the good are morally superior than those who do not, and cultures which facilitate the promotion of the good are morally superior to those which are less effective at doing so.  It is not arrogance, it is merely an obvious conclusion.  Where the various cultures and belief systems stand I will leave as an exercise for the reader.


----------



## Glorified Ape

To me, it seems like the whole relativist/absolutist debate isn't about who is morally right or wrong but about jurisdiction. The relativists are content to impose their morality where it's commonly accepted and the absolutists want to push it where it isn't. Both impose, it's a question of degree. Neither is right or wrong in their morality, they just have differing views on whether subscription thereto should be a choice or be compulsory by virtue of a person's physical existence. 

Infanteer, from reading your posts I get the impression you're a big Hobbes fan, yes?


----------



## Infanteer

Glorified Ape said:
			
		

> Infanteer, from reading your posts I get the impression you're a big Hobbes fan, yes?


 
Yeah, I had to read it in four different classes (I have 3 versions of the book on my bookshelf - and it isn't even a translated text!) and it seemed to make much more sense then alot of the flowery political theorists.

I did the basic premise that Man sucks, he tries to get by, and does better by working togeather to promote the goal of getting by.   To me, morality and "natural rights" don't fit anywhere except by being inserted the concept of "working togeather".

There seems to be two arguments here, one on Moral Relativism and one of Natural Rights.   I think the two are linked, for if there is a set of Rights that are distinct from the human species as a part of Nature, then these rights are absolute and the morality of working with them is as well.

It is something I remain unconvinced of - "Rights" (along with other questions of morality) are a Tabula Rasa in which the experiences of civilization are imprinted upon and considered.   They can be changed, overwritten, or preserved depending on how societies choose to take them.

Anyways, here is a fun quote from my other favorite political philosopher:

_"Ah, yes, the 'unalienable rights.'   Each year someone quotes that magnificent poetry.   Life?   What 'right' to life has a man who is drowning in the Pacific?   The ocean will not hearken to his cries.   What 'right' to life has a man who must die if he is to save his children?   If he chooses to save his own life, does he do so as a matter of 'right'?   If two men are starving and cannibalism is the only alternative to death, which man's right is 'unalienable'?   And is it 'right'?   As to liberty, the heroeswho signed the great document pledged themselves to *buy[/u] liberty with their lives.   Liberty is never unalienable; it must be redeemed regularly with the blood of patriots or it always vanishes.   Of all the so-called natural human rights that have ever been invented, liberty is least likely to be cheap and is never free of cost.

The third 'right'?   - the 'pursuit of happiness'?   It is indeed unalienable but it is not a right; it is simply a universal condition which tyrants cannot take away nor patriots restore.   Cast me into a dungeon, burn me at the stake, crown me king of kings, I can 'pursue happiness' as long as my brain lives - but neither gods nor saints, wise men nor subtle drugs, can insure that I will catch it."

Robert Heinlein, Starship Troopers, pg 119.*_*

Cheers,
Infanteer*


----------



## Kat Stevens

That's putting quite a bit of faith in a stuffed tiger (Hobbes), isn't it? 

Kat


----------



## Infanteer

John Calvin and Thomas Hobbes - who would have thought?


----------



## I_am_John_Galt

The idea of normative rights is not that they are inherently unassailable (i.e., are somehow magically protected by some greater power) but rather that they _ought _to be protected, which is why they get codified into legal documents.  In the case of the drowning man, the point is that his drowning is a violation of his right to life: someone _should _save him, but that doesn't guarantee that it will happen.  The right exists whether the society protects and respects it or not: Cuban's right to free speech is being violated, even though they have no (codified) right to free speech.


----------



## I_am_John_Galt

Infanteer said:
			
		

> John Calvin and Thomas Hobbes - who would have thought?



Then of course there was Grucho, Harpo, Chico, Gummo, Zeppo, Karl and Skid ...


----------



## Brad Sallows

>The relativists are content to impose their morality where it's commonly accepted and the absolutists want to push it where it isn't.

Some relativists insist everyone else should be a relativist, and some absolutists believe in free will (ie. the good is absolute, but you may choose it or not).

>Neither is right or wrong in their morality

By definition, to be moral is to be right (good) so absolutism is axiomatic.  Hence moral relativism is an absurdity.  A relativist can only be amoral.

"Inalienable" is not synonymous with "impervious".  "Inalienable" means the rights can't be given up or confiscated.  It does not mean the rights can't be infringed.

There is certainly a theoretically unbounded set of non-natural (social, political, economic, etc) rights which can be created, changed, destroyed, etc.


----------



## Infanteer

I_am_John_Galt said:
			
		

> The idea of normative rights is not that they are inherently unassailable (i.e., are somehow magically protected by some greater power) but rather that they _ought _to be protected,[/i]



And this is where my view on relativism comes into play - the assertion that liberal democratic rights are fundamental and "just" is one that is grounded in hundreds of years of Western Political thought and application; it is no different then, say traditional Islamic thought which bases "just" on Sharia and establishes this through hundreds of years of Islamic scholarship.   The same could be said for other social systems which differ from ours.

The only thing that makes them worth protecting is that we as individuals and as a society see them as valid and worth defending with our lives (hence the might=right aspect I was digging at).   I can't find "good" and "evil" anywhere in this equation - just Nature and the game of survival.


----------



## I_am_John_Galt

I'd agree with you insofar as positive rights are concerned: they are a construct of what is thought to be good or right at any particular time.  Normative rights (or Natural Law) are recognized only as a result of rationally de-constructing the idea of existence (I can never get the line from that Monty Python song out of my head "Rene Descartes was a drunken fart").  Once identified, they exist regardless of the political or moral context ... this is why we sometimes say that Islamic (& other) Fundamentalists still live in the Dark Ages: they haven't identified (let alone tried to protect) these rights.


----------



## Kat Stevens

Philosophers song


               Immanual Kant was a real pissant
                 Who was very rarely stable

               Heidegger, Heidegger was a boozy beggar
                 Who could think you under the table

               David Hume could out consume
                 Schopenhauer and Hegel

               And Wittgenstein was a beery swine
                 Who was just as schloshed as Schlegel

                There's nothing Nietzche couldn't teach ya
                  'Bout the raising of the wrist
                Socrates, himself, was permanently pissed


               John Stuart Mill, of his own free will
                 On half a pint of shandy was particularly ill

               Plato they say, could stick it away
                 Half a crate of whiskey every day

               Aristotle, Aristotle was a bugger for the bottle
                 Hobbes was fond of his dram

               And Rene' Descartes was a drunken fart
                 "I drink, therefore I am"

                Yes, Socrates, himself, is particularly missed
                  A lovely little thinker
                But a bugger when he's pissed

My gift to you all....

CHIMO,  Kat


----------



## Glorified Ape

Brad Sallows said:
			
		

> >The relativists are content to impose their morality where it's commonly accepted and the absolutists want to push it where it isn't.
> 
> Some relativists insist everyone else should be a relativist, and some absolutists believe in free will (ie. the good is absolute, but you may choose it or not).



Indeed, though I was speaking in generalities. I'm not sure any thinking relativist would take an absolutist position towards his relativism. 



> >Neither is right or wrong in their morality
> 
> By definition, to be moral is to be right (good) so absolutism is axiomatic.   Hence moral relativism is an absurdity.   A relativist can only be amoral.



I meant in absolute terms. By either's perception of "right" and "wrong", they're both moral. The kicker is that neither's perception of "right" and "wrong" is justifiably legitimate in any universal way. 

A relativist can be moral - he can possess opinions and feelings about what's right and wrong, he just can't believe they're superior to anyone else's or attempt to impose them as such. The true relativist's morality is that which he finds most appealing to himself. It's essentially the old "I'll do what I do and you do what you do, and I won't bug you" scenario. 

It's like any preference - A true relativist can enjoy mustard, be content with mustard, and put mustard on everything he eats but he can't tell you that you should like mustard or think less of you for not eating it.


----------



## I_am_John_Galt

Kat Stevens said:
			
		

> Philosophers song



Now it will never go away!  Aaaaaaahhhhhh!    :crybaby:


----------



## Kat Stevens

Then my work here is done.... ;D

Kat


----------



## Brad Sallows

>A relativist can be moral - he can possess opinions and feelings about what's right and wrong, he just can't believe they're superior to anyone else's or attempt to impose them as such.

You are confusing tolerance for immorality with the judgement of what is moral/immoral itself; tolerance is merely one moral attribute.  The measurement of what is moral and what is not must be invariant; that which is wrong, is wrong for all people at all times.  Relativism requires that all things are permissible at all times, from which would have to follow the conclusion that nothing is moral.  But that contradicts the notion of morality in the first place.


----------



## Springroll

What is the army's stance on religion?

Is it that Protestant and Catholic are the only religions officially recognized by the CF?


----------



## Slim

Springroll said:
			
		

> What is the army's stance on religion?
> 
> Is it that Protestant and Catholic are the only religions officially recognized by the CF?



I believe that its P RC and "other"

Try and e-mail Trinity for that info 

Slim


----------



## Infanteer

Short answer, no; they are not the only recognized religions - there is an Imam in the Forces.

http://www.dnd.ca/hr/religions/engraph/religions_toc_e.asp?flag=No

Other than that, these threads have a historical tendency of going over the top, so I'm locking it now.


----------



## Trinity

http://www.forces.gc.ca/hr/religions/engraph/religions_toc_e.asp

All religions recognized by the CF


----------



## Scoobie Newbie

What, no scientology?


----------



## Trinity

CFL said:
			
		

> What, no scientology?



[/in my best Tom Cruise voice]

YOU DON'T KNOW the history of SCIENTOLOGY, I DO!


----------



## Scoobie Newbie

lol


----------



## axeman

any way so there i was for the laying of the ashes for SGT. SMOKIE SMITH .V.C. Etc and during the ceremony i was told we could remove head dress during the eulagy and slipping away of his remains . well this was a first  i was Asked to do something if we felt like it .. Only one person did not , he haveing less then a few years in at his time . Well after sll smkie did i think it is the least we can do to remove head dress and bow our heads ..


----------



## NavComm

If this has already been said here, I apologize that I have not read the entire 17 pages....

But just to add my limited knowledge (and it was the reference to Smokey Smith's funeral that caught my eye because I was part of the berthing party when the Ottawa left with and returned without his ashes)....

Anyways, while at bmq in Borden the padre came to talk to us. She was very lively and at first I found her a bit hard to take because after being yelled at and ordered about for weeks and then to have this really upbeat, happy person there was almost too much for my very much by now dulled senses.....Well she was fabulous. She explained to us about how the CF embraces all religions and anyone who's religion wasn't offered on base could talk to her and she would do her best to have them speak with a spiritual leader of their choice if they so desired.

I'm not a religious person, but for those that are, it's there and she was a powerful presence representing all that's good in the CF. She even addressed those of us who aren't church goers and left the door open for anyone who just needed a safe place to talk about how difficult bmq is or anything else...anyway for us the accommodation was definately there


----------



## Seamus449

I felt the same way even though I'm an NRE, our padre was a great guy and even though not everyone in the room was christian or even religious we all felt like he'd be a good person to go and talk to if we messed up really bad some day and needed some positive reinforcement, because it feels a lot better to get assured by someone with some bars rather than someone in your room thats the same rank as you.


----------



## reccecrewman

Ahhhhhhh............ Nothing like a religious debate to get blood boiling.  No matter what, there's going to be people mad or offended by what you have to say about it.  Stay away from the topic, it's a minefield best left alone.  Believe what you believe and don't get into a debate about it. My 2 cents


----------



## George Wallace

We currently have a heated discussion going on "Sharia Law in Canada" and are debating its Socio and Economic ramifications on Canadian Culture.   Aside from the rising popularity of Islam in North America, we are seeing a small segment of our Society moving away from the major religions, be they Christian, Jewish, Islamic, Buddhist or Hindi. Why are we finding people now being interested in other religions that are rather small and unheard of in modern society?   I have met people who were Satanists, Wicca, and Druid.   There are other sects out there that became popular in the '70s, such as the Hari Chrisna Sects and Moonies.   Are these all a sign of loss of faith in the established religions or and a search for something else?   How are they affecting our Culture?


----------



## Kat Stevens

Great question George.  I became dissatisfied with the lack of answers provided by the "Big Three" many years ago.  I fooled about with a few of the "fringe" elements; Scientology (erk!), zen Buddhism (lacked the patience), etc.  My current interest leans toward a hybrid of Zoroastrianism and Cabala.  Interesting stuff, so far.  I'll keep you posted, if you like...

esoterically yours, Kat


----------



## paracowboy

George Wallace said:
			
		

> I have met people who were Satanists, Wicca, and Druid.


I think what you mean to say here is, "I have met people who _*have professed to be * _ Satanists, Wicca, and Druid." The latter two religions disappeared for centuries, leaving no trace of their tenets, philosophies, or ceremonies. They had a "revival" in recent times, propagated by people who had no clue what they were getting into, and made things up on the spot. Usually, as is the case with most religions, in order to fool the gullible into giving them money, sex, and authority.
As for Satanism, look into Lavey (sp). He, at least, was very blatant in saying that is exactly why he started with it. Money, sex, drugs, and power. I can respect his honesty.


----------



## Kat Stevens

The modern Druid phenomenon is amusing, considering Seutonius virtually eradicated them on the Isle of Mona in about AD 72.   Nothing of their teachings survived the past 2000 years. But, sheeple are sheeple...

Correction:  61 AD, same year as Boudicca's revolt


----------



## paracowboy

Kat Stevens said:
			
		

> But, sheeple are sheeple...


 there it is.
That's why I differentiate between Spirituality (a vital component in human development) and Religion (the only area where I agree completely with Marx - Karl, as well as Groucho).


----------



## Springroll

I also lost my "faith" in the major religions a few years ago. 

Shamanism has been defined as the first religion. It existed prior to the earliest civilizations, before our ancestors took the first steps towards the present. Many people know of Shamans being medicine men. They were the first humans with knowledge. Knowledge is power; men and women who possessed it in those easrly days were Shamans.

Wicca can be described as a shamanic religion. Today's Wiccan's have dropped the ordeals of pain and the use of hallucinogens in favor of chanting, meditation, concentration, visualization, music, dance, invocation and ritual drama. Wicca, as with many other religions, recognizes a deity as dual. It revers both the goddess and the god. They are equal, warm and loving, not distant or resident in "heaven" but omnipresent throughout the universe. As with many eastern religions, Wicca also embraces the doctrine of reincarnation, that much-misunderstood subject. Wicca does not seek out new members. Wicca doesn't solicit because, unlike most western religions, it doesn't claim to be the one true way to deity.

Wicca never disappeared but withdrew from the public eye. With the crucifications of Wiccans and people claiming they were using black magick, it was safer to withdraw. Many covens nowadays refuse to allow you to discuss their activities outside of the coven circle do to the publics perception of Wicca.


----------



## paracowboy

Springroll said:
			
		

> Wicca never disappeared but withdrew from the public eye.


incorrect. Despite what you may have been told by someone trying to sell you something, what is now termed "Wicca" did, in fact disappear. The 'modern, revisionist Wicca' has as much in common with the ancient Faith we will term Druidism (for lack of a better term), as the Society for Creative Anachronism has with true Medieval Courts. Trace elements of ancient Druidic practices and philosophies can still be found in some measure in Roman Catholocism. Not all of Pelagius's teachings were scorched away, despite Germanus's best intentions. Saint Brigit, for instance is the ancient Celtic Goddess Brigidde, and many of the teachings Pelagius taught are currently believed to be a direct result of his familiarity with the Druids of what is now England.

But, true Druidism was wiped away on the pilum and gladius of the Legions. It survived in an increasingly garbled and bastardized version in the huts and customs of the peasantry, eventually suffering a 'revival' in Victorian England (which was made up entirely on the spot), and again in recent decades.

But, hey, if it meets your Spiritual needs, have at it!


----------



## George Wallace

A question then.....If Wicca's don't solicite, nor talk outside of their coven (as you are doing now), how does the 'faith' perpetuate itself?   Do you have to be born, literally, into the Wicca religion?   So you would have to come from a long line of witches, in order to be a witch today.


----------



## paracowboy

George Wallace said:
			
		

> A question then.....If Wicca's don't solicite, nor talk outside of their coven (as you are doing now), how does the 'faith' perpetuate itself?


 by selling books, totems, fetishes, icons, etc. Usually these days via the Internet. Which sounds an awful lot like solicitation to me. (In every sense of the word.)


----------



## Springroll

George Wallace said:
			
		

> A question then.....If Wicca's don't solicite, nor talk outside of their coven (as you are doing now), how does the 'faith' perpetuate itself?   Do you have to be born, literally, into the Wicca religion?   So you would have to come from a long line of witches, in order to be a witch today.



Most people(like myself) discover it on our own, either by speaking to a friend or researching religions. I am not a member of a coven, so I am not bound by the rules of one. You do not have to come form a long line of witches to be one. I only began to realise that Wicca was "my way" a few years ago. Up until that point I was Anglican. Even was married in the Anglican church.


----------



## Springroll

paracowboy said:
			
		

> by selling books, totems, fetishes, icons, etc. Usually these days via the Internet. Which sounds an awful lot like solicitation to me. (In every sense of the word.)



Fetishes? like what?

Wiccans do not ask you for money to attend a ritual or anything of the sort. No one has ever tried to sell me something in terms of anything Wicca related. I have chosen to go into Occult shops and purchase books on the subject. A great read for anyone interested in learning a bit about Wicca is called "Wicca: A Guide for the Solitary Practioner" by Scott Cunningham ISBN 0-87542-118-0


----------



## Glorified Ape

paracowboy said:
			
		

> Spirituality (a vital component in human development)



Could you elaborate on that? If my spirituality you mean the belief that human beings have a soul/there's something higher then I'd have to disagree - I've never believed either and I wouldn't say it has hindered my development.


----------



## Bert

Check out this site.

http://www.grazian-archive.com/quantavolution/QuantaSeries.htm

"The Lately Tortured Earth"

For conventionalists, both Darwinian and Religious, would balk at the
idea of the moon forming 14,000 years ago.   Even if a portion of
these theories hold true as scientific evidence may provide, religion
starts with catastrophy and these events remain deeply embedded 
into human experience.


----------



## paracowboy

Glorified Ape said:
			
		

> Could you elaborate on that? If my spirituality you mean the belief that human beings have a soul/there's something higher then I'd have to disagree - I've never believed either and I wouldn't say it has hindered my development.


good for you. That's why it's called a Belief.
Belief
Definitions: 
   1. belief or trust: belief in, devotion to, or trust in somebody or something, especially without logical proof

Spirituality 
Definitions: 
   1. spiritual quality: the quality or condition of being spiritual

spiritual
Definitions: 
   1. of religion: relating to religious or sacred things rather than worldly things

You've stated on previous threads that you don't need anything outside yourself. Have fun with that.
We could get into a big debate, but you won't change your mind, I won't change mine, and nothing would be accomplished. The fact that this is about Faith and Belief means that you will never believe that you are missing something, and I will always believe that you are.
I have no intention of getting into a debate with you. I've been where you are now. I've progressed beyond it, and intend to continue progressing. You do the same in your own way. Lemme know how it turns out for you.


----------



## Kat Stevens

Springroll said:
			
		

> Fetishes? like what?


A fetish is a small carved idol, used to represent a deity or spirit. Not a desire to cast spells hanging upside down in a rubber diaper, unless that's your personal bag.


----------



## Springroll

Kat Stevens said:
			
		

> A fetish is a small carved idol, used to represent a deity or spirit. Not a desire to cast spells hanging upside down in a rubber diaper, unless that's your personal bag.



The "fetish": They give something to the client to use, asking for what he wants: A potion, herbs, a charm, a prayer, an amulet to wear on the neck, a ring, a crystal... and even real poisons!.

I have given my son a "fetish" to fight off bad dreams due to a tragic event he witnessed. It was a cloth bag filled with herbs to help him sleep at night. When I first saw the word fetish I was thinking along the wrong lines..LOL


----------



## the 48th regulator

Ah the esoteric interests,

I find that this thread is an excellent observation.   For example, myself I was born in Roman Catholicism, and raised that way, albeit not in a very staunch fashion.   My values are very Christian, and I find my faith keeps me strong.

However, I have been curious as well and have read, and actually participate which would make me very Un-Catholic.   What keeps me strong again is my faith.

You can see a resurgence of beliefs that question Christianity.   The belief in a Female deity, as in the story of Christ, Mary Magdalene, and the Holy Grail is but one example. Holy Blood, Holy Grail  by authors Michael Baigent, Richard Leigh, and Henry Lincoln explored this in detail and was an explosive book when released in the early '80s.   It's popularity resurged recently with a release of another popular work, albeit fiction, The Davinci Code by Dan Brown.   I have read both, and I advise reading Holy Blodd first!

As for secrets, and soceties that keep them, short of being within that circle there is no way of knowing exactly what is practiced.   Picking up a book is like looking at the menu at a resteraunt.   Until you bite in to the real   thing, it is still a description.   Masonry, touched on by the books I have mentioned, has been written time and time again by so called "Experts" in the field who have never spent so much as a meeting within the lodge.   Yet have published volumes of the secrets of the level.

Either way, a good thread and this is one I hope grows in to a long, friendly discussion.

fy

tess


----------



## Steel Badger

It is interesting to note that even some of the most basic tenets of ancient (read: neolithic) religions held as irrefutable fact by "popular" culture are in fact quite baseless. Even a brief perusal of the historiographical and archaeological record of the British Isles indicates that there is no sign of the "Universal Pan-Celtic Religion Mark IV" which is attested by fans of Wicca etc....

Much of what today is regarded as evidence for the existence of the PCR is subject to question as a result of interpretation of artifacts based on the Beholder's beliefs rather than the actual intent or use of the object....As an example the "fertility idols" said to represent the "Mother-Goddess" by the Pan-Celtophiles (to coin an awkward phrase)...can only actually be said to have the appearance of pregnant female figures......historians can only guess as to the original intent....

(Before people cry foul and say that it is the only OBVIOUS conclusion...It was also obvious to many historians in the 20s that a Neanderthal grave discovered in Europe was conclusive evidence of the existence of an early neolithic burial cult....until further research indicated that the dried flowers found strewn about the corpse resulted from air currents within the cave and not human placement.....)

Most of the problem with today's Pagan or Alternate religion crowd is that the tenets of said "New-Age" religions were written in the face of the historical evidence. I have run into "Druids", "New Mithra's types" and Wiccans whose stated beliefs do not jive at all with the historical record....Instead they follow what is popular and "New Age".

The sad old cry about the burning of the witches stemming from an anti-female movement ignores the basis in fact:

1. The Catholic church about 1000 Ad had finally agreed within itself what is tenets were...and purged the major groups of heretics....

2. In Germany at that time it was very difficult for the Church to prosecute pagans and heretics in court....because the targets were fully capable of mounting a legal defence against charges of trafficking with the devil etc.....

3. To counter this , 2 Dominican Monks named Kramer and Sprenger convinced the Pope to issue a Papal Bull ( A Papal Order) stating that the only thing WORSE than being a Witch....was NOT BELIEVING in witches....

4. Once issued, the Bull gave Inquisitors a magic bullet to be used against those whom the Church found difficult ( or wealthy....)

Sometimes History is really what WE make it, not what it was......


.

Margret Murray as an example



In   has been proven false...and evidence is readily available to support the fact that "universal Celtic practice" a


----------



## Springroll

Alot of what i just read on Margaret Murray  here, says to me that this was not white magick witches that she was talking about, but instead black magick witches.

The differences being:

"White Magic",  is the one used for good purposes: Heal a sick, get a job, the return of the bad husband, or the rebel child, obtain a boyfriend... or make it rain, sunshine, stop a thunderstorm...

"Black Magic", is used for bad purposes: Harm other people, make someone sick, loose his job, or even kill him... make a bad thunderstorm, a hurricane, a fire at home or in the business...


----------



## Kat Stevens

Don't forget being amazingly hot, and "vanquishing" all manner of demonic nasties, and outrageous bastardizations of myth.


----------



## pronto

Majic is spelt "magic"... Magick is an alternate spelling of magic, an artifical word created by Aleister Crowley to differentiate sorcery from illusion or stage magic... According to my dictionary (OED)

AND>>>

Here is how we determine witchcraft:
BEDEVERE: Quiet, quiet. Quiet! There are ways of telling whether
she is a witch.
CROWD: Are there? What are they? Do they hurt?
BEDEVERE: Tell me, what do you do with witches?
VILLAGER #2: Burn!
CROWD: Burn, burn them up!
BEDEVERE: And what do you burn apart from witches?
VILLAGER #1: More witches!
VILLAGER #2: Wood!
BEDEVERE: So, why do witches burn?
[pause]
VILLAGER #3: B--... 'cause they're made of wood...?
BEDEVERE: Good!
CROWD: Oh yeah, yeah...
BEDEVERE: So, how do we tell whether she, is made, of wood?
VILLAGER #1: Build a bridge out of her.
BEDEVERE: Aah, but can you not also build bridges out of stone?
VILLAGER #2: Oh, yeah.
BEDEVERE: Does wood sink in water?
VILLAGER #1: No, no.
VILLAGER #2: It floats! It floats!
VILLAGER #1: Throw her into the pond!
CROWD: The pond!
BEDEVERE: What also floats in water?
VILLAGER #1: Bread!
VILLAGER #2: Apples!
VILLAGER #3: Very small rocks!
VILLAGER #1: Cider!
VILLAGER #2: Great gravy!
VILLAGER #1: Cherries!
VILLAGER #2: Mud!
VILLAGER #3: Churches -- churches!
VILLAGER #2: Lead -- lead!
ARTHUR: A duck.
CROWD: Oooh.
BEDEVERE: Exactly! So, logically...,
VILLAGER #1: If... she.. weighs the same as a duck, she's made of
wood.
BEDEVERE: And therefore--?
VILLAGER #1: A witch!


----------



## Springroll

I like that Pronto..lol

Edited to add:

The definition from Dictionary.com 
mag ·ick  
n. 
An action or effort undertaken because of a personal need to effect change, especially as associated with Wicca or Wiccan beliefs.
For those that do not know who Aleister Crowley is, he is actually a well known Satanist.


----------



## paracowboy

Margaret Murray = pure revisionism, either out of:
 a) a true wish to help people achieve some sense of spiritual well-being,
or
 b)  recognition of a fad which she can use to line her pockets.

Either have multiple precedents throughout religious history. But, she is certainly not anything remotely resembling an historian.


----------



## Steel Badger

Paracowboy....


Bang on on Murray......

Sorry, am at work and was interrupted by the clientele.......


Was going to finish by hitting on Murray's coup in Getting HER definition of Witchcraft into the Enc. Brittanica when half of all heck broke loose here....


You summed it up very well.....and Hit the nail on the head with pocket lining...the true new Age Religion


----------



## Jarnhamar

Like, magick the card game?

All kidding aside wicca seems like a hamrless religion.  If someone wants to believe in it then good for them, believe what you will. i think the fact that after the movie 'The Craft' came out there was a 5 million percent increase of 'wiccans' among teen-age girls takes away from the seriousness of the religion.


----------



## Brad Sallows

I thought the whole point of reviving ancient pagan religions was for obese people to dance naked in the moonlight and get laid.  Or did I miss some of the details?


----------



## Jarnhamar

Isn't that live action role playing?


----------



## Old Sweat

Or reality TV?


----------



## George Wallace

The Nude Beach scenes in Euro Trip just came to mind......


----------



## atticus

George Wallace said:
			
		

> A question then.....If Wicca's don't solicite, nor talk outside of their coven (as you are doing now), how does the 'faith' perpetuate itself?  Do you have to be born, literally, into the Wicca religion?  So you would have to come from a long line of witches, in order to be a witch today.



I have a book on Wicca and it states: "Many wiccans practice their faith as individuals with no connection to a larger group. For those who do worship together, many groups follow these typical practices. 
Meeting attended by thirteen memers (a coven) are held weekly at a covenstead, generally a leaders home. Larger meetings, called esbats, occur on special days of celebration (sabats, a term first used in 1662). Each coven is usually autonomous, except for those groups that owe their initiation to another witch's assembly. membership is by invitation, and progress occurs in degrees."

I guess from that, you can just decide to become a wiccan, but you cannot just go out and join a group of other wiccans.


----------



## Springroll

atticus said:
			
		

> I have a book on Wicca and it states: "Many wiccans practice their faith as individuals with no connection to a larger group. For those who do worship together, many groups follow these typical practices.



Those that choose to practice on their own are called solitary practitioners.
Which book do you happen to have?


----------



## atticus

Acually it's not just about Wicca, it's about pretty much every religion, faith, and all the different Christian doctorine. Its called 'Larson's Book of World Religions and Alternative Sprituality'. It presents all the facts about the different religions, their history, what they do, what they believe, and then separate from that it has kind of a "Christian Critique" comparing Christianity to the different religions.


----------



## pronto

I just re-read "Tobin's Spirit Guide" what we have here is a class 5 Free-floating phantasm... Don't cross the streams - it would be bad!!!


----------



## Glorified Ape

paracowboy said:
			
		

> good for you. That's why it's called a Belief.
> Belief
> Definitions:
> 1. belief or trust: belief in, devotion to, or trust in somebody or something, especially without logical proof
> 
> Spirituality
> Definitions:
> 1. spiritual quality: the quality or condition of being spiritual
> 
> spiritual
> Definitions:
> 1. of religion: relating to religious or sacred things rather than worldly things
> 
> You've stated on previous threads that you don't need anything outside yourself. Have fun with that.
> We could get into a big debate, but you won't change your mind, I won't change mine, and nothing would be accomplished. The fact that this is about Faith and Belief means that you will never believe that you are missing something, and I will always believe that you are.
> I have no intention of getting into a debate with you. I've been where you are now. I've progressed beyond it, and intend to continue progressing. You do the same in your own way. Lemme know how it turns out for you.



No need to be snippy about it - if you didn't want to discuss it just say so. Condescension is unnecessary.


----------



## sigpig

Glorified Ape said:
			
		

> No need to be snippy about it - if you didn't want to discuss it just say so. Condescension is unnecessary.



Well said.

paracowboy: "The fact that this is about Faith and Belief means that you will never believe that you are missing something, and I will always believe that you are. I have no intention of getting into a debate with you. I've been where you are now.* I've progressed beyond it*, and intend to continue progressing. You do the same in your own way. Lemme know how it turns out for you."

Gee paracowboy, I hope when I grow up, I can become as wise and knowledgeable as you. The I too can tell others I've progressed beyond them and that I hope someday they will see the errors of their ways and realize how right I am.


----------



## atticus

pronto said:
			
		

> I just re-read "Tobin's Spirit Guide" what we have here is a class 5 Free-floating phantasm... Don't cross the streams - it would be bad!!!



What the heck does that mean?


----------



## 48Highlander

atticus said:
			
		

> What the heck does that mean?



GHOSTBUSTERS!  sheesh.  soem people are so unedumacated


----------



## atticus

Wow, your so smrt  ;D I never really watched ghostbusters when I was young, scared me too much.


----------



## S McKee

the 48th regulator said:
			
		

> Ah the esoteric interests,
> 
> I find that this thread is an excellent observation.   For example, myself I was born in Roman Catholicism, and raised that way, albeit not in a very staunch fashion.   My values are very Christian, and I find my faith keeps me strong.
> 
> However, I have been curious as well and have read, and actually participate which would make me very Un-Catholic.   What keeps me strong again is my faith.
> 
> You can see a resurgence of beliefs that question Christianity.   The belief in a Female deity, as in the story of Christ, Mary Magdalene, and the Holy Grail is but one example. Holy Blood, Holy Grail  by authors Michael Baigent, Richard Leigh, and Henry Lincoln explored this in detail and was an explosive book when released in the early '80s.   It's popularity resurged recently with a release of another popular work, albeit fiction, The Davinci Code by Dan Brown.   I have read both, and I advise reading Holy Blodd first!
> 
> As for secrets, and soceties that keep them, short of being within that circle there is no way of knowing exactly what is practiced.   Picking up a book is like looking at the menu at a resteraunt.   Until you bite in to the real   thing, it is still a description.   Masonry, touched on by the books I have mentioned, has been written time and time again by so called "Experts" in the field who have never spent so much as a meeting within the lodge.   Yet have published volumes of the secrets of the level.
> 
> Either way, a good thread and this is one I hope grows in to a long, friendly discussion.
> 
> fy
> 
> tess



Did you happen to see the two part series on the History Channel that aired about two months ago on the DaVinci Code and the book it was based on Holy Blood, Holy Grail? All the supporting evidence supplied to the authors for the The Holy Blood and Holy Grail was fabricated the whole thing was an elaborate hoax. It was a really good program!


----------



## S McKee

And for the rest of you that have "out grown" God......

Universism's new leader aims to go nationwide
The Birmingham News, USA
Sep. 9, 2005 
Greg Garrison
www.al.com 
"¢ More news articles on Universism

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
ReligionNewsBlog.com "¢ Item 12189 "¢ Posted: 2005-09-10 17:53:45 
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

An upstart religion called Universism, founded in Birmingham by a UAB medical student, has named a new leader who hopes to spread the neo-Deist movement nationwide.

Todd Stricker, 25, has been named executive director of the non-profit organization and said he hopes to launch a new branch in Chicago.

UAB medical student Ford Vox started Universism in 2003, saying that Christianity, Islam and to a lesser extent other world religions are harmful because they attempt to impose their own version of moral certainty on others. Through the Internet, Universism recruited 8,000 atheists, deists, freethinkers and others who rally around the notion that no universal religious truth exists and that the meaning of existence must be determined by each individual.

Stricker said he met Vox when they both showed up at an opposition rally to support the removal of a granite monument of the Ten Commandments placed in the state judicial building by former Alabama Chief Justice Roy Moore.

"I met him in Montgomery at a protest of the Roy Moore rally," Stricker said. "He was holding a sign that said `Osama Bin Laden hates the separation of church and state.'"

They immediately hit it off.

Stricker had been attending meetings of a Birmingham atheists group, but found them too hardline. Vox advocated forming groups that stressed a sense of community.

"I see the value in taking a more moderate position," Stricker said.

Stricker moved to Birmingham from Chicago in 2002 when his fiancee, Jeanine Mauro, came to Alabama on assignment from the Jesuit Volunteer Corps.

She's a Catholic. "She gets a lot out of it," Stricker said. "I see the value. I see what it does for her."

He wants Universism to be the basis of civic activism and benevolence, kind of like a church with social outreach and activities, but without the dogma. "Religious community can offer a lot of positives," Stricker said.

Born and raised in Chicago, Stricker said he has been working full-time since he was 17. He works as a project manager for a woodworking company in Moody. But he plans to return to Chicago and base Universism there. He plans to launch a group similar to the Birmingham group he took part in, meeting at coffee shops and other venues.

"We've got a really strong group in Birmingham that can fly under its own power," Stricker said.

"I like the idea of making Chicago our base of operations," said Vox, who plans to graduate medical school and begin his residency next year. "We'll be more of a national force from that location."

Panel discussions:

Other Universist groups have popped up in various cities, sponsoring showings of documentaries and panel discussions.

"They're united around the fact they disbelieve in the God of the Bible," said Russell Moore, dean of theology at the Southern Baptist Theological Seminary, who took part in a panel discussion organized by Universists in Louisville, Ky., on Aug. 23. "A movement united around what members do not believe is not going to grow."

Part of the idea behind Universism is offering an alternative to what Universists feel are outdated models of theology that people don't really believe in, Stricker said.

"Liberal Christianity is more of a problem for us than fundamentalist Christianity," he said. "They're trying to make it acceptable to be a Christian. If you're going to pick and choose from the Bible, what's to say you can't use the myriad of other sources and make them just as authoritative?"

By having meetings that celebrate individual freedom and responsibility, Universism hopes to meet people's spiritual needs while being intellectually honest, Stricker said.

"The concept of spirituality is deeply entwined with mental health," Stricker said. "There's a confusion that comes with liberal Christianity. There's bound to be conflict and confusion about what to do to be a good Christian. We've based it almost entirely on the individual. It's up to you; you don't have to turn to anybody else or follow any example you don't desire."

Universism, which has a Web site at www.universist.org, was formed as a non-profit organization and has spun off another called Hands on Humanity, to provide low-cost medication and medical equipment, Stricker said. "We have a lot of people with compassion who want to help," he said.

The point is that people can do good works without a religious motivation or dogma, he said. "Almost everybody lives with a grain of uncertainty," Stricker said. "I'd like them to be able to embrace it."

Moore, of Southern Seminary, said Universism faces an uphill battle. "Church is a community united around a common storyline and revelation," Moore said. "It's hard to mimic that sense of community without the storyline and revelation


----------



## Cpl.Banks

I do not believe that the big religions have been in decline. I know for certain though that the traditional values of these big religions are changing. We see the catholic church sanctioning things that only 50 years ago would have been unheard of, the same can certainly be said of every religion(almost). Religions, fashion trends, architectural style, all these things change with time and evolve. Yes there always will be hard liners and fanatics who believe the old way is the right way. But more and more for example, the typical catholic family is no longer going to church as often for example, sex before marriage is extremely common, we do all sin and yet we all hold something sacred. Be you of the Jewish faith, Muslim, Christian, Druid or a any other religion we all as human beings hold certain things sacred. For example murder, lies, deception etc... are all considered wrong by any religions standards (satanist excluded :). So what does it matter if Islam becomes more and more popular in North-America. As long as a religion brings comfort to people who need it and teaches principals that we all hold sacred then far be it from me to critique it.
UBIQUE!!!


----------



## 1feral1

Springroll said:
			
		

> "White Magic",   is the one used for good purposes: Heal a sick, get a job, the return of the bad husband, or the rebel child, obtain a boyfriend... or make it rain, sunshine, stop a thunderstorm...
> 
> "Black Magic", is used for bad purposes: Harm other people, make someone sick, loose his job, or even kill him... make a bad thunderstorm, a hurricane, a fire at home or in the business..



Not to rain on anyones' parade here, but.....

Seriously now, white magic, black magic, covens, spells, witches, and now 'fetishes'   :, start mentioning this anywhere in your recruiting process, or promoting such, you'll be branded a nutter, and won't make it past the pshyc testing.

With all this talk about religions and all, I'll keep it simple by saying it here - a famous quote "there is no such thing as an athiest in a foxhole".

Cheers,

Wes


----------



## winchable

> Seriously now, white magic, black magic, covens, spells, witches, and now 'fetishes'  , start mentioning this anywhere in your recruiting process, or promoting such, you'll be branded a nutter, and won't make it past the pshyc testing.



Alright, all joking aside, I am a religious person and I fully admit I'm into the mystery and might of religion...actually more and more it has become about my individual spirituality and relationship with God (but that's another book)
That being said, every religion requires a certain degree of "faith" (ooo, there's that word) and they are all at some point going to make someone roll their eyes and call you a nutter.

For Christians, believing Christ turned water into wine, walked on water, raised the dead, was resurrected.
For Muslims, An angel gave Muhammad a book which is the exact word of God, jesus was switched on the cross, etc.
Hindus, believing there are a number of God's and the big one is a big elephant with many arms.
Buddhists, this dude sat under a tree for a very long time without dying of thirst or hunger.
Atheists, there is absolutely nothing more to life than what is weighed measured, seen, heard smelled etc.
Thousands of African religions; their ancestors are controlling everyday events and sending them messages.

Now that I've offended everyone and left myself open to critcisms, try and keep in mind the spirit and not the specific details of this..
Every religion sounds a tad bit wonky when you think about it, wiccan beliefs are just another way of saying the same thing (tad simplistic).

As such I refuse to look at any one faith and think that because it is more widely known, accepted and followed, it is somehow superior to another one.

I'm getting a serious feeling of deja vu on this whole debate.
Anyone else?


----------



## Glorified Ape

Che said:
			
		

> Alright, all joking aside, I am a religious person and I fully admit I'm into the mystery and might of religion...actually more and more it has become about my individual spirituality and relationship with God (but that's another book)
> That being said, every religion requires a certain degree of "faith" (ooo, there's that word) and they are all at some point going to make someone roll their eyes and call you a nutter.
> 
> For Christians, believing Christ turned water into wine, walked on water, raised the dead, was resurrected.
> For Muslims, An angel gave Muhammad a book which is the exact word of God, jesus was switched on the cross, etc.
> Hindus, believing there are a number of God's and the big one is a big elephant with many arms.
> Buddhists, this dude sat under a tree for a very long time without dying of thirst or hunger.
> Atheists, there is absolutely nothing more to life than what is weighed measured, seen, heard smelled etc.
> Thousands of African religions; their ancestors are controlling everyday events and sending them messages.
> 
> Now that I've offended everyone and left myself open to critcisms, try and keep in mind the spirit and not the specific details of this..
> Every religion sounds a tad bit wonky when you think about it, wiccan beliefs are just another way of saying the same thing (tad simplistic).
> 
> As such I refuse to look at any one faith and think that because it is more widely known, accepted and followed, it is somehow superior to another one.
> 
> I'm getting a serious feeling of deja vu on this whole debate.
> Anyone else?



Yes, though good points. The established religions are no more or less unbelievable/credible than the smaller ones - cults included.



			
				Wesley H. Allen said:
			
		

> "there is no such thing as an athiest in a foxhole".



I've always thought that adage a bit suspect. I no more expect an atheist to abandon his/her beliefs in such a situation than I would expect a religious person to abandon theirs after experiencing the depravity and horror of warfare _sans_ divine intervention. 

One retort (not mine, unfortunately) which I find poignant: 

"As for all those religious folks out there sitting in their own foxholes, they would do well to reconsider their prayerful ways. After all, if their nightly prayers to God were really effective, they would never have ended up sitting in foxholes in the first place."


----------



## Springroll

Wesley H. Allen said:
			
		

> Not to rain on anyones' parade here, but.....
> 
> Seriously now, white magic, black magic, covens, spells, witches, and now 'fetishes'   :, start mentioning this anywhere in your recruiting process, or promoting such, you'll be branded a nutter, and won't make it past the pshyc testing.
> 
> Cheers,
> 
> Wes



Actually, Wicca is a recognized religion with the CF. They have a pretty basic description of it, but like every religion, there are things that they do not go into depth about like rituals, spells and such. I believe Trinity posted a link a while ago with the desctiptions of all the CF recognized religions.


----------



## 1feral1

Recognised or not (and to what degree) - I can't see the CF recognising spells and witchcraft), you go on about covens, witches, spells and such and you will be labelled a nutter if not by the pshycs, your fellow co-workers should you ever get in. If I had someone telling me about spells, and said they were a witch, and were serious, I'd think they were 'right out of it'.

EDITed for spelling  ;D
Wes


----------



## KevinB

Proving the CF is really straining the bounds of reality.




TABLE OF CONTENTS
Anglican Church of Canada

BahÃƒÂ¡'ÃƒÂ­ Faith

Baptist Church

Brethren in Christ Church

Buddhism

Christian Church (Disciples of Christ)

Christian and Missionary Alliance

Christian Reformed Church

Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints

Church of the Nazarene

Doukhobors

Eastern Orthodox Churches

Evangelical Free Church

Evangelical Missionary Church of Canada

Free Methodist Church

Hinduism

Hutterian Brotherhood

Islam

Jehovah's Witnesses

Judaism

Lutheran Church

Mennonite Church

Native Spirituality

Pentecostal Assemblies

Presbyterian Church in Canada

Rastafarianism

Religious Society of Friends (Quakers)

Roman Catholic Church

Salvation Army

Seventh-day Adventist Church

Sikhism

Ukrainian Catholic Church

Unitarian Universalist Church 

United Church of Canada

Wesleyan Church

Wicca

Worldwide Church of God

Zoroastrianism

 ______________________________________________________________

 :

Better watch out the Scientologists are going to sue...


----------



## 1feral1

How bloody true Kevin, how bloody true, the PC world has even founds its way into this, but I do like that Wesleyan church  .

Cheers,

Wesl


----------



## Springroll

Thats cool, Wes.

I guess that is what makes us different. 
I do not pass judgement on someone based on their religion or on what they practice in their religion.

Cheers


----------



## Fishbone Jones

So, if I go for the one on the bottom, can I get "Zoro" put on my ID Discs? 8) Do you get one of those cool black flat top hats and a mask?


----------



## 1feral1

Ya, and what about the Church of the Aryan Brotherhood? Like Canada, the ADF too has gone way off the mark. What ever happened to:

UCC
PRES
RC
BAPT
JEW
CofE
ACC
SA; and
NRE

Those were the days - hey is devil worshipping on the list (yet)???

Wes


----------



## Springroll

A great link for information on Zoroastrianism and other religions.


----------



## winchable

oi you guys are killing me.


----------



## 1feral1

Springroll said:
			
		

> Thats cool, Wes.
> 
> I guess that is what makes us different.
> I do not pass judgement on someone based on their religion or on what they practice in their religion.
> 
> Cheers



So what if someone was a devil worshipper sacrifing goats, and was a CF member, or a member of some cult, where do you stand on that?


----------



## Kat Stevens

No need to be mocking my religion du jour, rg.   I just may have to summon up a Babylonian serpent demon to roast your liver.   I'll serve it up with some fava beans and a nice chianti....slllurp


----------



## KevinB

Wesley H. Allen said:
			
		

> So what if someone was a devil worshipper sacrifing goats, and was a CF member, or a member of some cult, where do you stand on that?



She is a Cult member Wes...


----------



## 1feral1

KevinB said:
			
		

> She is a Cult member Wes...



....and seen The Craft too many times. "north, south, east, and west, we can make it all happen"


----------



## Glorified Ape

KevinB said:
			
		

> She is a Cult member Wes...



If you choose to make the false dichotomy between a "religion" and a "cult". 

I trust everyone making fun of wicca and all the other lesser followed religions isn't religious themselves since they're all just different sides of the same ridiculous rubix cube. 

I suppose the CF should only recognize the "big 3" since... what? They're "righter" than the others?

"My one-eyed, one-horned, flyin' purple people eater is real-er than yours... and mine even has symbolic cannibalism!"

Edited for spelling.


----------



## Fishbone Jones

Glorified Ape said:
			
		

> I trust everyone making fun of wicca and all the other lesser followed religions isn't religious themselves since they're all just different sides of the same ridiculous rubix cube.



Yup NRE on my tags, just adding some levity, lighten up. I could really care less what anyone else thinks of my religious, or lack of, convictions.


----------



## Springroll

Wesley H. Allen said:
			
		

> So what if someone was a devil worshipper sacrifing goats, and was a CF member, or a member of some cult, where do you stand on that?



I refuse to judge anyone based on their religious choice just as I would never judge someone based on the colour of their skin.

As for being a member of a "cult", here is the definition: 
cult 
n. 

1. A religion or religious sect generally considered to be extremist or false, with its followers often living in an unconventional manner under the guidance of an authoritarian, charismatic leader. 
2. The followers of such a religion or sect. 
3. A system or community of religious worship and ritual.
4. The formal means of expressing religious reverence; religious ceremony and ritual. 
5. A usually nonscientific method or regimen claimed by its originator to have exclusive or exceptional power in curing a particular disease. 

I guess anyone with any sort of religious beliefs are part of a cult.


----------



## Glorified Ape

recceguy said:
			
		

> Yup NRE on my tags, just adding some levity, lighten up. I could really care less what anyone else thinks of my religious, or lack of, convictions.



SR on mine. I wasn't taking it that seriously, just pointing out the irony of it. 



			
				Springroll said:
			
		

> I refuse to judge anyone based on their religious choice just as I would never judge someone based on the colour of their skin.
> 
> As for being a member of a "cult", here is the definition:
> cult
> n.
> 
> 1. A religion or religious sect generally considered to be extremist or false, with its followers often living in an unconventional manner under the guidance of an authoritarian, charismatic leader.
> 2. The followers of such a religion or sect.
> 3. A system or community of religious worship and ritual.
> 4. The formal means of expressing religious reverence; religious ceremony and ritual.
> 5. A usually nonscientific method or regimen claimed by its originator to have exclusive or exceptional power in curing a particular disease.
> 
> I guess anyone with any sort of religious beliefs are part of a cult.



That about sums it up.  ;D


----------



## 1feral1

Springroll said:
			
		

> I refuse to judge anyone based on their religious choice just as I would never judge someone based on the colour of their skin.
> 
> As for being a member of a "cult", here is the definition:
> cult
> n.
> 
> 1. A religion or religious sect generally considered to be extremist or false, with its followers often living in an unconventional manner under the guidance of an authoritarian, charismatic leader.
> 2. The followers of such a religion or sect.
> 3. A system or community of religious worship and ritual.
> 4. The formal means of expressing religious reverence; religious ceremony and ritual.
> 5. A usually nonscientific method or regimen claimed by its originator to have exclusive or exceptional power in curing a particular disease.
> 
> I guess anyone with any sort of religious beliefs are part of a cult.



Firstly, I am only in churches for wedding and funerals, and if anyone wants to worship the penis god, I don't care, but drawing pentagrams, darkness, candles, sarcrifices, spells, and outright witchcraft is NOT a religion. Thats my opinion, so comparing witches to say for example the ACC is way off centre.


----------



## Springroll

Wesley H. Allen said:
			
		

> Firstly, I am only in churches for wedding and funerals, and if anyone wants to worship the penis god, I don't care, but drawing pentagrams, darkness, candles, sarcrifices, spells, and outright witchcraft is NOT a religion. Thats my opinion, so comparing witches to say for example the ACC is way off centre.



Then you are unaware of the true workings of Wicca then. 

The Wiccan Rede(Rule Book) summed up says "Ye Harm None, Do what Ye will". In other words, as long as I do not hurt anything, I can do what i like. Another good one is the rule of three. Anything I put forth will come back to me times 3. 

I wear a pentacle, I like to burn candles(as most women do and I do prefer partylite), I do not sacrifice anything(that is against the rules) and I do only good spells, not any to hurt or harm anyone. I also do not do spells against someones wishes...that is also against the rules. Here is a good link to learn about Wicca. You will see that there is a huge difference between what your are writing(which alot people think is true) and what is actually true. The media has painted such a horrible picture of "witches" that they assume all ride broom sticks and and are green faces with warts all over, and that is so far form the truth.

http://www.fortunecity.com/greenfield/tigris/567/id113.htm

Edited to add: but worshiping a statue of a dead man with blood dripping down his face, is okay?? I am only asking, not looking to be attacked. I used to be Anglican, so at one time, I too believed in Jesus and all of that.


----------



## KevinB

GA,

 Actually I'm planning on starting my own religion dedicated to firearms.  
So I can wear one all the time as its a religious artifact.  

I'm a small c christian, with a mix of pagan and native spirituality in my actual belief system.  Which I personally think was Christ's message in the begining before some frickin Roman's decided to alter it to fit...

I dont put a lot of stock in organized religions as some asshole always enters into it and screws it up with their own deisres for personal power.  We are human, as such we are fallible, God could design the perfect roadmap, we'd screw it up, change it to make it easier to control general populations with it and call it perfect...  Or wait is that not what happend  ???


Just my 0.02 and since I am human I don't think I got it 100% either.


----------



## George Wallace

Springroll said:
			
		

> The Wiccan Rede(Rule Book) summed up says "Ye Harm None, Do what Ye will". In other words, as long as I do not hurt anything, I can do what i like. Another good one is the rule of three. Anything I put forth will come back to me times 3.



So why join the Armed Forces?   It would be against your Religion, as it is for Jehovah's Witnesses.   You would be putting others in danger with your beliefs.   You could not be relied upon to defend yourself in the face of an enemy.   If you did, then you would not be true to your faith.   Much, I suppose, could be said about Terrorists who have warped Islam to justify their Jihad.


----------



## muskrat89

I've always been partial to Hedonism...


----------



## 1feral1

Springroll said:
			
		

> Then you are unaware of the true workings of Wicca then.
> 
> The Wiccan Rede(Rule Book) summed up says "Ye Harm None, Do what Ye will". In other words, as long as I do not hurt anything, I can do what i like. Another good one is the rule of three. Anything I put forth will come back to me times 3.
> 
> I wear a pentacle, I like to burn candles(as most women do and I do prefer partylite), I do not sacrifice anything(that is against the rules) and I do only good spells, not any to hurt or harm anyone. I also do not do spells against someones wishes...that is also against the rules. Here is a good link to learn about Wicca. You will see that there is a huge difference between what your are writing(which alot people think is true) and what is actually true. The media has painted such a horrible picture of "witches" that they assume all ride broom sticks and and are green faces with warts all over, and that is so far form the truth.
> 
> http://www.fortunecity.com/greenfield/tigris/567/id113.htm
> 
> Edited to add: but worshiping a statue of a dead man with blood dripping down his face, is okay?? I am only asking, not looking to be attacked. I used to be Anglican, so at one time, I too believed in Jesus and all of that.



Springroll, I am NOT going to have a pissing contest with you on the topic of witchcraft, etc, You go ahead and do what you want. If it makes you feel good to cast spells, and all that goes with it, fill your boots.


----------



## Strike

> but drawing pentagrams, darkness, candles, sarcrifices, spells, and outright witchcraft is NOT a religion.



So I guess the Pentacostal Church (pentagrams a plenty there), and any religion that uses candles (um, the Big 3 certainly), are also then NOT a religion?  What do you think prayers are?  They are exactly what Springroll does every time she calls a circle and casts a spell.  Spells can be chants, singing, saying a repetitive phrase, and going through rehearsed motions.  Sounds sneakingly like a prayer to me.



> So why join the Armed Forces?  It would be against your Religion, as it is for Jehovah's Witnesses.  You would be putting others in danger with your beliefs.  You could not be relied upon to defend yourself in the face of an enemy.  If you did, then you would not be true to your faith.



In the same vein, then why would a good Christian join the forces?  After all, isn't it preached to love thy neighbour?


----------



## Mojo Magnum

I suspect each of us will know if our faith choice was the right one, if , in your last dying moments, it still offers you compfort.   I suspect a mere mental fascination might fall short on that occassion.

Perhaps you folks who have taken the time to consider the need of faith, regardless of form, might be equipped to answer my question put forth in the thread "unlimited liability".

either way, I hope those last few moments go well for each of us.


----------



## Steel Badger

Wes....

I feel your pain....Just deleted a long post on the veracity of the "Wiccan Rule Book" because I didnt want to get into it with Springroll


 My main issue is that the so called Wiccan rule has about as much veracity as a book on the Language or Relgion of the Klingon Empire....

The body of work it is based upon willfully misinterprets the archeological and historical record and warps it. Inconvienient facts like the complete inability of historians to identify a pan-Celtic religion complete with Horned God and Mother Goddess are simply ignored...... 

Bah, I'm away the pub for a pint


SB
First Primarch of the Church of Enlightened Guiness Consumption and Arch-Decon of the Holy Pythonic Rite


----------



## paracowboy

snippy? That wasn't snippy. We've been over the same ground twice before. Both times I mentioned that I think all organized religions are simply another means of controlling the populace and that Krishnamurti's teachings are the closest thing to common sense: Your Truth is not my Truth. (Although, a great deal of his stuff is repeats from Jesus, Kung Fu Tzu, and the Gautama Buddha - deliberate, or otherwise.)

You've broadcast your atheism twice before. As I said: Good for you. Lemme know how it works out.
I been there, it didn't work, and now I'm progressing. I've moved beyond Athiesm, beyond Agnosticism, ann now I'm finding my own Truth. I'll keep you posted on where I end up, if you care.


You want to talk condecension? That's when I start using terms like, "lad", "youngster", or "bozo".


----------



## the 48th regulator

Jumper said:
			
		

> Did you happen to see the two part series on the History Channel that aired about two months ago on the DaVinci Code and the book it was based on Holy Blood, Holy Grail? All the supporting evidence supplied to the authors for the The Holy Blood and Holy Grail was fabricated the whole thing was an elaborate hoax. It was a really good program!



No I didn't see it.  Would you happen to have a link to it? The only one I can find is Beyond The Da Vinci Code by the history channel.  Was that the one that Richard Leigh, one of three authors of HOLY BLOOD, HOLY GRAIL, make an appearance in the series?

Let me know, as I am intrigued.

dileas

tess


----------



## Fry

[quote author=Springroll]
The media has painted such a horrible picture of "witches" that they assume all ride broom sticks and and are green faces with warts all over, and that is so far form the truth.
[/quote]

Is it?


Just one question, what in the name of God, caused you to stray from Christianity, and become a witch? The whole aspect of "wicca" seems so cheesy and fake. Casting spells, chanting? Sounds like a re-run of "Charmed".

You say that you -believed- in Jesus and all that. Past tense, meaning you no longer believe in Christ. That's fine, and I understand where people may question many aspects of Christianity, but which aspects of "Wicca" seem more realistic and logical than Christianity? I'm not arguing that Christianity is the supreme religion, I am just interested as to why you made the switch.


----------



## Bruce Monkhouse

The attention factor, I'll wage......


----------



## KevinB

I have to admit I've met a few hot wican chicks who where definetly into the LOVE stuff  ;D sometime two or three at a time...


----------



## Fry

Strike said:
			
		

> In the same vein, then why would a good Christian join the forces?   After all, isn't it preached to love thy neighbour?


A good Christian fights for what he/she believes in. If believing in protecting their fellow man from harm, then that makes them a good Christian, and makes joining the CF a logical choice... both career wise and religion wise.

They could also become padres   .


However if Springroll believes that bringing harm to others is against her religion then she must conflict with her husband on many occaisions, unless he is a warlock. :


----------



## TCBF

"However if Springroll believes that bringing harm to others is against her religion then she must conflict with her husband on many occaisions, unless he is a warlock."

- Maybe he does not know she is a witch, you know, like the USAF astronaut guy in that TV show.

- Or was that a genie?

- Witches, genies, .. whatever...

Tom


----------



## Jarnhamar

My paladin on world of warcraft puts all the warlocks into a hurt locker.

Springroll, Fry. I want each of you to roll a d20 and see who makes a saving throw.

Sorry it's just all this talk about spells and witches and doing good in the name of god and all that - IN a thread about politics...
Haven't we learned our lesson?


----------



## KevinB




----------



## Springroll

Fry said:
			
		

> Is it?
> 
> 
> Just one question, what in the name of God, caused you to stray from Christianity, and become a witch? The whole aspect of "wicca" seems so cheesy and fake. Casting spells, chanting? Sounds like a re-run of "Charmed".
> 
> You say that you -believed- in Jesus and all that. Past tense, meaning you no longer believe in Christ. That's fine, and I understand where people may question many aspects of Christianity, but which aspects of "Wicca" seem more realistic and logical than Christianity? I'm not arguing that Christianity is the supreme religion, I am just interested as to why you made the switch.



I guess I lost my faith when "God" stopped seeming so wonderful to me. He had "stripped" me of almost all of my loved ones that meant anything to me and never offered me guidance or support when I asked for it in my prayers. I have lost 8 extremely close people to me in the last 10 years(3 within a month of each other) and I do not see how if he loved us, that he would do that to us. Is he not supposed to be great and wonderful? 

My husband is well aware of the path I have chosen to take, as are my children, but I do not push my ways on them. I truly believe that my children will believe in whatever religion they choose to and all I can do is answer their questions as best as I can when they ask. My daughter and youngest son still like to say grace at meal time, so we do that. My daughter attended a christian based preschool because she wanted to. I do not feel that Wicca is the only "true" religion and so I do not go criticising others for their religious choices as I expect them not to criticise mine.

Now for me joining the military, I am doing it since it has been something that I have wanted to do for the last 14 years and I do not believe in having regrets. I am fully aware that I may have go against my beliefs to protect myself, my buddies and my country.


----------



## Springroll

I am going to try and bring this back on topic by saying that I personally don't feel that the "new" religions have any affect on Canadian society other than brining in more diversity to the table. Now they obviously have an affect on individuals as has been demonstarted in the posts making fun of my beliefs. 

Strike, you had it right on!!

So much for religious tolerance, eh?!!


----------



## sigpig

Wesley H. Allen said:
			
		

> With all this talk about religions and all, I'll keep it simple by saying it here - a famous quote "there is no such thing as an athiest in a foxhole".
> 
> Cheers,
> 
> Wes



Repeating a tired old cliche doesn't make it any more true. And it's ath_*ei*_st.
Military Association of Atheists and Freethinkers    -    http://www.maaf.info/

Reading all the posts putting down wicca is kind of funny. "My superstition is better than your superstition!!"

But I agree that the inclusion of new and different religions can only be a good thing to increase peoples awareness of others and make the organization more inclusive. Traditional christian sects don't have a monopoly on wanting to serve their country.


----------



## the 48th regulator

sigpig said:
			
		

> Repeating a tired old cliche doesn't make it any more true. And it's ath_*ei*_st.
> Military Association of Atheists and Freethinkers      -      http://www.maaf.info/
> 
> Reading all the posts putting down wicca is kind of funny. "My superstition is better than your superstition!!"
> 
> But I agree that the inclusion of new and different religions can only be a good thing to increase peoples awareness of others and make the organization more inclusive. Traditional christian sects don't have a monopoly on wanting to serve their country.



Interesting how you promote Atheism in your first paragraph, then say you agree with the inclusion of religions can only be a good thing to increase awareness.

I guess we all have to find a way to get our post count up.

dileas

tess


----------



## winchable

*gong* *gong* *gong*
Send out the dancing poodles in ballet skirts and cut to a commercial, this lady's had enough to drink.


----------



## Guardian

Some people are always quick to drag out the "separation of church and state" idea, but very few of them know what it originally meant and what it was intended to do.

The term originated in the United States. As they were building the institutions of government, certain people began pushing for an "established" church - that is, to declare a certain Christian denomination the state church of the United States (like the Anglican church in England, the Lutheran in Germany, etc.) IIRC, the front-running denomination was the Congregational church.

This alarmed a lot of people - many immigrants to the States had come there for religious freedom. Baptists, in particular, were afraid that the persecution they had been facing in Britain and continental Europe up to this time would continue if the Congregational church was "established." Overseas, Baptists had been prevented from meeting together and preaching publicly because they were "noncomformists" - they were not licenced by the state church. Back then, in Britain, the government granted preaching licences like today's governments grant driver's licences. So faced with the same situation in the New World, Baptists protested, saying that the role of government should not be to prescribe in matters of religious practice, but to guard free speech and freedom of association so that all religious groups would have the ability to practice without interference.

Thomas Jefferson wrote a Baptist association a letter assuring them that there would be no establishment of religion in the United States. This letter was the origin of the term, "separation of church and state."

Now, notice what this was intended to accomplish, IN ITS HISTORICAL CONTEXT. The issue was not religious activity in government institutions - it was a given that people of faith would be active in politics. Rather, it was government interference in religious affairs and regulation of religious worship - the spectre of government regulation of religious bodies and churches, and licencing of preachers.

Or, in other words, separation of church and state was never intended to protect government from religion. It was intended to safeguard religion from government.

Think of it this way. Why are churches tax-exempt? Because of separation of church and state. If churches were to lose their tax-exempt status, they would be taxpaying institutions like any other, and thus entitled to make political contributions and engage in political activity. 

So those rabid anti-religious types who see tax exemptions of churches as some kind of governmental sponsorship of religion, if they were to succeed in squashing these privileges, would usher in an age of religious political activity. Imagine the effects on the body politic of church donations - worth billions of dollars a year - began being funneled to political activism. Since most religious institutions are conservative by nature, take a wild guess at which political parties would benefit most from this idea.

Where am I going with this? Well, separation of church and state was NEVER intended to "establish" atheism as a state religion. It was, rather, intended to enshrine in law the respect that the state must have for religious belief. 

And in that view, a military drill movement that removes headdress as a mark of respect for a religious ceremony is not, and never can be, a mark of submission to that religious system. Rather, it is a recognition that said religious practice is a right respected and defended by the state.

The people removing their headdress are not being asked to pray. Rather, the institution of the Canadian Forces is expressing, through the medium of ceremonial drill, the State's respect for religious freedom.


----------



## DG-41

I actually encountered a teeny tiny problem with this on Stalwart Guardian, when an NRE soldier got a little bent out of shape (just a little) at having to remove headdress during the Padre's blessing. We had this very discussion, quietly and after the fact.

I'm an Atheist myself, but I have no problem at all with being asked to remove headdress and stand quietly during a blessing. Even though I myself may not believe in any religion or higher power, many of my troops do, and for them, the presence of the padre and some low-key religious observations can be a great comfort to them.

We are, someday, going to ask a lot of these soldiers - perhaps even the ultimate commitment. If we can do something to help comfort them in the process, we should do that, and we should show respect for their beliefs, even if we don't share them personally.

It's not a case of being forced to kowtow to religion. It's a mark of respect for your men.

And Padres make great councillors. Sometimes even atheists need someone to talk to. 

DG


----------



## George Wallace

DG

On another note; did you ask him if he would have removed his shoes when entering a Japanese person's home?  Again, the example of the "respect" one would pay another, and not even one having a religious connotation.


----------



## 3rd Horseman

This is an interesting argument.

   I think IMHO that the officer was right but did it the wrong way. As an atheist and trust me there are atheist in fox holes, I have fought against the issue my entire carrier. Sometimes the only one who can change a law is the officer who takes it on the chin and gets the law changed that takes courage. He was wrong however because he should have not gone to the parade, once on the parade as many of you have said show some respect and I agree! I have been in the same boat (no pun intended) I refused to be on Church parade my entire career when I came upon the point were I needed to be on parade because of my position of command or for team unity I would step aside during the religious portion but still took my beret off out of respect.
   If the storey related is accurate then after telling his CO his CO needed to respect his desire if still ordered he should of done the AWOL thing and fought that way, now not AWOL from the unit but as I have done stood outside the church or stepped off the parade for that portion. As a side note my COs told me the reason they could not give me any special exemption was because the entire unit was atheist and would walk off then were would we be, my response was not in church finally. Oh and for the remeberance day argument that is not a church parade and removal of head dress is out of respect for the fallen and the fallens religious beliefs, I always said a few thankyous for the athiests who had fallen and didnt pray to a fictious god.

  So to sum up as has been said in the past nice idea poor execution!


----------



## Bruce Monkhouse

Horse-hockey!!!...stupid idea, stupid execution....

I'm a non-believer also, however tomorrow morning after working all night I will be going to church to hear my children sing in the choir before I go to bed, and I will be respectful of everyone else's beliefs there even if they are not mine.
In 17 years in Corrections I have attended more than my share of Native Son's ceremonies and, once again, even though they are not my beliefs, I respected and followed, security permitting, whatever the service entailed.
...not to mention the RC masses I attend while visiting the in-laws in Quebec.

So, after all this babbling, I guess it comes down to simple respect, some have it and some don't.


----------



## the 48th regulator

Here here,

well said Bruce,

dileas

tess


----------



## Gunner98

Bruce - Can I borrow your baton for a minute?  

DG41 states,"I have no problem at all with being asked to remove headdress."
   
I didn't think commands given during parades were requests, I thought they were orders.  Once a parade begins, parade orders should be carried out in the prescribed manner and not ignored.  I can't remember ever seeing a debatable or a discretionary orders section in the Drill manual.

Thanks, Bruce, I'm done.


----------



## jbeach95

What about respect for the beliefs of atheists? Why should they be forced to conform to other religious customs?

All the power to atheists who choose to practice these customs, but those who do not want to conform should not be forced to.

Since an order to remove headdress has been ruled illegal, one who doesn't want to should not. Superiors can only ask for headdresses to be removed.


----------



## Bruce Monkhouse

What are ya babbling about?......show us where you got that from?


----------



## jbeach95

Got what from? The illegal order part? Try the article in the first post:



> The order required Lt. (N) Scott to make a public gesture of approval for a religious ceremony in which he did not believe, the three-judge panel stated. "The order was not lawful, and [Lt. (N) Scott's] disobedience of it was justified."


----------



## 3rd Horseman

J Beach,


     Nice touch, simple logic often never works here.


----------



## Michael Dorosh

3rd Horseman said:
			
		

> J Beach,
> 
> 
> Nice touch, simple logic often never works here.



Careful 3 Horse, Bruce may be forced to use glowing red font on you.


----------



## winchable

I would say the officers refusal to remove headdress flies in the face of logic and manners.
If the majority of those around you have removed their headdress, in my mind, logic dictates that you should remove yours even if only for confomity and aesthetics on a parade.

That being said, you're correct in saying that superiors can now only _ask_ that headdress be removed of course and now people have a right to choose not to, but that doesn't change the fact that we have a right to complain about it and think/say what we want about the individual who choose to keep theirs on.


----------



## Springroll

Che said:
			
		

> but that doesn't change the fact that we have a right to complain about it and think/say what we want about the individual who choose to keep theirs on.



I'm a little confused about this snippet form your post.

What I am getting from it is that if someone is part of the "Whatchamcallit" religion and part of their religion is that they can not remove their headress or participate in anything Christian, then you feel you have a right to think and say whatever you want about them because you feel they chose too?

If I am wrong in my understanding of what you said, please clarify.


----------



## George Wallace

Actually, I had hoped that this topic had run its' course.....I disagree with any Atheist, or any other Religious or Non-Religious member of the CF, pulling of stupid egotistical selfish act such as this.   To me it is an "Order on Parade", that truthfully has no status of being Legal or Illegal, nor requirement to be declared by a Court as being Illegal - pure unadulterated waste of Court Time and Common Sense.   This was not an order to rape or kill some innocent Civilian or any other similar case.   It was a friggin Parade.   It was a mark of Respect.   He was in attendance; he follows the honoured format.   Just as I asked if this person would remove their shoes to enter a home of a Japanese family to respect their traditions, why is this simple act of respect such a focus of this "Idiot" and his perceived feelings of poor treatment by his superiors and peers?   He has now gained a new title in my books, a non-denominational title of "WANKER!".   He is a disgrace to the uniform that he wears, and the memory of those who have worn it before him.   

This was a waste of the Courts time.   I believe the Court made a PC call in judging in his favour and has opened the floodgates for even more insubordination in the CF.


----------



## Michael Dorosh

Che said:
			
		

> I would say the officers refusal to remove headdress flies in the face of logic and manners.
> If the majority of those around you have removed their headdress, in my mind, logic dictates that you should remove yours even if only for confomity and aesthetics on a parade.
> 
> That being said, you're correct in saying that superiors can now only _ask_ that headdress be removed of course and now people have a right to choose not to, but that doesn't change the fact that we have a right to complain about it and think/say what we want about the individual who choose to keep theirs on.



It's disappointing that members of an armed force - a team - would place themselves over and above their comrades based on individual desires.   I hate tuna fish but if I get a tuna fish in the box lunch I don't make a federal case about it.   I noticed last weekend one troop get right ballistic when a "vegetarian" lunch was not ordered special for them.   Well, it's great that our society is so accommodating but you are correct, Che, in that some respect needs to be paid back on occasion.   Vegetarian is a choice if you ask me, not a dietary requirement.   Not liking IMPs is also a choice; if that happens, you bring your own food, go hungry, or just eat it and concentrate on your work and not yourself. 

I am all for individual liberties and freedoms, and think that can be applied within the military to a degree, but signing on the line is an agreement to forgo some of our individual liberties - lot of them, really - in pursuit of the greater good.  And it stymies me how anyone could honestly feel aggrieved by the simple act of removing one's hat.  We do the same to give three cheers for the CO at his change of command.  Even if we thought he was a prick.  It's a point of pride that we did as expected of us, even if in disagreement.

I think the dude with the hat probably had some self-worth issues he needed to resolve.


----------



## George Wallace

I think I'll go to the AJAG and have the command "Stand at Ease!" declared Illegal....   :


----------



## winchable

I'm saying that I have a right to say and think what I want as much as they have a right to think, say, even do what they want.
All within the realms of good taste and general politeness.

For instance if I feel refusing to remove his headress (while it is his legal right to not do so) is in bad taste, I'm going to both say and think "that's in poor taste, I probably don't like that chap."  and there's nothing wrong with that, I can think and say what I want within the realms of good taste and politeness.
At least these are the standards I hold myself to.

If someone wants to think I'm an idiot (and there are people who do shockingly) because I think there was a prophet from Arabia who chatted with God and wrote a book about it, then I say let them.
I choose to believe that, they choose to think I'm a twat because of it, cool.

Now, when it becomes in poor taste is when said individuals who disagree with other individuals punch me or this sailor in the face, or poop on our lawns, then you've got an argument for curbing their behaivour.

And of course Inside my head I think things about this sailor but thankfully the brain implant is malfunctioning and I'm still able to think those things, what I choose to let out is dependent on what my manners and tact dictate.


----------



## 3rd Horseman

Once we strip away all the self propoganda and in defence of the team antics that have been posted we are almost all in agreement on the main points that are up for discussion. It would appear the majority feel that while you are on the parade it should be all for one and one for all. The issue is the CF is not currently all for one, it started when they allowed Sikhs to were religious artifacts in uniform back in 87.   

There is no argument on if it is legal or not its not so for all the holier than though comments I seen on this post think about it you now advocating braking a rule were as before you were berating some one for doing same in the opposite context.


----------



## Springroll

Che said:
			
		

> I'm saying that I have a right to say and think what I want as much as they have a right to think, say, even do what they want.
> All within the realms of good taste and general politeness.
> 
> For instance if I feel refusing to remove his headress (while it is his legal right to not do so) is in bad taste, I'm going to both say and think "that's in poor taste, I probably don't like that chap."   and there's nothing wrong with that, I can think and say what I want within the realms of good taste and politeness.
> At least these are the standards I hold myself to.



Thank you for clarifying that for me. I was not 100% sure what you were getting at, so I appreciate the clarification.


----------



## Infanteer

What's next - refusing an order to take boots off before entering a mosque?   I thought we went over this and figured that, as Michael pointed out, this guy had some self-worth issues.


----------



## George Wallace

Once again, I think we have reached a consciencis:  "Lack of Respect.  Poor manners."


----------



## winchable

I had nothing better to do be honest, i thought this thread had been deleted ages ago.


----------



## Springroll

So then, just a bit of a thought I had and am curious about, what are your opinions on a Sihk being on parade? When the order to remove headress is made, by his religious beliefs, he can not remove his headress, so does that change your opinions on the whole issue?

Just looking for opinions, not an argument.


----------



## Infanteer

Springroll said:
			
		

> So then, just a bit of a thought I had and am curious about, what are your opinions on a Sihk being on parade? When the order to remove headress is made, by his religious beliefs, he can not remove his headress, so does that change your opinions on the whole issue?



Sikhs have served in the Commonwealth for centuries - the Turban is not a hat.

Incidently, I remember one member saying that the Indian Army had a reasonable policy on turbans in its military (where the Sikhs make a significant contribution).


----------



## Infanteer

We've been over the turban arguement before - including some input from Sikh members here.  It is not considered a hat like a beret.  Same applies for things like courtrooms.  Get over it.


----------



## Springroll

Okay, so here is something a little thought provoking then.

Joe Blow is ordered to be in a Christian based religious parade. He is not Christian and is in fact Atheist(or whatever other non-christian religion). When prayer comes up, would you expect him to remove his headdress to accomodate your religion?

Like I said, I am not looking for a fight or argument, and will not engage in those when it comes to this topic, just curious to see your opinions on this.


----------



## Michael Dorosh

In 1990, our Regimental Colour bearer was a sikh; he wore a turban on parade, for HM Queen Elizabeth II no less (our colonel-in-chief).   It was odd in that he had routinely paraded at the unit in a glengarry, which is the standard parade dress.   It was also, IIRC, one of, if not the, first parades on which females wore the kilt.   

I just stumbled on the correspondence from the various directorates regarding the kilt issue; i think it was the director of Infantry who just said "this is the way it is, let's get on with it."   I think it was the right decision - one set of standards, one uniform for those who do the job.

The turban was done in regmental style, with red and white dice and a cap badge central.   It raised some eyebrows but personally it didn't bother me.   Always wondered if it was a political statement of some kind rather than a religious expression, however.


----------



## Springroll

Infanteer said:
			
		

> We've been over the turban arguement before - including some input from Sikh members here.   It is not considered a hat like a beret.   Same applies for things like courtrooms.   Get over it.



I have not seen any of the input from Sikh members on here, and I know it is not considered a hat..I am well aware of that, but to tell me to get over it or to use some common sense it just rude. i asked a simple question which is now proving something to me. That because it is a visible sign of a different religion, then it is ok.


----------



## Springroll

Michael Dorosh said:
			
		

> In 1990, our Regimental Colour bearer was a sikh; he wore a turban on parade, for HM Queen Elizabeth II no less (our colonel-in-chief).   It was odd in that he had routinely paraded at the unit in a glengarry, which is the standard parade dress.   It was also, IIRC, one of, if not the, first parades on which females wore the kilt.
> 
> I just stumbled on the correspondence from the various directorates regarding the kilt issue; i think it was the director of Infantry who just said "this is the way it is, let's get on with it."   I think it was the right decision - one set of standards, one uniform for those who do the job.
> 
> The turban was done in regmental style, with red and white dice and a cap badge central.   It raised some eyebrows but personally it didn't bother me.   Always wondered if it was a political statement of some kind rather than a religious expression, however.



Thank you for your post, Michael. That was the sort of response I was looking for.

Thank you again.


----------



## tonykeene

Let me just run something by you.

A young person from a minority group, say a religious minority and a second generation immigrant, is really keen on joing the CF.  This young person goes to the recruiters and asks some questions, one of which is: Since I am not a member of the majority faith, will anything religious be required of me?

The answer of course will be an emphatic no, and the recruiters will fall all over themselves explaining the Charter, DND Human Right policy ad nauseam.

The following Sunday the young person is on the street with some buddies, discussing his imminent enrolment in the local Reserve unit.  Suddenly they hear drum and music, see Colours flying, and lo and behold, here comes that very unit, resplendent in scarlet and gold, marching down the main drag.  Full of excitement, the young man and his buddies follow along, when suddenly the entire battalion makes a hard left wheel, right up the steps of an Anglican Cathedral.  They they place the Colours on the altar and proceed to hold a by-the-numbers religious service, just like a Roman Legion worshipping its Eagles in the time of Caesar Augustus.
When asked, the Regimental Seregeant Major puts his pace stick under his arm and says: "Of course it's compulsory...it's tradition.  Didn't hurt me...won't hurt you!"

Mixed message here?

Far too many people in the CF today still believe they can use their authority to make their troops attend religious worship.  And they do it.  
There is no other government agency that makes its personnel attend or take part in religious ritual. (This has nothing to do with Remembrance Day, or honouring the Fallen.  Atheists can do that just as well.  In fact, many of "Our Glorious Dead" were non-believers.)

This is the face we put forward.  No matter what we say, the CF is seen as a white, male, religiously exclusive group.  That's why we only recruit from a base of about 300,000 white boys from the Maritimes, Quebec and the Prairies.

A unit I know has a cohesion problem.  The CO has decided he needs to do something about it.  His answer?  A compulsory church service!

Let's get into the 21st Century, shall we?


----------



## Springroll

Is that a true story?


----------



## Britney Spears

If someone was so insecure and self conscious about their religious beliefs, or lack thereof, that they can't think of any reasonable way to handle this situation without breaking down into tears and bringing up the Charter, then berhaps they'd best reconsider their choice of careers.


----------



## George Wallace

tonykeene 

Welcome to Army.ca

Now!

What kind of asinine post was that?

First off you are confusing a lot of things in it.  I see that you don't have a problem with "Remembrance Day ceremonies and honouring the Fallen", which I might add have Religious prayers said.  You, however, have a problem with the consecration of the Units Colours, which would be a ceremony for pretty much the same reasons.  To me you are trying to raise shyte.

The CF does conduct Religious services at various ceremonies that it performs.  In all cases they are multi-denominational.  In the case of Church Parades, which I might add are very rare these days, no one is forced to go to a Church as there are usually more than one Church/Temple/Synagogue/whatever that members will go to; or it is a multi-denominational service.  So get your facts right.


----------



## Teddy Ruxpin

> Let me just run something by you.



Let me run something by you...  Are you actually in the CF or are you spouting things you've "heard"?

Part of what makes the Army is tradition and some of our traditions are founded in the days of old - particularly in how we handle colours.

I'm a confirmed agnostic.  I have "NRE" on my ID discs and don't participate in church services.  However, in 17 years at this I've never once had a problem with the religious overtones of the more traditional aspects of what we do.  Look at it as a historical exercise rather than a religious one and all will become clear.  Colours are consecrated...so what?  Why is this so offensive?  Some tolerance on both sides goes a long way and it sounds like you don't have very much.

As for "compulsory" church parades, I'm willing to bet that - in the final analysis - it isn't.  All you'd have to say is that you're not interested.  It's worked for me.

As Britney said...

Edit to correct a minor typo.


----------



## Gramps

When I was a reservist I went on many church parades and each year they went to a different church to accomodate the different faiths represented in the unit but I was never once forced to go. I made my views clear and was never punnished for them, my bosses knew I am an atheist and I was informed by some of my supervisors that I could wait out front if I wanted since I couldnt be forced to worship. There were no hard feelings either way and it didnt hurt me one bit.


----------



## muffin

Attending a religious service that is of a different faith of your own shouldn't be threatening... if I was in Tibet I would LOVE to see the temples, and chat to a monk or two... and if I was in Greece or Rome - temples to those gods/goddesses would definatley be on my list. 
Simply attending does not force a conversion - no one can "trick you" into worshiping another Deity. 

I would think of it as a chance to educate yourself about other religions, and then put it away with all good trips to museums and such. 

If for some reason your faith forbids you to enter into a religious ceremony outside of your own - then remember ... as a reservist... unless you are on Class B or C... they cannot "force" you to attend any Class A day. 

muffin


----------



## the 48th regulator

> The following Sunday the young person is on the street with some buddies, discussing his imminent enrolment in the local Reserve unit.  Suddenly they hear drum and music, see Colours flying, and lo and behold, here comes that very unit, resplendent in scarlet and gold, marching down the main drag.  Full of excitement, the young man and his buddies follow along, when suddenly the entire battalion makes a hard left wheel, right up the steps of an Anglican Cathedral.  They they place the Colours on the altar and proceed to hold a by-the-numbers religious service, just like a Roman Legion worshipping its Eagles in the time of Caesar Augustus.
> When asked, the Regimental Seregeant Major puts his pace stick under his arm and says: "Of course it's compulsory...it's tradition.  Didn't hurt me...won't hurt you!"
> 
> Mixed message here?



Why you described a 48th Church Parade down to a tee!  In fact they just recently had one....

Anyway, the RSM nailed it, I enjoyed every parade I did, being a R.C, had nothing to do with it.  I repeat, every PARADE  as it was regimental, and I adored my regiment.

Maybe the Parade would show you to learn a bit of tolerance as well for your regiment's history, instead declaring there is none for you.

dileas

tess


----------



## tonykeene

OK folks, let's back up.

First of all, I have more than 40 years in, and have four operational tours under my belt, and a chest full of medals.  I have nothing to prove, nothing to apologize for, and no need to justify my privilege and honour of wearing Her Majesty's Canadian uniform.  I attacked no one personally, and do not expect to be attacked in return.

If we say that people do not have to have religious beliefs, of any kind, to serve in the CF, then why oh why do so many COs call out the padres whenever they have an important event?  Seen in public, it gives the very simple and clear impression, to anyone watching, that we are all worshipping as one, and that a state religious belief is being imposed.  Given that there are six million Canadians with no religious beliefs, statisically that can't be true.  But it obviously does nothing for the image of the CF as being open to all.

Many deeply-rooted military traditions involve religion.  That's great and I honour that.  I did not attack the consecration of Colours:  I do suggest though that Colours should hold exactly the same power for all members of a Regiment, Atheists included.  If we tell people that only a religious blessing can turn a "moth-eaten rag on a worm-eaten pole" into a Colour, we are automatically excluding a large segment of the troops.  (That's Kipling, by the way)
In the year 2006, we have to accept that these traditions should now only be used when it is a voluntary gathering.  Marching 250 people up in front of an altar of drums, or a church altar, teaches them nothing.  And how you can use the most divisive factor in humanity to promote cohesion is beyond me.

Two Canadian soldiers stand on parade, their medals proclaiming proudly that they have put their lives on the line for what their country stands for.  One is male, the other female, one is white, the other not, one is a sincere believer, the other an equally sincere atheist.  We would not hold to a tradition of proclaiming the superiority of the white race, or the male gender.  We cannot therefore hold to one which says that believers are more accepted than non-believers.  If those soldiers are on parade under orders, nothing should be done that differentiates between them on those three bases.

It's really very simple.  It's like Grace at dinner, a tradition which has evolved with time.  
Atheists and believers can dine together in the CF, and the Grace before dinner can be simply: "For what we are about to receive, may we be truly thankful."  Each can then add his or her personal faith formula, just as they would do at home, or in a shopping mall food court.
In other words, don't dump anything.  Don't ban anything.  Just work out ways to expand the parameters.

And Amen to that.


----------



## chaos75

+1


----------



## George Wallace

tonykeene

Very well written prose.  It does show that you have never been a member of a Combat Unit, nor really experienced their traditions, esprite d'corps, history, etc.  You are writing like an academic who has never held a real job in their life, but feels the need to criticise labour (you pick the job).  You are making these events out to be much more than they really are.  You are pointing at discrimination where there is none.  What you are stating is inflammatory, not curiosity or idle discussion.  I would expect someone who just flaunted their service to know better.


----------



## Kat Stevens

This is a long time ago.  In my beloved Regiment, at a certain point in our history (coff*RV 85*coff)  a church parade was scheduled for the day after 96 hours in a defensive position.  I asked not to attend, as it really wasn't my bag.  My troop Warrant took this as a personal affront, and I was therefore given the option of attending, or putting our newly arrived sproglings through day one of their first 2X10. I chose the 2X10, and for choosing poorly, got to do day two as well.


----------



## the 48th regulator

Very good post indeed,



> Many deeply-rooted military traditions involve religion.



It is also rooted in truth, if you wish to be taken seriously at least fill out all of your bio correctly, otherwise leave it blank.

dileas

tess


----------



## Fishbone Jones

Well, I've been knocking around the military as long as our medal bedecked NATO traveller. It's always been my experience that no one was forced to go to a church parade, but you didn't get to just sit around while others paraded though. Just like Kat said, there's always something else to be done by those not wishing to attend. For the record I'm also NRE, but have no trouble attending church parades, saying grace when called on, or anything else non denominational when required by the Regiment. I'd hate to think I was that petty I couldn't for the length of the parade, just look inward and reflect on myself. Tours and medals don't make soldiers, it's in your heart.


----------



## warrickdll

I am opposed to the CF organizing religious activities. 

Visiting, or attending, someone else's religious ceremony on my own time (the example given was of tourists and Greek temples) is not the same as the CF parading uniformed soldiers to attend a religious ceremony, of their commanders choosing, on Canada's time and Canada's money.

If a soldier finds that they do not have enough time to attend their own religious services then they should ask their RSM for some time off to do so. That should be the only involvement between the CF and religion.

Most soldiers would probably go along with it either way - not really against it - but not really for it either.

For those that are strong supporters of having the CF organizing and running religious parades and ceremonies: 
	- What is your reasoning for its continuance?
	- What are the benefits for the CF?
	- Would it hurt to stop having religious content in CF ceremonies?

I have no rebuttals.


----------



## George Wallace

I am sure that after 21 wonderful pages of enlightened discussion, your queries have been answered.  Next?


----------



## aesop081

Cant we all just get along ?


----------



## Torlyn

Here's an idea.  Instead of being offended because you are asked to go to a quasi-religious ceremony, and spouting nonsense about how disrepectful it is to your own belief, do what my XO says.

Attend the ceremonies.  Remove your hat during prayers.  For what reason?  Not because it's your own faith, but look around.  Take off your hat, attend the ceremonies out of respect of your brothers and sisters serving along side you.  Do it out of respect for those that fought and died so would have the right to be a whiny little bi*** when you don't feel like doing something.

Remember, we serve and put our lives on the line to protect your RIGHT to have differing beliefs.

And out of curiousity, if you're here to help protect the downtrodden non-WASP population (who, I'll wager, did NOT ask for help) why on earth choose a handle like tony keene?   :

T


----------



## Neill McKay

tonykeene said:
			
		

> If we say that people do not have to have religious beliefs, of any kind, to serve in the CF, then why oh why do so many COs call out the padres whenever they have an important event?  Seen in public, it gives the very simple and clear impression, to anyone watching, that we are all worshipping as one, and that a state religious belief is being imposed.



Add me to the growing list of NREs who don't have the slightest problem with the presence of a religious element in ceremonies.

For a parallel, but non-military example, the Ritual of the Calling of an Engineer (a.k.a. the Iron Ring ceremony) has a religious element to it (and as a Kipling fan, you may be interested to know that he wrote the entire ceremony).   The very sensible advice given to those who attended mine was that everyone should take the text "for its poetic and allegorical value".  That advice fits just as well in a church parade.



> In the year 2006, we have to accept that these traditions should now only be used when it is a voluntary gathering.  Marching 250 people up in front of an altar of drums, or a church altar, teaches them nothing.  And how you can use the most divisive factor in humanity to promote cohesion is beyond me.



Perhaps it is, but, notwithstanding a few grumblers, that's exactly what it does.



> In other words, don't dump anything.  Don't ban anything.  Just work out ways to expand the parameters.



Sounds good.


----------



## warrickdll

That anyone of us would put up with the religious aspects of any given ceremony is one aspect, and many in this topic have brought up courtesy (etc.).

But there is little mention of what specifically is an OC, CO, or higher doing (that can’t otherwise be accomplished) when they decide to have a religiously based ceremony. Why do they feel the need to issue an order to have their unit go to a church, or to have a Padre conduct prayers? 

Despite their religious origins, some military traditions and ceremonies are conducted without the overt religious aspects:
	- Saluting when boarding a ship continues without the need of a crucifix on the quarterdeck.
	- Having a "Moment of Silence" to honour the fallen works much better than "Let us pray".

Our own individual abilities to be courteous and tolerant should not be an excuse for the committees (that determine military ceremonies in Canada) to lack the ability or imagination to make a few harmless alterations.


----------



## paracowboy

Iterator said:
			
		

> Why do they feel the need to issue an order to have their unit go to a church, or to have a Padre conduct prayers?


in 10 years+ I have yet to see any officer order any soldier to attend a Church service, of any stripe. Regimental ceremonies involving religion, yes. That's called "Army stuff", and being a pagan, I have to find it discriminatory. To anyone with an issue with militray tradition, perhaps you should: 
A. get out, because the Army is more than a uniform, and more than a buncha guys milling about;
B. suck it up. You may learn something.
C. refuse to participate and take the charge. Perhaps the attention will make a change that you want to see happen.


----------



## warrickdll

Personal acceptance or rejection during a ceremony has been covered. 


But what is the commander's (or committees) intent in keeping the overt religious aspects in the ceremonies? 

Military Traditions (Canadian) are not completely static, and the traditions themselves (or why we use them) have their own intent. 

The commander's actual intent might not be religious, but in enhancing unit cohesion, discipline, and honour through performing the tradition.


If the religious aspect adds nothing to the intent of the tradition or the intent of the commander, then it only still resides there because no one has bothered to alter it - much like having anachronistic laws still on-the-books.


Others have been very capable of expressing why the alterations should occur. And tradition is easily covered (traditions remain without overtly religious aspects). So what is the intent of all those that feel they will be hurt by the CF altering the religious aspects of certain ceremonies?


----------



## paracowboy

It ain't broke, don't need fixin'. We got more than enough real issues to sort out, this is a non-issue.


----------



## Shec

Torlyn said:
			
		

> Here's an idea.  Instead of being offended because you are asked to go to a quasi-religious ceremony, and spouting nonsense about how disrepectful it is to your own belief, do what my XO says.
> 
> Attend the ceremonies.  Remove your hat during prayers.  For what reason?  Not because it's your own faith, but look around.  Take off your hat, attend the ceremonies out of respect of your brothers and sisters serving along side you.  Do it out of respect for those that fought and died so would have the right to be a whiny little bi*** when you don't feel like doing something.
> 
> Remember, we serve and put our lives on the line to protect your RIGHT to have differing beliefs.
> 
> And out of curiousity, if you're here to help protect the downtrodden non-WASP population (who, I'll wager, did NOT ask for help) why on earth choose a handle like tony keene?   :
> 
> T



  Bravo & well said.  

Not that I am an exemplar of tolerance but I have been there - a member of a religious minority who went to regimental church parades without a whimper for exactly the reasons Torlyn cites.  And what was the big lesson for me?  Simply respect begets respect.  Respect for your unit, respect for your comrades, respect for those who have worn the hat badge long before you did.  And, in return you earn respect for you.   And with that respect comes tolerance.   So lighten up with the rights agenda seeking accomodation and diversity.  You joined the regimental family, they didn't join you.   You'll get your return on investment when you are ungrudgingly granted whatever dispensation you seek to celebrate your faith's holidays.

I'll add one more observation.  The particular denomination of the Church where a unit worships does not mean recognition of and respect for other faiths in the regimental family are excluded.   The Presbyterian Church of St. Andrew & St. Paul in Montreal, the regimental church of the Black Watch, has  a stained glass window that includes a Star of David placed in memory of  a WW 1  Jewish officer of the Regiment, Lt. M.T. Cohen, M.C., who was killed in action.   Maintaining regimental tradition - yes.  Exclusion - hardly.


----------



## warrickdll

Plenty of examples of those who have, un-begrudged, attended a church service that was not their own.

But the least responsible (by rank) persons ability to obey orders is the red herring of this topic.

This topic begins with a Court Martial Appeal Court ruling that can be summed up like this:
	- With great power comes great responsibility. 

You do not, as a member of the CF, show up at church or at a religious ceremony, with everyone else from your Unit, by accident. Neither does the Padre go up to the CO on parade and commandeer the proceedings.

COs have more important things to worry about than whether or not their regimental ceremonies or parades will meet the criteria of a Court Martial Appeal Court. Someone (or some committee) seems to be dragging their feet on altering ceremonies so that they will fully fall within the domain of COs.

If your Unit's traditional ceremonies are not suitably free of overt religious content then it is your duty to show due diligence and get it fixed. This is an identified problem - just because it wasn't pointed out (or recognized as such) to the person before you isn't an excuse.

Commanders (whether officers or NCOs) shouldn't be leaving this, already recognized fault, for the junior members to fix by some sort of Court Martial Appeal Court process. 

Of all the posts here, none point to a legitimate reason why a CO should role-the-dice of religious content on parade. It must be time consuming and expensive for the CF to crawl through the judicial processes caused by some peoples failure to suck-it-up, grow-up, learn some discipline, and make the required changes.


----------



## Franko

tonykeene said:
			
		

> OK folks, let's back up.



OK....beep beep beep beep beep beep     



> First of all, I have more than 40 years in, and have four operational tours under my belt, and a chest full of medals.  I have nothing to prove, nothing to apologize for, and no need to justify my privilege and honour of wearing Her Majesty's Canadian uniform.



What does that have to do with the topic at hand? Absolutely nothing.....unless you're a padre.

4 tours in 40 years eh? I know a few around the Regiment that have done over 10 in under 20.

But I digress.....



> I attacked no one personally, and do not expect to be attacked in return.



With your first post in this thread you pretty much came in and threw a "righteous, holy Antioch" grenade.

Religion is a touchy subject....on any site. 

You basically came in and said any CF activity involving religion was wrongful to force someone to attend....it is,however....

If it's a parade, such as a consecration, they must attend wouldn't you agree? However if the pers involve have a moral objection...they must bring it to the forefront to their superiors. From there it will be dealt with.

We recently had a parade for a member of my Regiment who died in an accident. There were many different religions present including Muslims and many agnostics. The service was conducted by the padres. 

So did anyone have a problem with attending the service....nope.

They were there to pay their respects to the member irregardless of their religion. I've talked to a few afterwards about this and they pretty much say that it really does not bother them in the least, nor do any of the other services that have gone on over the years.

They see it as a "non-denominational" part of any parade.



> I do suggest though that Colours should hold exactly the same power for all members of a Regiment, Atheists included.



They do. It honours all that have fallen during the battles on that Colour or Guidon....irregardless of religion.



> If we tell people that only a religious blessing can turn a "moth-eaten rag on a worm-eaten pole" into a Colour, we are automatically excluding a large segment of the troops.  (That's Kipling, by the way)



Woopee on Kipling    :

It's pretty much consecrated in a multi-denominational service these days. I'm sure that the "non-believers" find it quite harmless.

Got a problem with the way it's done? Bring it up through the chain of command to your superiors and get it changed.



> In the year 2006, we have to accept that these traditions should now only be used when it is a voluntary gathering.  Marching 250 people up in front of an altar of drums, or a church altar, teaches them nothing.  And how you can use the most divisive factor in humanity to promote cohesion is beyond me.



Good intentions.....wrong avenue of approach IMHO. I can think of about a dozen ways of promoting cohesion in a unit without the need of a church parade.



> Two Canadian soldiers stand on parade, their medals proclaiming proudly that they have put their lives on the line for what their country stands for.  One is male, the other female, one is white, the other not, one is a sincere believer, the other an equally sincere atheist.  We would not hold to a tradition of proclaiming the superiority of the white race, or the male gender.  We cannot therefore hold to one which says that believers are more accepted than non-believers.  If those soldiers are on parade under orders, nothing should be done that differentiates between them on those three bases.



There is no difference.....at least to me personally. 

It's official within the CF.


----------



## George Wallace

Iterator said:
			
		

> You do not, as a member of the CF, show up at church or at a religious ceremony, with everyone else from your Unit, by accident. Neither does the Padre go up to the CO on parade and commandeer the proceedings.


Roger so far.



			
				Iterator said:
			
		

> COs have more important things to worry about than whether or not their regimental ceremonies or parades will meet the criteria of a Court Martial Appeal Court.



Seems you know nothing about LEADERSHIP.  The CO is very much involved in and concerned with these matters.



			
				Iterator said:
			
		

> Someone (or some committee) seems to be dragging their feet on altering ceremonies so that they will fully fall within the domain of COs.



This is an outright idiotic statement.  These ceremonies, as all ceremonies, are strictly formated, but still allow for some minor adjustments by the CO and RSM.  If you ever have the opportunity to serve and show the potential of Leadership, you will be put on a PLQ Crse where you will learn the 19 'Orders' necessary for you to pass a Drill Mutual.  Those 19 Orders, are what every Parade boils down to.



			
				Iterator said:
			
		

> If your Unit's traditional ceremonies are not suitably free of overt religious content then it is your duty to show due diligence and get it fixed. This is an identified problem - just because it wasn't pointed out (or recognized as such) to the person before you isn't an excuse.



You are full of it.  Every Ceremony in the World, when put under the microscope, has its origins in some Religious Ceremony.  Your point is absolute BS and really not at all valid.  It is friggin wingnuts like you who find fault in the most trivial of things and fly off their handle demanding change because their sensibilities have been hurt.  If your sensibilities are hurt, you do not have to stay.....Leave.



			
				Iterator said:
			
		

> Commanders (whether officers or NCOs) shouldn't be leaving this, already recognized fault, for the junior members to fix by some sort of Court Martial Appeal Court process.


What the hell are you talking about?  You are perceiving a fault where there is none.  You have to really be on the Lunatic Fringes to be insulted by other peoples actions.  As you can quite readily see other people are greatly insulted by your actions.  So far, have we all asked; no demanded that you change?  We are not the Borg, we really wouldn't want to assimilate you.  You would ruin the gene pool.



			
				Iterator said:
			
		

> Of all the posts here, none point to a legitimate reason why a CO should role-the-dice of religious content on parade. It must be time consuming and expensive for the CF to crawl through the judicial processes caused by some peoples failure to suck-it-up, grow-up, learn some discipline, and make the required changes.



I think you have finally found the answer.  Suck-it-up Iterator, grow-up, learn some discipline and change your life, as you are truly alienating yourself from the mainstream of society.  You will not fit in unless you make some changes.  Right now you seem to be in the group we call the "Lunatic Fringe".


----------



## warrickdll

Removing overt religious content from ceremonies will not be the first change the military has experienced or been able to successfully handle.

Instead of falling behind on the issue the CF should get ahead of it. These changes will have to be made (nothing reasonably mentioned to the contrary). 

So instead of wasting time and money on lawyers, and on court proceedings that will be failures, make the alterations to the ceremonies and tell those who cannot adjust to move along.

	- The wheels will not go flying off.
	- Traditions will be maintained and honoured.
	- It won't hurt you at all.
	- And more importantly, there won't be time wasted moaning and complaining about it.

Do a recce on the years ahead - do you honestly believe that the overt religious content of ceremonies (no matter your personal feelings about them), that you cannot really decline, is going to stand up? If so then state how you believe it will play out that way. If not then get ahead of it before it bowls you over.

This is about religious beliefs. It's not like discussing Boat Cloaks and Gun Barrels. Courts have made decisions on this that (unless you can reasonably give a military need for an exception) you cannot just kick and scream about how it wasn't done that way before.


----------



## George Wallace

This is really nothing.  It is actually all about the rest of the world changing to conform to your ideals.  It only points to your unwillingness to become a productive member of society.  Do you think that your solution is any less offensive to the many, than what is currently a perceived offence of a few......or just you?  Don't you think that much would be lost by stripping tradition from our lives?  It would leave us as illiterate, nonconformist, non-entities


----------



## Fishbone Jones

Yup. Just waiting for someone else to recognise the square peg in the round hole. So once again, this thread spins it's wheels, and once again, it's locked.


----------



## combat_medic

Add me to the long list of NREs already present. 

A year and a half ago, I attended the consecration of my regimental colours at a church. It occurred directly after the Remembrance Day services, in fact we were marched there right from the cenotaph, so this is probably the closest you can get to being "ordered" to go. 

That being said, there were a large number of people in attendance of different faiths, or more NREs like myself. Rather than raise a ruckus or cry foul to the powers that be, we sat in the church, mostly did not recite the prayers, and removed our headdresses, as we were in a place of worship, and it's a respectful thing to do. 

The ceremony itself was a far cry from an attempt to force religion on anyone. Quite the contrary, I think the padres who conducted the service made every attempt to make those of different faiths feel welcome, and made gestures and notes to all major religious groups. Considering the widly diverse group they were addressing (it was in downtown Vancouver, after all), I think it was done with an enormous amount of tact and respect. 

I have always felt that the CF has been more than accommodating to those of different faiths. Hell, on my QL2, there was a Mormon on my course who was going to be in the field on a Sunday, so he brought a white shirt out with him, cleaned himself up, and was able to do a small ceremony for himself and a mormon from another platoon. This was in the middle of our FTX. 

Being an NRE myself, I'm very aware of the presence of religion in a lot of the facets of life. Everything from our judicial system to marriage tries to invoke religion in some way or another, and I think the CF is actually at the forefront of cultural and religious acceptance, to be quite frank.


----------



## orange.paint

Ill start off by saying I'm not a christian.When I enrolled 7 years ago I got sworn in with a non religious oath.Basically the same as the other with the God piece omitted.

"I, ……………, do Solemnly swear (affirm) that I will be faithful and bear true allegiance to Her Majesty Queen Elizabeth the Second, Queen of Canada, Her Heirs and Successors according to law."

I have never been religious,my parents gave me the choice at birth.And besides a few trips to sunday school as a child I have never been to a church service.Now that my background has been established I wish to ask the members of the page about their views on religion and the CF.

This is usually a touchy subject for most.The question was brought up to me by a student a while back and having a few personal opinions on the subject I'm looking for the views/written law of other members.

About 6 years ago as a Trooper I was FORCED to go to a funeral in a Protestant church in Petawawa.I'm not the kind of guy who tries to stand out,make a battle out of every little thing however I disagreed with the senior leadership forcing many  troops to go to this funeral.

A member of the CF had hung themselves,and due to our connection with this person we all had to attend.As a member (like myself or Muslims etc)is it morally right to force a member to go to a place of worship?When all his papers/dogtags says NRE?Suicide is totally against my beliefs,and if someone offed themselves I could care less of that person.My personal view which doesn't weight in at all I understand.However now as a leader in a troop is it legal for me to force a member to attend a religious ceremony other than his/her own?

As for prayer when we lose a member and the padre comes to do a group prayer.I will bow my head in RESPECT for the fallen.I will not during prayer.And I know I'm not alone as you see many other members doing the same.

So my main question would be:

If on paper (CF document) a member has NRE (no religion expressed...as No religion is not on the forum when you join) can he/she be forced to attend unit church services?Was it incorrect when our leadership made 5 friends and I (all whom are Mcpl except for myself now)go to a religious ceremony we did not agree with?


----------



## aesop081

NOTE TO ALL....

The last few threads on this very subject turned into major gongshows.......dont let this one go in the same direction.

army.ca staff


----------



## the 48th regulator

We are not going through this argument again.


> About 6 years ago as a Trooper I was FORCED to go to a funeral in a Protestant church in Petawawa.I'm not the kind of guy who tries to stand out,make a battle out of every little thing however I disagreed with the senior leadership forcing many troops to go to this funeral.



You were made to respect the faith of the deceased, have respect for that, and not be so selfish.

You can work with them, then respect their last wishes.  It has nothing to do with you adhering, and then converting to their beliefs.  Have respect for others, as you wish your to be observed.


dileas

tess


----------



## Michael OLeary

EX_RCAC_011 said:
			
		

> Ill start off by saying I'm not a christian.When I enrolled 7 years ago I got sworn in with a non religious oath.Basically the same as the other with the God piece omitted.
> 
> "I, ……………, do Solemnly swear (affirm) that I will be faithful and bear true allegiance to Her Majesty Queen Elizabeth the Second, Queen of Canada, Her Heirs and Successors according to law."
> 
> I have never been religious,my parents gave me the choice at birth.And besides a few trips to sunday school as a child I have never been to a church service.Now that my background has been established I wish to ask the members of the page about their views on religion and the CF.
> 
> This is usually a touchy subject for most.The question was brought up to me by a student a while back and having a few personal opinions on the subject I'm looking for the views/written law of other members.
> 
> About 6 years ago as a Trooper I was FORCED to go to a funeral in a Protestant church in Petawawa.I'm not the kind of guy who tries to stand out,make a battle out of every little thing however I disagreed with the senior leadership forcing many  troops to go to this funeral.
> 
> A member of the CF had hung themselves,and due to our connection with this person we all had to attend.As a member (like myself or Muslims etc)is it morally right to force a member to go to a place of worship?When all his papers/dogtags says NRE?Suicide is totally against my beliefs,and if someone offed themselves I could care less of that person.My personal view which doesn't weight in at all I understand.However now as a leader in a troop is it legal for me to force a member to attend a religious ceremony other than his/her own?
> 
> As for prayer when we lose a member and the padre comes to do a group prayer.I will bow my head in RESPECT for the fallen.I will not during prayer.And I know I'm not alone as you see many other members doing the same.
> 
> So my main question would be:
> 
> If on paper (CF document) a member has NRE (no religion expressed...as No religion is not on the forum when you join) can he/she be forced to attend unit church services?Was it incorrect when our leadership made 5 friends and I (all whom are Mcpl except for myself now)go to a religious ceremony we did not agree with?



If it's not a church/synagoge/chapel/mosque you personally recognize, then it's just a building and a place you are being paraded.

If it's not a ceremony you recognize personally, then it's simply a series of events you have been ordered to attend.

If it's not your chosen form of worship, then you cannot be "forced" to acknowledge a religion or a diety.

As noted, it is respect for a comrade.  Acting appropriately, regardless of your personal beliefs, is respectful and proper.

Stop making it about YOU.


----------



## orange.paint

This isn't about me.I went to the service no complaining etc.However it's about what a member can legally be ordered to do.Believe me I have in the past and will most likely continue to go to pay respects.I usually if its a civilian friend attend the wake or go prior to the service.

It's not all about me it's about the legality of it.That's it.


----------



## the 48th regulator

Respect, should not come under worrying about legality.

You were "Forced"  Look at it as being respective of his beliefs.  

Were you forced to participate in any way like those that were members of his church?  Other than attending to show your respect for the dead, what grievous religious act did you perform?

dileas

tess


----------



## muskrat89

If it is the appropriate thing to do, then a) You shouldn't have to be "forced" and b) What difference does the legality make?


----------



## Michael OLeary

EX_RCAC_011 said:
			
		

> This isn't about me.I went to the service no complaining etc.However it's about what a member can legally be ordered to do.Believe me I have in the past and will most likely continue to go to pay respects.I usually if its a civilian friend attend the wake or go prior to the service.
> 
> It's not all about me it's about the legality of it.That's it.



Then prove that the order was illegal.  I don't believe you will be able to, and opinions expressed here about how you felt hard done by do not support that presumption.  It sounds a lot like whining.


----------



## orange.paint

the 48th regulator said:
			
		

> Respect, should not come under worrying about legallity.
> 
> You were "Forced"  Look at it as being respective of his beleifs.
> 
> dileas
> 
> tess



+1 with regards to the respect.However according to CF law if I make for an example a Muslim member attend a christain church could I get charged?Can I really force him to attend the christain service?





			
				Michael 

O'Leary said:
			
		

> Then prove that the order was illegal.  I don't believe you will be able to.



Thats what I'm ASKING.NOT TELLING.


----------



## a78jumper

If this is the worst thing you will be "forced" to do in both your life and career, you will lead a very very charmed existance. Funerals are not for the dead, thet are for the living. Perhaps there were family, friends etc in attendance, and it would have looked pretty awful if no one showed up like at Eleanor Rigby's funeral. I despise funerals, and especially visitations,and will not be having either when my time comes, but I go out of the respect for the deceased, and more so for those left behind. Redress and see what the system says. :crybaby: I attended many funerals, memorial services and "ramp" type ceremonies for people over the years, often for people I did not even know at all.  Never regretted doing so once.


----------



## Michael OLeary

EX_RCAC_011 said:
			
		

> Thats what I'm ASKING.NOT TELLING.



Then why did you have to situate the estimate with all of your personal tale of woe to simply ASK the question?

You have tainted the discussion from the outset by doing so.


----------



## Armymedic

Michael O'Leary said:
			
		

> If it's not a church/synagoge/chapel/mosque you personally recognize, then it's just a building and a place you are being paraded.
> 
> If it's not a ceremony you recognize personally, then it's simply a series of events you have been ordered to attend.
> 
> If it's not your chosen form of worship, then you cannot be "forced" to acknowledge a religion or a diety.
> 
> As noted, it is respect for a comrade.  Acting appropriately, regardless of your personal beliefs, is respectful and proper.



Sounds pretty good to me, you were ordered to a parade where there was a religious ceremony. I have been in several similar situations lately myself. Several in fact, that I did not even know the person who was being honoured. There is no legal thingy about attending a parade honouring a deceased fellow soldier.


----------



## orange.paint

OK let me clear this up.I'm not bitching about going.I understand the whole respect aspect.However as a leader is it legal for you to force a Muslim member to attend a Christian religious ceremony?

Just Legality.I put forced in bold because it was a MUST ATTEND.Not cause I was feeling horribly wronged.

i don't understand the personal character attacks.I'm asking about legality of it all.Saying "I doubt you can find it"isn't really bringing much to the topic.Does anybody know any legal issues with this?



			
				Michael O'Leary said:
			
		

> Then why did you have to situate the estimate with all of your personal tale of woe to simply ASK the question?
> 
> You have tainted the discussion from the outset by doing so.



As an example.Ok lets say soldier X is a muslim and is forced to go to a satanic cult service didnt sound as realistic.I used mine as an example.I have no problems doing it.Just a background story to illustrate a point.


----------



## Spanky

I don't think you were forced to attend a religious ceremony.  You were ordered to parade at a specific location.  And I agree with the belief that we go to these events as a show of support to the deceased survivors.   If you don't belive in the religion part, fine.  But do believe that the support you demonstrated help some grieving people get over a rough time.


----------



## Ex-Dragoon

Well we have several padres here on site why not IM them and ask for their guidance on the subject? Even if you do not share their faith you can ask them for guidance on religious matters for your troopies.


----------



## the 48th regulator

> Just Legality.I put forced in bold because it was a MUST ATTEND.Not cause I was feeling horribly wronged.
> 
> i don't understand the personal character attacks.I'm asking about legality of it all.Saying "I doubt you can find it"isn't really bringing much to the topic.Does anybody know any legal issues with this?



You are personally attacking the character of the dead, and his wishes, by posting this thread.

You are stating that your needs, out weigh all others, and you wish to find some sort of legal way to prove it, so that you may benefit in some way.

That is the way I read it.  Pure selfish reasons, if you ask me.

dileas

tess


----------



## riggermade

I am not religous and hate funerals

As a soldier I think it is only right you pay the proper respect to your fellow soldiers if they are deceased

Suck it up and do your duty

You keep bringing up about a Muslim going to a Christian church what if it was the other way around

Bottom line it is your duty as a soldier to pay respect to your fellows


----------



## career_radio-checker

Philosophical rant warning:

My personal belief is that we are social creatures and when we gather to pay our respects to a fellow CF member or any person, the service is more to consoul the family/friends/acquaintances of the deceased person than anything else. It is comforting to know that after death we will have some kind of recognition of our life, whether that takes place in a Church, Mosque, funeral home or Remembrance Day ceremony doesn't really matter as much as the fact _it happens_. I, thankfully, have only had to attend two funerals, both family members: one in a church and one in a funeral home. I'm not really a religious person myself and have always seen those two funerals as more of "last respects" and "saying goodbye" rather than a religious ceremony. 

I hope I never have to go to a military funeral, but if I do, it doesn't matter where it is, I will go to honour the individual and pay my respects to the family.

Now as for religion in my CF life, I've got 'Prot' stamped on my dog tags and I swore in on the bible, have I ever felt forced to play that religious role which I have left since Grd. 10? Nope. Church was there for people who wanted to go, I just simply did not want to go.

As a final word I'd like to say cudos to the Chaplains who have always presented themselves more as counsellors than as priests, for me personally it makes them easier to approach and I can be more open with them. 

rant over


----------



## Michael OLeary

Warriors, Obedience and the Rule of Law
by Colonel Kenneth Watkin
http://www.army.forces.gc.ca/caj/documents/vol_03/iss_4/CAJ_vol3.4_08_e.pdf



> Under both LOAC and Canadian military law there is an obligation to disobey manifestly unlawful orders. In the words of the Supreme Court of Canada orders can and must be obeyed unless they are manifestly unlawful. *A manifestly illegal order is one that “offends the conscience of every reasonable or right thinking person. It must be an order which is obviously and flagrantly wrong.”  Such an order must “wave like a black flag above the order given, as a warning saying forbidden.” *
> 
> A good example of a forbidden order would be one that breaches a bright line rule in the LOAC, such as - do not abuse prisoners. Under the rule of law the substantive law must triumph. Therefore, profoundly immoral utterances by a leader cloaked with the legal authority to issue commands, cannot prevail over the moral obligations established by law.



Firstly, I do not see how you can logically define the order to attend a church parade, regardless of one's personal belief, as "manifestly unlawful".  

You are being ordered to attend a ceremony in which you may have no personal stake in its religious context, therefore for you, it is not a religious ceremony at all.  You are not being ordered to believe in that particular definition of "God", nor will you be required to particpate in rites requiring specific consecration by the Church, such as taking communion.  You are simply there.

Secondly, please explain what part(s) of this explanation you are having trouble with:



			
				Michael O'Leary said:
			
		

> If it's not a church/synagoge/chapel/mosque you personally recognize, then it's just a building and a place you are being paraded.
> 
> If it's not a ceremony you recognize personally, then it's simply a series of events you have been ordered to attend.
> 
> If it's not your chosen form of worship, then you cannot be "forced" to acknowledge a religion or a diety.
> 
> As noted, it is respect for a comrade.  Acting appropriately, regardless of your personal beliefs, is respectful and proper.


----------



## orange.paint

Spanky said:
			
		

> I don't think you were forced to attend a religious ceremony.  You were ordered to parade at a specific location.  And I agree with the belief that we go to these events as a show of support to the deceased survivors.   If you don't belive in the religion part, fine.  But do believe that the support you demonstrated help some grieving people get over a rough time.



I agree with these memorial ceremonies they have i.e at base gyms etc.Where family members are present CO usually gives a speech etc.Everyone should be forced to attend.But does it cross the line when members are stood in the back of a religious center for the whole ceremony?





			
				riggermade said:
			
		

> I am not religous and hate funerals
> 
> As a soldier I think it is only right you pay the proper respect to your fellow soldiers if they are deceased
> 
> Suck it up and do your duty
> 
> You keep bringing up about a Muslim going to a Christian church what if it was the other way around
> 
> Bottom line it is your duty as a soldier to pay respect to your fellows



OK what if it was the other way around?Suck it up and do your duty,give it a rest.I have,I will.As stated about 14 times now I'm asking if anyone here knew of the legality of the situation.I gave an example.It was not bitching.However somepeople cant see the trees for the forest.





			
				Michael O'Leary said:
			
		

> Warriors, Obedience and the Rule of Law
> by Colonel Kenneth Watkin
> http://www.army.forces.gc.ca/caj/documents/vol_03/iss_4/CAJ_vol3.4_08_e.pdf
> 
> Firstly, I do not see how you can logically define the order to attend a church parade, regardless of one's personal belief, as "manifestly unlawful".
> 
> You are being ordered to attend a ceremony in which you may have no personal stake in its religious context, therefore for you, it is not a religious ceremony at all.  You are not being ordered to believe in that particular definition of "God", nor will you be required to particpate in rites requiring specific consecration by the Church, such as taking communion.  You are simply there.
> 
> Secondly, please explain what part(s) of this explanation you are having trouble with:



Excellent Mike thats the kind of thing I was looking for.However just wondering if there was any written rules about forcing my/your subordinates to do such a thing.Outside of this?


----------



## orange.paint

the 48th regulator said:
			
		

> You are personally attacking the character of the dead, and his wishes, by posting this thread.
> 
> You are stating that your needs, out weigh all others, and you wish to find some sort of legal way to prove it, so that you may benefit in some way.
> 
> That is the way I read it.  Pure selfish reasons, if you ask me.
> 
> dileas
> 
> tess



No its when I order trooper x to attend a religious center and he says NO.We were discussing this at work today and no one really knew of a legal issue.Some said it would infringe on the members beliefs while others disagreed.
As said 15 times now I will never refuse to attend such a service.I was merely stating a situation.

It's called being a place where students know their rights and privliages better than most of us.I want to be informed.


----------



## riggermade

Then I would charge Trooper X with disobeying a command and if he has a problem deal with it then


----------



## Michael OLeary

EX_RCAC_011 said:
			
		

> However just wondering if there was any written rules about forcing my/your subordinates to do such a thing.Outside of this?



To put it simply ... no.  You will not find any regulation that states it is illegal to parade troops at a religious building, or outdoor chapel, etc.  We are not talking about the Spanish Inquisition, these events do not require the recantation of one's personal beliefs to participate.


----------



## orange.paint

EXCELLENT.Thats what I was looking to hear.An answer.


Cheers


----------



## armyvern

EX_RCAC_011 said:
			
		

> I agree with these memorial ceremonies they have i.e at base gyms etc.Where family members are present CO usually gives a speech etc.Everyone should be forced to attend.But does it cross the line when members are stood in the back of a religious center for the whole ceremony?


No it doesn't cross the line if that is what the deceased and his/her families wishes are. It is their wishes that count here. Not yours.



> OK what if it was the other way around?Suck it up and do your duty,give it a rest.I have,I will.As stated about 14 times now I'm asking if anyone here knew of the legality of the situation.I gave an example.It was not bitching.However somepeople cant see the trees for the forest.


Go ahead and read your first post again. Look carefully to see what parts of that post you have stressed to us (ie words in all caps). I'm seeing the forest too.



> Excellent Mike thats the kind of thing I was looking for.However just wondering if there was any written rules about forcing my/your subordinates to do such a thing.Outside of this?


No. You were not ordered to a Church parade in any case; you were ordered to attend a funeral parade. There is nothing illegal about that. Just as there is nothing illegal with you ordering your subordinates to 'remove head-dress' on a parade when prayers are spoken. You are going to give that order aren't you?


----------



## orange.paint

For sure.The order is given in accordance with the parade layout.Its a drill movement.

Sorry if I sounded a bit curde.I have looked back and can see what you mean in a way.However it's the medium its potrayed on,wouldnt happen in human conversation as people can explain.

Thanks for the answers.


----------



## the 48th regulator

EX_RCAC_011 said:
			
		

> No its when I order trooper x to attend a religious center and he says NO.We were discussing this at work today and no one really knew of a legal issue.Some said it would infringe on the members beliefs while others disagreed.
> As said 15 times now I will never refuse to attend such a service.I was merely stating a situation.
> 
> It's called being a place where students know their rights and privliages better than most of us.I want to be informed.



So what you are saying is, you and your chums were wondering if your selfish needs, outwieghed those of the dead, for the 16th time.  And you tried to find a legal way to approve your desires to raise heck.

Right...

dileas

tess


----------



## orange.paint

No not at all.Just wondering.


----------



## tomahawk6

I wonder why you wouldnt want to offer your respects to a comrade who has died ? 
Unlike you I dont have a problem with religious ceremonies. If it were my choice I would sleep in on Sunday but my wife wont let me. She doesnt exactly tell me that I have to go, I realize that life will be less complicated if I go to church. ;D

I dont like military social functions. But I have learned to go because its important to be there and I have found that attending these functions makes for fewer problems at work and the bonds you form can enhance one's career. My wife like's parties and so by going I keep her happy. ;D

Military funerals are important because it is our way of saying farewell to a comrade.It is part of the healing process not only the next of kin but also for the deceased soldiers unit. Since 9-11 I have attended a number of funerals of fallen soldiers as a represenative of the Army. Its very hard to see the grief and heartache but it is important to demonstrate that the life of their soldier mattered, was important to the nation in a cause that was just. Attending a military funeral is an honor as well as a duty.


----------



## orange.paint

tomahawk6 said:
			
		

> I wonder why you wouldnt want to offer your respects to a comrade who has died ?
> Unlike you I dont have a problem with religious ceremonies. If it were my choice I would sleep in on Sunday but my wife wont let me. She doesnt exactly tell me that I have to go, I realize that life will be less complicated if I go to church. ;D



I don't.This was many moons ago and just an example.No one should not attend.I was asking because in the position a lot of us are finding our selves in the students can play the system very well.Just wondering if there was any legal way a member could get out of this without getting charged.Not for myself,as I tend to try to not rock the boat at work 06h00-16h30.Makes life a lot easier as you have said.

Thanks I got my answer.

Per's ordered to churchs or places of worship will attend,full stop.

cheers


----------



## Fishbone Jones

EX_RCAC_011 said:
			
		

> I don't.This was many moons ago and just an example.No one should not attend.*I was asking because in the position a lot of us are finding our selves in the students can play the system very well.Just wondering if there was any legal way a member could get out of this without getting charged*.Not for myself,as I tend to try to not rock the boat at work 06h00-16h30.Makes life a lot easier as you have said.



Why the hell didn't you just say that in the first place instead of your own personal song and dance to cloud the whole issue? Next time, easy question, easy answer.


----------



## IN HOC SIGNO

Here's a question I'd like to get some help with. 
In 2004 an Officer court martial ed originally for failure to obey a lawful order and remove his headdress for prayer on parade won his appeal under a Charter of Rights challenge that his right to Religious Freedom had been violated and therefore he did not have to obey the command.

http://www.cmac-cacm.ca/decisions/CMAC-476_e.shtml

After this case at Base Divisions in Esquimalt the order to remove headdress is no longer given and only those who "wish to remove their headdress" do so during the prayers on parade.

I'm just wondering how people feel about this. I think it's kind of interesting that a guy could get away with disobeying a direct order. I mean what if the Queen is on parade and the order is given "Royal Salute, present arms!" Can a person who doesn't believe in the monarchy refuse to present arms?

I haven't got any heartache with people saying they don't believe or don't pray (it is indeed their human and Charter Right to not believe or pray)...but wouldn't the old discipline factor raise it's head here....if a formed body is ordered to perform a drill movement...i.e. remove headdress....they all do it? No one was forcing him to pray or believe...it was just a preparatory stance in order to facilitate the next event in the parade. 
Got my helmet on if any one cares to fire away..... :warstory:


----------



## Gramps

IN HOC SIGNO said:
			
		

> Here's a question I'd like to get some help with.
> In 2004 an Officer court martial ed originally for failure to obey a lawful order and remove his headdress for prayer on parade won his appeal under a Charter of Rights challenge that his right to Religious Freedom had been violated and therefore he did not have to obey the command.
> 
> http://www.cmac-cacm.ca/decisions/CMAC-476_e.shtml
> 
> After this case at Base Divisions in Esquimalt the order to remove headdress is no longer given and only those who "wish to remove their headdress" do so during the prayers on parade.
> 
> I'm just wondering how people feel about this. I think it's kind of interesting that a guy could get away with disobeying a direct order. I mean what if the Queen is on parade and the order is given "Royal Salute, present arms!" Can a person who doesn't believe in the monarchy refuse to present arms?
> 
> I haven't got any heartache with people saying they don't believe or don't pray (it is indeed their human and Charter Right to not believe or pray)...but wouldn't the old discipline factor raise it's head here....if a formed body is ordered to perform a drill movement...i.e. remove headdress....they all do it? No one was forcing him to pray or believe...it was just a preparatory stance in order to facilitate the next event in the parade.
> Got my helmet on if any one cares to fire away..... :warstory:



Personally I do not believe so therefore I do not pray but when on parade and the order is given to remove headdress I do so. It is the same when at a mess function or anywhere else and people bow theri heads in prayer, I bow my head and wait for them to finish. I cant see why it was such a big deal to this person and I believe he was just trying to make a point and make some waves. He turned a non-issue into something big.

Esit for typing with one hand while holding my baby in the other.


----------



## Roy Harding

Gramps said:
			
		

> Personally I do not believe so therefore I do not pray but when on parade and the order is given to remove headdress I do so. It is the same when at a mess function or antwhere else and people bow therir heads in prayer, I bow my head and wait for them to finish. I cant see why it was such a big deal to this person and I believe he was just trying to make a point and make some waves. He turned a non-issue into something big.



Absolutely - I also have no religious affiliation, but always conducted myself as outlined above by Gramps.

I do the same thing when at a friends house and grace is offered - I bow my head and wait.  By the same token, when those same friends are at MY house, grace is NOT offered, and they don't make a big deal about it.   When I am a guest in any ethnic or religious setting, I always do my best to follow the accepted customs - whether it be removing my shoes in a mosque, wearing headdress in some places, removing headdress in others, or genuflecting to the altar in others.  

It comes down, I think, to manners - which the officer referred to above was apparently lacking.  Gramps hit it dead on - this guy was looking for attention and making unnecessary waves.  Maybe he was found Not Guilty at the Court Martial, but he displayed extremely poor form, and showed a distinct lack of judgment (at least as far as can be gleaned from the quote above).


Roy


----------



## xena

And from the other side of the fence, so to speak, I have strong religious beliefs (I'm a Russian Orthodox monk now), but I know that you can't force faith down anyone's throat.  Whenever that's been done, the results have been universally disatrious - Taliban, Spanish Inquisition, Russian Pogroms, etc.

That being said, I would have to say that obeying a drill command is a completely separate issue from religious practice.  The command is to "remove headress", not "pray"!  Removing your headress when a Christian padre offers a prayer is not infringing on anyone else's religious rights, it's simply respecting those of the padre.

When a non-Christian padre (do we have any yet?  It would be fitting - I know we don't have any Orthodox Christian ones) prays, it may be _against_ their practices to remove headress for prayer.  In such a setting, I would respectfully keep my lid on and wait.  Further to Roy's comments, it's simply politeness and common sense.

The sadness is that common sense is becoming more and more uncommon.  Soon we may have to give troops medals for thinking.


----------



## Wookilar

My only confrontation with this issue was when 1 PPCLI consecrated new Colours a few years back. An alter was made of the drums, the Colours were laid on the alter and they were consecrated by the Padres.

Instructions were to remove headdress, not necessarily to pray, but out of respect for the Colours. I do remember some grumblings in the ranks from a (very) few nonbelievers (and one non-Christian), but once the instructions were explained, I do not recall anymore bitching about it. Most seemed to think that it was totally appropriate.

This was a few years ago, maybe about the same time as the initial offence on the coast? (Can't remember, memory not what it used to be).

As long as we approach such issues with points-of-view similar to Roy's (and others) thinking, and use RESPECT as our benchmark, there should be no problems.


----------



## Pte_Martin

xena said:
			
		

> The sadness is that common sense is becoming more and more uncommon.  Soon we may have to give troops medals for thinking.



i want one  ;D


----------



## Gramps

Roy Harding said:
			
		

> It comes down, I think, to manners



I could not agree more. I have noticed a serious lack of manners lately in many forms. In restaurants with people holding their cutlery like cave men trying to kill something, eating with their mouths open and talking with their mouths full. Manners were drilled into me when I was young and at the time I thought it was meaningless. Now I see people being rude and disrespectful in public and it makes me cringe. The removal of ones headdress ranks right up there beside the poor manners I mentioned above.


----------



## kratz

> When a non-Christian padre (do we have any yet?



At the end of 2006, the Chaplin branch MSM news when the first Muslim chaplain  was appointed. The item noted there is not a Jewish chaplin yet, but there could be one soon.


----------



## xena

Infantry_ said:
			
		

> i want one  ;D



You'll have to think first.

 >

(Sorry, couldn't resist the zinger!)


----------



## the 48th regulator

xena said:
			
		

> You'll have to think first.
> 
> >
> 
> (Sorry, couldn't resist the zinger!)



God Bless ya Sir,

You beat me to it!!

Speticle, Test, wallet, watch

dileas

tess


----------



## deedster

Roy Harding said:
			
		

> It comes down, I think, to manners - which the officer referred to above was apparently lacking.  Gramps hit it dead on - this guy was looking for attention and making unnecessary waves.  Maybe he was found Not Guilty at the Court Martial, but he displayed extremely poor form, and showed a distinct lack of judgment (at least as far as can be gleaned from the quote above).
> Roy


Roy & Gramps hit the nail on the head, as far as I'm concerned.  I just happen to be into my particular faith, do not begrudge anyone who is not into my faith or any faith for that matter.  I think respect is the magic word, which should automatically beget manners (well, in most cases).  June Callwood, a well-loved Toronto activist who recently passed away, was asked in her dying days whether or not she believed in God.  She replied: "I believe in kindness.  If we can show each other compassion, true compassion, we can make the world better."  I believe that manners are a sign of respect and akin to kindness.  Lack of judgement, well, I've often been guilty of that, but usually to my own detriment.
D2


----------



## mainerjohnthomas

Wookilar said:
			
		

> My only confrontation with this issue was when 1 PPCLI consecrated new Colours a few years back. An alter was made of the drums, the Colours were laid on the alter and they were consecrated by the Padres.
> 
> Instructions were to remove headdress, not necessarily to pray, but out of respect for the Colours. I do remember some grumblings in the ranks from a (very) few nonbelievers (and one non-Christian), but once the instructions were explained, I do not recall anymore bitching about it. Most seemed to think that it was totally appropriate.
> 
> This was a few years ago, maybe about the same time as the initial offence on the coast? (Can't remember, memory not what it used to be).
> 
> As long as we approach such issues with points-of-view similar to Roy's (and others) thinking, and use RESPECT as our benchmark, there should be no problems.


I am a Heathen, and while my faith and that practiced by the Padres have almost no similarities whatsoever, when they are sanctifying the colours that my brethren and I will fight, and perhaps even die under, they are sanctifiying it to my gods as well as their own.  Out of respect for the regiment in which we each serve, out of respect for the brethren that march under it, and in the sight of whatever gods we seperately may honour, I will bow my head.  I could care less if a Satanist is blessing the colours; the sanctity comes from the faith of those men and women who march beneath them, and even the most hard core atheiests amongst us can have no doubt about the purity of that faith.  As long as we remain true to the colours we march beneath, and the arms we bear beneath them, that is faith enough in common.  I have no problem with the words being spoken by a Padre of another faith, so long as he treats the colours and the men and women marching beneath them with the same reverence he holds for his own faith.


----------



## jbeach95

Wasn't this issue discussed and the topic locked long ago? Can we really avoid the direction the discussion took last time?

Please, go on. This could be entertaining.



[edited for spelling]


----------



## Bruce Monkhouse

Thanks JDB for reminding me what I meant to say when I unlocked this yesterday.

Folks, this thread has a very short leash on it, be forewarned.


----------



## deedster

mainerjohnthomas said:
			
		

> I have no problem with the words being spoken by a Padre of another faith, so long as he treats the colours and the men and women marching beneath them with the same reverence he holds for his own faith.


+1 mainer


----------



## IN HOC SIGNO

Well thanks to all and apologies to the Mods. I didn't find anything when I looked for the topic but I wasn't looking in the right place I guess.
As a Chaplain in the CF I was reading some case studies on this and wondered what my fellow Army.ca subscribers thought of this subject.
We do have a Jewish Reserve Chaplain now btw....Rabbi Mendelsohn in Ottawa (28 Field Amb)
http://www.forces.gc.ca/site/newsroom/view_news_e.asp?id=2220

We are in the process of recruiting another Jewish Reserve Chaplain and ongoing dialogue with the Aboriginal Community to come up with ways of recognizing Aboriginal ministry.

Thanks for all your input.


----------



## geo

In Hoc...

don't forget the muslim Iman out in Edmonton.

Also:
In the case of consecrating colours & other activities of the like
1. Sikhs would not remove their turban while prayers were read
2. No member of the colour party will remove his headdress while they have control of the colours.


----------



## IN HOC SIGNO

geo said:
			
		

> In Hoc...
> 
> don't forget the muslim Iman out in Edmonton.
> 
> Also:
> In the case of consecrating colours & other activities of the like
> 1. Sikhs would not remove their turban while prayers were read
> 2. No member of the colour party will remove his headdress while they have control of the colours.



Thanks Geo.....he is old news in lots of ways he's been with us for 4 years now and been on tour in Afghanistan.....I just consider Padre (yes he prefers Padre) Suliman Demiray as one of us....and he leaves his headress on for prayer... ;D
a wonderful chaplain who is doing great work


----------



## cameron

This is one of those topics where as a civilian I should probably stay out, but you guys know me by now, when something pisses me off I just can't keep quiet for too long.  First of all from what I understand he was given a legal and reasonable order, he was not being asked to machine gun defenceless POW's.  Therefore refusing to remove his headgear seems like insurbodination to me.  Political correctness is frankly reaching ridiculous extremes, both in the military and civilian world.  What the hell ever happened to being professional and courteous!

Secondly as someone who believes in the power of prayer I would hate to go into harm's way with someone who doesn't even believe in a god.  I don't care what your religion is, whether Hindu, Buddhism, Islam, Bahai Faith, Protestant or Catholic (i'm the latter), but you shouldn't be in a disciplined military organisation where your agnosticism/atheism forces you to the ridiculous extreme of being unprofessional and discourteous.


----------



## geo

going into combat with someone who doesn't believe in god?

What??

uhhh.... what does that do with anything.
Do you think the fella who is agnostic feels safe next to someone who believes in god?

The fellas you are fighting alongside are people you have trained alongside of for at least a year.... they trust you and you trust them..... it's as simple as that.


----------



## Roy Harding

cameron said:
			
		

> ...  I should probably stay out ...
> 
> ...  but you shouldn't be in a disciplined military organisation where your agnosticism/atheism forces you to the ridiculous extreme of being unprofessional and discourteous.




Hmmm - I'm an atheist.  I don't recall being either unprofessional or discourteous, either here on these forums, or during my service in the CF.  And I certainly don't remember that my personal beliefs FORCED me to do anything - let _alone _being FORCED to some "ridiculous extreme" of ANY kind.

You should probably pay attention to yourself (the first sentence quoted above seems apropos).


Roy Harding


----------



## Gimpy

cameron said:
			
		

> This is one of those topics where as a civilian I should probably stay out, but you guys know me by now, when something pisses me off I just can't keep quiet for too long.  First of all from what I understand he was given a legal and reasonable order, he was not being asked to machine gun defenceless POW's.  Therefore refusing to remove his headgear seems like insurbodination to me.  Political correctness is frankly reaching ridiculous extremes, both in the military and civilian world.  What the hell ever happened to being professional and courteous!
> 
> Secondly as someone who believes in the power of prayer I would hate to go into harm's way with someone who doesn't even believe in a god.  I don't care what your religion is, whether Hindu, Buddhism, Islam, Bahai Faith, Protestant or Catholic (i'm the latter), but you shouldn't be in a disciplined military organisation where your agnosticism/atheism forces you to the ridiculous extreme of being unprofessional and discourteous.



As with every situation involving religion there are millions of clear-headed, respectful, and sane Athiests/Agnostics. But then there are always the 1/1000th of them who are the most militant in their views and the most vocal. Its the exact same way with Christianity and Islam.

And I think that you seriously need to explain your final point. Just because someone doesn't believe in God it automatically makes them unprofessional? You need to stop letting the actions of a select minority influence your views on the actual majority.


----------



## the 48th regulator

Gimpy said:
			
		

> As with every situation involving religion there are millions of clear-headed, respectful, and sane Athiests/Agnostics. But then there are always the 1/1000th of them who are the most militant in their views and the most vocal. Its the exact same way with Christianity and Islam.
> 
> And I think that you seriously need to explain your final point. Just because someone doesn't believe in God it automatically makes them unprofessional? You need to stop letting the actions of a select minority influence your views on the actual majority.



Unfortunately, as of late it has been those that have cast off a belief in a higher being that have started the hubub with regards to regulations and associations to religion, would you not agree?

Hence the bad taste with regards to the Godless heathens (     ) and regulations within the military.

dileas

tess


----------



## Gimpy

the 48th regulator said:
			
		

> Unfortunately, as of late it has been those that have cast off a belief in a higher being that have started the hubub with regards to regulations and associations to religion, would you not agree?
> 
> Hence the bad taste with regards to the Godless heathens (     ) and regulations within the military.
> 
> dileas
> 
> tess



Sadly yes, as of now its athiests causing the problems, but maybe in a year or so it will be a few Zoroastrians causing a ruckus because they weren't allowed to pray in front of a fire.


----------



## sigpig

cameron said:
			
		

> Secondly as someone who believes in the power of prayer I would hate to go into harm's way with someone who doesn't even believe in a god.



As one of the more militant and outspoken atheists around here, I'm glad to see that cooler heads have already pointed out the error of your ways so I didn't have to go all "unprofessional and discourteous" on you  ;D


----------



## deedster

With all due respect to cameron (whose faith I happen to share), I have to agree with Roy & Gimpy, whatever your beliefs are or whichever "power" you believe in, if any, you are first and foremost bound to your unit.  And, yes, in the end it comes down to respect and common courtesy.


----------



## the 48th regulator

Gimpy said:
			
		

> Sadly yes, as of now its athiests causing the problems, but maybe in a year or so it will be a few Zoroastrians causing a ruckus because they weren't allowed to pray in front of a fire.



And then at that time his angst will be biased towards them.

C'mon, I do not think that we should be coming down on him, we should collectively be coming down on those that try to circumvent the system, and try to get the 15 minute of fame.

Those that use the "I am of no religion, and you are shoving it down my throat" clause, as a way to say look at me.

I am a practicing Roman Catholic.  Where has anyone seen me profess that other than these types of threads, and my Facebook profile.   Do you not think I get insulted at the digs towards religion,and those that practice it in today's life.  You as a "Liberal" should understand that, considering the string of Roman Catholics that led your party....however, I digress.

dileas

tess


----------



## deedster

the 48th regulator said:
			
		

> And then at that time his angst will be biased towards them.
> 
> I am a practicing Roman Catholic.  Where has anyone seen me profess that other than these types of threads, and my Facebook profile.   Do you not think I get insulted at the digs towards religion,and those that practice it in today's life.  You as a "Liberal" should understand that, considering the string of Roman Catholics that led your party....however, I digress.


Tess, +1  PM Inbound


----------



## jbeach95

cameron said:
			
		

> First of all from what I understand he was given a legal and reasonable order, he was not being asked to machine gun defenceless POW's.  Therefore refusing to remove his headgear seems like insurbodination to me.



You understand incorrectly. The Court Martial Appeal Court ruled that the order was unlawful (and ipso facto unreasonable).

My second point. How would a Christian feel if he/she was forced to observe (for example) Islamic customs and practices? The CF should not force people to observe one religion or another. People should be free to practice whatever religion (or lack thereof), but not be forced to do so.

As usual, the CF trails behind in modernization of government and social change. This not only applies to multiculturalism, but also workplace safety and environmental protection (at least in my experience, and this should probably be saved for another thread).

It seems that I was right that we couldn't prevent the downhill direction of this discussion again. Too many people take this issue too seriously and emotionally to have a rational, civilized conversation. Before people start to attack me for saying this, I am not necessarily excluding myself. I just think that many people here are talking from the heart, not from the brain. Perhaps the topic should be locked for good?


----------



## mainerjohnthomas

Knowing the other persons answer is seldom helpful.  Hearing how the other person sees the question is the part that teaches you something.   I do not think this thread should be locked unless it degenerates into an exchange of insults.  I think the debate needs to be had, because I think that most people are striving towards the shared goal of the best for the service and those in it.  We all know what each others stances are, but this is one of the best ways I know to find why we all feel that way.  
    I'm not saying that we will all magically come to agreesment, but perhaps a clearer understanding of each others viewpoints can allow those of us who either shape policy, or have the ears of those that do, to find a way of accomidating the needs of the service in a manner more acceptable to all.


----------



## the 48th regulator

No,

I only see you degenerating this thread downhill, such as with this question;



> My second point. How would a Christian feel if he/she was forced to observe (for example) Islamic customs and practices? The CF should not force people to observe one religion or another. People should be free to practice whatever religion (or lack thereof), but not be forced to do so.



Why would you feel  a Christian would have a problem with Muslim ceremony?  You obviously have biases that you bring out, and hid behind the fact that you pointed out that this thread would fall apart.  However, you are the only one bringing to the table uncalled for questions.   How many Christians in our military have been forced to abide by Muslim customs?  Bosnia, Qatar, Kuwait, Afghanistan...something as simple as having a beer with a mate to talk about the days events has been taken away...why?  Against the local "Religious" customs.  So to answer your questions, many a Christian has done that and carried on.

Now don't go picking fly poop from pepper with my analogy of booze and religion, answer the context with regards to your question.

dileas

tess


----------



## cameron

In response to JDBeach, why should this topic be locked, simply because you disagree with some of the opinions expressed?  I've had several replies criticizing my post, all of which I have taken in stride because difference of opinion is healthy and none of the replies have been anything that I have (so far) found offensive.  It was my understanding that army.ca was founded precisely for the purpose of providing a forum where issues affecting the canadian forces can be debated and differences of opinion aired while still allowing CF members and supporters to maintain mutual respect for each other.  If the directing staff decide to lock this topic then its their call and i'll respect hat, but I ask again, why should it be locked simply YOU disagreee with an opinion?


----------



## IN HOC SIGNO

I personally think that things get locked a little too quickly around here. Unless insults or nasty stuff is happening let the conv go. Kind of like the ref  in the hockey game giving too many penalties and slowing up the play.....let em play ref!


----------



## geo

Sooo... Cameron,
You've stated & we've responded.... care to discuss your views any further?


----------



## mainerjohnthomas

The question was asked earlier of one of the Christian posters how they would feel being asked to participate in a Muslim ceremony.  Well that's a bit of a non issue.  I remember having to keep our sleeves down so as not to offend the Muslim population, getting a longer handout on local does and don'ts for locals than the (always bizarre) UNROE.  No big deal, their culture, their country, we accommodate.  As far as religious ceremonies go, I don't recall our Sikhs, Buddhists, Hindu, the two Wiccans, the dozen or so Atheists, or my own Heathen self having a problem with it; nor any of the multiple Christian denominations that would object to the symbolism/language for doctrinal reasons.  In short, we have never had a military that one size ever fit all, and our Chaplains have long worked to serve all their soldiers spiritual needs, whatever their individual creeds.


----------



## geo

Heh... Allah after all is the arab word for God.


----------



## the 48th regulator

geo said:
			
		

> Heh... Allah after all is the arab word for God.



Go way.


You find that out all by yer self  

dileas

tess


----------



## jbeach95

I did not mean to single out Islam, as was just using it as an example (hence my 'for example' comment). It could apply to any religion. I understand the utility of complying with local customs on an operational tour, out of respect for their beliefs. However, I do not believe that it is appropriate to force people into practicing any religion (or lack thereof), especially in Canada where the event in question occurred. Would a Christian be offended if he was forced to pray towards Mecca five times a day? While this is a more extreme case of forcing religion on someone, where does one draw the line? Is forcing just a little bit okay, like removing one's headdress for prayer?

I never hid my biases at all. In fact, I pointed out that I, just like everyone else, am not immune to such biases.

Okay, about the thread being locked. At this point, perhaps there is no need to do so. But this thread has been locked at least twice before (as long as I've been following it), and I see the trend continuing. Since it was opened the last time, it has not degenerated to the point it has before. But it seemed to me like it was on that path once again. So no, not since the last time it was opened has there been a need to lock it. I was just looking at the big picture. I don't mind meaningful conversation. I just thought that we could prevent this topic from becoming an exchange of insults (again), and that the only practical way to do so would be by locking it permanently. Please, prove me wrong.


----------



## GUNS

Cameron has to understand that when someone joins his/her country's Armed Forces, life as they knew it changes.

Their parental guidance is assumed by their Sr. NCO's and Officers.

Their brothers and sisters are their fellow soldiers.

And their "God" while in uniform, is their weapon, for it has the power of life or death.


----------



## deedster

Although I am still just a civilian. GUNS, well stated!


----------



## the 48th regulator

GUNS said:
			
		

> And their "God" while in uniform, is their weapon, for it has the power of life or death.



Actually no, the RSM is....but I digress.

dileas

tess


----------



## Michael OLeary

GUNS said:
			
		

> Cameron has to understand that when someone joins his/her country's Armed Forces, life as they knew it changes.
> 
> Their parental guidance is assumed by their Sr. NCO's and Officers.
> 
> Their brothers and sisters are their fellow soldiers.
> 
> *And their "God" while in uniform, is their weapon, for it has the power of life or death.*



(And I'd been trying to stay out of this thread.)

Actually (to maintain your analogy), I would say their "God" while in uniform is that ethical and morale code established by the laws and regulations of the nation, expressed through legal orders and (when needed) ROE, which set the conditions under which life may have to be taken in accordance with the dictates of that "religion."

But that is over-simplifying the acceptance of a formal set of rules and conditions for behaviours that do not have to replace one's chosen religious faith, as long as one can find the appropriate personal compromise for both to be followed.  Military service and religious beliefs do not have to be mutually exclusive, those who choose to make them so do so because they want (for whatever purpose) to create that strife.  Perhaps it is the externalizing of an internal conflict, or perhaps it is for the attention it brings them.  When one decides that the two are mutually exclusive, it is up to the individual to find their own higher morale path and leave one "fiath" or the other to the degree necessary to maintain the dictates of the one they choose to have priority for them.


----------



## geo

Heh.... I resemble that 
(but gave it up for lent)


----------



## cameron

I've tried to send a response at least twice before, I don't know if the problem is with my ISP (Cable and Wireless is notorious for its poor service) or not but the post just won't go through.  Anyway first of all I see no reason why this topic should be locked, such discussion is healthy.  I've received a lot of criticism for my post, all of which I have taken in stride because that is my impression of what army.ca was created for, to allow CF members and supporters a forum to air their views and disagree while maintaining mutual respect for each other.  None of the replies to my post are what I would deem offensive so I completely disagree with JDBeach about locking this topic.  

That said I stick to my views, I have nothing against atheists or agnostics in general.  When I was doing my first degree one of my favourite archaeology lecturers was an atheist from the USA, who teased me all the time about my Catholicism and we still maintain regular contact.  However, I found the actions of that particular servicemember who generated this discussion a little aboveboard.  

Recently when H.M. Queen Elizabeth the Second visited a Muslim mosque she removed her shoes, as is Muslim tradition, and everyone knows that she is a staunch Anglican.  I have dated females whose religions ranged from Pentecostal to Seventh Day Adventist, to Jehovah's Witness, to Hindu and Muslim.  I was even once in a relationship with an American girl who was a Wickan (and just as hot as those witches in 'Charmed' ).  I've attended the worship services of some of these denominations, and while these girls all realized and had to respect the fact that I would never give up the Catholic Church, I would always respect their customs when in their places of worship.  So what is so hard in showing some respect and performing the simple and symbolic gesture of removing your hat?


----------



## warrickdll

Michael O'Leary said:
			
		

> ...
> Military service and religious beliefs do not have to be mutually exclusive, those who choose to make them so do so because they want (for whatever purpose) to create that strife.  Perhaps it is the externalizing of an internal conflict, or perhaps it is for the attention it brings them.
> ...



I couldn't agree more.

There is no legitimate reason to have a religious service within the military. 

And as for those whose beliefs continue to force them to demand to have religious services in the military - well - I would like to think their complaints have a purpose, other than to cause strife (though I am doubtful). 

Perhaps they are just confused, it is difficult for some to see that traditions change and yet still remain traditions. Some seem to think that military customs during their own careers were handed down on stone tablets - instead of seeing them as ever evolving (and often started on a whim, without any real military purpose).

I will however, hold off in judging them to be either mentally damaged or attention hogs though.




			
				Michael O'Leary said:
			
		

> ...
> When one decides that the two are mutually exclusive, it is up to the individual to find their own higher morale path and leave one "fiath" or the other to the degree necessary to maintain the dictates of the one they choose to have priority for them.



Again, I agree. If one feels that their beliefs will not allow them to serve within a military without religious services, then it is up to the individual to choose based on their own priorities. After all, the CF will survive without them.


----------



## warrickdll

cameron said:
			
		

> ...
> I have nothing against atheists or agnostics in general.
> ...
> Recently when H.M. Queen Elizabeth the Second visited a Muslim mosque she removed her shoes, as is Muslim tradition, and everyone knows that she is a staunch Anglican.
> ...




I have nothing against religious people, in general, but you miss the point. What you, or the Queen, do in your own time is not at issue. Even for a member of the CF there is plenty of personal time to take care of ones own religious peculiarities.


If you are overseas, and the military situation dictates that you are required to enter a religious facility, then you must do whatever is militarily appropriate for the situation.


But in Canada, the CF controls its own actions, and there is absolutely no requirement for religious ceremonies in the military. 

Nothing the military does has to have a religious component - in fact, it shouldn't. The last overt vestiges of religious content should be exorcised from the CF.


----------



## mainerjohnthomas

Nothing the military does has a religious component........
No, I can't agree to that one.
There is no more sacred thing than to give your life for another, there can be no greater sacrament than the offer of your own life in defence of your comrades, your colours and your country.  The reason that religion has always been close to the military, the reason Stalin ordered the Churches opened in WWII has everything to do with the honoured dead.  Our slain comrades deserve and receive from us the highest honours, and as the life is gone from the body, the honours we give are to the name of the fallen, and to their spirit, with whatever form your faith or belief holds for that.
It is not that the military needs religion to fight, it is that the context of sacrifice, grief, and dealing with loss have always had spiritual overtones.
It really shouldn't be the lone Heathen answering this one, I would expect Trinity or one of our other Chaplains to be making a more credible job of the point I am mangling.  Having said that, honouring the dead, and seeing that their sacrifice was not in vain is a really big deal in my faith, and probably in many of yours.


----------



## Bruce Monkhouse

Hey, I guess I would be one of those heathens and, darn skippy, there is a place for religion in the CF. All religions, and respect shown for each one. I will bow, kneal, sign and even smoke the sweetgrass as required to keep that respect.

I wonder how many millions have died, or would yet give thier lives, just to have what some so callouslly toss away.

For shame............................


----------



## geo

cameron said:
			
		

> I've tried to send a response at least twice before, I don't know if the problem is with my ISP (Cable and Wireless is notorious for its poor service) or not but the post just won't go through.  Anyway first of all I see no reason why this topic should be locked, such discussion is healthy.  I've received a lot of criticism for my post, all of which I have taken in stride because that is my impression of what army.ca was created for, to allow CF members and supporters a forum to air their views and disagree while maintaining mutual respect for each other.  None of the replies to my post are what I would deem offensive so I completely disagree with JDBeach about locking this topic.
> 
> That said I stick to my views, I have nothing against atheists or agnostics in general.  When I was doing my first degree one of my favourite archaeology lecturers was an atheist from the USA, who teased me all the time about my Catholicism and we still maintain regular contact.  However, I found the actions of that particular servicemember who generated this discussion a little aboveboard.
> 
> Recently when H.M. Queen Elizabeth the Second visited a Muslim mosque she removed her shoes, as is Muslim tradition, and everyone knows that she is a staunch Anglican.  I have dated females whose religions ranged from Pentecostal to Seventh Day Adventist, to Jehovah's Witness, to Hindu and Muslim.  I was even once in a relationship with an American girl who was a Wickan (and just as hot as those witches in 'Charmed' ).  I've attended the worship services of some of these denominations, and while these girls all realized and had to respect the fact that I would never give up the Catholic Church, I would always respect their customs when in their places of worship.  So what is so hard in showing some respect and performing the simple and symbolic gesture of removing your hat?



Cameron,
your initial posts do not jive with what you are saying now... you came across as very very intolerant.  If I mistoke your stand, good nuff & sorry for the missunderstanding .... if you have changed your views .... good nuff

Chimo!


----------



## geo

+1 Bruce!


----------



## Trinity

I've tried twice to post, hours apart from each other.

Both times... fire foxed crashed.

I probably SHOULD have taken that as a hint NOT to post in this thread.
So I will try to be brief... but informative.

Being this is my area, may I shed some light to help differentiate the argument.  

There is a very big difference between Spirituality and Religiosity.

Much of what chaplains do addresses the spirituality of the situations
and circumstances that we are in.  A ramp ceremony is a service 
addressing the need and loss of our in our own spirituality. 

It is not done in any specific form of religious denomination.. i.e. 
in a roman catholic rite or anglican or united church.  

We are all spiritual beings.  We all fill our spirituality with something.
I choose religion to fill my spirituality. Some choose dance, music, yoga,
painting.  You can try to fill it with bad things such as drugs or alcohol
however their effect is temporary and come with severe consequence.  

So... religion and spirituality are two different things.  No one is ever
forced to go to a religious service (or shouldn't be).  You may be told
to go attend a spiritual service.. i.e remembrance day, etc.

Understand.. I may have worded this poorly as it is VERY difficult
to describe let alone type.  Understand I do not represent the chaplains
branch and I could be VERY incorrect.  These are my own thoughts simply
to put context to the argument as I have been following but refusing to jump
in until specifically asked.


----------



## Trinity

Just an add on.... It may be classified as an ecumenical service 



> adjective
> 1. 	concerned with promoting unity among churches or religions; "ecumenical thinking"; "ecumenical activities"; "the ecumenical movement" [syn: ecumenic]
> 2. 	of worldwide scope or applicability; "an issue of cosmopolitan import"; "the shrewdest political and ecumenical comment of our time"- Christopher Morley; "universal experience" [syn: cosmopolitan]



So.. trying to be all encompassing.  I prefer to think of them as spiritual, addressing the spiritual needs of all, atheists included.
In fact... I plan it to address the needs of all and be non offensive to the best of my abilities. I cannot control the one person who
doesn't want to be there regardless of ecumenical, spiritual or emotional reasons.


----------



## geo

+1 trinity


----------



## mainerjohnthomas

+1 Trinity.
I knew the Padres could get my point across better.


----------



## warrickdll

mainerjohnthomas said:
			
		

> ...
> It is not that the military needs religion to fight, it is that the context of sacrifice, grief, and dealing with loss have always had spiritual overtones.
> ...



Military ceremonies, including those concerning sacrifice, grief, and dealing with loss, do not require a padre, or an order to pray. Ceremonies can remain solemn (and even spiritual) without religion. A "moment of silence" can be inserted anywhere a prayer would previously be called for.

Specifically concerning loss, the CF holds its own ceremonies and commemorations - none of which require religious content. The separate ceremonies that are organized by the family are of course formatted for their own beliefs, and taking part in these are not parades (or should not be), though your unit will most likely provide you the time to attend.  


Also (my bolding):



			
				mainerjohnthomas said:
			
		

> Nothing the military does *has a* religious component........
> ...





			
				Iterator said:
			
		

> ...
> Nothing the military does *has to have a* religious component...
> ...


----------



## Michael OLeary

Iterator said:
			
		

> Michael O'Leary said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ...
> Military service and religious beliefs do not have to be mutually exclusive, those who choose to make them so do so because they want (for whatever purpose) to create that strife.  Perhaps it is the externalizing of an internal conflict, or perhaps it is for the attention it brings them.
> ...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I couldn't agree more.
> 
> There is no legitimate reason to have a religious service within the military.
> 
> And as for those whose beliefs continue to force them to demand to have religious services in the military - well - I would like to think their complaints have a purpose, other than to cause strife (though I am doubtful).
> 
> Perhaps they are just confused, it is difficult for some to see that traditions change and yet still remain traditions. Some seem to think that military customs during their own careers were handed down on stone tablets - instead of seeing them as ever evolving (and often started on a whim, without any real military purpose).
> 
> I will however, hold off in judging them to be either mentally damaged or attention hogs though.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Michael O'Leary said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ...
> When one decides that the two are mutually exclusive, it is up to the individual to find their own higher morale path and leave one "faith" or the other to the degree necessary to maintain the dictates of the one they choose to have priority for them.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Again, I agree. If one feels that their beliefs will not allow them to serve within a military without religious services, then it is up to the individual to choose based on their own priorities. After all, the CF will survive without them.
Click to expand...


Iterator,

please do not twist my words to your spin on this discussion/argument.  I was speaking of individual beliefs and life choices, and you have extrapolated from the specific to the general in declaring that there is “no legitimate reason to have a religious service within the military”.

You are confusing the concepts of traditional practices with personal beliefs, and ignoring the ability of the organization to change and adapt as it becomes more aware of varying individual influences. As we saw with the rededication of the Vimy Memorial, and as was done with the consecration of the National Military Cemetery, it is possible to take a more inclusive approach to people of all (or no) faiths. 

You may claim that the continued inclusion of practices following religious custom have no place in a modern military because there are some who proclaim themselves to be excluded (which is by their own choice), but it is equally valid to state that eliminating all practices bordering on religious observances in order to satisfy the exclusive desires of those few is equally insulting to all those who are comfortable with the traditional observances (whether of not that preference is due to personal religious feelings).

I do find it interesting that while the military has balanced the needs of multiple faiths for many years, a vocal few who proclaim themselves to have no faith are incapable of finding a way to fit in.


----------



## warrickdll

Michael O'Leary said:
			
		

> Iterator,
> please do not twist my words to your spin on this discussion/argument.
> ...



The twist is deliberate to show that the argument is as equally valid when reversed. 


Reversing the argument is also a commentary on your statement:



			
				Michael O'Leary said:
			
		

> ...
> Military service and religious beliefs do not have to be mutually exclusive, those who choose to make them so do so because they want (for whatever purpose) to create that strife.  Perhaps it is the externalizing of an internal conflict, or perhaps it is for the attention it brings them.
> ...



Though it was softly delivered, you are stating that those who disagree with you are just troublemakers, and who are either mentally troubled or complete egotists.






			
				Michael O'Leary said:
			
		

> ...
> You are confusing the concepts of traditional practices with personal beliefs, and ignoring the ability of the organization to change and adapt as it becomes more aware of varying individual influences.
> ...



I think what is being ignored here is the ability of the organization to complete its changes and adaptations to where it is no longer an issue - at all. 

It is only a vocal minority who are complaining about the judgment, and who are also grandstanding to have their religious beliefs validated by the continued inclusion of religious content in the CF (either generally or specifically). 

I believe that the actions of this minority are detrimental to the well-being of the CF.



The claim that the CF must include religious content, just to appease the few who proclaim that the CF must have religious content (or they will feel excluded), is insulting to the many who will be perfectly comfortable without it.


----------



## Michael OLeary

Iterator said:
			
		

> It is only a vocal minority who are complaining about the judgment, and who are also grandstanding to have their religious beliefs validated by the continued inclusion of religious content in the CF (either generally or specifically).
> 
> I believe that the actions of this minority are detrimental to the well-being of the CF.



It is only a vocal minority who are complaining about the judgment, and who are also grandstanding to have their lack of religious beliefs validated by the continued inclusion complete exclusion of religious content in the CF (either generally or specifically). 

I believe that the actions of this minority are detrimental to the well-being of the CF.


----------



## warrickdll

Michael O'Leary said:
			
		

> ...
> I believe that the actions of this minority are detrimental to the well-being of the CF.




We disagree on who the minority is, but it is the detriment where it shows.


The detriment from the minority demanding religious content in CF ceremonies is apparent in the very judgment this topic is about. Commanders are at risk of having to run a continuous obstacle course of legal matters whenever they include religious content.


And what is the detriment from those advocating the removal of the last vestiges of religious content from cluttering up CF ceremonies? Well... there isn't one.


----------



## Trinity

Iterator said:
			
		

> We disagree on who the minority is,



Assuming that the Armed Forces is proportionate more or less to the Canadian Population

Using the 2001 Census  (as the 2006 Census religious figures isn't available)


> Total population  	 29,639,030  	100.0%  	 9.8%  	 37.3
> Roman Catholic 	12,793,125 	43.2% 	4.8% 	37.8
> *   No religion 	4,796,325 	16.2% 	43.9% 	31.1*
> United Church 	2,839,125 	9.6% 	- 8.2% 	44.1
> Anglican 	2,035,500 	6.9% 	- 7.0% 	43.8
> Christian not included elsewhere (1) 	780,450 	2.6% 	121.1% 	30.2
> Baptist 	729,470 	2.5% 	10.0% 	39.3
> Lutheran 	606,590 	2.0% 	- 4.7% 	43.3
> Muslim 	579,640 	2.0% 	128.9% 	28.1
> Protestant not included elsewhere (2) 	549,205 	1.9% 	- 12.7% 	40.4
> Presbyterian 	409,830 	1.4% 	- 35.6% 	46.0
> Pentecostal 	369,475 	1.2% 	- 15.3% 	33.5
> Jewish 	329,995 	1.1% 	3.7% 	41.5
> Buddhist 	300,345 	1.0% 	83.8% 	38.0
> Hindu 	297,200 	1.0% 	89.3% 	31.9
> Sikh 	278,410 	0.9% 	88.8% 	29.7
> Greek Orthodox (3) 	215,175 	0.7% 	- 7.1% 	40.7
> Mennonite 	191,465 	0.6% 	- 7.9% 	32.0
> Orthodox not included elsewhere (4) 	165,420 	0.6% 	79.9% 	35.4
> Jehovah's Witnesses 	154,750 	0.5% 	- 8.1% 	38.7
> Ukrainian Catholic 	126,200 	0.4% 	- 1.7% 	45.0
> Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints (Mormons) 	101,805 	0.3% 	8.4% 	28.7
> Salvation Army 	87,790 	0.3% 	- 21.9% 	39.3
> Christian Reformed Church 	76,670 	0.3% 	- 9.5% 	32.3
> Evangelical Missionary Church 	66,705 	0.2% 	48.4% 	35.2
> Christian and Missionary Alliance 	66,285 	0.2% 	11.9% 	34.5
> Adventist 	62,880 	0.2% 	20.1% 	35.5
> Non-denominational (5) 	40,545 	0.1% 	26.7% 	33.0
> Ukrainian Orthodox 	32,720 	0.1% 	- 5.1% 	45.8
> Aboriginal spirituality 	29,820 	0.1% 	175.1% 	25.0
> Hutterite 	26,295 	0.1% 	22.3% 	22.2
> Methodist (6) 	25,730 	0.1% 	6.1% 	43.9
> Pagan (7) 	21,080 	0.1% 	281.2% 	30.4
> Brethren in Christ 	20,590 	0.1% 	- 22.0% 	38.2
> Serbian Orthodox 	20,520 	0.1% 	109.5% 	34.8


http://www12.statcan.ca/english/census01/products/highlight/Religion/Page.cfm?Lang=E&Geo=PR&View=1a&Code=01&Table=1&StartRec=1&Sort=2&B1=Canada&B2=1


Thus...  people of no religion only make up 16.2% of CF members.  Hardly a majority.
Also, there is no way to determine of those 16.2% either don't care or even support the fact
of having an ecumenical service (on the various occasions that exist within the CF)


----------



## Michael OLeary

Iterator said:
			
		

> And what is the detriment from those advocating the removal of the last vestiges of religious content from cluttering up CF ceremonies? Well... there isn't one.



And yet, how many threads on this site have devolved into simple arguments attacking or defending *tradition*, completely separate from analyses of the original context of those activities.  Your view argues that all things with an original religious context should be removed, simply because they once had that context, whether or not current participants widely understand or believe in that context today.

You aren't looking for an evolutionary process, you're seeking a widespread bookburning.

I guess we can start it with the burning sweet grass bundle.


----------



## warrickdll

Trinity said:
			
		

> ...
> Thus...  people of no religion only make up 16.2% of CF members.  Hardly a majority.
> Also, there is no way to determine of those 16.2% either don't care or even support the fact of having an ecumenical service (on the various occasions that exist within the CF)



The minority are the ones constantly complaining to keep religious content in, and to the detriment of, the CF. 

Ecumenical - well... there is no pan-religious ceremony outside of a non-religious ceremony.


----------



## warrickdll

Michael O'Leary said:
			
		

> ...
> Your view argues that all things with an original religious context should be removed, simply because they once had that context, whether or not current participants widely understand or believe in that context today.
> ...



No, that isn't what I've said.



			
				Iterator said:
			
		

> ...
> Despite their religious origins, some military traditions and ceremonies are conducted without the overt religious aspects:
> - Saluting when boarding a ship continues without the need of a crucifix on the quarterdeck.
> - Having a "Moment of Silence" to honour the fallen works much better than "Let us pray".
> ...



I'm only advocating the limited changes required to fix the problem. Remove the chaplains, the call to prayers, and the church services, and its done.







			
				Michael O'Leary said:
			
		

> ...
> You aren't looking for an evolutionary process, you're seeking a widespread bookburning.
> 
> I guess we can start it with the burning sweet grass bundle.
> ...




It won't be dramatic, but it will keep the CF out of this legal quagmire.




			
				Iterator said:
			
		

> ...
> Our own individual abilities to be courteous and tolerant should not be an excuse for the committees (that determine military ceremonies in Canada) to lack the ability or imagination to make a few harmless alterations.


----------



## cameron

Forgive me if I take the lazy way out and respond to four replies with one post.  First to Geo, I haven't changed my views, perhaps I just expressed myself poorly in my first post, but misunderstandings do occur in life so no sweat.  To mainerjohnthomas and Bruce Monkhouse +1.  Its ironic that a 'heathen' like myself would get so passionate about religion.  Many 'christians' disapprove of people like me who drink Guinness, smoke Dominican cigars and would think nothing of telling someone to f@#* off if they really step on my toes.  However, while I might not live what many consider to be a christian lifestyle, I have a strong belief in God and feel that religion should play an important role in our society.  mainerjohnthomas puts it so well, when someone gives their life for their country, for a cause, for their comrades-in-arms, the least that can be done for them is to send them to their maker in a reverent manner that honours their noble deeds.

I support Bruce's views about the willingness of some of us to discard something that is such an important part of our moral and social fibre.  I personally feel that the man who believes in nothing has already lost everything.  In response to Iterator, while i'm sure the CF would continue to operate efficiently even if subjected to a complete separation of church and state, why get rid of something that has been such a source of strength and comfort as well as maintaining morale for both individuals and units, especially at a time like now when Canada's military is being tested in a way its never been since Korea?


----------



## Disenchantedsailor

Iterator said:
			
		

> I'm only advocating the limited changes required to fix the problem. Remove the chaplains, the call to prayers, and the church services, and its done.


Now you're talking religious persecution on a grand scale, thats the sort of thing that countries with state religion do. The CF provides services for many denominations, CFB Esquimalt has muslim in the sam chapel that the catholics and protestancts use. You don't agree with chaplains or religion fine so be it, but don't ban religion for us believers. And for the very thing that started this thread, at least that officer kept things within the Military legal system. not the like the "bonehead" challanging the constitutional validitaty of the loyal toast at mess dinners, did he do it in the military justice system, no, in the supreme court, so now we remove the loyal toast, hey why not mess dinners altogether, hey while were at it lets axe the GG and the Queen. Just how far do we take this removal of religion.


----------



## warrickdll

cameron said:
			
		

> ...
> ...while i'm sure the CF would continue to operate efficiently even if subjected to a complete separation of church and state, why get rid of something that has been such a source of strength and comfort...



At least we agree that removing religious content from CF ceremonies will not have a negative impact on the CF. As to "why": aside from it just being wrong, I have also pointed out the liability that it is. The ceremonies themselves are the source of strength and comfort, the religious content has always been extraneous.








			
				ArtyNewbie said:
			
		

> Now you're talking religious persecution on a grand scale...
> ...



Nothing about removing religious content from the CF could be construed as "religious persecution" (of any scale). The sky is not falling.




			
				ArtyNewbie said:
			
		

> ...
> ...CFB Esquimalt has muslim in the sam chapel that the catholics and protestancts use. You don't agree with chaplains or religion fine so be it, but don't ban religion for us believers.
> ...



What is required is very minor, and in no way a ban on religion. 

Religions, their associated buildings, and their employees, are the same as any other service industry in Canada. Wherever it is viable these organizations will set up shop. If there was some problem meeting the demands then it should be privately contracted out (sort of like Canex or something similar), or if overseas - then contracted much like translators are (in any case, not an internal matter for the CF).

Each individual needs to take care of their own religious beliefs; they shouldn't require the government to hold their hand on this matter. A member of the CF shouldn't be increasing the administrative burden by demanding that the military provide them with the religious content in their life - more self-reliance is needed, not less.


----------



## Michael OLeary

Iterator said:
			
		

> Nothing about removing religious content from the CF could be construed as "religious persecution" (of any scale). The sky is not falling.
> 
> What is required is very minor, and in no way a ban on religion.





			
				Iterator said:
			
		

> I'm only advocating the limited changes required to fix the problem. Remove the chaplains, the call to prayers, and the church services, and its done.



So, what you are saying (for example) is that a dying soldier, who happens to be a Roman Catholic, would be denied last rites in a field hospital, because you would dispense with the Chaplaincy and all of its trappings and rituals.

And you call this a modernizing approach that levels the field for all?

What, exactly, was the problem you thought you were fixing?


----------



## Emenince Grise

Iterator said:
			
		

> Religions, their associated buildings, and their employees, are the same as any other service industry in Canada. Wherever it is viable these organizations will set up shop. If there was some problem meeting the demands then it should be privately contracted out (sort of like Canex or something similar), or if overseas - then contracted much like translators are (in any case, not an internal matter for the CF).
> 
> Each individual needs to take care of their own religious beliefs; they shouldn't require the government to hold their hand on this matter. A member of the CF shouldn't be increasing the administrative burden by demanding that the military provide them with the religious content in their life - more self-reliance is needed, not less.



You are making an argument for the individuation of religious belief. That is certainly one perspective, however it is not how Canadian society sees religious faith. Nor it is how the military (as I understand it) sees religious faith. 

Canada has historically seen religion and its associated activities as being "value added" to the benefit of society as a whole. That is why, for example, churches can apply for a 50% rebate on GST and why churches are able to issue a tax credit for contributions. It has never been seen as a "service industry", either by society or itself. 

We have never subscribed to the doctrine of the separation of church and state in Canada. While there is no "established church" in Canada (that being abolished in the 1850's) one would he hard-pressed to find an aspect of Canadian social policy, for example, from Medicare to the Canada Pension Plan, that was not deeply and profoundly influenced by the religious beliefs of those who initiated those policies. Perhaps a little deeper study of Canadian history is in order. 

The Canadian Forces themselves to not provide, as I understand it (I'm just a lowly CivO), the religious content to members. After all, it's not the padre standing up and pouring a sermon down the member's throats. Religious service attendance is not mandatory. It is available and it is the role of the padre to facilitate that religious activity, if the member wishes it. And many, many do. 

What the padre does at a given event is, I understand, at the invitation of the CO. If the CO wants the padre present, it is so. One would hope that the CO would reflect the religious beliefs of the members of their unit. 

It is also the members who seek out the padre for advice, counsel, encouragement and reflection. The padre is present, nothing more. The padre in the CF also has a unique ability to address the Chain of Command.  

Finally, it is the mandate of the padre and the Chaplain General's office to be concerned both for the welfare of the members but also for their families. I understand that is a unique mandate among all the service branches. That the CF has incorporated that mandate into itself is both progressive and profoundly helpful to the members, I believe. But perhaps I'm biased. 

One more thought. What you are advocating in your idea of "contracting out" sounds very much like a return to the days of a century ago where a local minister or priest was invited, usually by the CO, to be the unit chaplain. What the CF discovered was that such an approach didn't work. The demands on chaplains became so huge and so challenging that specialized training was required. The incorporation of chaplains into the CF was a direct result of operational requirements which emerged during and after WW2. The book "Peacetime Padres" by Rev. (Major) Ab Fowler (Ret.) has a lot on this change.

My apologies if I have offered a differing opinion. And if I have offended my Chaplain colleagues, I stand corrected.


----------



## stealthylizard

Ugh, I hated mandatory church parades when I was in cadets.  It wasn't that long ago either, back in the early 90's.  We were required to have parental permission to skip them.  As much as I hated going to church, it kept us away from barrack duties while the non-religious types got down to cleaning for CO's inspection.


----------



## armyvern

Iterator said:
			
		

> Each individual needs to take care of their own religious beliefs; they shouldn't require the government to hold their hand on this matter. A member of the CF shouldn't be increasing the administrative burden by demanding that the military provide them with the religious content in their life - more self-reliance is needed, not less.


The whole problem with your argument here is that neither should any CF member be denied religious or spiritual content while deployed, training etc etc simply because they are a member of the CF.

We are a reflection of Canadian society. How better to reflect that tolerant Candian society than by allowing spiritual and religious needs, in all their many shapes and forms, to be practised by each and every individual soldier as one sees fit, as is occurring right now as we speak? I'm certainly not out there holding their hand, and neither are you. Is it putting you out any? No, I'd say it's not.  Tolerance works both ways...the right to practice and the right not to, a fact you seem to be forgetting.

Man, I've tried to stay out of this thread, being that I am not a religious person at all but, sadly, your belief that individuals are being administrative burdens because they are afforded the opportunity to practise their own spirituality or religious beliefs while serving, just as any other Canadian is afforded the right to, is right the fuck out of it; and that's my .02 cents worth.


----------



## cameron

Iterator you don't get it, it IS the religious content of those ceremonies that make them such a source of strength and comfort.


----------



## mainerjohnthomas

The ecumenical nature of the ceremonies, the ramp ceremonies, the blessing of the colours, the Remembrance itself, is designed to serve a purpose.  That purpose is to honour both those who serve, and those who have fallen, to provide comfort and support.  There are those that say these ceremonies serve no military purpose, that, like the parades, the colours, the ceremonials, they are relics of a past that should be tossed aside with the bayonette and horse cavalry.  The army that does so, that tosses aside everthing not imediately required for maintainace of its kit, and killing human beings, will have created a force that simultaneously has mastered the arts of killing, and forgotten for what it stands.  The Soviets sent such a force to Afghanistan, and when the boys came marching home, the only ones laughing were the Russian mobs, who found ample employment for hurting young men who knew they had blood on their hands, and no idea either why, or why they should stop.
We are not simply executioners.  We are soldiers.  Brothers and sisters in arms who stand beneath our colours, bit(h and complain as we spit and polish for the parades that make us proud even as we complain.  We remember the sacrifice of our forebearers at Ypres, the Somme, Dieppe, Normandy, Korea, Yugoslavia, and now Afghanistan.  We stand together in these "empty ceremonials" civilians so quickly dismiss, as we stand together in the sorts of endless, griniding, soul destroying stresses that are operational deployments, that are wars in all but name; we stand because we remember why.   Padres are not the most important trade in the CF, but they have an institutional knowledge of how to handle the spiritual needs of soldiers that no civilian can bring.  I would rather talk to a CF Chaplain of another faith who understands OUR world, than my own priest who has no idea what we have seen and have to remember.


----------



## cameron

Again +1 mainerjohnthomas.  Like I said before the CF can be an efficient fighting force without ceremonies (religious or otherwise), but there is a difference between being an efficient fighting force and an excellent one.  What some people forget is that one of the things (apart from excellent training of course) that makes militaries like the British, Canadian, Australian and New Zealanders so formidable despite their size, are their traditions, many of which either have a religious component or were influenced by religious ideals.  These traditions, some of which are centuries old, give members of the profession of arms a reason to take pride in their craft, other than just killing because one is good at it.


----------



## the 48th regulator

cameron said:
			
		

> Like I said before the CF can be an efficient fighting force without ceremonies (religious or otherwise), but there is a difference between being an efficient fighting force and an excellent one.



I fail to see your theory, in your past posts, on how removing cerimonial duites will make us more efficient.

Do you mean the time wasted on them can be put to beter use?

Please elaborate so I can better understand, as I do not want to post something incorrect.

dileas

tess


----------



## Emenince Grise

mainerjohnthomas said:
			
		

> We stand together in these "empty ceremonials" civilians so quickly dismiss, as we stand together in the sorts of endless, griniding, soul destroying stresses that are operational deployments, that are wars in all but name; we stand because we remember why.



As a civilian, but one who has presided at the civilian counterpart of those "empty ceremonials" (such as Remembrance Day),  I find there is far more interest now and appreciation for the ceremonials than there were 25 years ago when I began ministry. It has reached the point in the congregation I serve that I dare not be away on the Sunday prior to Remembrance Day. It's that important.  And every time I mention those who have died in our congregational prayers, as well as those who serve, it has always been positively received. People want to name the sacrifice and remember.  



> Padres are not the most important trade in the CF, but they have an institutional knowledge of how to handle the spiritual needs of soldiers that no civilian can bring.  I would rather talk to a CF Chaplain of another faith who understands OUR world, than my own priest who has no idea what we have seen and have to remember.



Well said.


----------



## warrickdll

Michael O'Leary said:
			
		

> So, what you are saying (for example) is that a dying soldier, who happens to be a Roman Catholic, would be denied last rites in a field hospital, because you would dispense with the Chaplaincy and all of its trappings and rituals.
> ...




Yes. Clearly we don't have a Chaplain trailing behind each RC incase they die. So whatever the peculiarities of any of the multitude of religions are, they can occur after repatriation.





			
				Emenince Grise said:
			
		

> You are making an argument for the individuation of religious belief. That is certainly one perspective, however it is not how Canadian society sees religious faith. Nor it is how the military (as I understand it) sees religious faith.



I believe that most Canadians think that the government should stay out of religion. Individualization of religion is the correct way to deal with religion in a free society.





			
				Emenince Grise said:
			
		

> ...
> Canada has historically seen religion and its associated activities as being "value added" to the benefit of society as a whole. That is why, for example, churches can apply for a 50% rebate on GST and why churches are able to issue a tax credit for contributions. It has never been seen as a "service industry", either by society or itself.
> ...



Well that hold over should be ended.

I'm not saying that individuals are not receiving anything from their religions, but I am saying that is for them to pay for it, and not for it to be subsidized by the government.





			
				Emenince Grise said:
			
		

> ...
> We have never subscribed to the doctrine of the separation of church and state in Canada. While there is no "established church" in Canada (that being abolished in the 1850's) one would he hard-pressed to find an aspect of Canadian social policy, for example, from Medicare to the Canada Pension Plan, that was not deeply and profoundly influenced by the religious beliefs of those who initiated those policies. Perhaps a little deeper study of Canadian history is in order.
> ...



It is a myth that the modernization of society is a result of religion. What has happened is that religions have been modernized to try and remain relevant to the changes of society. 





			
				Emenince Grise said:
			
		

> ...
> Finally, it is the mandate of the padre and the Chaplain General's office to be concerned both for the welfare of the members but also for their families. I understand that is a unique mandate among all the service branches. That the CF has incorporated that mandate into itself is both progressive and profoundly helpful to the members, I believe. But perhaps I'm biased.
> ...



I am not questioning any padre's accomplishments; I believe that the non-religious duties of padre's should be reassigned and that we should return the responsibility to the individual to take care of their own religious beliefs.  







			
				The Librarian said:
			
		

> The whole problem with your argument here is that neither should any CF member be denied religious or spiritual content while deployed, training etc etc simply because they are a member of the CF.
> ...



You would not be denied anything; there are still phones and the internet. 

Think of the argument this way: Should you be denied being a parent because the CF requires you to be somewhere other than at home? 

You joined the military, and although the CF may try to accommodate your personal needs, it is also up to each member to attend to their own personal lives. You must be prepared to spend extended times away from your family, your social clubs, and your padre.









			
				cameron said:
			
		

> Iterator you don't get it, it IS the religious content of those ceremonies that make them such a source of strength and comfort.



Again, it is the other way round. As an example, people have always honoured their dead, but whether or not a specific religion, sect, or any religion at all, is used has never been constant.








			
				mainerjohnthomas said:
			
		

> ...
> There are those that say these ceremonies serve no military purpose, that, like the parades, the colours, the ceremonials, they are relics of a past that should be tossed aside with the bayonette and horse cavalry.
> ...



No. The ceremonies remain, only the overt religious content is removed.


----------



## Emenince Grise

Iterator said:
			
		

> Yes. Clearly we don't have a Chaplain trailing behind each RC incase they die. So whatever the peculiarities of any of the multitude of religions are, they can occur after repatriation.



In the case of the Roman Catholic faith, that is simply not possible. And as the Roman Catholic Church is the largest single individual religious grouping in Canada, having a chaplain close at hand is an appropriate accommodation. 



> I believe that most Canadians think that the government should stay out of religion. Individualization of religion is the correct way to deal with religion in a free society.



Would you be surprised that Canadians think otherwise? See any of the works of Prof. Reg Bibby of the University of Lethbridge for more. BTW, religious practice, by definition, is not an individual practice but a communal practice. Viz. the _minyan_ in Judaism, the words of Jesus to Christians to gather together for worship and Friday worship in the Islamic faith. 



> Well that hold over should be ended.



Why? it is a foundation of Candian society. 



> I'm not saying that individuals are not receiving anything from their religions, but I am saying that is for them to pay for it, and not for it to be subsidized by the government.



So why should the majority be tyrannized by the minority? 



> It is a myth that the modernization of society is a result of religion. What has happened is that religions have been modernized to try and remain relevant to the changes of society.



Given that more humans have been killed by noted secularist progressives like Hitler, Stalin, Pol Pot, Mao, Saddam Hussen et al, your argument rings hollow. 



> I am not questioning any padre's accomplishments; I believe that the non-religious duties of padre's should be reassigned and that we should return the responsibility to the individual to take care of their own religious beliefs.



I see a massive increase in the number of shrinks attached to the CF Medical Branch...  



> You would not be denied anything; there are still phones and the internet.



And that completely misunderstands human nature. People seek face-to-face contact. The phone and internet are poor substitutes.  



> Think of the argument this way: Should you be denied being a parent because the CF requires you to be somewhere other than at home?
> 
> You joined the military, and although the CF may try to accommodate your personal needs, it is also up to each member to attend to their own personal lives. You must be prepared to spend extended times away from your family, your social clubs, and your padre.



That has not been the experience of the CF over the last century. Your mileage may vary. 



> Again, it is the other way round. As an example, people have always honoured their dead, but whether or not a specific religion, sect, or any religion at all, is used has never been constant.
> 
> No. The ceremonies remain, only the overt religious content is removed.



The difference, as has been explained to me, is between black and white and Technicolour. Take the religious aspect out of those events and they become really _drab_.


----------



## warrickdll

Emenince Grise said:
			
		

> In the case of the Roman Catholic faith, that is simply not possible. And as the Roman Catholic Church is the largest single individual religious grouping in Canada, having a chaplain close at hand is an appropriate accommodation.
> ...



I cannot speak to the specifics of the RC religion, but I presume they have some way of dealing with people who have died without a priest being present. 

Chasing the eccentricities of religions is a fool's game. You end up in a state where the religion with the most ridiculous rules has the most rights.

The number of adherents does not make a religion any more or less valid than another.




			
				Emenince Grise said:
			
		

> ... Why? it is a foundation of Candian society. ...



Colonization has ended; we no longer need to subsidize religion.




			
				Emenince Grise said:
			
		

> ... So why should the majority be tyrannized by the minority? ...



Tyrannized? I'm just saying you should pay for your own religion.




			
				Emenince Grise said:
			
		

> ... Given that more humans have been killed by noted secularist progressives like Hitler, Stalin, Pol Pot, Mao, Saddam Hussen et al, your argument rings hollow. ...



You started off so well, and then you became tyrannized, and now this. Again, the sky is not falling




			
				Emenince Grise said:
			
		

> ... And that completely misunderstands human nature. People seek face-to-face contact. The phone and internet are poor substitutes. ...



And yet we manage with our families. Face-to-face can be done on leave (if not online).




			
				Emenince Grise said:
			
		

> ... Take the religious aspect out of those events and they become really _drab_. ...



Only a lack of imagination would make that true.


----------



## deedster

Emenince Grise said:
			
		

> The difference, as has been explained to me, is between black and white and Technicolour. Take the religious aspect out of those events and they become really _drab_.


Well said Your Eminence!


----------



## IN HOC SIGNO

cameron said:
			
		

> Forgive me if I take the lazy way out and respond to four replies with one post.  First to Geo, I haven't changed my views, perhaps I just expressed myself poorly in my first post, but misunderstandings do occur in life so no sweat.  To mainerjohnthomas and Bruce Monkhouse +1.  Its ironic that a 'heathen' like myself would get so passionate about religion.  Many 'christians' disapprove of people like me who drink Guinness, smoke Dominican cigars and would think nothing of telling someone to f@#* off if they really step on my toes.  However, while I might not live what many consider to be a christian lifestyle, I have a strong belief in God and feel that religion should play an important role in our society.  mainerjohnthomas puts it so well, when someone gives their life for their country, for a cause, for their comrades-in-arms, the least that can be done for them is to send them to their maker in a reverent manner that honours their noble deeds.
> 
> I support Bruce's views about the willingness of some of us to discard something that is such an important part of our moral and social fibre.  I personally feel that the man who believes in nothing has already lost everything.  In response to Iterator, while i'm sure the CF would continue to operate efficiently even if subjected to a complete separation of church and state, why get rid of something that has been such a source of strength and comfort as well as maintaining morale for both individuals and units, especially at a time like now when Canada's military is being tested in a way its never been since Korea?



Cameron...you will be pleased to know that Jesus had absolutely no words of reproof for people who drank alcohol (he performed his first miracle at Cana of Galilee and made a lot of wine to keep the party going), there was absolutely no warnings about smoking and he told the odd Pharisee to f... off....in rather more effective terms... as they definately ticked him off. He took a whip and cleared the temple of those whom he thought were desecrating the place. None of those things have anything to do with moral/ or spiritual  behaviour at all in fact. In Old Testament terms one prophet says that we are required to love justice, show mercy and to walk humbly (with our God). Jesus said to love God and neighbor as oneself....sounds like stuff that you're doing....or have I missed my mark?


----------



## armyvern

Iterator said:
			
		

> You would not be denied anything; there are still phones and the internet.
> 
> Think of the argument this way: Should you be denied being a parent because the CF requires you to be somewhere other than at home?
> 
> You joined the military, and although the CF may try to accommodate your personal needs, it is also up to each member to attend to their own personal lives. You must be prepared to spend extended times away from your family, your social clubs, and your padre.
> 
> Again, it is the other way round. As an example, people have always honoured their dead, but whether or not a specific religion, sect, or any religion at all, is used has never been constant.



Get a grip on yourself because you are now pushing your own viewpoint of the "non-requirement" for religion onto others. And you profess yourself to be tolerant? Tolerance is the acceptance of the spirituality or religiosity in any way shape or form, or lack of it, of your fellow man, and of their freedom to practice it or not. Yes, keep the government out of my religious affairs, but don't do it by having the government deny the right to practice it to others (ie CF members who choose to do so) on my behalf for _that_ is intolerant.

I (although not _I_ personally as I am not a religious person) would not be denied anything because I have access to a phone and the internet? Wrong. All citizens of this country have the ability and the right to practice their religion in a Holy place of their own choosing. I really hope that you are not suggesting that the CF deny their members this opportunity to do the same thing or to consult with a "spiritual advisor" (either on a religious basis or not) when deployed etc. Consult a padre or a spiritual advisor via telephone or the internet?? Absolutely not on.

Spare me your petty arguements for arguements sake regarding me joining the military buddy. You know not who to whom you speak. I keep my family quite separate from my career thank you very much. I know all about being away from my family for extended periods of time and for you to suggest otherwise, or to suggest that those who wish to practice their own individual spirituality or religion in their own way are burdening the system and haven't separated their personal lives from their duty to Country is, again, right the fuck out of it.

You and I have the right not to practise any religion if we so choose, but others have the right to practise in their own individual way if they so choose. The CF, and the CF padres, are doing an excellent job of allowing just that to happen.  Get over it.


----------



## IN HOC SIGNO

The Librarian said:
			
		

> Get a grip on yourself because you are now pushing your own viewpoint of the "non-requirement" for religion onto others. And you profess yourself to be tolerant? Tolerance is the acceptance of the spirituality or religiosity in any way shape or form, or lack of it, of your fellow man, and of their freedom to practice it or not. Yes, keep the government out of my religious affairs, but don't do it by having the government deny the right to practice it to others (ie CF members who choose to do so) on my behalf for _that_ is intolerant.
> 
> I (although not _I_ personally as I am not a religious person) would not be denied anything because I have access to a phone and the internet? Wrong. All citizens of this country have the ability and the right to practice their religion in a Holy place of their own choosing. I really hope that you are not suggesting that the CF deny their members this opportunity to do the same thing or to consult with a "spiritual advisor" (either on a religious basis or not) when deployed etc. Consult a padre or a spiritual advisor via telephone or the internet?? Absolutely not on.
> 
> Spare me your petty arguements for arguements sake regarding me joining the military buddy. You know not who to whom you speak. I keep my family quite separate from my career thank you very much. I know all about being away from my family for extended periods of time and for you to suggest otherwise, or to suggest that those who wish to practice their own individual spirituality or religion in their own way are burdening the system and haven't separated their personal lives from their duty to Country is, again, right the frig out of it.
> 
> You and I have the right not to practise any religion if we so choose, but others have the right to practise in their own individual way if they so choose. The CF, and the CF padres, are doing an excellent job of allowing just that to happen.  Get over it.


 
+1 Vern....I couldn't have said it better....which is why you said it! ha ha
Our Padres in theatre are very busy with people who are asking questions and seeking solace in spirituality. Impossible to do via the internet or phone...no one forces them to go talk with a Padre but a lot of folks are glad that the listening ears and caring people are real and present for them.


----------



## Michael OLeary

Iterator said:
			
		

> Only a lack of imagination would make that true.



No lack of imagination around here:


In an unspecified future.
Location; the CDS’s office.


*Staff Officer No. 1: *  “Sir, there’s a problem with the troops.”

*CDS:* “Well, nothing’s too good for the troops.  We must fix this. What is the problem?”

*S.O. No. 1: *  “”Well sir, as you can see on this slide, 16% of the general population claims themselves to follow no religion.  We have been receiving complaints from this sector in the service that they are offended by the perception of religious trappings in military ceremonies.  They demand equality sir.”

*CDS:*  “My God …. no, strike that …. my goodness, we can’t have offended troops, the national press will vilify me … and the Minister.  We still haven’t recovered from making all the IMPs vegan to satisfy the 8% who demand no meat products.”

*So. No. 1:* “Yes sir, what is your intent?”

*CDS:* “My intent is to strike down the offending activities.  Henceforth, there is to be no religious activities, or allowances of vestigial trappings.  Sanitize the ceremonials.  And get me the Chaplain General.”

*Chaplain General: * “Reporting as ordered sir, would you like me to start the meeting with a  short prayer.”

*CDS:*  “Not bloody likely.  You’re fired, clear your desk and your entire Corps from the department by sundown.”

*C.G.:* “Damn me sir, what about the churches!”

*CDS:*  “There’ll be no more of that, or churches either.  All churches in the CF will be handed off to CFPSA.  Once their flat roofs are installed, base clubs can use them once the remaining religious artefacts have been disposed of.

*C.G.:*  “Aye aye sir, I’ll see you in hell.”

*CDS:*  ‘No you won’t, we don’t believe in that claptrap around here anymore.”

*S.O. No. 2: *  “Sir, the CFCWO is here to see you.”

*CDS:*  “Good morning ‘RSM’, what have you got for me this morning.”

*CFCWO:*  “Bloody hell General, I wish you’d call me Chief, I’ll never get used to that “RSM” business.”

*CDS:*  “Enough of that or I’ll make it official.  What do you have, I’m busy converting the force to hereticism, or atheism, or something, …. haven’t had the full brief yet.  All I know is that we need to reissue 65000 sets of dogtags with “NRE.”

*CFCWO:*  “I wanted to go over the Remembrance Day ceremony.  Once we’ve taken out the Padres, and the prayers, and any mention of crosses – that killed the McCrae poem – we’re down to the Last Post, a moment’s silence, and Reveille.  Should be done in under five minutes.”

*CDS:* “Splendid, more time for moosemilk ….. uh, we still have that, don’t we, Chief?”

*CFCWO:* “Yes sir, we haven’t been able to find any religion that mixed milk, ice cream and rum, so it can stay until we do.”

*CDS:*  “Well, thank God …. no, strike that.”


November 12
CDS’ Office

S.O. No. 2:  “Sir, your papers …. you’d better check the national rags first.”

*CDS:*  “What now?  My head hurts from the moosemilk yesterday, I hardly remember that whirlwind service.  Uh, do we still call it a service?”

*S.O. No. 2: *  “No sir, it’s officially the Annual Act of Memoriam now, the Politically Correct Names Committee issued that a few days ago, the CANFORGEN officially striking down all religious practices is on your desk for signature today, we couldn’t sort out the wording in time for Remembrance Day.  Rather difficult to outline something replacing those archaic rites without mentioning the background activities at all.”

*CDS:*  “So be it.  let’s see what the newshounds have been digging up for this week.  My God ….. no, strike that …. what the hell …. damn, strike that too …. and that dammit ….”

*S.O. No. 2: * “Ah, yes sir, there seems to be some consternation about the stripping of religion from the Service.  The press seems to think that over 80% of service members have, or had, declared religions and are now being persecuted for it.”

*S.O. No. 2: * “Oh, and you’re being called the ‘Godless General’, the briefing note is on your desk under the new CANFORGEN.

*CDS:*  “What briefing note?”

*S.O. No. 2: *  “The one that describes the unrest among some of the troops over the disbanding of the Padre Corps, stripping of the churches and banning of religious practices.”

*CDS:* “They can’t expect me to allow that back.  We can’t let just a few complainers force us to change, and I won’t be swayed by a little furor in the press.”

*S.O. No. 2: *  “Aye, sir.”

*S.O. No. 3* (entering office):  “Sir, better turn to NewsTrash.com, the top story is about your campaign of religious persecution.”

*CDS:*  “What the hell … no, strike that …. a-a-a—achoo”

*S.O. No. 3: *  “God Bless You sir”

*CDS:*  “Charge that man …. damn him …… oh Christ …. damn me.  Where’s that order, and bring me the damn shredder.”


----------



## Emenince Grise

IN HOC SIGNO said:
			
		

> Cameron...you will be pleased to know that Jesus had absolutely no words of reproof for people who drank alcohol (he performed his first miracle at Can of Galilee and made a lot of wine to keep the party going), there was absolutely no warnings about smoking and he told the odd Pharisee to f... off....in rather more effective terms... as they definately ticked him off. He took a whip and cleared the temple of those whom he thought were desecrating the place. None of those things have anything to do with moral/ or spiritual  behaviour at all in fact. In Old Testament terms one prophet says that we are required to love justice, show mercy and to walk humbly (with our God). Jesus said to love God and neighbor as oneself....sounds like stuff that you're doing....or have I missed my mark?



Sounds really good to me.


----------



## Emenince Grise

The Librarian said:
			
		

> Get a grip on yourself because you are now pushing your own viewpoint of the "non-requirement" for religion onto others. And you profess yourself to be tolerant? Tolerance is the acceptance of the spirituality or religiosity in any way shape or form, or lack of it, of your fellow man, and of their freedom to practice it or not. Yes, keep the government out of my religious affairs, but don't do it by having the government deny the right to practice it to others (ie CF members who choose to do so) on my behalf for _that_ is intolerant.
> 
> I (although not _I_ personally as I am not a religious person) would not be denied anything because I have access to a phone and the internet? Wrong. All citizens of this country have the ability and the right to practice their religion in a Holy place of their own choosing. I really hope that you are not suggesting that the CF deny their members this opportunity to do the same thing or to consult with a "spiritual advisor" (either on a religious basis or not) when deployed etc. Consult a padre or a spiritual advisor via telephone or the internet?? Absolutely not on.
> 
> Spare me your petty arguements for arguements sake regarding me joining the military buddy. You know not who to whom you speak. I keep my family quite separate from my career thank you very much. I know all about being away from my family for extended periods of time and for you to suggest otherwise, or to suggest that those who wish to practice their own individual spirituality or religion in their own way are burdening the system and haven't separated their personal lives from their duty to Country is, again, right the frig out of it.
> 
> You and I have the right not to practise any religion if we so choose, but others have the right to practise in their own individual way if they so choose. The CF, and the CF padres, are doing an excellent job of allowing just that to happen.  Get over it.



And I hear the choir chanting "Amen..."   ;D


----------



## Emenince Grise

Michael O'Leary said:
			
		

> No lack of imagination around here:
> 
> 
> In an unspecified future.
> Location; the CDS’s office.



That's good. That's VERY good!  ;D


----------



## warrickdll

The Librarian said:
			
		

> Get a grip on yourself because you are now pushing your own viewpoint of the "non-requirement" for religion onto others. ...



No. I'm stating that the religious content of CF ceremonies are a liability and also that the government and the CF should get out of the business of subsidizing religions.




			
				The Librarian said:
			
		

> ...
> Spare me your petty arguements for arguements sake regarding me joining the military buddy. You know not who to whom you speak. ...



The argument is a simple one to follow, you (not the literal you) have rights, but you (not the literal you) must accept certain limitations on your (not the literal your) ability to access these rights due to your (not the literal your) service in the CF.





			
				Michael O'Leary said:
			
		

> ... ...



Imagination noted. Now if you could apply that energy to removing the religious content in military ceremonies (a recognized fault), then the problem would be solved. Sure, a vocal minority will complain, but sometimes you have to stand up to that when you're doing the right thing.


----------



## Michael OLeary

Iterator said:
			
		

> Imagination noted. Now if you could apply that energy to removing the religious content in military ceremonies (a recognized fault), then the problem would be solved. Sure, a vocal minority will complain, but sometimes you have to stand up to that when you're doing the right thing.



Do you even hear what you are saying?

Perhaps the "vocal minority" that needs to be stood up to are those who would strip the majority of their right to religious content that does not detract from operational effectiveness - _which you have not demonstrated the current level of religious content in the CF does_.


----------



## Bruce Monkhouse

MOD POST............when I agreed to open this thread it was for MEANINGFUL discussion, if I wish to hear "He Said, She Said", I will rent the Kevin Bacon movie.


----------



## Emenince Grise

Iterator said:
			
		

> No. I'm stating that the religious content of CF ceremonies are a liability and also that the government and the CF should get out of the business of subsidizing religions.



How so? Other than your personal, private opinion? As for "subsidizing religions", other than a few tax credits, how does the government subsidize religion? Religion has been deemed, by and large, to offer a material benefit to society in general. The CF seems to agree. Have a look at the work a padre does. It has little to do with advancing a particular religion as opposed to supporting the religious faith (whatever that may be) of the members of the CF. 



> The argument is a simple one to follow, you (not the literal you) have rights, but you (not the literal you) must accept certain limitations on your (not the literal your) ability to access these rights due to your (not the literal your) service in the CF.



However, it has been deemed by others that the benefits which come from religious practice within the CF are an asset, not a liability as your opinion suggests. Kindly be specific as to how religious faith is a liability to the CF.  Does it reduce operational effectiveness? Does it reduce morale? Does it denigrate the welfare of the members and their families? In my brief exposure to the CF and religious practices therein I can see none of that. I would be willing to listen to your evidence, however. Other than a broad opposition to religious faith in general. 



> Imagination noted. Now if you could apply that energy to removing the religious content in military ceremonies (a recognized fault), then the problem would be solved. Sure, a vocal minority will complain, but sometimes you have to stand up to that when you're doing the right thing.



How can you suggest it is a "vocal minority" when people of identifiable religious faith are in the majority of Canadian society and, if the CF represents that society, the CF as well? And so how can you be so certain that it is the "right thing"? Other than agreeing with your personal opinion? 

Your arguments are currently unsubstantiated and unsupported other than your personal opinion. And Canadian society and the CF has every right to disagree with you.


----------



## Emenince Grise

Bruce Monkhouse said:
			
		

> MOD POST............when I agreed to open this thread it was for MEANINGFUL discussion, if I wish to hear "He Said, She Said", I will rent the Kevin Bacon movie.



With all due respect to the moderator, does this mean 2 minutes in the "sin bin"?


----------



## armyvern

Iterator said:
			
		

> No. I'm stating that the religious content of CF ceremonies are a liability


How so are they a liability? Because you say so or don't agree with it?



			
				Iterator said:
			
		

> The argument is a simple one to follow, you (not the literal you) have rights, but you (not the literal you) must accept certain limitations on your (not the literal your) ability to access these rights due to your (not the literal your) service in the CF.


Absolutely agreed and I live this daily. However, the CF accomodates those of ALL religions and beliefs, including non-believers such as myself. Therefore we are all enjoying equal opportunity, access and freedom to practice what we believe (or don't believe) currently. Yourself included. No one's denied anything. No one's put out. What's the problem?



			
				Iterator said:
			
		

> Imagination noted. Now if you could apply that energy to removing the religious content in military ceremonies (a recognized fault), then the problem would be solved. Sure, a vocal minority will complain, but sometimes you have to stand up to that when you're doing the right thing.


Iterator, I AM a member of the minority. I own a set of those dogtags marked "NRE." I am not complaining. That religiousness or spirituality is included in CF ceremonies is a "recognized fault" as you choose to call it...is a view held by only a _very select minority_ of those in the NRE minority. Don't speak for me because I certainly do not view the tolerance of others beliefs as a recognized fault. I, as a non-believer, totally disagree with your view that you are "doing the right thing" on my behalf.


----------



## Bruce Monkhouse

I am with you Librarian, just to reiterate,
http://forums.milnet.ca/forums/threads/25815/post-563875.html#msg563875


----------



## medicineman

I seem to be hearing a familiar theme here - the rights of the few seem to or should weigh more than those of the many.  Hate to remind you, because it seems that you've forgotten from your previous life, in the Forces, yes you have rights - one of the biggest rights you have is "Soldier, shut up and soldier".  If you happen to be on a parade that has some sort of religious connotation that you don't like - tough tiddly winks, because there are alot more out there that happen to either believe or more important, are able to show respect to the majority of the ones that do.  If you don't like it, then go to your happy place in your mind until that distasteful part of the ceremony is over.  I for one don't really relate well to God - we had a fallling out many years ago.  However, unlike a growing number of people in this nation, I don't try to shove that (or my old religious beliefs) down anyone's throat.

Back to the rights of the many being outweighed by the ones of the few.  This is something I can relate well to.  I have a firm belief that people have a right to live - kinda goes with the job.  However, put me in a mass casualty situation, and the more realistic side of me comes out.  I guarantee you that if you were very very serioulsy injured and I even remotely thought that you were going to take valuable time and resources away from a pile of other people that could DEFINITELY be saved on the off chance you MIGHT be, you'd be getting the Black triage tag and better than even odds, would be visiting whoever you chose to call your supreme being in the near future.  Ironically, you might even end up talking to a Padre, as that's where they tend to be in a Mass Cas.  The few lose. 

I seem to remember something that used to be instilled in soldiers in Basic - think of the team before self.  But, hey we're now in a Generation Me world.


By the way, every Sunday when I drive by the Base Chapels here, the cars are parked well into the overflow areas and down the road - they're apparently well used here.

MM


----------



## warrickdll

Michael O'Leary said:
			
		

> ...Perhaps the "vocal minority" that needs to be stood up to are those who would strip the majority of their right to religious content... ...



I do not believe that you have the right to demand that your employer provide you with religious services.




			
				Emenince Grise said:
			
		

> ...Kindly be specific as to how religious faith is a liability to the CF. ...





			
				The Librarian said:
			
		

> ...How so are they a liability?...





			
				The Librarian said:
			
		

> That religiousness or spirituality is included in CF ceremonies is a "recognized fault" as you choose to call it...is a view held by only a very select minority of those in the NRE minority. ...



This entire topic has been started by a court decision regarding a commander who was giving an unlawful command by ordering the people they commanded to participate in the religious content of a parade.

The liability is in the lack of leadership involved is in the specific incident itself, and in the lack of leadership shown by leaving overt religious content in other CF ceremonies. 




			
				Emenince Grise said:
			
		

> ...As for "subsidizing religions", other than a few tax credits, how does the government subsidize religion?...





			
				Emenince Grise said:
			
		

> ...How can you suggest it is a "vocal minority" when people of identifiable religious faith are in the majority of Canadian society and, if the CF represents that society, the CF as well?...





			
				The Librarian said:
			
		

> ...Therefore we are all enjoying equal opportunity, access and freedom to practice what we believe (or don't believe) currently. ...What's the problem?...



I have no doubt that most members of the CF can make it through a parade without the need of a padre, and can also arrange there own religious matters on their own time. However, there appears to be a vocal minority who are demanding that the CF not only provide them with on-base churches (etc.), but also a padre when they're in the field or overseas - and this is a burden the CF should not be carrying.




			
				medicineman said:
			
		

> ...By the way, every Sunday when I drive by the Base Chapels here, the cars are parked well into the overflow areas and down the road - they're apparently well used here....



Just one more reason why there is no need for the CF to be dishing out funds for this - this is something that can be handled within the local community.


----------



## armyvern

Iterator said:
			
		

> I do not believe that you have the right to demand that your employer provide you with religious services.
> Just one more reason why there is no need for the CF to be dishing out funds for this - this is something that can be handled within the local community.



Correct yourself. It is actualy a vocal minority, like you, of the *NRE minority* who are demanding that this be *removed* vice your arguement that it is a minority wanting it retained. And they, like you, profess to speak on my NRE asses behalf. Well, you don't. You are NOT that important in the grand scheme of things, and quite frankly, I'm sick and tired of all the people who profess to speak for others. You speak ONLY for yourself. Period. Full stop. Build a bridge, get over it, and carry on.

And the local community is not deployed overseas is it? CF members are, and as such, should indeed be granted the right to practice this in their local community, if they choose, while deployed...ooops and guess where that community is?? It is their CF brethern who are with them there who are their community and their support system, and if they feel the need to speak to a padre either in a religious context or just to chat with someone outside of the CoC because they have been witness to something horrible such as an atrocity upon a child who is the victim of a suicide bomber, or because they have witnessed the death of a friend and fellow soldier...who the hell are you to deny them that? And that is exactly the support system and option that the CF should indeed be providing them with, whether you like it or not.


----------



## warrickdll

The Librarian said:
			
		

> ...And the local community is not deployed overseas is it? ...



There are more occupations than just the CF that are employed in isolated locations, yet without the need to employ a padre. If the CF feels that it must bow to the few members who can't make it a few months without visiting a padre, then the service can be provided in a similar fashion as the Tim Horton's (a space will be provided - but not within the CF).





			
				The Librarian said:
			
		

> ...And they, like you, profess to speak on my NRE asses behalf. Well, you don't. You are NOT that important in the grand scheme of things, and quite frankly, I'm sick and tired of all the people who profess to speak for others. You speak ONLY for yourself. Period. Full stop. Build a bridge, get over it, and carry on....



I'm not sure how to address this, you (the literal you) have brought it up a couple of times, but I still have no idea what you are talking about. Perhaps you can quote where I have done what you are suggesting. Other than that I can't help you with the problem you feel you are experiencing.


----------



## Bruce Monkhouse

Careful lad...........


----------



## armyvern

Well, you've been posting for awhile now. This should be good. Oh and it is...



> There are more occupations than just the CF that are employed in isolated locations, yet without the need to employ a padre. If the CF feels that it must bow to the few members who can't make it a few months without visiting a padre, then the service can be provided in a similar fashion as the Tim Horton's (a space will be provided - but not within the CF).



Bowing to the few. Again with your comments. You're not getting me?? Hello!! It is the FEW who want it removed. NOT the other way around.

Yes indeed there are more occupations that employ their pers in isolated areas, but not a single one of them, as far as I'm aware are required to kill and be killed. That fact makes a huge difference in what each individual is required to both do and to witness...and if talking to a padre helps them to deal with whatever their spirit needs...all the more power to them, and much less to people like you who would try to deny them that. It is the least that their Country who is sending them off to fight and die to defend Her can do for them.

I'd also like to point out that I remove my headdress when required to do so. Not as a religious gesture but as a sign of respect for the fallen. Simply put, when our headdress is ordered off it is exactly because prayers or words of rememberance etc are being offered for our fallen. I have ZERO problems with that. It is only the proper thing to do.

After all, most of those fallen did practise some sort of religious or spiritual belief (us NRE are the minority) and it is in their memory that these are conducted. It certainly isn't conducted to offend me, and I don't let it offend me.

Somehow, it is my guess that even were agnostics/atheists or other allowed to remain in their headdress as are others whose religious beliefs require them to keep their headdress in place, thus making everybody happy (and meeting the judge's requirements too I might add...) you'd have problems with that too and it still wouldn't be good enough to satisfy you.

Damn typos


----------



## armyvern

Iterator said:
			
		

> I'm not sure how to address this, you (the literal you) have brought it up a couple of times, but I still have no idea what you are talking about. Perhaps you can quote where I have done what you are suggesting. Other than that I can't help you with the problem you feel you are experiencing.


Perhaps some attention to detail might help.

You have continuously posted about the "vocal minority" fighting to keep religion in the CF. Not true. As has been pointed out to you numerous times...*the vocal minority are those fighting to have it removed,* those who profess to be "doing what is right" on behalf of others. IE speaking for someone else.

The "vocal minority" are the ones fighting to remove it for fear that it may be offense to nonbelievers/agnostics/atheists (ie offensive to the literal me). In doing so, they profess to be "doing the right thing" and protecting my rights to non-religion/spirituality and to leave my headdress on. I'm telling you that I do not advocate trampling on anothers rights to protect mine (the literal me)...which are not offended in any case by removing my headdress (literally, my very own headdress) as a tribute to our fallen. That is where the line is drawn. I don't view it as a religious act but rather as an act of remembrance and a sign of my respect for them.


----------



## warrickdll

The Librarian said:
			
		

> ..You're not getting me?? Hello!! It is the FEW who want it removed. NOT the other way around....



I understand who you think is in the minority - I have my own view - and I have never known a majority of the serving members I knew, to be incapable of attending to their own religious needs.




			
				The Librarian said:
			
		

> Somehow, it is my guess that even were agnostics/atheists or other allowed to remain in their headdress as are others whose religious beliefs require them to keep their headdress in place, thus making everybody happy (and meeting the judge's requirements too I might add...) you'd have problems with that too and it still would be good enough to satisfy you.





			
				The Librarian said:
			
		

> ...I don't view it as a religious act but rather as an act of remembrance and a sign of my respect for them....



Removing the headdress is the perfect example. It isn't religious. It is only the rolling out of the padre and/or the call to prayer that (obviously) is religious. And if the few, who somehow can't make it through the parade without the padre, or being told when they should pray, could figure this out, then there wouldn't be a problem.


----------



## armyvern

And being the tolerant person that I am, I'm going to disengage after this post as you are just getting even more assinine.

Nice to see that you have moved from having those who do choose to practice their spirituality doing so via the internet to being able to do so at some type of Tim Hortons like location.  :



> and I have never known a majority of the serving members I knew, to be incapable of attending to their own religious needs.



What does this mean? That you've polled them and the majority of them want religion removed?? I doubt it. Unless, of course, you profess to speak for them too. I guarantee you that a great many of them have spoken with a padre at one time or another, and most would also tolerate a Padre being present in theatre, unlike yourself. You are the minority. 

People such as yourself, are exactly what we don't need in the CF these days, we're trying to move ahead and be tolerant of *everyone* (just in case you haven't heard) ... and everyone *includes* that majority who does practise some form of religion or spirituality. You don't like Church?? Don't go. 



> And if the few, who somehow can't make it through the parade without the padre, or being told when they should pray, could figure this out, then there wouldn't be a problem.


No, if the very select few (ie the literal you) who have a problem with religion and can't manage to make it through the parade if a padre's present, bitching about it for weeks upon end as if your life will come to an end because of it, could learn that offering words of comfort for the fallen is not meant as an offense to you...then there wouldn't be a problem. It's not that difficult to do...I've done it often.


----------



## Emenince Grise

Iterator said:
			
		

> There are more occupations than just the CF that are employed in isolated locations, yet without the need to employ a padre. If the CF feels that it must bow to the few members who can't make it a few months without visiting a padre, then the service can be provided in a similar fashion as the Tim Horton's (a space will be provided - but not within the CF).



It is regrettable that you apparently don't have any idea of the work of a CF padre... if you think that it consists solely of offering prayer at parades and ceremonial occasions, then you are sadly and utterly mistaken.


----------



## Michael OLeary

Iterator said:
			
		

> I do not believe that you have the right to demand that your employer provide you with religious services.



Who said anything about demanding the provision of religious services?  This discussion has been about continuing inclusion of religious content (such as the employment of Padres at memorial parades where appropriate). You have extrapolated that to include any reference to religion in the CF. It is you that have taken the extreme view, in which you would deny to everybody any aspect of religion observances, however indirect, in order to satisfy your personal opinion that since you don't need it, then no-one should.


----------



## mainerjohnthomas

What the chaplains provide no civilian employer provides.
There are not really a lot of civvie professions that deal in death, that expect to lose coworkers on a regular basis and still keep on with the job, whose families learn to fear the sight of a black staff car entering the PMQ's when all the soldiers are deployed because the staff officer and chaplain carry news of the dead.
No.  To those who whine about how no civvie employer does this, no civvie employer does that, let me ask you, has any of your civvie employers ever asked you to ignore the dead body of a friend because there is a job to do, and it will not be safe to approach until you have secured the whole area?  No?  It sometimes comes with our job.  Any civvie employer keep you from seeing your wife and family for months at a time while subjecting you to rocket attack in your sleep?  No?  The "any civie employer" standard seems to fail the test of applicability to our profession.
I remember getting a supoena to testify in family court about some real crap from my childhood.  I was on deployment at the time and the RSM sent me to the chaplains office.  On his desk were two sets of paperwork.  One set of orders placing me on compassionate leave and routing me home to deal with this.  One set of orders classified me as requried for the needs of the  needs of the service and not available for the court proceedings.  We had a long talk about lots of stuff.  When I left I was a lot safer to be around, and had my head in a good place for making the decision about what to do next.  The Padres deal with our crap, keep our heads, our hearts and whatnot together in ways most civvie shrinks and priests can't, for outside of police psychologists, there aren't really a lot of people who understand the stuff we have to deal with.
Don't go whining that the CF isn't required to provide anything that your civvie employer doesn't provide.  On civvie side now I go home to my wife every night, can seek religious counsell with my local priests, am protected by law from being sent into any hazardous situation, and if my boss gives me an order I don't like I can tell him to blow me.  This doesn't resemble my time in the CF much at all. Different world, different needs.


----------



## stealthylizard

Employers have the legal obligation to accommodate the religion of employees up to the point of undue hardship.


----------



## cameron

48th Regulator apparently you have read my posts properly.  The point I made in my last two posts, to counter Iterator's point ,was that while the CF may continue to be efficient even if all religious trappings were removed, what sense is there in removing them if they obviously contribute so positively to morale?  Speaking of morale boosts, thanks IN HOC SIGNO ;D


----------



## IN HOC SIGNO

mainerjohnthomas said:
			
		

> What the chaplains provide no civilian employer provides.
> There are not really a lot of civvie professions that deal in death, that expect to lose coworkers on a regular basis and still keep on with the job, whose families learn to fear the sight of a black staff car entering the PMQ's when all the soldiers are deployed because the staff officer and chaplain carry news of the dead.
> No.  To those who whine about how no civvie employer does this, no civvie employer does that, let me ask you, has any of your civvie employers ever asked you to ignore the dead body of a friend because there is a job to do, and it will not be safe to approach until you have secured the whole area?  No?  It sometimes comes with our job.  Any civvie employer keep you from seeing your wife and family for months at a time while subjecting you to rocket attack in your sleep?  No?  The "any civie employer" standard seems to fail the test of applicability to our profession.
> I remember getting a supoena to testify in family court about some real crap from my childhood.  I was on deployment at the time and the RSM sent me to the chaplains office.  On his desk were two sets of paperwork.  One set of orders placing me on compassionate leave and routing me home to deal with this.  One set of orders classified me as requried for the needs of the  needs of the service and not available for the court proceedings.  We had a long talk about lots of stuff.  When I left I was a lot safer to be around, and had my head in a good place for making the decision about what to do next.  The Padres deal with our crap, keep our heads, our hearts and whatnot together in ways most civvie shrinks and priests can't, for outside of police psychologists, there aren't really a lot of people who understand the stuff we have to deal with.
> Don't go whining that the CF isn't required to provide anything that your civvie employer doesn't provide.  On civvie side now I go home to my wife every night, can seek religious counsell with my local priests, am protected by law from being sent into any hazardous situation, and if my boss gives me an order I don't like I can tell him to blow me.  This doesn't resemble my time in the CF much at all. Different world, different needs.




thanks for spelling this out so well. It sounds so much better coming from a non-Padre. In addition of course we also have an important job of advising the CO on moral and ethical matters or dilemmas that face the operations...not every situation is black and white...open or shut.
I think the gent who is arguing for the abolition of Padres and religion in the CF has an axe to grind...and that is his right...I'd defend it to the end...not everyone avails themselves of the services of the padres and they do quite nicely.


----------



## cameron

Another reason why one should preview before posting.  48 regulator please read 'haven't instead of 'have' in my last post.


----------



## the 48th regulator

Cheers,

I was getting all confused, and misinterpreting your intent, hence why I needed clarification.

dileas

tess


----------



## deedster

Vern, IN HOC SIGNO, Mainer and Your Eminence
thank you for your posts, *amazing*.  I happen to be _into_ my faith, but I sincerely believe that even if I weren't, I would appreciate the Padre's role.  I can't possibly imagine the CF without _them_. 

But...I'm still trying to figure out what tess meant  ???


----------



## the 48th regulator

I was reading his comments, exactly opposite in what he was trying to say.  Which was why I asked for clarification before I made a statement.

Once he answered me, I was glad that I did not shoot from the hip and rake Cameron overthe coals for the worng reasons

dileas

tess


----------



## Disenchantedsailor

Iterator said:
			
		

> Yes. Clearly we don't have a Chaplain trailing behind each RC incase they die. So whatever the peculiarities of any of the multitude of religions are, they can occur after repatriation.



You sir, before you start spouting off about religious ceremonies should do a little bit of research. the sacrement of "Annointing of the sick" must be done while the individual is still alive, or within minutes of death, not a week later during the media frenzy. We're not saying the Chaplian needs to run around the filed of battle as was done in the World Wars, but it is not unreasonable for a padre to be in position in garrison, or in a field hospital. Chaplains of any faith provide much more than last rights of course. I'm a catholic I take solace in talks with my spiritual leaders, reconciliation, communion and such, as do the protestants with their particular ceremonies and the Jews with thiers.   Hey I have and Idea seeing as the battle field is so net centric lets get rid of the infantry, or maybe scale it down to only 1 battalion, drop the Arty down to 1 Battery. The Chaplains and all thier faiths have as much a distinguished military history as any other regiment or branch. To say ban the religion(s) and still not know what you're banning is short sighted, ill advised, and concieved off the cuff. It is apparent from the tone of your posts you are anti-religion period and nothing anyone who supports religion can say will change your view to simply accept or tolerate others views.


----------



## niner domestic

I too, have had a hesitancy to stay out of this thread although I have discussed it with my peers as it is of an interest to me.  

My grandfather was taken a POW in 1941 off the coast of Malaysia after his ship was attacked and sunk by the Japanese and remained a POW until his camp was liberated in 1945.  He wasn't an overtly religious man, but had a CofS designation on his dog tags.  During his incarceration, he and a select few POWs would do a rotating escape to contact sympathetic islanders who in turn, passed on the INTEL to the allies.  They would intentionally be recaptured to continue gathering enemy INTEL throughout their incarceration.  

Each time they escaped, they knew that some of their peers would bear the brunt of their escape and possibly be executed.  Yet, they continued to carry out their duty.  Everytime my Grandfather and his peers were recaptured, he would spend 30-60 days in the sweat box.  Everyday the men on the outside of the box would gather and recite the 23rd Psalm to the inmates or sing the hymns of their Branches.  They were allowed to do that as their Japanese guards did not try to stop the ministering of faith to the inmates.  My grandfather said that he when he felt he could not go on any longer, that hearing the weakened voices of his peers in prayer afforded him the faith that he would survive and if he were to die because of the beatings, the hunger, the illnesses that wracked his body, he knew that it was a just death because he did not break faith with his peers or the men and women who had sacrificed themselves before him.  

In the years after his liberation and his return to civvy life, each August he would gather at the Cenotaph with the other survivors of the camps to mark V-J day.  He started taking me when I was 5.  The men would repeat the 23rd Psalm as if they were speaking it to the men who didn't return with them.  They would sing the hymns of the Branches and vow to Remember Them.  I asked my grandfather in a time period of my life when I wasn't sure about there being a God, or why anyone would ever want to be religious, why he always prayed at these acts of remembrances.  That's when he told me about the breaking of faith with the men and women who had died.  He said that until someone else could find another way to express it so that it means and has the same intent, prayer was the only way to keep that faith with the dead.  He said that whatever the alternative would be it would have to encompass the Divine Rights of the Queen to whom all Commonwealth servicemen swore to serve, that it would have to include ways to morally bind the person to whatever oath or affirmation they undertook when they enlisted as he truly believed that the enrollment of a person in the military meant that they were entering into an agreement to not only serve their Queen and Country but also to carry on from those who gave up their lives while in that service.  John McCrae understood that and so has every military leader that has asked of their troops, sailors and airmen to lay down their lives.  Until such a time that all of that can be expressed and be understood to mean the same thing the apparent mechanism of ceremony, prayer and respect is just going to have to suffice.  

Now, fast forward to 1982.  I'm still not overtly religious but I attend church services and I have baptised my child.  On an early summer day, a notification party is standing at my door telling me that my husband has been killed.  For all the people that hovered around me for the days and weeks afterwards, the only persons who truly understood the depths of my grief were my Grandparents and the Padre.  It was the padre that guided me through the moments where I questioned the fairness of my husband's death.  The moment of my comfort came when I reconciled the reasons for his duty and his sacrifice.  I have and continue to keep faith with him and those who died for me.  I can only express that faith in the acts of remembrance, prayer and when words are not appropriate, the doffing of my hat and bowing of my head.  I have not found any other way to express that and affords me to being able keep that faith.  

I respect people's faiths and their religious dogma, their spirituality and their non beliefs.  We have had a long line of just wars and conflicts that have afforded us those rights to practice or not to practice whatever faith or belief one requires to find their way through life.  What I believe, those accumulative conflicts and wars did not grant us is the right to dictate to each other that one belief has to be excluded/included at the whim of a select few.  We have had a long battle to attain democracy, and I say, let the democratic mechanisms operate in their fullest while at the same time if those democratic mechanisms suggest that religion is passe in the military, then let it also create ways and means to express and keep the faith with those that gave us that democracy.   

And to those who perhaps feel that it is too much an imposition to doff a hat, bow a head or simply shut up for a few moments to allow others to carry out their acts of remembrances and acts of faith, then I feel immensely sorry for you that you fail to "get" what the program is truly about.  For those who do find their way to participate even though their own belief systems say otherwise, then to them I say, thank you.


----------



## deedster

niner domestic
Thank you for sharing your story.  I'm going to PM once I can see again.
ArtyNewbie, well said.
D2


----------



## cameron

niner domestic, there have been several arguments (including mine) both for and against on this thread.  None have put their points across as succinctly yet as eloquently as you.  In a recent thread on the Falklands you did the same thing, use a deeply personal perspective to crystallize an issue, again thanks.


----------



## IN HOC SIGNO

niner....you are awesome that was not only beautiful but one of the best treatises I've ever seen for the inclusion of religious faith in the military. thanks


----------



## tannerthehammer

Well about the Padre being in the CF everyone is entitled to their opinion.  I'm not a religious person but I do see a place for the Padre.  I don't believe I should be subjected in any way to a religious ceremony because I don't practice religion.  Although I do believe in order and discipline, I'm glad this Lt. decided to stand up for himself in this matter because without acts of civil disobedience such as this than there would rarely ever be change.

Look at many of the landmark decisions that are made in military/Criminal Code, they wouldn't have been achieved unless people stood up for their beliefs.  That being said the army of today is not the army of yesterday and I believe it should evolve as society does within reason of course.


----------



## Disenchantedsailor

It's not so much that he stood up for himself, it's the method in which he did it. On parade surrounded by subordinates (had anyone else refused at the same time following his lead it would amount to mutiny). We have a grevience system for a reason, you don't like something and have a solution staff a greivence, but to disobey a command on parade erodes good order and discipline and unit cohesion. He should have staffed it properly, and he started out that way, informally with his CoC, when that failed the next step would have been a formal redress of greivance, and eventually it would end up before the AFC and a change would have been made, instead it went before the military justice system and the change was made, same outcome differnet methods, only shortly after that there was a rash of similar acts of disobedience throughout the base in question. I'm a religious man myself, but I don't disagree with his right to grieve, just not in front of the troops, on parade.


----------



## Disenchantedsailor

Further to my last, we're not talking about a Lt (Aslt) with 2 years in here, this guy was a 51 year old LT(N)/Capt with 24 years of service before he pulled this stunt


----------



## nihilpavor

John Weir Foote

The Reverend John W. Foote was the first member of the Canadian Chaplain Services to be awarded the Victoria Cross. Calmly, through eight hours of gruelling battle, Reverend Foote, Chaplain of the Royal Hamilton Light Infantry, continually exposed himself to very intense fire to help move the injured to an aid post, saving many lives through his brave efforts. Then, at the end of this ordeal, he jumped from the landing craft that would have taken him to safety. He walked courageously into the German positions to be taken prisoner, so he could minister to his fellow Canadians who were now POWs.

http://www.vac-acc.gc.ca/remembers/sub.cfm?source=history/secondwar/dieppe/dieppe2/d_vc&CFID=15340618&CFTOKEN=28680741


----------



## tannerthehammer

ArtyNewbie said:
			
		

> It's not so much that he stood up for himself, it's the method in which he did it. On parade surrounded by subordinates (had anyone else refused at the same time following his lead it would amount to mutiny). We have a grevience system for a reason, you don't like something and have a solution staff a greivence, but to disobey a command on parade erodes good order and discipline and unit cohesion. He should have staffed it properly, and he started out that way, informally with his CoC, when that failed the next step would have been a formal redress of greivance, and eventually it would end up before the AFC and a change would have been made, instead it went before the military justice system and the change was made, same outcome differnet methods, only shortly after that there was a rash of similar acts of disobedience throughout the base in question. I'm a religious man myself, but I don't disagree with his right to grieve, just not in front of the troops, on parade.



You make a good point but let's just say for instance that he took all the formal steps and still was not given permission...Do you think he would have had no choice but to do what he did?


----------



## Disenchantedsailor

If the whole process failed including redress up to and including the minister and his member of parliment, then sure, but this would have been a lengthy process, and he would have needed more than a months notice to do it. I wonder whats next, refusal to remove headress when entering a mess, after all it is in defference to the queen, she's appointed by devine right after all.


----------



## Gunner98

We have already been down the headdress road with the Sikh Turban decision, not a good example.


----------



## Disenchantedsailor

indeed we have but for other reasons, it was determined that forcing pers to remove religious headress was improper so it was permitted for religious headwear to remain in messes, but only religious headwear, but you'll notice they have to remove it to go on the range IOT don a helmet, safety first. you'll also notice that the LT(N) in this case finished the CE hes was on (about 6 months after the court martial) and wasn't re-engaged for another 5 hmmmmm, maybe the system saying you're right, but did it wrong.


----------



## Reccesoldier

Removing headdress is a sign of respect.  That is why we do it for the Queen, or in the old days when a lady passed by.  

What this individual is saying is not "I'm not going to participate in your religious ceremony" he is saying "I have no respect for anyone's beliefs but my own".

As a godless heathen myself I do not bow my head in prayer during services but I also do not thumb my nose at the beliefs of all those surrounding me, just to draw attention to my disbelief.

He's an asshat, and like all asshat's should be summarily ignored... Throat punches are permitted where warranted.


----------



## Bruce Monkhouse

Reccesoldier said:
			
		

> What this individual is saying is not "I'm not going to participate in your religious ceremony" he is saying "I have no respect for anyone's beliefs but my own".
> 
> As a godless heathen myself I do not bow my head in prayer during services but I also do not thumb my nose at the beliefs of all those surrounding me, just to draw attention to my disbelief.



Well said, I personally,  go one farther..............I will, and do, participate in whatever house of worship I may be in.

What is the loss for showing other respect?


----------



## tannerthehammer

Bruce Monkhouse said:
			
		

> Well said, I personally,  go one farther..............I will, and do, participate in whatever house of worship I may be in.
> 
> What is the loss for showing other respect?



I think you can show respect without being forced to participate in worshipping or paying any sort of hommage to whatever religion or deity there is...Like for instance when I was in highschool there was a kid who was a Jehovah's witness and I thought it was pretty disrespectful that he would not stand for the national anthem.  Now that I am older and I understand that it is not his belief I believe I should respect HIS right to not have to engage in (a form of worship) standing for the national anthem as painful as that is for me to even say.

FYI this is why you will not likely see a Jehovah's witness as a police officer or in the military


----------



## Disenchantedsailor

tannerthehammer said:
			
		

> I think you can show respect without being forced to participate in worshipping or paying any sort of hommage to whatever religion or deity there is...Like for instance when I was in highschool there was a kid who was a Jehovah's witness and I thought it was pretty disrespectful that he would not stand for the national anthem.  Now that I am older and I understand that it is not his belief I believe I should respect HIS right to not have to engage in (a form of worship) standing for the national anthem as painful as that is for me to even say.



ok my inflamatory 2 cents. 1 Standing up for the flag to honour those buried beneath it and all it stands for in this great nation is not a religious act, standing up for your flag does not violate anyone's religious beliefs, including JW's, I have a great many friends whoe are JW's and they proudly stand up and remove thier ball caps even when the flag flys and anthem plays. Any Canadian has the right not to stand for my anthem, but they can do it on the other side of the border.


----------



## tannerthehammer

ArtyNewbie said:
			
		

> ok my inflamatory 2 cents. 1 Standing up for the flag to honour those buried beneath it and all it stands for in this great nation is not a religious act, standing up for your flag does not violate anyone's religious beliefs, including JW's, I have a great many friends whoe are JW's and they proudly stand up and remove thier ball caps even when the flag flys and anthem plays. Any Canadian has the right not to stand for my anthem, but they can do it on the other side of the border.



National Anthem: A song sung at ceremonies to honor a national flag. The Bible clearly shows this custom to be a form of idolatry, so Jehovah's Witnesses respectfully abstain from participation. (Dan 3:1-30) http://jehovah.to/

Straight off the JW's United website


----------



## the 48th regulator

ArtyNewbie said:
			
		

> ok my inflamatory 2 cents. 1 Standing up for the flag to honour those buried beneath it and all it stands for in this great nation is not a religious act, standing up for your flag does not violate anyone's religious beliefs, including JW's, I have a great many friends whoe are JW's and they proudly stand up and remove thier ball caps even when the flag flys and anthem plays. Any Canadian has the right not to stand for my anthem, but they can do it on the other side of the border.




_Nationalism 

Jehovah’s Witnesses are not allowed to salute the flag of any nation, recite the pledge of allegiance, stand for or sing the national anthem, run for public office, vote, or serve in the armed forces._

http://www.towerwatch.com/Witnesses/Beliefs/their_beliefs.htm

also;



> It is not that we do not love the country where we live that stops us from standing or singing the national anthem it is because we do not see ourselves as belonging to any one nation.  We are all descendants of one man, Adam and thus we view humans as belonging to one family.



http://en.allexperts.com/q/Jehovah-s-Witness-1617/national-anthem-2.htm

that is why they don't

dileas

tess


----------



## Trinity

Being that we are questioning religion in regards to the CF

the publication by the CF (in assistance and in agreement with each denomination)
should be used as opposed to any other site as the accuracy of information of this
publication has been verified and is the standard being used today by chaplains.


CF publication - Religions in Canada
can be found at  http://www.forces.gc.ca/hr/religions/engraph/religions_toc_e.asp



http://www.forces.gc.ca/hr/religions/engraph/religions19_e.asp


> Jehovah’s Witnesses will not swear allegiance to any government or any flag, believing that they owe allegiance to God only. Consequently, they are usually excluded or exempt from military service, depending on national law. In some countries, they are prosecuted for refusing compulsory military service.


----------



## Disenchantedsailor

Fair enough,

I'm man enough to admit when I'm wrong.


----------



## daftandbarmy

I have to admit I thought it bizarre, when working with the USMC, to be invited to 'take a knee' at the end of an O Group to pray for victory. I always preferred to have faith in my avowedly heathen troops. Onward Christian Soldiers indeed....



Are U.S. Troops Being Force-Fed Christianity?
Watchdog Group Alleges that Improper Evangelizing Is Occurring Within the Ranks
By JANE LAMPMAN
Sept. 6, 2007 — 


At Speicher base in Iraq, U.S. Army Spec. Jeremy Hall got permission from a chaplain in August to post fliers announcing a meeting for atheists and other nonbelievers. When the group gathered, Hall alleges, his Army major supervisor disrupted the meeting and threatened to retaliate against him, including blocking his reenlistment in the Army. 

Months earlier, Hall charges, he had been publicly berated by a staff sergeant for not agreeing to join in a Thanksgiving Day prayer. 

On Sept. 17, the soldier and the Military Religious Freedom Foundation (MRFF) filed suit against Army Maj. Freddy Welborn and U.S. Secretary of Defense Robert Gates, charging violations of Hall's constitutional rights, including being forced to submit to a religious test to qualify as a soldier. 

The MRFF plans more lawsuits in coming weeks, says Michael "Mikey" Weinstein, who founded the military watchdog group in 2005. The aim is "to show there is a pattern and practice of constitutionally impermissible promotions of religious beliefs within the Department of Defense." 

For Weinstein -- a former Air Force judge advocate and assistant counsel in the Reagan White House -- more is involved than isolated cases of discrimination. He charges that several incidents in recent years -- and more than 5,000 complaints his group has received from active-duty and retired military personnel -- point to a growing willingness inside the military to support a particular brand of Christianity and to permit improper evangelizing in the ranks. More than 95 percent of those complaints come from other Christians, he says. 

Others agree on the need for the watchdog group, but question the conspiratorial view and some of its tactics. They say dealing with religious issues is a complex matter, and the military is trying to address them appropriately. 

At the Defense Department, spokeswoman Cynthia Smith says the DOD doesn't comment on litigation, but "places a high value on the rights of members of the Armed Forces to observe the tenets of their respective religions." 

Since the Revolutionary War, the armed services have tried to ensure that soldiers can practice their faiths, and that chaplains serve not only those of their own sect but all who may need pastoral care. The services have also sought to adhere to the First Amendment prohibition of any government "establishment of religion." 

In the 1990s, for instance, the Air Force's Little Blue Book of core values highlighted religious tolerance, emphasizing that military professionals "must not take it upon themselves to change or coercively influence the religious views of subordinates." 

Weinstein insists, however, that there are improper actions at high levels that not only infringe on soldiers' rights but, at a very dangerous time, also send the wrong message to people in the Middle East that those in the U.S. military see themselves engaged in Christian warfare. 

For example, he says, Lt. Gen. William Boykin, who gave speeches at churches while in uniform that disparaged Islam and defined the war on terror in fundamentalist, "end times" terms, was not fired but promoted. (Speaking of a Muslim warlord he had pursued, Lt. Gen. Boykin said, "I knew my God was a real God and his was an idol." And our enemies "will only be defeated if we come against them in the name of Jesus.") 

"There's an eschatologically obsessed version of Christianity that ... is trying to make American foreign and domestic policy conterminous with their biblical worldview," Weinstein charges. And "there's improper pressure within the military command structure to make members join them." 

The most serious allegations from the field cannot be corroborated for this article. A few will be raised in the lawsuits, but some incidents have been documented. 

Perhaps the most visible situation -- and the one that set Weinstein off on his mission -- involved the evangelizing of cadets on the part of some faculty and staff at the Air Force Academy (AFA) in Colorado Springs, Colo., which came to light in 2004. Congress held hearings, DOD conducted an investigation, and the head of the academy acknowledged significant problems. Weinstein's cadet son experienced the pressures as a Jew. 

Col. David Antoon (ret.), another alumnus of the AFA and now a 747 commercial pilot, says his heart was broken when he took his son, Ryan, to an orientation at the academy in the spring of 2004. An overt evangelistic approach during part of the orientation so upset them, he says, that they decided his son would reject the treasured appointment and instead go to Ohio State University. 

"My son had dreamed of doing what I had done, but it was no longer the institution I went to," Colonel Antoon says, his voice cracking with emotion. 

The Air Force set about reaffirming basic principles in religion guidelines, as a basis for widespread training, but a pushback by Evangelicals later led to Congress setting them aside until hearings could be held. The hearings have not taken place. 

In 2006, MRFF learned of a video produced by Christian Embassy, a group that conducts Bible studies at the Pentagon and seeks to evangelize within the armed services. Aimed at fundraising for the group, the video was improperly taped in the Pentagon and involved endorsements by Army and Air Force generals in uniform. 

MRFF's public alert spurred a DOD investigation. In a report critical of the senior officers, the Inspector General said they gave the appearance of speaking for the military. One general defended his role by saying "Christian Embassy had become a quasi-federal entity." 

The report noted that Maj. Gen. Paul Sutton participated while he served as chief of the U.S. Office of Defense Cooperation in Turkey, a largely Muslim nation whose military takes pride in protecting the country's secular status. After a Turkish newspaper wrote about the video as promoting a "fundamentalist sect," General Sutton was called in and questioned by members of the Turkish General Staff. 

"They had to give him a lesson in the separation of church and state," Weinstein says. "Imagine the propaganda bonanza! And how this upset Muslims." 

The DOD report on the video recommended "appropriate corrective action" be taken against the officers. According to Army spokesman Paul Boyce, "The Army has not yet completed any planned actions associated with the Christian Embassy review." 

MRFF claims a victory in the case of the evangelical group Operation Stand Up. Earlier this year, OSU was preparing to send "freedom packages" to soldiers in Iraq as part of an Army program. Along with socks and snacks, the packages included proselytizing materials in English and Arabic, and the apocalyptic video game, "Left Behind: Eternal Forces." In it, Christians carry on warfare against people of other faiths. 

After the plans were made public, the Pentagon announced in August that the materials would not be mailed. OSU did not respond to a request for comment. 

Weinstein -- an intense, voluble attorney who prizes blunt, no-holds-barred language -- has struck more than one nerve with his bird-dogging. He says numerous threats have been made on his life. Last week, the front window of his house was shot out for the second time. After the lawsuit was filed, talk of "fragging" (killing) Specialist Hall surfaced on some military blogs. The Army is investigating. 

Others sympathetic to Weinstein's concerns say some tactics undermine his efforts, and they question aims. 

"He's uncovered some very disturbing stuff that shouldn't be going on in the armed forces," says Marc Stern, a religious liberty expert at American Jewish Congress. "But it's important that you not go too far." 

Stern disagrees, for instance, with Weinstein's stance on the Air Force guidelines, such as preventing military supervisors from ever speaking of religion to people under their command. 

"He did a disservice to his and our cause by taking a position beyond what the law requires, and in fact may intrude on people's rights," Stern adds. 

Several conservative Christian ministries publicly proclaim an evangelistic aim "to transform the nations of the world through the militaries of the world," and they are active at U.S. military installations in many countries. (See www.militaryministry.org or militarymissionsnetwork.org.) 

MRFF sees that as a harbinger of a volunteer military falling under the sway of increasing numbers of Christian soldiers. Others see a military leadership, with the exception of a few generals here or there, well aware of its constitutional responsibilities, but challenged by the demands of training on these issues in a military of millions. A group such as MRFF can provide a crucial service, they say, if it is willing to work with the military. 

Right now, Weinstein is counting on a set of lawsuits to bring serious issues to the fore. The question is whether those suits will go beyond individual cases of discrimination to prove an unconstitutional pattern within the armed forces. 



www.csmonitor.com | Copyright © 2007 The Christian Science Monitor. All rights reserved.

Copyright © 2007 ABC News Internet Ventures


----------



## larry Strong

_"..The Crusaders used the Christian cross as their symbol. They believed that the symbol of the cross made them invincible against the armies of the Muslims....' _


----------



## 1feral1

I had observed many times in our FOB, generic troops praying before a DFAC meal, making the sign of the cross, etc. This became the norm, and not one of us Aussies ever did that (that I know of). No one ever said a thing. If someone wants to make peace with his God, before a mission (possibly his last meal), good on him!

BTW, I am far from being 'churchy'.

Our Padre would make his way from BIAP via Irish weekly to talk to the Lads. He was always well recieved, but had a small turnout for his service. We loved our Padre!

In the US FOB MWR facilities there was an abundance of Soldier's Bibles free, and awlays advertisments for which type of religion was having its service timings in numerous locations. Some doors had signs ' Don't enter - we're praying'.

No one was being forced into anything, perhaps being spiritul is somehow the US military 'culture', as this was common, and I beleive it just might be.

Personally I don't find anything wrong with it, and if thats what it takes to get young men  (or older ones) through battle, and to get strength from, so be it.

I was once told 'the Lord hates a coward'.


My 2 cents,

Wes


----------



## daftandbarmy

From a guy I know who's recently worked closely with the US Army. I've got nothing against troops being allowed to follow their religious beliefs, but when it starts to become 'mandatory' for career reasons, it's time to call a halt.

"Nothing new here, religious bullies have been plying their way through the US chain of command for some years and have large followings among the poor underclass within the volunteer system. It's a factor in promotion not unlike the former influence of masonic orders elsewhere. Even pilots talk about Jesus as their wing-man. I've seen it all from prayers at meals to ' Orders Prayers ' as part of Battle Procedure. Kind of like admitting things will go sideways but if you believe in heaven the final moments won't burn as bad. And of course the old stand-by, ' it's Gods will '. ( I prefer 'shit happens') But the way to curb any fantasy belief is through education which is why our CF needs to ensure that it's troops are smart enough to call BS when superstition creeps ahead of reason."


----------



## tomahawk6

Its NOT mandatory. These types of stories are common from the anti-christian MSM who are incidentally also anti-military. The US military as an institution represents traditional values. For the leftists to succede in their makeover of our society they must first destroy all institutions that represent traditional values - Boy Scouts, manger scenes at Christmas, traditional marriage vs gay marriage, abortion on demand - essentially multiculturalism. Socialism and its big brother communism have never been friendly towards religion.


----------



## eerickso

Is the United States a christian country?


----------



## eerickso

Piper said:
			
		

> What the US does is it's own business,



I couldnt have said it better myself.


----------



## tomahawk6

Piper said:
			
		

> I said pardon?
> 
> Is there something wrong with multi-culturalism? Or the idea that spirituality is an individual thing and not something to be forced on the collective populace? I'm a true-blue conservative in most senses of the word, but if your 'traditional values' mean marching backwards through time then don't count me in.
> 
> Evangelical and fundamentalist Christianity is JUST as dangerous and JUST as evil as fundamentalist Islam. What the US does is it's own business, but the idea (and until concrete proof is provided to back up the article, it remains merely an idea) of the world's strongest military being inundated with fundamentalist religious values is somewhat frightening, do you not agree? Will we one day see an USRGC (US Revolutionary Guards Corps) t rival the IRGC, the military wing of Iranian fundamentalist Islam.
> 
> I suggest you watch the movie 'Inherit the Wind'. It may give you pause when you decide to pontificate on the importence of 'traditonal' Christian values.



Whats wrong with christian values ? A society must have a strong value system as a foundation. I find it offensive that you would compare christians to the IRG. You havent read about any christian suicide bombers have you ? I certainly hope you dont represent Canadian values .


----------



## tomahawk6

I dont view legalization of drugs or gay marriage as a step forward. The concept of personal responsibility seems to have gone by the boards as well. I am not a big bible thumper but my wife and I attend church. We even insisted that our kids go as well. We instilled in them a strong values system that they have used as guidelines in life. When you are in a dangerous profession believing in something higher than self is a comfort. In the military we believe in honesty,integrity,duty,honor and country. While they seem old fashioned they are not. No one likes a liar or someone that steals. I never tolerated someone lying to me. In this profession you have to be able to believe what subordinates and superiors tell you.- if you cant then the system breaks down. You may feel that people that believe in religion are inadequate but those people have my respect. I have no respect for those that dont believe in anything but themselves.


----------



## Flip

Sorry Piper,

I've gotta go with the older kids on this one.

If you look into how the USA was founded, you will find
Christian values like tolerance are intrinsic to the makeup
of American culture and how their history has evolved.

Consider what this holiday weekend is about.
A new life free from persecution from the established 
authorities. Sounds pretty Christian to me.

I have to agree that NO ONE should be forced to do
anything that affects their spiritual life - but one should respect
people who have one. Can you trace the evolution of your values?

I think you need to study some history and understand how
religious communities have had positive influences on our lives.


----------



## Jarnhamar

Religion should have no place in the government or military.


----------



## Jarnhamar

tomahawk6 said:
			
		

> I dont view legalization of drugs or gay marriage as a step forward.


Ya, God forbid.



> We even insisted that our kids go as well.


Why not let them choose for themselves when they are old enough?



> I have no respect for those that dont believe in anything but themselves.


You should have respect for people, period.  If someone chooses to believe in only themselves that is their choice.


----------



## eerickso

Flawed Design said:
			
		

> Religion should have no place in the government or military.



Good luck in leading the charge then!


----------



## tomahawk6

My parents had a rule which I adopted with my own kids - as long as you live under my roof you follow my rules. Attending church was one of those. As adults they are free to do their own thing, but guess what they go to church as well and take their kids with them. I have three sons [26,28 and 30] who have served in Iraq/Afghanistan and I think faith has helped them get through the tough times that go hand in glove with service in a combat zone. Anyway we all make our choices in life. I am satisfied with mine as I hope you are in yours.


----------



## emmiee

Last I knew the U.S was founded on separation of "Church and State".  That religion no matter what the denominations, is forbidden in the government.  The government does not support religious churches, schools and even to the point of law suits to prohibit religious displays on government/state property during the holiday season.

I believe one should practice their own set of beliefs without pressing them on others.

emma


----------



## midget-boyd91

Living in this part of the world has it's very nice advantages. Everyone, including military folks, are entitled to worship who and how they believe in... even if that is nobody. Everyone is entitled to raise their own children how they please (within the law of course) and once those children become adults, they are entitled to worship who and how they believe, even if that turns out to be nobody.
My two little coins worth.


----------



## tomahawk6

emmiee said:
			
		

> Last I knew the U.S was founded on separation of "Church and State".  That religion no matter what the denominations, is forbidden in the government.  The government does not support religious churches, schools and even to the point of law suits to prohibit religious displays on government/state property during the holiday season.
> 
> I believe one should practice their own set of beliefs without pressing them on others.
> 
> emma



Actually that is a myth perpetrated by the liberals/left.Nowhere in our constitution is it stated that there would be a seperation of church and state.

http://www.lc.org/resources/separation.html



> This country was established upon the assumption that religion was essential to good government. On July 13, 1787, the Continental Congress enacted the Northwest Ordinance, which stated: "Religion, morality and knowledge, being necessary to good government and the happiness of mankind, schools and the means of education shall be forever encouraged."


----------



## Jarnhamar

leftcoaster said:
			
		

> Good luck in leading the charge then!



Just have to have faith


----------



## hippie

Piper,

I couldn't have said it better myself.  WELL SAID.  I believe there is absolutely no place for religion in todays enlightened world.  I am a strong believer that religion is the cause for almost every major human conflict in history.  Everything always boils down to religion.  For example, would we be in Afghanistan right now if it wasn't for religion?  Absolutely not.  As long as the muslim fundamentalists believe that the ISAF forces are 'Christian Crusaders' (which is absolutely ridiculous), there's going to be conflict.



			
				tomahawk6 said:
			
		

> We even insisted that our kids go as well.



I would call this brainwashing.



			
				tomahawk6 said:
			
		

> I have no respect for those that dont believe in anything but themselves.



I have no respect for someone that can't think for themselves.



			
				tomahawk6 said:
			
		

> My parents had a rule which I adopted with my own kids - as long as you live under my roof you follow my rules. Attending church was one of those. As adults they are free to do their own thing, but guess what they go to church as well and take their kids with them.



Again, more brainwashing.

I don't mean to slag on you tomahawk6, I just don't think you need to believe in some imaginary friend in the sky to be a good person and exercise good morales.  As long as there are people out there that insist on raising their kids based on some ancient, irrelavant text, (I'm talking all religions, not just christianity), we are going to have problems.  

We would ALL be way better off if there was no such thing as religion.  Don't get me wrong, alot of the values the reglions teach are great.  But you don't need to be brainwashed to fear hellfire and damnnation in order to be a good person.  

It was refreshing to read Piper's post.  It was a breath of fresh air!!


----------



## tomahawk6

With that enlightened post I think its time to shut this thread down. 8)


----------



## Fishbone Jones

Everyone just back their truck up a little bit and relax. We're getting dangerously close to contraveneing guidelines with some of this stuff. If you can't discuss this without being personal, stay away from it. I, and many others, have had their fill of the religious threads and the constant bickering by the zealots on all sides, over the past little while. 

Knock it off. No more warnings. They start getting locked from now on.


----------



## Jarnhamar

tomahawk6 said:
			
		

> My parents had a rule which I adopted with my own kids - as long as you live under my roof you follow my rules. Attending church was one of those. As adults they are free to do their own thing, but guess what they go to church as well and take their kids with them. I have three sons [26,28 and 30] who have served in Iraq/Afghanistan and I think faith has helped them get through the tough times that go hand in glove with service in a combat zone. Anyway we all make our choices in life. I am satisfied with mine as I hope you are in yours.



I am brother, I appreciate your to each their own outlook!

Religion is an interesting thing.

If ones parents are religious, and they raise their children under set rules (church on sunday) then chances are said child will mimic ones parents beliefs and practices.
Now you can say well when they ae an adult they can make their own choice.
True to an extent but ones up bringing will still HEAVILY influence their choice.
I've spoken with friends about this.
"I KNOW God Exists, okay? He gave his only son to save you. You MUST accept him into your heart or your going to hell".
The only reason they believe this is because THAT is what they were taught to believe growing up.
Do you think a child raised in Iran under islamic parents would believe the same thing? No way. It's gonna be all about Allah. THEY will know ISLAM is the true religion.  Children will more often than not believe what their parents believed.
So in essence, making your children go to church is going a long way to forcing religion on them.


----------



## hippie

recceguy said:
			
		

> Everyone just back their truck up a little bit and relax. We're getting dangerously close to contraveneing guidelines with some of this stuff. If you can't discuss this without being personal, stay away from it. I, and many others, have had their fill of the religious threads and the constant bickering by the zealots on all sides, over the past little while.
> 
> Knock it off. No more warnings. They start getting locked from now on.



Roger, sorry about that tomahawk6, I just get typing and things start getting away on me.  It's very easy when it comes to this kind of topic to go flying off the handle.  Nothin personal buddy!  8)


----------



## tomahawk6

> o in essence, making your children go to church is going a long way to forcing religion on them.



Not sure if you have kids, but parents make alot of decisions for their kids when to go to bed, doing home work, chores around the house, choice of friends and many others. This is also like having the kids eat a balanced meal. Going to church helps to form a belief system and there are social aspects as well. Alot of kids dont like going to school but we as parents make them - for their own good.


----------



## TCBF

Flawed Design said:
			
		

> Religion is an interesting thing....  Children will more often than not believe what their parents believed.
> So in essence, making your children go to church is going a long way to forcing religion on them.



- Given that a religion is a faith based belief, I would say that Ecocondria and Secular Liberalism are the world's new religions, joining Communism, of course.  Do parents not force these new religions on their children by pushing their strollers to protest marches?


----------



## eerickso

TCBF said:
			
		

> - Given that a religion is a faith based belief, I would say that Ecocondria and Secular Liberalism are the world's new religions, joining Communism, of course.  Do parents not force these new religions on their children by pushing their strollers to protest marches?



Excellent point, I do recall some wars being fought over communism.


----------



## Jacqueline

TCBF said:
			
		

> - Given that a religion is a faith based belief, I would say that Ecocondria and Secular Liberalism are the world's new religions, joining Communism, of course.  Do parents not force these new religions on their children by pushing their strollers to protest marches?



Maybe the parents familiarize their children with what they (parents) know and believe with the intention of communicating this concept: " this is what I believe son/daughter", until they can decide for themselves.


----------



## muskrat89

> To each his own, just don't try to make 'your own' become 'my own'.



Kinda like criticisizing how someone else's military does things?   ???


----------



## Fishbone Jones

Piper said:
			
		

> To each his own, just don't try to make 'your own' become 'my own'.



So I guess it would be about time to stop slagging others for their own personal beliefs then. You have your option they have theirs. Enough is enough. You've made your same point a couple of times now. Leave it go.


----------



## Jarnhamar

tomahawk6 said:
			
		

> Going to church helps to form a belief system and there are social aspects as well. Alot of kids dont like going to school but we as parents make them - for their own good.



Yes but a specific set of belief's. It may not seem that extreme but think of the poligimist sects in the states. Young girls whom are raised to believe that it's 'right' for them to marry a man and for him to have multiple wives. Even in some cases marrying ones sisters husband.

I think there is a difference between making a child go to school and receive an education and making a child take a specific religion.


----------



## muskrat89

I'm sure there are members on here that do things as  parents that I wouldn't approve of. There's worse things than making a kid go to church. I was made to eat turnips when I was a kid. When I moved out, I stopped eating them. I wasn't brainwashed.

If this thread is going to be about critiquing parenting skills and values then it's going to be locked.

C'mon everyone let's stick to the topic at hand.

Army.ca Staff


----------



## Jarnhamar

Wasn't there a big issue in the US Airforce with Christianity being pushed onto their officers during training?


----------



## eerickso

Flawed Design said:
			
		

> Yes but a specific set of belief's. It may not seem that extreme but think of the poligimist sects in the states. Young girls whom are raised to believe that it's 'right' for them to marry a man and for him to have multiple wives. Even in some cases marrying ones sisters husband.



Religious groups are judged by how much value they provide to a community. If a religious community makes fences and blocks itself off from the rest of society, they will be judged accordingly. This is why I don't mind christians praying in the military.


----------



## Fyuri

I feel compelled to offer my simple thought on religion.
I've always thought of it as something that should be a source of comfort for when you need something to fall back on, especially in tough times. No hard-fast rules, just something to help you through tough times. Just my personal opinion, not an official word or anything that should be taken too seriously.
-Fyuri


----------



## Flip

Flawed Design said:
			
		

> Wasn't there a big issue in the US Airforce with Christianity being pushed onto their officers during training?


I think all of their armed services have had difficulty striking an appropriate balance.
It has to do with American culture and history.



> I couldn't have said it better myself.  WELL SAID.  I believe there is absolutely no place for religion in todays enlightened world.



I have 3 buddies who do missionary work -  one at a hole in the wall in downtown Edmonton.   His observation is a simple one. He has some success with getting 
a small percentage of people back on their feet and out of the gutter with little
more than his religion. Substance abuse and violence are things he has to mitigate
on a daily basis.  Provincial initiatives to the same ends fail. 

That's right - the religious guys succeed in saving lives. The Province of Alberta
with all of it's resources and professional staff fail.  Go figure......
AADAC bases their 12 step program on Alcoholic's anonymous.

The other two have gone to Africa and done humanitarian aid work 
that no government will touch.  Again.... no value in that right?

I think we all need to have some respect for that which we do not understand.
I think it's fair to say you don't understand what you don't have.
If you have no religion fine....Don't assume I'm wrong.

Separation of church and state is one of the most misunderstood of 
American values.  It does not mean "no religion in the state".
I does mean that Religious bodies and government bodies have
independent and separate processes and controls.


----------



## 00334

emmiee said:
			
		

> Last I knew the U.S was founded on separation of "Church and State".  That religion no matter what the denominations, is forbidden in the government.  The government does not support religious churches, schools and even to the point of law suits to prohibit religious displays on government/state property during the holiday season.
> 
> I believe one should practice their own set of beliefs without pressing them on others.
> 
> emma



You should read up before you run your mouth.  Firstly, seperation of church and state referred to government leaving the church alone.  Secondly, the government of Ontario runs a Catholic school board.


----------



## Fishbone Jones

Alright, enough of this. People can't even keep the countries and governments right. This has gone so far off track it's not even funny.

Locked.

Milnet.ca Staff


----------



## tonykeene

niner domestic said:
			
		

> I too, have had a hesitancy to stay out of this thread although I have discussed it with my peers as it is of an interest to me.
> 
> My grandfather was taken a POW in 1941 off the coast of Malaysia after his ship was attacked and sunk by the Japanese and remained a POW until his camp was liberated in 1945.  He wasn't an overtly religious man, but had a CofS designation on his dog tags.  During his incarceration, he and a select few POWs would do a rotating escape to contact sympathetic islanders who in turn, passed on the INTEL to the allies.  They would intentionally be recaptured to continue gathering enemy INTEL throughout their incarceration.
> 
> Each time they escaped, they knew that some of their peers would bear the brunt of their escape and possibly be executed.  Yet, they continued to carry out their duty.  Everytime my Grandfather and his peers were recaptured, he would spend 30-60 days in the sweat box.  Everyday the men on the outside of the box would gather and recite the 23rd Psalm to the inmates or sing the hymns of their Branches.  They were allowed to do that as their Japanese guards did not try to stop the ministering of faith to the inmates.  My grandfather said that he when he felt he could not go on any longer, that hearing the weakened voices of his peers in prayer afforded him the faith that he would survive and if he were to die because of the beatings, the hunger, the illnesses that wracked his body, he knew that it was a just death because he did not break faith with his peers or the men and women who had sacrificed themselves before him.
> 
> In the years after his liberation and his return to civvy life, each August he would gather at the Cenotaph with the other survivors of the camps to mark V-J day.  He started taking me when I was 5.  The men would repeat the 23rd Psalm as if they were speaking it to the men who didn't return with them.  They would sing the hymns of the Branches and vow to Remember Them.  I asked my grandfather in a time period of my life when I wasn't sure about there being a God, or why anyone would ever want to be religious, why he always prayed at these acts of remembrances.  That's when he told me about the breaking of faith with the men and women who had died.  He said that until someone else could find another way to express it so that it means and has the same intent, prayer was the only way to keep that faith with the dead.  He said that whatever the alternative would be it would have to encompass the Divine Rights of the Queen to whom all Commonwealth servicemen swore to serve, that it would have to include ways to morally bind the person to whatever oath or affirmation they undertook when they enlisted as he truly believed that the enrollment of a person in the military meant that they were entering into an agreement to not only serve their Queen and Country but also to carry on from those who gave up their lives while in that service.  John McCrae understood that and so has every military leader that has asked of their troops, sailors and airmen to lay down their lives.  Until such a time that all of that can be expressed and be understood to mean the same thing the apparent mechanism of ceremony, prayer and respect is just going to have to suffice.
> 
> Now, fast forward to 1982.  I'm still not overtly religious but I attend church services and I have baptised my child.  On an early summer day, a notification party is standing at my door telling me that my husband has been killed.  For all the people that hovered around me for the days and weeks afterwards, the only persons who truly understood the depths of my grief were my Grandparents and the Padre.  It was the padre that guided me through the moments where I questioned the fairness of my husband's death.  The moment of my comfort came when I reconciled the reasons for his duty and his sacrifice.  I have and continue to keep faith with him and those who died for me.  I can only express that faith in the acts of remembrance, prayer and when words are not appropriate, the doffing of my hat and bowing of my head.  I have not found any other way to express that and affords me to being able keep that faith.
> 
> I respect people's faiths and their religious dogma, their spirituality and their non beliefs.  We have had a long line of just wars and conflicts that have afforded us those rights to practice or not to practice whatever faith or belief one requires to find their way through life.  What I believe, those accumulative conflicts and wars did not grant us is the right to dictate to each other that one belief has to be excluded/included at the whim of a select few.  We have had a long battle to attain democracy, and I say, let the democratic mechanisms operate in their fullest while at the same time if those democratic mechanisms suggest that religion is passe in the military, then let it also create ways and means to express and keep the faith with those that gave us that democracy.
> 
> And to those who perhaps feel that it is too much an imposition to doff a hat, bow a head or simply shut up for a few moments to allow others to carry out their acts of remembrances and acts of faith, then I feel immensely sorry for you that you fail to "get" what the program is truly about.  For those who do find their way to participate even though their own belief systems say otherwise, then to them I say, thank you.



My sincere comndolences and sympathies are with you.  A chaplain helped me whem my father died, as I was away at Alert at the time.  They are truly magnificent people.

Let me, a convinced Atheist, offer you some thoughts.

When people around you engage, as Canadians are wont to do, in voluntary worship and prayer, it is only natural and right for you to remove your headdress, and so I always do.  However, a military parade is not a voluntary worship service, it is a command performance.  NO ONE on that parade has any choice, except the commanding officer who made it happen.  Let's not confuse religion here with the act of honouring and remembering fallen comrades.  Those with no religion remember and honour them too.
However, the military never lets any of us have the microphone to impose our ideas on 350 people.  We get a dose of someone else's beliefs, with no way to manifest our own.  Can you tell the faithful from the non-believers by looking at the ranks?
Last summer I saw two Canadian soldiers put in a position where, in order to exercise their Charter Freedom of Consicence and Religion, they had to step off parade, in front of everyone, and walk from the left flank to the right, away from their fellow soldiers, their Regiment and their Colours.
They were not unwilling to honour the fallen or engage in an Act of Remembrance, they just didn't feel they should pray on command with their CO.  and neither do I.  Maybe the next time that happens, the soldier will march straight into a lawyer's office.
Canadian Law, DND/CF regulations and common respect and decency say these things should not be happening.  But they do.  The CF is the only government agency in the country where your boss can order you to join him in religious ritual, and if you refuse he can charge you, try you, convict you and punish you.
Just try to imagine what would happen if a senior supervisor in say, Revenue Canada, decided that he had a morale problem in his office and, as a team-building exercise, he would set up an altar in the parking lot and order his entire staff out to hear prayers and receive blessings from a government-employed priest.  This is EXACTLY what the CO of the unit did.  It was not Remembrance Day, Battle of the Atlantic Sunday or anyone's funeral.  He did it in order to foster unit cohesion.  In other words, he didn't want any goddam atheists in his unit, so he showed them the door.  Literally.
If we can hold a parade and ask people to leave on the basis of their Position of Conscience and Religion, then we should be able to also do it on the basis of race or gender.  (Remember the good old days when we were all white and all male?)
People who keep bringing up stories of our veterans at Dieppe and elsewhere must understand that there were many men in those units, who had nothing but disdain for religion, and they fought bravely and they died too.  Remembering the fallen is only a religious act if you believe it to be so.  For the rest of us it is a commemorative act, and Canadian Law, and all DND/CF regs on inclusion and accommodation say it is so.
There is more to religious inclusion than just setting up a menora or having rugs on the floor.

Remember, atheists in Canada now number six million, more than the entire membership of the United and Anglican churches combined.  We are aminstream, not a radical fringe.  We don't want to change things to suit us, we want to find ways for all of us to join together.  There has to be a way, if we can only stop griping at one another.  We honour and commemorate your husband too.  He was our comrade as much as he was anyone else's.  All we ask is to be included.


----------



## Bruce Monkhouse

I'm an athiest also, only I would wager one who's a whole lot classier than you or those other two fellows.....

I'll stand there in support of anyone's beliefs. I wanted to do the sweat lodge thing two Saturdays ago but the logistics didn't work out...............but I still learned a whole lot whilst checking out the practices so that I wouldn't be "out of step", so to speak.

What does a little understanding hurt?


----------



## deedster

I am not an atheist, I'm a practicing Roman Catholic.  My religion is important to me, but I believe understanding, compassion and *tolerance* for other peoples' beliefs (and non-beliefs) would go a long way.  We're not quite there yet, but I hope (and pray) that in a lot of instances we may be moving in the right direction.

edited for a typo


----------



## the 48th regulator

tonykeene said:
			
		

> Remember, atheists in Canada now number six million, more than the entire membership of the United and Anglican churches combined.  We are aminstream, not a radical fringe.  We don't want to change things to suit us, we want to find ways for all of us to join together.  There has to be a way, if we can only stop griping at one another.  We honour and commemorate your husband too.  He was our comrade as much as he was anyone else's.  All we ask is to be included.



Really,

Please post where you have garnished your statistics.

According to the national Canadian Census, modified in 2005, Non Religious affiliations totalled less than 5 Million.  That is a group that _includes _ Atheists, not made up totaly by Atheists.

http://www40.statcan.ca/l01/cst01/demo30a.htm

If you are going to make a statement, and try to use stats to solidify your argument, please use actual facts.  You are just using "lies" to act as the scaremonger by forcing us into believing _your _ personal biases.

dileas

tess


----------



## niceasdrhuxtable

Does "No religious affiliation" include agnostics? I can't seem to find a definition on the website


----------



## stealthylizard

Where is the harm in having to listen to a religious speech for a few minutes?  Blank it out in your mind, and think of something else.  I hated mandatory church parades when I was in cadets, and the only way I could get out those was with parental permission.  Did you have something more important to do?  Probably not.  A regiment that prays together, stays together.  We are all exposed to things in life we don't like (sexual harrasment policies, lol).  I am an atheist as well, but I am not offended by religious speech in the military.  

There are no atheists in a foxhole.  I don't know if it's true or not, but I hope I never have to find out.


----------



## the 48th regulator

niceasdrhuxtable said:
			
		

> Does "No religious affiliation" include agnostics? I can't seem to find a definition on the website



I would assume that your assumption is correct.  For the fact that agnostics were not displayed with their own column, and they do fit under "No religious affiliation".

I know some beat up on the reliability of Wikipedia, but they state the following;



> Demographic research services normally list agnostics in the same category as atheists and non-religious people, (1) although this can be misleading depending on the number of agnostic theists who identify themselves first as agnostics and second as followers of a particular religion



dileas

tess


----------



## tonykeene

the 48th regulator said:
			
		

> Really,
> 
> Please post where you have garnished your statistics.
> 
> According to the national Canadian Census, modified in 2005, Non Religious affiliations totalled less than 5 Million.  That is a group that _includes _ Atheists, not made up totaly by Atheists.
> 
> http://www40.statcan.ca/l01/cst01/demo30a.htm
> 
> If you are going to make a statement, and try to use stats to solidify your argument, please use actual facts.  You are just using "lies" to act as the scaremonger by forcing us into believing _your _ personal biases.
> 
> dileas
> 
> tess



OK, here goes.  Statistics Canada census in 1991 showed us at 12 per cent.  By 2001 it showed us at 16 per cent.  In 2006 StatsCan did a "Social Trends in Canada" survey which showed the number had risen to 19 per cent.  On top of that, another 25 per cent, while unwilling to say they had no religious beliefs, stated that religion played no part in their lives and that they did not think about it, or take part in it.  And those numbers are growing.  It will be interesting to see the figures in the 2011 census.
The fastest growing religion in Canada is Islam, but it is still a very small part of the overall demographic.
The two most secular (least religious) countries in the develioped world (ie what we usually refer to as he West) are The Netherlands and Canada, which is interesting considering the other links we have with the Dutch.

Please remember though that in Canada, we do not decide religious matters by majority vote.  It is a Human Rights issue, and the Charter protects individuals, not groups.  People of faith are fully free to pray and conduct their offices, while those who are not religious are fully free not to.  Every individual has that freedom, not the groups.
That includes members of the CF.  Remember, no one goes up to the microphone and, with command authority, makes a statement on our behalf.  One point of view is favoured.  All we ask is that we be acknowledged.  We are all fully prepared, as far as I know, to show respect to others.  I would never dream of giving offence to any person of faith.
Again, I don't want special treatment, I just want to be included.  If we can modify our rituals and ceremonies to accommodate minority faiths, why can't we modify them a little more to include everyone?  It's not hard.




edited to adjust post and quote


----------



## Michael OLeary

tonykeene,

You are offering a running complaint but no actual solution yet.  

Can you assure us, with conclusive evidence that your collective "no religion" group is a cohesive and uniform element that has a "single voice" which would represent all of you (with no dissension) with that command authority you describe?  Or would any such attempts to "include" your perceived singular group of atheists simply invite further complaints from those who choose not to be so grouped.

What, exactly, do you propose that would conclusively satisfy every person who chooses "no religion" in such surveys?

And, if you successfully sanitized religion from memorial services, what answer would you have for the 81% (?) who seem to be ok with the status quo?  What about their individual rights to practice elements of faith?


----------



## armyvern

Well, I'm an atheist.

While on parade, I feel quite free to let let my mind wander to those I have both personally known who have fallen and all of those who fell in our conflicts past.

I am free to do this ... while the others pray along with the affiliated Padre's leading those prayers from their microphones to my front.

Now, if they were forcing me to RECITE the words of prayer along with those who choose to do so standing at my sides and within the ranks, I would then view it as an intrusion of my rights.

But, they don't. I stand there and remember (usually with tears coursing down my cheeks) in my own way, while the others pray to their Gods. That's compromise.

By stating that those who do pray to their applicable diety shouldn't be allowed to do so while formed up and in my athiest presence, you are making MY rights more important than theirs. Whether I'm the minority OR the majority really has NO bearing whatsoever as intollerance is a two way street. I am an athiest -- I am NOT intollerant. Them praying ... is not hurting me in any way, shape or form whatsoever. TonyKeene -- you certainly do not speak for me.


----------



## Rodahn

Evil she-mod who owns a whip said:
			
		

> Well, I'm an atheist.
> 
> While on parade, I feel quite free to let let my mind wander to those I have both personally known who have fallen and all of those who fell in our conflicts past.
> 
> I am free to do this ... while the others pray along with the affiliated Padre's leading those prayers from their microphones to my front.
> 
> Now, if they were forcing me to RECITE the words of prayer along with those who choose to do so standing at my sides and within the ranks, I would then view it as an intrusion of my rights.
> 
> But, they don't. I stand there and remember (usually with tears coursing down my cheeks) in my own way, while the others pray to their Gods. That's compromise.
> 
> By stating that those who do pray to their applicable diety shouldn't be allowed to do so while formed up and in my athiest presence, you are making MY rights more important than theirs. Whether I'm the minority OR the majority really has NO bearing whatsoever as intollerance is a two way street. I am an athiest -- I am NOT intollerant. Them praying ... is not hurting me in any way, shape or form whatsoever. TonyKeene -- you certainly do not speak for me.



Well said...


----------



## the 48th regulator

tonykeene said:
			
		

> The two most secular (least religious) countries in the develioped world (ie what we usually refer to as he West) are The Netherlands and Canada, which is interesting considering the other links we have with the Dutch.




Not according to this table.


http://www12.statcan.ca/english/census01/Products/Analytic/companion/rel/tables/canada/cdamajor.cfm


Can you please provide links and sources to your “Facts”?

I think Both Michael and Vern, have nailed my sentiments, even though they are Godless heathens...

dileas

tess


----------



## Reccesoldier

This struck me...


> It was not Remembrance Day, Battle of the Atlantic Sunday or anyone's funeral.  He did it in order to foster unit cohesion.



Now I do not know if this happened, but at this point I have no reason to believe that it didn't.  So for all of you jumping down this posters throat what say you work on the premise that he is telling the truth.

Now, taking his post as truth, take the *mainstream and majority* attitude and actions of this Christian CO and replace them with the actions and ideals of a Muslim CO who took a Friday to demand of every single member of the unit joined him for daily prayers... because he wanted them to.

Or how about an atheist CO who demanded that no-one go to church or any sort of worship because he wanted to foster morale.

Don't forget...





> It was not Remembrance Day, Battle of the Atlantic Sunday or anyone's funeral.  He did it in order to foster unit cohesion.



Wrong is wrong ladies and gentlemen, regardless of if that wrong is done in your favor, or in accordance with something you believe in or _have no problem_ with.

This CO was not perpetuating a military tradition, there was no military purpose, however tenuous, just his want.

It's sickening.  Not because the man believes or even because he thinks he has the power to demand everyone join him (though that is despicable as well) but because so many people would swallow it and accept this petit socialism because "it doesn't hurt me", "I go to my happy place", "I let my mind wander".

What happens when this man (the CO) begins to make comments like "Cpl Bloggins... I didn't see you at church on Sunday..."  What happens when those that do go to church begin to _talk_ about those that don't...  What happens when this becomes a weekly occurrence?

I think Heinlein was wrong when he said "There is no worse tyranny than to force a man to pay for what he does not want merely because you think it would be good for him."  the greater tyranny would be to force a man to participate in worship for the same exact reason.


----------



## the 48th regulator

Then Tonykeene must present using true facts, not made up ones to prove a point.

Period.

He has proven facts, then present them.  Until then I feel he is making up statistics to boost his beleifs, and trying to enforce them falsely on mine.

dileas

tess


----------



## Reccesoldier

the 48th regulator said:
			
		

> Then he must present using true facts, not made up ones to prove a point.
> 
> Period.
> 
> He has them, then present them.  Until then I feel he is making up statistics to boost his beleifs, and trying to enforce them falsely on mine.
> 
> dileas
> 
> tess



Fair enough,  but I didn't mention the statistics, only the story as it was given.  The statistics are absolutely meaningless, the actions of this CO are not.  I wouldn't care if it was a diatribe against Druids, with only one Druid in attendance, the fact remains that it is a gross abuse of the CO's power and influence.


----------



## the 48th regulator

Reccesoldier said:
			
		

> Fair enough,  but I didn't mention the statistics, only the story as it was given.  The statistics are absolutely meaningless, the actions of this CO are not.  I wouldn't care if it was a diatribe against Druids, with only one Druid in attendance, the fact remains that it is a gross abuse of the CO's power and influence.



Then he should not use Statistics in his post, to prove a point, especially ones that he has come up with himself.

That is my point.  He wants to argue the situation, then use his own opinion, and beliefs, do not lead others in beleiving that things are another way by presenting false information to boost his argument.

It is wrong, and immoral, and those actions are far worst than that of the CO's.

That is what I am trying to point out, wouldn't you agree?

dileas

tess


----------



## armyvern

Reccesoldier said:
			
		

> This struck me...
> Now I do not know if this happened, but at this point I have no reason to believe that it didn't.  So for all of you jumping down this posters throat what say you work on the premise that he is telling the truth.
> 
> Now, taking his post as truth, take the *mainstream and majority* attitude and actions of this Christian CO and replace them with the actions and ideals of a Muslim CO who took a Friday to demand of every single member of the unit joined him for daily prayers... because he wanted them to.
> 
> Or how about an atheist CO who demanded that no-one go to church or any sort of worship because he wanted to foster morale.
> 
> Don't forget...
> Wrong is wrong ladies and gentlemen, regardless of if that wrong is done in your favor, or in accordance with something you believe in or _have no problem_ with.
> 
> This CO was not perpetuating a military tradition, there was no military purpose, however tenuous, just his want.
> 
> It's sickening.  Not because the man believes or even because he thinks he has the power to demand everyone join him (though that is despicable as well)* but because so many people would swallow it and accept this petit socialism because "it doesn't hurt me", "I go to my happy place", "I let my mind wander".*
> What happens when this man (the CO) begins to make comments like "Cpl Bloggins... I didn't see you at church on Sunday..."  What happens when those that do go to church begin to _talk_ about those that don't...  What happens when this becomes a weekly occurrence?
> 
> I think Heinlein was wrong when he said "There is no worse tyranny than to force a man to pay for what he does not want merely because you think it would be good for him."  the greater tyranny would be to force a man to participate in worship for the same exact reason.



Excuse me?  Go to my happy place?  

Did the CO in question issue a "call to prayer?" Or did he have a Parade which was not on Nov 11th, battle of the Atlantic or some other "visibly recognized date?" I have been on NUMEROUS parades which were held on non-battle-important dates.

Those parades then, obviously, were NOT parades conducted in REMEMBERANCE of any fallen ... just like in Tony Keene's post. BUT, they were Parades and like it or not, drill & parading (especially in DEU 1A) is essential to Unit cohesion. Many of those parades have Padres present at them for prayer, such as Change of Command Parades, such as my recent Grad Parade.

And, just because those parades were held on a date that is not battle-visibly-recognized nor held as a "Commerative" event ... does NOT equte into --- had a parade with a prayer simply to foster Unit cohesion and discriminate against us athiests.

Mr Keene,

In your scenario noted below, what was the occasion for the Parade? Did he order those two pers to pray? Did he as Reccesoldier says "force them to participate in worship" or ebven ask them too? Or did he order any pers NOT praying to leave his Parade Square? I'm quite interested in hearing the answer to that. Sadly, I have a feeling the answer is NO although your post certainly tends to lead one in thinking that ... else the media and CBC would have been all over it. 

I suspect rather, that your idea is that prayer should be disallowed at ANY parade not held for the sole purpose of remembering or commerating a recognized battle; and, that by including a prayer in a rather mundane parade held for whatever reason (ie fostering Unit cohesion) ... someone is stepping on your rights. That's bullshit, and sorry reccesoldier, but it still does no harm to me personaly.

Isn't this f'n ironic. An Athiest arguing for others to retain their right to pray, and for the CF to continue in traditions it's had for over a century such as being able to hold parades to foster Unit cohesion along with those held to remember and commemorate.


----------



## IN HOC SIGNO

As the one who is usually up front leading the prayers I try to be as inclusive as possible. If it is a specific prayer for a change of command or a grad I try to include specific references to the group gathered and the intention that we are praying or thinking about....e.g. safe journey to new postings or safe return for troops etc. I usually start the prayer by saying that if it is not your tradition or belief to offer prayers please use this time to reflect or think about those who are ...... graduating, changing command, departing on deployment etc. I do not pray in the name of a specific diety i.e Jesus or Yahweh or fill in the blank. (It is actually a policy of the CF and the Chaplaincy that if you are the sole leader of public prayer  that you must be as inclusive as possible for all. If you represent your particular religion with other reps of other traditions present then it is appropriate to offer prayers in your particular tradition.  

No one is forced to pray....everyone is asked to be polite and disciplined and respect the wishes of those who do wish to pray. Prayer for people of Faith is something that is important at important events. If it's not important for you then do some thinking about whatever might be important to you. *Reflection * on the virtues of service for others, sacrifice for country and duty to a higher cause is not the sole domain of People of Faith and hopefully they are things that all of us who don the uniform are capable of doing.

I actually have had atheist COs who wanted to delete public prayer and sometimes they just did it even over my objections....that is their right but they are denying their troops of something they are entitled to have. Again I think if the very short time (well I'm never long winded personally  ) required to pause for prayer and reflection is too  much for some folks then they probably harbour hostility towards religion rather than the position they advocate ...what they really want is "freedom from religion rather than freedom of religion." Freedom from religion means that nobody gets to practice....freedom of religion means we all get to worship as we choose.

http://www.dnd.ca/chapgen/engraph/voluntary_worship_e.asp?cat=7

"The Canadian Forces firmly believe in the freedom of faith. 

The Chaplain General encourages Canadian Forces chaplains, who lead worship or prayer during public services and ceremonies where members of many religious groups may be attending, to be sensitive in their use of sacred phrases. Examples of these public services would include, for instance, annual Remembrance Day services, the interment of the Unknown Soldier in May 2000 or the consecration of the National Military Cemetery in June 2001. The goal is simply to ensure that all believers, of all faith groups feel included in public prayer t hat is led by Canadian Forces chaplains. 

The Chaplain General's guidelines are not meant to ban people from expressing their faith. It does not change the nature of voluntary Christian religious worship for Canadian Forces members in chapel, in the field or onboard ship. Rather, it is an inclusive measure that reflects the multicultural and multi-faith nature of the Canadian Forces and Canadian society as a whole.

The text of the guidelines, which was sent by the Chaplain General, Commodore (the Venerable) Timothy Maindonald, to all Canadian Forces chaplains in July 2001, is as follows:

"Within the context of voluntary worship, either within a chapel or a field service or on board ship, chaplains are free to lead Christian worship according to their denomination tradition within the established practice of Canadian Forces Roman Catholic or Protestant Chapels. Likewise, in the context of ecumenical or interfaith worship where a number of religious leaders are participating, chaplains may conduct themselves in accordance with their denominational tradition." "Within the context of a public ceremony the chaplain is the sole representative of all faith groups. Where various faith groups and a wide range of beliefs are likely to exist, normally prayers should be inclusive in nature respecting the wide range of faith groups and believers who may be present. The religious celebrant is encouraged to be sensitive in the use of specific sacred faith formulas to allow for greater inclusivity."


----------



## Michael OLeary

Reccesoldier said:
			
		

> Fair enough,  but I didn't mention the statistics, only the story as it was given.  The statistics are absolutely meaningless, the actions of this CO are not.  I wouldn't care if it was a diatribe against Druids, with only one Druid in attendance, the fact remains that it is a gross abuse of the CO's power and influence.



Yes, the story *as it was given* - without further context and without any rebuttal from those he accuses of trampling on his personal freedoms.  One side of a story does not necessarily provide a clear picture when such outspoken bias is shown as the principal intent of the message being offered.


----------



## Reccesoldier

> Mr Keene,
> 
> In your scenario noted below, what was the occasion for the Parade? Did he order those two pers to pray? Did he as Reccesoldier says "force them to participate in worship" or ebven ask them too? Or did he order any pers NOT praying to leave his Parade Square? I'm quite interested in hearing the answer to that. Sadly, I have a feeling the answer is NO although your post certainly tends to lead one in thinking that ... else the media and CBC would have been all over it.



I'd like to know the answer to this as well, but Vern, but in the event (as slight as it may be) that this was indeed a misguided call to prayer by the CO as Mr. Keene suggests, and even if the CO did not force these two individuals to participate, the act of summoning the entire regiment and then singling out those who had the parts to refuse to play along is in and of itself discriminatory and goes against everything the CF has been teaching each and every one of us since the early 90's.

Having said that if this was a full blown parade as some have suggested and this service was a part of that parade there is nothing to complain about.  As the Padre has said, CF parades with ceremonies of this sort are very non-denominational, banal even.

I have been ordered to go to church, for no reason other than the fact that the big green machine though it was the right thing to do. I had just joined and was in Cornwallis, I was ordered to go, I went.  It didn't hurt me but *I* felt *I* was trespassing on the beliefs of others.  I did not like the feeling and today, I would not participate in such a blatant disrespect of *my* rights.


----------



## Roy Harding

IN HOC SIGNO:

I'm an atheist - you're free to pray for my salvation at will (won't bother me in the least) - and what you describe is EXACTLY what I remember.  I don't recall being upset when the Padre said a few words and offered a prayer on parade, nor did I ever feel that my rights as an atheist were being infringed when he/she did so.

I was also a huge supporter of Padres throughout my career - what their individual faith was didn't make a difference to me, and it didn't seem to make a difference to them, either - I accompanied (on R&R - nothing official) Padres on tours of cathedrals, synagogues, Hindu temples, Mosques - I always found them (the Padres) extremely knowledgeable regarding the structures we were in, the customs involved in being there (removal of shoes, removal or donning of headdress, etc) and completely non-judgmental regarding the religions those structures were erected to the glory of.

To get back to topic - only once did I feel "put upon" as an atheist - when I was "required" to attend a church parade in the '70s.  This involved a full church service, at which I felt extremely uncomfortable.  We were, of course, given a choice - we could attend church parade, or spend the time doing menial labour - akin to what those guys on "extras" were required to do.  Some choice.  In my own experience, however, that sort of thing hasn't gone on for quite some time.

All this to say - I don't find the inclusion of ecumenical and thoughtful religious practices an infringement on anyone's (including mine) rights.  I think it's only polite to understand that different folks "reflect" in different ways - and it's the mark of a professional, not to mention classy, to participate in the spirit of the thing, without worrying about the individual beliefs of the one leading it.

As mentioned by someone earlier (Vern, I think) - it's kinda' neat that a bunch of us atheists (or "Godless heathens", if you prefer, Tess) have stood up in defense of this particular practice.


----------



## armyvern

Reccesoldier,

I too know a fellow Athiest who left a Parade (not a Nov 11th or Battle of the Atlantic etc -- just a 'normal, everyday, run of the mill parade) because the CO had a Padre present and a prayer was included on the op order.

Now, talking to that fellow Athiest later, he certainly gave the impression that he was 'forced' to leave that parade and not participate in it because it was a 'gross abuse' of his right to remain prayer-free (ie to remain free from religion). He probably felt that he was singled out too (and his leaving the parade square certainly DID single him out). But, the COs INTENT certainly was NOT to force him to "pray or leave", nor was it the COs intent to have him walk off the parade square, of that I can assure you.

This person did that all on their own -- but certainly blamed the CO for "forcing" him into it. I told him flat-out, that I thought he was wrong. At no time did the CO instruct us to "pray" or to "bow our heads" and pretend we were praying with them. 

For my fellow Athiests out there who believe that prayer should occur ONLY on parades which occur to commemorate battles or on Nov 11th (and that any other type of Parade should NOT include a prayer), I offer up my outlook as follows:

"We will remember them." I take that literally as "Never forget."

So, if a CO or Comd (et al) decides that XXXXX parade will include a prayer offered up by the Padre either for the fallen or to pray for the safety of those currently serving on this Nations front line ... I have ZERO problems with that. If those that pray wish to remember our fallen with a prayer, that is quite acceptable to me at ANY time. That is their choice ... or are they only allowed to remember the fallen with prayer or pray for the safe return of their fellow comrades in arms on specified dates during specified parades?

So, while they pray, I'm quite content to "let my mind wander" off to last time I saw Mike ... snuggled up on the couch with him watching a video before he deployed to Somalia where he was killed ... because that is how I remember. I have no problem with that.


----------



## Michael OLeary

There's a small point I don't understand.  If one is a determined atheist, then wouldn't you assume that prayer or any religious content (on a parade or elsewhere) is just meaningless noise?  How exactly are they being "forced to worship" as seems to be the case with these high-visibility detractors if they remain on parade?  How, exactly, are they presuming that being in the presence of someone else's prayers, which supposedly mean nothing to them, will suddenly undermine their personal lack of faith?  Christians don't seen to have such fears when a Muslim or Jewish religious leader speaks.  Neither do the Muslims.  Neither do the Jews.  Are we to assume that atheism is such a fragile concept that it can be undermined or broken by simply hearing a prayer, a prayer which the atheist previously declares has no personal meaning to them.

Are we really talking about 'human rights' here, or are we really talking about certain atheists' lack of conviction to the extent that they fear being in the presence of prayer? 

Or is it just an excuse to be defiant in the face of authority?


----------



## Roy Harding

Michael O`Leary said:
			
		

> There's a small point I don't understand.  If one is a determined atheist, then wouldn't you assume that prayer or any religious content (on a parade or elsewhere) is just meaningless noise?



Basically correct, although (speaking for myself only) not necessarily "meaningless" in content. 



			
				Michael O`Leary said:
			
		

> How exactly are they being "forced to worship" as seems to be the case with these high-visibility detractors if they remain on parade?  How, exactly, are they presuming that being in the presence of someone else's prayers, which supposedly mean nothing to them, will suddenly undermine their personal lack of faith?  Christians don't seen to have such fears when a Muslim or Jewish religious leader speaks.  Neither do the Muslims.  Neither do the Jews.  Are we to assume that atheism is such a fragile concept that it can be undermined or broken by simply hearing a prayer, a prayer which the atheist previously declares has no personal meaning to them.
> 
> Are we really talking about 'human rights' here, or are we really talking about certain atheists' lack of conviction to the extent that they fear being in the presence of prayer?
> 
> Or is it just an excuse to be defiant in the face of authority?



Bingo.


----------



## armyvern

I'd agree with you Roy,

I recognize prayer's intent and value to others who choose that. If that's what brings them comfort & solace -- it's all good.

I'm not about to deny them that comfort & solace just because I happen to "be there" on parade with them. I understand that it's intent is not to offend me.


----------



## Michael OLeary

Roy Harding said:
			
		

> Basically correct, although (speaking for myself only) not necessarily "meaningless" in content.



To clarify, take "meaningless" in the context of _lacking personal emotional relevance_, not in that it should be perceived as white noise or static.


----------



## Roy Harding

Michael O`Leary said:
			
		

> To clarify, take "meaningless" in the context of _lacking personal emotional relevance_, not in that it should be perceived as white noise or static.



I wasn't attempting to split hairs (although I seem to have done a good job of it).

Context noted - and agreed with.


----------



## Reccesoldier

This will be my last post on this topic as I fear that my point will be missed regardless of the logic behind it.

To me this is just as much a question of leadership as it is one of discrimination.

As I said earlier, taking Mr Keen at his word and working on the assumption that the intent and reason behind the parade was a call to prayer let me ask you this...

If a leader who had an all male section except one decided that he was going to hold the section O Group in a strip joint would you call that sound leadership?  

Would it facilitate unit cohesion if that leader, upon gathering his troop at the door to the strip joint said that the single female didn't have to go in.

Would that female feel included, would she bond with her fellow soldiers or would she feel isolated, discriminated against and singled out?

I know that this is a ridiculous analogy, but, if Keen's story is true it isn't much more ridiculous than the actual event.

Someone I work with, an officer, has told me that there is a unit in Petawawa in which the evangelical ideals of the senior leadership have become the standard, and there is, in his opinion, definite pressure to participate in, accept, and be seen to accept that missionary attitude and ideal.

Discrimination of this sort is pervasive and it is damaging to units and individuals.  Ever had a boss who thinks that the best soldiers are hockey players, or biatheletes or CSIM what-have-you or just the jumpers or just the ones that join him/her in the smoking area and laugh at their jokes?

Being a leader means leading them all, not just the ones that share ideological values with you.  L Gen Natynczyk (VCDS) is a deeply religious man, he was my CO...  I had no idea, nor did most of the rest of the Regiment because he was/is enough of a leader to keep his spirituality to himself, not to hide it, but to not make others uncomfortable because of it.

If this parade went down as described then that CO should not only be fired, but should find himself charged with harassment and in front of the Canadian Human Rights Commission.


----------



## Michael OLeary

Reccesoldier said:
			
		

> If this parade went down as described then that CO should not only be fired, but should find himself charged with harassment and in front of the Canadian Human Rights Commission.



"IF"......

It's funny that we have no problem dismantling news stories (and those who report them) that start with an uncorroborated fact and spin a fantastical tale of _"what if"_.  How is this different?


----------



## armyvern

Reccesoldier,

IF the CO had a parade specificly to have a prayer AND if the CO ordered anyone to leave his parade square because they would NOT pray ... then I'll agree with you.

I DO NOT believe that's the case though. I know more than a few fellow Athiests who subscribe to the belief that ANY prayers on ANY Parades is an outright expression by the CO to single them out and discriminate against them.

I also believe that we will find, when tonykeene chooses to answer the questions put to him (link to the post with my specific questions is below), that the CO did not issue any type of "Call to Prayer", nor did that CO tell anyone to leave that parade because they did not participate in the prayer when it came up on the schedule.

I'm willing to bet money on it -- I'm that sure.

It didn't happen that way -- I'm 99.99999% posotive of it. 

http://forums.army.ca/forums/threads/25815/post-647241.html#msg647241


----------



## the 48th regulator

Michael O`Leary said:
			
		

> And, if you successfully sanitized religion from memorial services, what answer would you have for the 81% (?) who seem to be ok with the status quo?  What about their individual rights to practice elements of faith?





			
				IN HOC SIGNO said:
			
		

> I actually have had atheist COs who wanted to delete public prayer and sometimes they just did it even over my objections....that is their right but they are denying their troops of something they are entitled to have. Again I think if the very short time (well I'm never long winded personally  ) required to pause for prayer and reflection is too  much for some folks then they probably harbour hostility towards religion rather than the position they advocate ...what they really want is "freedom from religion rather than freedom of religion." Freedom from religion means that nobody gets to practice....freedom of religion means we all get to worship as we choose.





			
				Reccesoldier said:
			
		

> Fair enough,  but I didn't mention the statistics, only the story as it was given.  The statistics are absolutely meaningless, the actions of this CO are not.  I wouldn't care if it was a diatribe against Druids, with only one Druid in attendance, the fact remains that it is a gross abuse of the CO's power and influence.



The above three statements exemplify what I am pointing out.  When someone creates a myth that the majority do not want religion, and are challenged on their facts, then Statistics are meaningless.

If the CF is a reflection of Canadian society, the why should 82% of the parade have to suffer to appease the 16% that do not want to have religion part of a parade.

That flies totally in the face of your own argument.  You would want the majority to bow down to a few??

So where is the tolerance?  Would you then request that the locals in Afghanistan were told by the interpreters that their call to prayer offends the Atheists within the ranks, and that they should cease immediately, so as not to interfere with your rights to work without religious interference?

I mean, where is the tolerance for my way of soldiering?

dileas

tess


----------



## Reccesoldier

Michael O`Leary said:
			
		

> There's a small point I don't understand.  If one is a determined atheist, then wouldn't you assume that prayer or any religious content (on a parade or elsewhere) is just meaningless noise?  How exactly are they being "forced to worship" as seems to be the case with these high-visibility detractors if they remain on parade?  How, exactly, are they presuming that being in the presence of someone else's prayers, which supposedly mean nothing to them, will suddenly undermine their personal lack of faith?  Christians don't seen to have such fears when a Muslim or Jewish religious leader speaks.  Neither do the Muslims.  Neither do the Jews.  Are we to assume that atheism is such a fragile concept that it can be undermined or broken by simply hearing a prayer, a prayer which the atheist previously declares has no personal meaning to them.
> 
> Are we really talking about 'human rights' here, or are we really talking about certain atheists' lack of conviction to the extent that they fear being in the presence of prayer?
> 
> Or is it just an excuse to be defiant in the face of authority?



So would the same logic apply if an atheist CO forbade the ceremony?  I mean would he, on any given day, due to his lack of belief, be fully justified in denying religious expression?  Because after all its absence isn't going to hurt anyone.


For me, and speaking specifically about being forced to go to church parade, I felt that I was imposing on the religious.  

But also, being forced into the situation creates the perception of acceptance.  Unless I am truly and fully disrespectful of the beliefs of those that ordered me to be there, it forces me to observe and participate regardless of how useless or ignorant I believe such services to be.

"Now be seated, please stand, bow your heads in prayer..."  All of these actions are calculated in deference to and in acceptance of a superstition which I have been forced to participate in and accept, until such time as I am permitted to act of my own free will again. 

This above all, to thy own self be true...
I do not, and will not, bow my head in prayer.  I also refuse to kneel in compliance to a religion or god I firmly deny because I believe in no god and will not show deference to one out of self respect and acknowledgment of my own reason.  

Were I to not stand, kneel, sit or bow in a church at the appointed time, people would see that as a lack of respect.  So, having forced me to be there, the same people who have disrespected my wish not to be a part of their superstition, and have discounted my belief that it is ignorant superstition would in turn deride me for being disrespectful of their religion?

That is the situation that the religious place the atheistic in.   
1. Show respect for that which you have no respect, or;
2. Disrespect the dearly held beliefs of your comrades, colleagues and friends.


----------



## Michael OLeary

There you do again, presuming actions by this mythical CO that are designed to support your biases.  "Forbidding a ceremony", and designing a different ceremony with less or no overt religious content are two very different things.

How exactly do you show deference to a God you don't believe in just by mimicking movements?

Stop pretending that simply by being there you are being forced to be a believer.

Stop implying that it's the Spanish Inquisition just because YOU don't like it.

The arrogance of your self-proclaimed victimization is astounding.


----------



## Reccesoldier

Michael O`Leary said:
			
		

> There you do again, presuming actions by this mythical CO that are designed to support your biases.  "Forbidding a ceremony", and designing a different ceremony with less or no overt religious content are two very different things.
> 
> How exactly do you show deference to a God you don't believe in just by mimicking movements?
> 
> Stop pretending that simply by being there you are being forced to be a believer.
> 
> Stop implying that it's the Spanish Inquisition just because YOU don't like it.
> 
> The arrogance of your self-proclaimed victimization is astounding.



You really don't understand.

God has nothing to do with it because god doesn't exist.  *I* am what I am talking about.

Try this logic on for size...

There the Blacks go again, presuming actions by this mythical Society that are designed to support their biases.  "Forbidding Blacks to sit up front on the bus", and designing a separate bus just for Blacks are two very different things.

How exactly do you show deference to a rule you don't believe in just by complying with it?

Stop pretending that simply by being in the back of the bus you are being discriminated against.

Stop implying that it's discrimination just because YOU don't like it.

The arrogance of your self-proclaimed victimization is astounding.

**Edited to correct the analogy.


----------



## Michael OLeary

Attempting to draw parallels with racist measures against visible minorities is false logic.

You have kept trying to establish that simply by being at any ceremony with religious content undermines your atheism, but you have not proven it.  You have failed to answer any question which refers to how your atheism is threatened by being in the presence of a religious utterance.

By your 'logic', Jews, Muslims, and any Christian denomination not specifically identifying with the Padre of the CO's choice should also feel equally downtrodden.  But you aren't even trying to speak up for them, because your biases lump all who observe any religion, however fervently or casually, as a single group oppressing you.  Enjoy your hypocrisy.


----------



## Reccesoldier

Michael O`Leary said:
			
		

> Attempting to draw parallels with racist measures against visible minorities is false logic.



Wrong, and the law agrees with me, check the charter.  Race, sex, sexual orientation, religion, ethnicity...



> You have kept trying to establish that simply by being at any ceremony with religious content undermines your atheism, but you have not proven it. You have failed to answer any question which refers to how your atheism is threatened by being in the presence of a religious utterance.



You see Michael you are approaching atheism as a religion to be "threatened" it's not, not for me at least.  I have only one desire, to live and let live.  

Don't try to shift the focus.  This isn't about being in the presence of a religious utterance it's about being *forced*, against my free will to be in the presence of that religious utterance.

But if you wish to phrase the question that way let me ask you, what is it about my presence which is required for the utterance of that religious word.  I don't command you to go without religion what gives you the right that I be present for it?



> By your 'logic', Jews, Muslims, and any Christian denomination not specifically identifying with the Padre of the CO's choice should also feel equally downtrodden.  But you aren't even trying to speak up for them, because your biases lump all who observe any religion, however fervently or casually, as a single group oppressing you.  Enjoy your hypocrisy.



Drawing inference where none is made is dangerous, check your premises.

Don't go telling me what I am, and am not in favor of.  9 times out of 10 you'll be wrong.

If someone were going to demand that any one of those peoples sit through a service not of their choice, for no reason other than the fact that they thought they should, then I'd damn well hope that they, and everyone else, including those to whom the service was aimed would be right along side of me telling the CO or Padre (your example) to go pound sand.

It is idiocy to say that a person gives up their free will merely because they don't believe in something.


----------



## IN HOC SIGNO

Michael O`Leary said:
			
		

> Attempting to draw parallels with racist measures against visible minorities is false logic.
> 
> You have kept trying to establish that simply by being at any ceremony with religious content undermines your atheism, but you have not proven it.  You have failed to answer any question which refers to how your atheism is threatened by being in the presence of a religious utterance.
> 
> By your 'logic', Jews, Muslims, and any Christian denomination not specifically identifying with the Padre of the CO's choice should also feel equally downtrodden.  But you aren't even trying to speak up for them, because your biases lump all who observe any religion, however fervently or casually, as a single group oppressing you.  Enjoy your hypocrisy.



It isn't the COs choice who he gets for a Chaplain in the Reg Force. In the Reserves the Chaplaincy recruits the Chaplain (usually from a local church/recognised faith community in the town where the Armoury/unit is located) and the CO has a chance to interview the candidate, but it is rare that he would object or turn down the nomination made by the Area Chaplain who has been through a pretty exhaustive process to ensure the suitability of the candidate. The Chaplaincy has oversight over the suitability to ensure that the Chaplain has the necessary training and experience to minister to all (qne isn't there to proselytise) as is our mandate. Whether you are a person of Faith or no Faith the Chaplain is there to help, counsel,advocate and support. I would say the majority of folks that I've been most help to and with have started by expressing they don't practice or they don't believe. 

I guess I would say to those who want to walk off parade no matter what the words are that come out of my mouth...would you do the same when a Politician is invited who stands up on invitation from the Parade Commander. I've listened to a lot of drivel coming out of a lot of different sources on parades and during "briefings"...why is it that my drivel gets centered out for disdain?

Like I said before I always request that people do what is right for them during prayer time....reflect, think about family, fallen comrades etc....I never order or request the bowing of heads or bending of knees.....removal of headdress is a an order to assume a position for an activity similar to ordering people to stand easy when the Commander or the Parade Commander is speaking...it's a uniform adoption of a position which is suitable for the activity to come. In the Navy now apparently the position is mandatory....because some religions require you to keep headdress in place for prayer and those who don't believe don't want to be seen to be conforming to an action they don't believe is valid for them...so be it.

By saying get rid of public prayer altogether you are imposing your belief (that there is no God and no validity to prayer) on others, which is exactly what you are accusing the majority of doing to you now (mistakenly I believe for no one can impose religious belief on another in reality). 

PS If there is a CO imposing Evangelical beliefs on a unit either overtly or covertly he is not a good leader and places himself in a position of being in violation of several regulations and indeed the policy of the CF when it comes to religious practice. I would say the same of a leader who is playing favorites in any circumstance be it hockey, drinking, promiscuity etc is a very poor leader indeed. He should check his little cheat card that he was given on "Qualities of Leadership." His RSM should be having a few candid no holds barred chats with him or her as well INHO as well as the Unit chaplain.


----------



## Michael OLeary

Reccesoldier said:
			
		

> Wrong, and the law agrees with me, check the charter.  Race, sex, sexual orientation, religion, ethnicity...



So, is atheism a religion?  Does it have greater rights than other religions?  You are still not speaking up for those of other religious denominations who might disagree with the specific religious components selected for any one occasion.  I can recall no recent incidents of soldiers walking off parade because the Padre wasn’t “theirs”.  Can you? Please enlighten me and provide recorded examples.




			
				Reccesoldier said:
			
		

> You see Michael you are approaching atheism as a religion to be "threatened" it's not, not for me at least.  I have only one desire, to live and let live.
> 
> Don't try to shift the focus.  This isn't about being in the presence of a religious utterance it's about being *forced*, against my free will to be in the presence of that religious utterance.
> 
> But if you wish to phrase the question that way let me ask you, what is it about my presence which is required for the utterance of that religious word.  I don't command you to go without religion what gives you the right that I be present for it?



If your regiment was being presented a new Colour, would you walk off the parade when the Padre showed up to consecrate it?  

Don’t presume that the absence of religion for me at any ceremony might be equivalent to being  commanded to go without religion.  Don’t presume my level of religious activity or preference, for you may well be very wrong.  Neither am I perturbed if I don’t profess the specific religious direction of the Padre that might show up.  I am above taking such personal actions that might disrupt a broader ceremony of which religion is but one small component.  Tolerating it doesn’t mean I enjoy or agree with it.

Would not “living and letting live” include being strong enough not to disrupt ceremonies that any of those around you choose to find strength in?  Wouldn’t it include being strong enough not to challenge the sense of support it provides them, even if you chose not to draw any yourself?

Your individual presence may not be required, but the perception that you stand in solidarity with your fellow soldiers is certainly an aspect to be considered.  You don’t know how deeply they believe or care; nor will they know your personal thoughts, but that perception of a united body does have a strengthening effect when it matters.  Is walking away worth the possibility that one of your fellow soldiers might think you are walking away, not from religious content, but from the remembrance of his fallen brother?




			
				Reccesoldier said:
			
		

> Drawing inference where none is made is dangerous, check your premises.
> 
> Don't go telling me what I am, and am not in favor of.  9 times out of 10 you'll be wrong.
> 
> If someone were going to demand that any one of those peoples sit through a service not of their choice, for no reason other than the fact that they thought they should, then I'd damn well hope that they, and everyone else, including those to whom the service was aimed would be right along side of me telling the CO or Padre (your example) to go pound sand.
> 
> It is idiocy to say that a person gives up their free will merely because they don't believe in something.



We’re not talking about directed cross-denominational church parades.  Even when the Army had regular Church parades, soldiers went to the Church of their choosing.  Military ceremonies that include some religious content, whether that be a Remembrance Ceremony, presentation of Colours, or whatever the lawful commanders may choose, are generic and all-encompassing, and modern Padres are quite sensitive to that aspect.  Those events no more “make” you a Christian than it does the Jewish soldier standing politely beside you.  

Standing on parade, mimicking the motions of a ceremony, reciting words ….. none of these equal “giving up your free will” unless your will is so weak that it collapses in the presence of such requirements.


----------



## Reccesoldier

<SNIP>


			
				IN HOC SIGNO said:
			
		

> I guess I would say to those who want to walk off parade no matter what the words are that come out of my mouth...would you do the same when a Politician is invited who stands up on invitation from the Parade Commander. I've listened to a lot of drivel coming out of a lot of different sources on parades and during "briefings"...why is it that my drivel gets centered out for disdain?



I believe that this is meant for me.  As I said earlier... more than once, My comments are specifically referring to being ordered into a Church for a purely religious service.  

For the rest, I am a soldier,  I know and accept that the majority of persons serving in the CF have some sort of religious expression.  I know that there is a long tradition of religion being connected with the military and military parades.  On parade, doing my military duty, while I will not speak or bow my head I am quiet and respectful of all those who do believe.  I go to my happy place or make my own remembrances.



> By saying get rid of public prayer altogether you are imposing your belief (that there is no God and no validity to prayer) on others,


I have not suggested, nor would I suggest such a thing.



> which is exactly what you are accusing the majority of doing to you now (mistakenly I believe for no one can impose religious belief on another in reality).


Nor have I claimed that anyone is able to make me believe merely by going through the motions.  

My point is that it is discriminatory to demand my presence for a purely religious ceremony and that it is then farcical to call my non-compliance with the directions of the ceremony arrogant or rude or disrespectful.

Am I not typing this all in English?



> For me, and speaking specifically about being forced to go to church parade, I felt that I was imposing on the religious.
> 
> But also, being forced into the situation creates the perception of acceptance.  Unless I am truly and fully disrespectful of the beliefs of those that ordered me to be there, it forces me to observe and participate regardless of how useless or ignorant I believe such services to be.
> 
> "Now be seated, please stand, bow your heads in prayer..."  All of these actions are calculated in deference to and in acceptance of a superstition which I have been forced to participate in and accept, until such time as I am permitted to act of my own free will again.
> 
> This above all, to thy own self be true...
> I do not, and will not, bow my head in prayer.  I also refuse to kneel in compliance to a religion or god I firmly deny because I believe in no god and will not show deference to one out of self respect and acknowledgment of my own reason.
> 
> Were I to not stand, kneel, sit or bow in a church at the appointed time, people would see that as a lack of respect.  So, having forced me to be there, the same people who have disrespected my wish not to be a part of their superstition, and have discounted my belief that it is ignorant superstition would in turn deride me for being disrespectful of their religion?
> 
> That is the situation that the religious place the atheistic in.
> 1. Show respect for that which you have no respect, or;
> 2. Disrespect the dearly held beliefs of your comrades, colleagues and friends.





> PS If there is a CO imposing Evangelical beliefs on a unit either overtly or covertly he is not a good leader and places himself in a position of being in violation of several regulations and indeed the policy of the CF when it comes to religious practice. I would say the same of a leader who is playing favorites in any circumstance be it hockey, drinking, promiscuity etc is a very poor leader indeed. He should check his little cheat card that he was given on "Qualities of Leadership." His RSM should be having a few candid no holds barred chats with him or her as well INHO as well as the Unit chaplain.


Absolutely.


----------



## Reccesoldier

Michael O`Leary said:
			
		

> So, is atheism a religion?  Does it have greater rights than other religions?  You are still not speaking up for those of other religious denominations who might disagree with the specific religious components selected for any one occasion.  I can recall no recent incidents of soldiers walking off parade because the Padre wasn’t “theirs”.  Can you? Please enlighten me and provide recorded examples.
> 
> If your regiment was being presented a new Colour, would you walk off the parade when the Padre showed up to consecrate it?
> 
> Don’t presume that the absence of religion for me at any ceremony might be equivalent to being  commanded to go without religion.  Don’t presume my level of religious activity or preference, for you may well be very wrong.  Neither am I perturbed if I don’t profess the specific religious direction of the Padre that might show up.  I am above taking such personal actions that might disrupt a broader ceremony of which religion is but one small component.  Tolerating it doesn’t mean I enjoy or agree with it.
> 
> Would not “living and letting live” include being strong enough not to disrupt ceremonies that any of those around you choose to find strength in?  Wouldn’t it include being strong enough not to challenge the sense of support it provides them, even if you chose not to draw any yourself?
> 
> Your individual presence may not be required, but the perception that you stand in solidarity with your fellow soldiers is certainly an aspect to be considered.  You don’t know how deeply they believe or care; nor will they know your personal thoughts, but that perception of a united body does have a strengthening effect when it matters.  Is walking away worth the possibility that one of your fellow soldiers might think you are walking away, not from religious content, but from the remembrance of his fallen brother?
> 
> 
> We’re not talking about directed cross-denominational church parades.  Even when the Army had regular Church parades, soldiers went to the Church of their choosing.  Military ceremonies that include some religious content, whether that be a Remembrance Ceremony, presentation of Colours, or whatever the lawful commanders may choose, are generic and all-encompassing, and modern Padres are quite sensitive to that aspect.  Those events no more “make” you a Christian than it does the Jewish soldier standing politely beside you.
> 
> Standing on parade, mimicking the motions of a ceremony, reciting words ….. none of these equal “giving up your free will” unless your will is so weak that it collapses in the presence of such requirements.



How about taking the time to actually read what I have written!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

_* I have said more than once that I am speaking about being ordered to attend a purely religious ceremony for which there is no military purpose, based only on the grounds that someone thinks that I should, and that person using his/her rank believes that he has the "right" to do it!*_


----------



## Michael OLeary

Reccesoldier said:
			
		

> Nor have I claimed that anyone is able to make me believe merely by going through the motions.



No, you said this:



			
				Reccesoldier said:
			
		

> For me, and speaking specifically about being forced to go to church parade, I felt that I was imposing on the religious.



Which implied that it affected you, not by oppressing you, but by the feelings you would project upon others to satisfy your own preference not to be there.  The complaint, if made to support your description would be that of the more religious soldiers who should feel imposed upon by your presence.  Did any complain?  Most Christians would actually be welcoming, and perhaps even sympathetic to your discomfort if they knew.


----------



## Gunner98

As a believer, but not very adherent to Sunday church routine, I do not think that religion or politics belong on a CO's parade, at a Soldier's Festive Dinner (new vogue term to replace Men's Christmas Dinner) or at a Mess dinner.  If superiors deem it necessary to invoke praise or give thanks there are many non-religious manners - a few moments of personal silent reflection is really what many have stated here should be given.  I have seen it done on many occasions over the last five years or so.  A superior officer need not impose his religious beliefs on his soldiers. 

The removal of headdress was discussed much, much earlier in this topic and is not essential to Remembrance unless you are entering a Legion (and then only if your religion does not demand that you wear a turban.)   How does one remove a turban or hijab to adhere to the CO's unnecessary order to remove headdress?

A slightly different take on these issues:

Since I have not yet deployed to the Sandbox, can someone shed some light on the ramp ceremonies - whether prayers are said and does the International Parade - remove headdress - in all of the photos I have seen headdress are in place.

Is it my imagination or is the movement to having "Memorials" for soldiers in arenas and community centres an easy way for the military to defer massive church parades. 

How would the strong debaters of late in this thread present their views to the very religious family members of a recently deceased Cdn soldier?



Edit for spelling.


----------



## SeaDog

I must say, that after carefully following this post, that most of you are missing the essence of whay reccesoldier is saying.  He is not advocating the removal of religion from the CF, nor is he a proponent of walking off parade due to a religious component.  He is making specific reference to being forced to participate in purely religious ceremonies as a member of the CF (eg church parade).  Even then he is not saying it is a slight to him, but rather not fair to those who DO believe.  He is saying this because he is a man of personal conviction and will not show deference to what he believes to be a falsehood...in turn this may be taken as insult to the very people that forced him into the situation to begin with.  I may not agree with you completely, reccesoldier, but I hate to stand by and see words placed into your mouth.


----------



## Michael OLeary

Reccesoldier said:
			
		

> How about taking the time to actually read what I have written!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
> 
> _* I have said more than once that I am speaking about being ordered to attend a purely religious ceremony for which there is no military purpose, based only on the grounds that someone thinks that I should, and that person using his/her rank believes that he has the "right" to do it!*_



The post by tonykeene that started this round of debate WAS NOT solely about DIRECTED CHURCH PARADES.  YOU have chosen to alter the direction of the debate, claiming that is the sole focus, because it supports your argument.  YOU chose to ignore discussion of alternative ceremonies because your logic was being successfully challenged.


----------



## Reccesoldier

Michael O`Leary said:
			
		

> The complaint, if made to support your description would be that of the more religious soldiers who should feel imposed upon by your presence.  Did any complain?  Most Christians would actually be welcoming, and perhaps even sympathetic to your discomfort if they knew.



Dear me, you really can't be this obtuse.

I don't care what the Christians think, what they want or what they don't want or how accommodating they would be.  For crying out loud!

It isn't about what they want!

Would you claim that sexually harassed woman shouldn't feel that way because her abuser was really just a nice guy that was really into her?

 :brickwall:


----------



## Michael OLeary

Reccesoldier said:
			
		

> Dear me, you really can't be this obtuse.
> 
> I don't care what the Christians think, what they want or what they don't want or how accommodating they would be.  For crying out loud!
> 
> It isn't about what they want!
> 
> Would you claim that sexually harassed woman shouldn't feel that way because her abuser was really just a nice guy that was really into her?



So now being at a religious ceremony is equivalent to being raped for an atheist?


----------



## the 48th regulator

SeaDog said:
			
		

> I must say, that after carefully following this post, that most of you are missing the essence of whay reccesoldier is saying.  He is not advocating the removal of religion from the CF, nor is he a proponent of walking off parade due to a religious component.  He is making specific reference to being forced to participate in purely religious ceremonies as a member of the CF (eg church parade).  Even then he is not saying it is a slight to him, but rather not fair to those who DO believe.  He is saying this because he is a man of personal conviction and will not show deference to what he believes to be a falsehood...in turn this may be taken as insult to the very people that forced him into the situation to begin with.  I may not agree with you completely, reccesoldier, but I hate to stand by and see words placed into your mouth.



So what you are saying is ones personal views, outweigh those of the majority?

You do not believe in a units cohesion in that one can participate in such a ceremony, which is part of Regimental tradition, because one is not strong enough in their beliefs and that he may be converted?

Now there is a mouthful that I will be accused of shoving in someones gob, but, why must the religious majority practice tolerance, when the non religious minority refuse??

dileas

tess


----------



## Reccesoldier

SeaDog said:
			
		

> I must say, that after carefully following this post, that most of you are missing the essence of whay reccesoldier is saying.  He is not advocating the removal of religion from the CF, nor is he a proponent of walking off parade due to a religious component.  He is making specific reference to being forced to participate in purely religious ceremonies as a member of the CF (eg church parade).  Even then he is not saying it is a slight to him, but rather not fair to those who DO believe.  He is saying this because he is a man of personal conviction and will not show deference to what he believes to be a falsehood...in turn this may be taken as insult to the very people that forced him into the situation to begin with.  I may not agree with you completely, reccesoldier, but I hate to stand by and see words placed into your mouth.



Thanks...  Someone is paying attention.


----------



## Michael OLeary

Reccesoldier said:
			
		

> Thanks...  Someone is paying attention.



We're all paying attention, we're just not agreeing with you.


----------



## Reccesoldier

Michael O`Leary said:
			
		

> The post by tonykeene that started this round of debate WAS NOT solely about DIRECTED CHURCH PARADES.  YOU have chosen to alter the direction of the debate, claiming that is the sole focus, because it supports your argument.  YOU chose to ignore discussion of alternative ceremonies because your logic was being successfully challenged.



And you chose to respond to me without having read what *I* wrote?

Dear me.


----------



## the 48th regulator

Reccesoldier said:
			
		

> And you chose to respond to me without having read what *I* wrote?
> 
> Dear me.



No,

Not agreeing with what you wrote, big difference.

dileas

tess


----------



## Danjanou

Ok We've reached that point again. 

Thread locked for 24 hours to give everyone a chance to cool down before we cross the line here.

Danjanou Mil.Net Staff


----------



## armyvern

Reccesoldier said:
			
		

> For me, and speaking specifically about being forced to go to church parade, I felt that I was imposing on the religious.
> 
> But also, being forced into the situation creates the perception of acceptance.  Unless I am truly and fully disrespectful of the beliefs of those that ordered me to be there, it forces me to observe and participate regardless of how useless or ignorant I believe such services to be.
> 
> "Now be seated, please stand, bow your heads in prayer..."  All of these actions are calculated in deference to and in acceptance of a superstition which I have been forced to participate in and accept, until such time as I am permitted to act of my own free will again.
> 
> This above all, to thy own self be true...
> I do not, and will not, bow my head in prayer.  I also refuse to kneel in compliance to a religion or god I firmly deny because I believe in no god and will not show deference to one out of self respect and acknowledgment of my own reason.
> 
> Were I to not stand, kneel, sit or bow in a church at the appointed time, people would see that as a lack of respect.  So, having forced me to be there, the same people who have disrespected my wish not to be a part of their superstition, and have discounted my belief that it is ignorant superstition would in turn deride me for being disrespectful of their religion?
> 
> That is the situation that the religious place the atheistic in.
> 1. Show respect for that which you have no respect, or;
> 2. Disrespect the dearly held beliefs of your comrades, colleagues and friends.



Whoaaa. Slow down a little bit. It's been a VERY long time since the days when we non-believers were forced to attend a Church Parade. That is not the case anymore. But, even when I was forced to attend Church parade (Cornwallis), I did not have to partake in the ceremony that was happening; rather, I was seated in the gathering room (sorry - don't know what's it's actual name is) ... eating the donuts and drinking the coffee that were laid out. Except of course for the first Church parade that I was forced to attend (the Protestant one ... where I also sat in another room reading) ... after that first one, when I heard the Catholics had coffee and donuts -- guess where I went? So, yes I WAS forced to attend church parade as opposed to being allowed to remain in the shacks totally unsupervised as a recruit, but I was not forced to participate in the actual religious cermony nor did I participate. Do I like being forced to go into a church? No, not really but that was the extent of it -- there was no participation in religious ceremony forced on me.

I've been in a great many churchs and some mosques too. Funerals happen in those sometimes; funerals of my friends and fellow soldiers. I go. When they pray or the fact that the memorial service is held in a house of religion ... is not INTENDED to discriminate against me personally. That's where your analogy linking this to blacks/whites & buses goes wrong. That was done with the intent to EXCLUDE & DISCRIMINATE, a prayer at a funeral or on a Parade is NOT done with that intent.

Mimic the actions? I've NEVER been forced to mimic the actions. While the others have their heads bowed and I'm looking around --- I see many others looking around too. Perhaps they are athiests, perhaps not. I certainly don't feel excluded, nor have I ever been given a blast for not bowing my head with the others. Nor have I been treated as "not part of the team" -- or even felt that way due to my Athiesm.

When the command comes to "remove headdress" I do. I can also stand there and look around without my headdress on while they pray. But, I've seen yarmuckles not removed ... and headscarves not removed ... and those people were treated just like me ... part of the team. Most of us realize that there is no "I" in team. So why should that team which is made up of so many diverse folks ... cave to my personal non-beliefs when I am being forced to mimic nothing? Removing headdress itself is NOT a religious act itself to me. 

PS ... In the Muslim countries that I have been to, I also stopped whatever I was doing (if downtown and in the presence of Muslims) when the prayer call call over the loudspeakers and remained silent while they did their thing. That's not forcing me to mimic them; I call it respecting their right to pray to their God.

"Show respect for that which you have no respect?" That's pretty dire. I don't believe in God, but I can respect others right to ... after all they respect my right NOT to. I guess it's all in the context -- I believe I'm respecting the others right to pray and practice their beliefs, I don't believe that respecting their rights means that I'm "respecting" (I'd use the term "complying with their beliefs" myself, because I DO respect all Religions -- they just aren't for me personally) their religion itself. Nor do I feel that by showing that respect to their rights, that my rights are being infringed upon or that I am caving and not being true to myself.


----------



## McG

Future Prodigy said:
			
		

> Someone above mentions we are a Christian society, ethical - the good Samaritans  . . .


I'm taking this quote a little out of context, but it introduces an interesting question.  Are we really a Christian society?  We do share many of the same ethical & philosophical views of the world, but I suspect this is more the result of the Christian society that we were in past generations.  Despite the fact that many people will identify with the religion of their parents on census forms, ID disks & what not; I suspect we are in fact largely a nation of closet Agnostics.


----------



## the 48th regulator

MCG said:
			
		

> I'm taking this quote a little out of context, but it introduces an interesting question.  Are we really a Christian society?



http://www40.statcan.ca/l01/cst01/demo30a.htm

Based on Statistics, I would say yes.



			
				MCG said:
			
		

> We do share many of the same ethical & philosophical views of the world, but I suspect this is more the result of the Christian society that we were in past generations.  Despite the fact that many people will identify with the religion of their parents on census forms, ID disks & what not; I suspect we are in fact largely a nation of closet Agnostics.



And I suspect that you are taking your views, and believe that it pertains to all.

No, I feel we are a Christian society, and many people do practice their religion.  Specifically in this theme, Christians.

dileas

tess


----------



## McG

the 48th regulator said:
			
		

> Based on Statistics, I would say yes.


But again, this is just the religion that people claim on a census.  I've spoken with many who claim a religion yet they do not actively participate and when asked about their religion they know little to nothing about it.  At the same time, how many in those statistic are the prudent agnostic going through the motions "just in case"?  The Atheist will clearly state there is no religion.  The agnostic may waffle.  



			
				the 48th regulator said:
			
		

> And I suspect that you are taking your views, and believe that it pertains to all.


I'm certainly not applying the theory to "all" but to an unquantified "many"


----------



## McG

. . . I will admit, my theory is incredibly unscientific in that it can neither be proved nor disproved.  But I do think it is anecdotally supportable.


----------



## the 48th regulator

MCG said:
			
		

> But again, this is just the religion that people claim on a census.  I've spoken with many who claim a religion yet they do not actively participate and when asked about their religion they know little to nothing about it.  At the same time, how many in those statistic are the prudent agnostic going through the motions "just in case"?  The Atheist will clearly state there is no religion.  The agnostic may waffle.
> I'm certainly not applying the theory to "all" but to an unquantified "many"



When I went to mass yesterday, the church was packed to capacity, so it seems that Christians to me are practicing.  Therefore, and this is not me being surly, I refute your theory based on my findings.

You see where this is going?  You have talked to a few people, so now you have the opinion that Canadians only go through the motions and claim that they practice.  You now feel you must broadcast your findings here.  I on the other hand, who does practice Christianity, have found the opposite of what you claim.

This will just become another long drawn out battle of the opinions of religion, much like the one that was just locked.

Do we really need to drag another one out into the mud again??

dileas

tess


----------



## Reccesoldier

Our society is clearly based on Christian morality and ethos. 

Though, like you I doubt the commitment of many Canadians to a specific religion, even though they may continue to self identify with the one they were born with.

I'm an Atheist, have been since before I was a teenager.  I have dabbled in the superstitious and even the mystical but I have never really bought the idea that something which exists outside of reality/existence can be real.

My wife on the other hand claims a belief in god, but in all the years we've been married, and even before I can not remember her entering a church for a service; a wedding or a funeral for sure, but never a Sunday service.


----------



## McG

the 48th regulator said:
			
		

> You see where this is going?  You have talked to a few people, so now you have the opinion that Canadians only go through the motions and claim that they practice.


You're twisting my words still.  Again, I'm not applying the theory to "all" Canadians but to an unquantified "many" Canadians.

There will be no reason to lock this thread if people can avoid becoming angry & bellicose.


----------



## the 48th regulator

MCG said:
			
		

> You're twisting my words still.  Again, I'm not applying the theory to "all" Canadians but to an unquantified "many" Canadians.
> 
> There will be no reason to lock this thread if people can avoid becoming angry & bellicose.



C'mon now,

Now you are playing on the symantics of words, all or many, I still refute your Theory.  You made and observation, stated and opinion, and I disagree with your opinion based on my observations.

My point is, do we really need to dig the religious tit for tat again, other than to satisfy each others opinions??

dileas

tess


----------



## Reccesoldier

MCG, I believe your theory is correct, but it has little to do with the structure of our society.  The fact is that this country was constructed based on those christian principals regardless of how dearly held (or not) they are today.  The impetus behind our law, social norms, and even many of our customs are derived from that historical reality.

I'm an atheist, my wife is a non-practicing christian, my children have never gone to a service in their lives but we celebrate Christmas, I for my family, and they because of the tradition.


----------



## McG

the 48th regulator said:
			
		

> My point is, do we really need to dig the religious tit for tat again, other than to satisfy each others opinions??


Not for satisfying personal opinions; for discussion.  Discussion hurts nobody, and perhaps I am wrong and there is some piece of evidence which could prove/disprove my theory.  Discussion may bring that bit of evidence out.  As it stands now, there is my opinion based on talking to many people of various religions & your opinion based on observations within the Catholic Church.  Perhaps some would accept my theory is wrong because the "many" is in fact a "small minority"?  Would this make a difference in defining our society?    Maybe we are more of a secular society with a plurality of Christians?  Lets not stifle the discussion for other now.


----------



## McG

Reccesoldier said:
			
		

> MCG, I believe your theory is correct, but it has little to do with the structure of our society.  The fact is that this country was constructed based on those christian principals regardless of how dearly held (or not) they are today.  The impetus behind our law, social norms, and even many of our customs are derived from that historical reality.


Agree fully here, and accept this within my theory.  But I do believe the distinction is relevant in how we as a a society consciously choose to evolve/structure ourselves into the future.


----------



## the 48th regulator

MCG said:
			
		

> Agree fully here, and accept this within my theory.  But I do believe the distinction is relevant in how we as a a society consciously choose to evolve/structure ourselves into the future.



A good point with regards to discussion.

As I stated earlier, 9 am Mass was at full capacity.  There were people standing in the Entrance hallway, and the spare room had all seats filled.

This was in Scarborough, St. Barnabus Church.  To me, Canadian Christians still openly and avidly practice.

Those are my findings, hope this helps.

dileas

tess


----------



## Reccesoldier

MCG said:
			
		

> Agree fully here, and accept this within my theory.  But I do believe the distinction is relevant in how we as a a society consciously choose to evolve/structure ourselves into the future.



I disagree that our society/any society with the exception of one undergoing a full fledged revolution either physical (like Iraq) or cultural (think Mao's China) does consciously evolve.  Other than those extreme events society is on auto-pilot and the change we see is incremental and serendipitous.


----------



## midgetcop

I know I'm jumping into this conversation kind of late, but I think that MCG raises a valid question. And this is all anecdotal of course....but I know of many people who would ultimately consider themselves 'Christian' if asked directly, but don't actively attend church on a regular basis. It wouldn't be fair to question whether these people are "true" Christians, because who else would be the ultimate authority on one's spiritual validity other than the person themselves? But I personally don't feel that the current statistical numbers prove much in terms of how 'Christian' a nation we are. Yes, we were founded by Christians. Sure, we celebrate Christmas and Easter, and work shorter hours on Sunday. But are these just cultural traditions or do they truly have any religious meaning anymore? For some they do, but for most people I know, definitely not. I realize that I may be missing out on many other laws and traditions...I'd be curious to know more of the Christian roots of our society.

Of course, my personal experiences can be affected by living in a culturally/religiously diverse city like Toronto. As an atheist, it could be influenced by those whom I choose to become friends with. It can be influenced by being raised in a household pretty well devoid of all but the most watered down ideas of religion.


----------



## Goose

Okay, Here's my 2 cents. It's not any more or less valid than anyone elses out there, but hey- I think that I might have a point here. So the guy didn't want to take his hat off. He believed that he was standing up for his own ideologies, and I respect that, but here's the problem; does taking off a hat during prayer necessarily presuppose a belief or acceptance of a deity? Of course not. The guy can be as agnostic, aethiest, buddhist, catholic, whatever- as he want's too. Following that order is not a rejection of the non-believers religiousity or some conformity to a faith system. It should be done because A. you were ordered to do it, and B. out of respect for those believers who are in the ranks all around you on the floor. You don't have to adopt the religion- but if taking off a hat is going on one hand to appear disrespectful to your superiors and peers alike, while on the other hand promote commradship (or at the very least, not provoke hostility/resentment), then just do it. Religion is a personal and internal thing... wadge your battles there.


----------



## McG

Goose said:
			
		

> So the guy didn't want to take his hat off. He believed that he was standing up for his own ideologies, and I respect that, but here's the problem; does taking off a hat during prayer necessarily presuppose a belief or acceptance of a deity? Of course not.


Yeah.  We moved past that 20ish pages ago.


----------



## OldSolduer

One of the freedoms guaranteed by the Charter of Rights and Freedoms is freedom of religion. That is to worship whatever god you want, or NOT worship, if you don't beleive in religion.It's personal choice.
Legally, the court made the right decision. 
Legally the officer doesn't have to remove his headdress. Morally he is OBLIGATED to remove his headress to show respect for the others.


----------



## Ak.abdale

I'm not trying to stir anything up here, but from reading this post all the way through,I have noticed that the atheists and agnostics alike seem to have a heck of a time trying to get this point through their heads. I am not saying all of them are like this I have agnostic friends who I can have sensible conversations with without him pulling out the f-shot or the blame card. As a Jew currently going to a Catholic school I see this stuff everyday ,and the intolerance and disrespect a few of my friends and I face are just absurd. My point is ,I think everyone just needs wake-up call to the new world. Things have change and people cant be as intolerant and self-centered as they are.
             My two cents

Ak.abdale


----------



## Reccesoldier

Ak.abdale said:
			
		

> I'm not trying to stir anything up here, but from reading this post all the way through,I have noticed that the atheists and agnostics alike seem to have a heck of a time *trying to get this point through their heads*.  I am not saying all of them are like this I have agnostic friends who I can have sensible conversations with without him pulling out the f-shot or the blame card. As a Jew currently going to a Catholic school I see this stuff everyday ,and the intolerance and disrespect a few of my friends and I face are just absurd. My point is ,I think everyone just needs wake-up call to the new world. Things have change and people cant be as intolerant and self-centered as they are.
> My two cents
> 
> Ak.abdale



What point is that?


----------



## armyvern

Ak.abdale said:
			
		

> I'm not trying to stir anything up here, but from reading this post all the way through,I have noticed that the atheists and agnostics alike seem to have a heck of a time trying to get this point through their heads. I am not saying all of them are like this I have agnostic friends who I can have sensible conversations with without him pulling out the f-shot or the blame card. As a Jew currently going to a Catholic school I see this stuff everyday ,and the intolerance and disrespect a few of my friends and I face are just absurd. My point is ,I think everyone just needs wake-up call to the new world. Things have change and people cant be as intolerant and self-centered as they are.
> My two cents
> 
> Ak.abdale



Well, let this athiest assure you that I am a firm believer in "to each, their own" ... at home, at work, and on the parade square, hats on -- or hats off.


----------



## Ak.abdale

Reccesoldier said:
			
		

> What point is that?



The point is that people in general people 'have to wake up and smell the roses'. Canada and other countries around the world are very multicultural and we have to respect everyone, no matter who they are. We also have to respect their religion , and even if we don't agree with it ,or like it we should be as courteous as if it is our own.


----------



## Reccesoldier

Ak.abdale said:
			
		

> The point is that people in general people 'have to wake up and smell the roses'. Canada and other countries around the world are very multicultural and we have to respect everyone, no matter who they are. We also have to respect their religion , and even if we don't agree with it ,or like it we should be as courteous as if it is our own.



Absolutely, it also means that we have to respect peoples right to no religion. 

The whole removing head dress thing is a red herring.  This guy just wanted to play the religion card, or should I say the anti-religion card not to prove a point, or even to win a concession, but just to poke believers in the eye with a sharp stick.

Having said that there could be other instances where I would whole heartedly support an act of defiance like this, but there would truly need to be some infringement on the persons rights.  But as noted pages and pages ago in this thread, those things don't happen in the CF any more, at least not regularly, intentionally or on a grand scale like they used to way back when the world was made in Black and White.


----------



## Ak.abdale

I totally agree with you that we should respect even non-religious people. 
"Having said that there could be other instances where I would whole heartedly support an act of defiance like this, but there would truly need to be some infringement on the persons rights."
Can you give me an example? This topic is a very good argument and in law I could use this , but I need some points from the other perspective. Your contribution is much appreciated.


----------



## Reccesoldier

Ak.abdale said:
			
		

> I totally agree with you that we should respect even non-religious people.
> "Having said that there could be other instances where I would whole heartedly support an act of defiance like this, but there would truly need to be some infringement on the persons rights."
> Can you give me an example? This topic is a very good argument and in law I could use this , but I need some points from the other perspective. Your contribution is much appreciated.



Being ordered to attend a church parade.  Being singled out or punished for your disbelief.

The latter one of these was recently in the news in the US. http://ap.google.com/article/ALeqM5iTPjkhPtGfRjsMUS9Q_F95TRAdcQD8V7JRIO0

Like I said though, this does not happen with any regularity in the CF.  Just as with other forms of discrimination though you can never say never.


----------



## Ak.abdale

Thank you for the link and the examples.


----------



## Greymatters

Reccesoldier said:
			
		

> Being ordered to attend a church parade.  Being singled out or punished for your disbelief.
> 
> The latter one of these was recently in the news in the US. http://ap.google.com/article/ALeqM5iTPjkhPtGfRjsMUS9Q_F95TRAdcQD8V7JRIO0
> 
> Like I said though, this does not happen with any regularity in the CF.  Just as with other forms of discrimination though you can never say never.



I think an example you are looking for that most people will have seen was in Full Metal Jacket (although it is only a movie and not neccesarily typical of true events); remember the scene where the drill sergeant went ape**** on the lead charater because he said he didnt believe in God...?


----------



## midgetcop

I'd say I'm a pretty darn tolerant atheist. My girlfriend is a believer, and somehow we manage to co-exist (with only the occasional argument on our spiritual differences). 

I could care less on what religion people follow. I don't have issues going to church for funerals, weddings, etc. I even go once in a blue moon with my girlfriend, mainly out of support (and I have to admit, curiousity). As long as I'm afforded the same tolerance and respect that I try and project to others, then it's never an issue for me.


----------



## RangerRay

It wasn't that long ago that on Sundays, you had two choices: go to church parade, or hang out at the shacks with the Master Corporal, who will have a long list of taskings to keep you busy!


----------



## geo

I remember many years ago that, on church parade, everyone would participate.  If you were of another faith & did not want to participate in service then, accomodation was dealt with.... you could stay outside & wait for the service to end and the troops would come out.

Remember, it's a parade!


----------



## Reccesoldier

Yes, so glad that foolishness is no longer permitted.


----------



## geo

well... we used to have some great card games sitting out in the sun, watching all the girls go by


----------



## Drummy

geo said:
			
		

> I remember many years ago that, on church parade, everyone would participate.  If you were of another faith & did not want to participate in service then, accomodation was dealt with.... you could stay outside & wait for the service to end and the troops would come out.
> 
> Remember, it's a parade!



I can also remember when Happy Hour was a parade as well. They could't make you drink, but it was parade, and I don't remember too many people complaining about those parades.  ;D

Drummy


----------



## dangerboy

Drummy said:
			
		

> I can also remember when Happy Hour was a parade as well. They could't make you drink, but it was parade, and I don't remember too many people complaining about those parades.  ;D
> 
> Drummy


Happy hour still is a parade at least it is in 2VP.  End of highjack.


----------



## McG

tonykeene said:
			
		

> OK, here goes.  Statistics Canada census in 1991 showed us at 12 per cent.  By 2001 it showed us at 16 per cent.  In 2006 StatsCan did a "Social Trends in Canada" survey which showed the number had risen to 19 per cent.  On top of that, another 25 per cent, while unwilling to say they had no religious beliefs, stated that religion played no part in their lives and that they did not think about it, or take part in it.  And those numbers are growing.  It will be interesting to see the figures in the 2011 census.  The fastest growing religion in Canada is Islam, but it is still a very small part of the overall demographic.


This quote from a few pages back was attack for using "made up" facts & much of his arguments dismissed.  He was, however, quite correct as can be seen on the StatsCan website:  http://www.statcan.ca/english/freepub/11-008-XIE/2006001/PDF/religious_81.pdf

Interestingly, the report also adds some credence to my theory that we may have many people claiming to have a religion when in practice this is not the case.  Unfortunately, the report does not break down "degree of religiousness" by religion, so it can't be used to specifically contest the notion that Canada is/isn't a Christian society ... but maybe it is possible to statistically determine one way or the other.


----------



## McG

geo said:
			
		

> I remember many years ago that, on church parade, everyone would participate.  If you were of another faith & did not want to participate in service then, accomodation was dealt with.... you could stay outside & wait for the service to end and the troops would come out.


Back in those days, was there any CoC or peer pressure/expectation that you not be one of the people waiting outside the front door?


----------



## vonGarvin

OK, let's talk about accomodation for me, a practicing Roman Catholic.  According to my faith, I must attend mass on Sundays and on Holy Days of Obligation ("special" days other than Sunday.  These vary by country.  Saint Patrick's Day is a Holy Day of Obligation in Ireland, for example, because he is the patron saint of Ireland).  Personally, I have asked for permission, and received such permission, to attend mass on these days.  Always.  
Now, for a co-worker, who is Islamic, his "day" is Friday.  He has also had no problem.  He asked, and he was accomodated to worship according to his faith.  That is accomodation.  
If we force people into a church, mosque or synagogue for a parade, that is not accomodation.  It's a parade.  Some may not like it, but I also don't like marching in the rain, and I have.
I find that people are fair and will accomodate your beliefs.  
Unless you claim to be Jedi ;D


----------



## Reccesoldier

MCG said:
			
		

> Back in those days, was there any CoC or peer pressure/expectation that you not be one of the people waiting outside the front door?



Speaking only from my own experience the usual response to the request to be excused was something along the lines of  "Why, what's wrong with you?" or my personal favorite... "Why, it won't hurt you to participate"  but I've voiced my displeasure with this sort of group-think/harassment before so I will spare everyone the pain of doing it again.

I will say that I have never experienced continued harassment on the job or elsewhere due to my lack of belief though.  Your results may vary.


----------



## armyvern

I'm an athiest. I've been ordered to Church Parades "back in the day".

But even then, I wasn't ordered in to worship or ordered into the "sanctum" (??) proper. Nor was I even forced to remain outside waiting for the others to come back out --- they had a room set up with books, magazines etc (& at the Catholic Church ... they had coffeee & donuts in there too!!  ;D) that I could sit back and relax in. I really didn't have any issues with that.

I have entered the Church proper for Funeral Parades. They've never had to "order" me to do that simply because I've never questioned that. I've never questioned that simply because that Funeral Parade wasn't/isn't about "ME" -- it's about my comrade in arms being laid to rest in accordance with HIS beliefs --- and surely to hell, on the occasion of his funeral, I, the Athiest, can accomodate _his_ beliefs.

I guess, that's my outlook.


----------



## Reccesoldier

Mortarman Rockpainter said:
			
		

> OK, let's talk about accomodation for me, a practicing Roman Catholic.  According to my faith, I must attend mass on Sundays and on Holy Days of Obligation ("special" days other than Sunday.  These vary by country.  Saint Patrick's Day is a Holy Day of Obligation in Ireland, for example, because he is the patron saint of Ireland).  Personally, I have asked for permission, and received such permission, to attend mass on these days.  Always.
> Now, for a co-worker, who is Islamic, his "day" is Friday.  He has also had no problem.  He asked, and he was accomodated to worship according to his faith.  That is accomodation.
> If we force people into a church, mosque or synagogue for a parade, that is not accomodation.  It's a parade.  Some may not like it, but I also don't like marching in the rain, and I have.
> I find that people are fair and will accomodate your beliefs.
> Unless you claim to be Jedi ;D



Marching in the rain is not a choice if it is raining and you are having a parade outside.  

Having a parade in a church/mosque/synagogue is a conscious choice of venue. 

Just to clarify, I agree with the idea of accommodation.  As an atheist I accommodate the beliefs of the vast majority every time there is a regimental parade or mess dinner and there is a drum head ceremony or grace is spoken.  I acknowledge the beliefs of the majority, I stand up and doff my headdress at the appropriate time and in all I am respectful.  

But to me there is a big difference between a service as part of a marching parade celebrating a military purpose (Regimental Birthday/battlehonour) and a parade held in a church/mosque/synagogue.  At the point where any acknowledgement of religion becomes a full blown - inside a church/mosque/synagogue - sit in pews - sing hymns and read from the holy book kind of service, the line has been crossed between accommodation of the beliefs of the majority and forced participation of a minority in a purely religious rite.  This doesn't mean only the atheistic minority but the minority of all those who do not practise that sect of Christianity or faith.  And as such, I believe, the proper and respectful alternative is to invite the faithful to participate in dedicated services in their own places of worship.

*Edited to add:*  _Like Vern I willingly attend funeral parades, not out of compulsion, not for the Military but for the deceased.  There is a very big distinction._


----------



## armyvern

Reccesoldier,

Your last paragraph also describes the setting for a Funeral Parade. I'm curious as to whether you view those particular parades differently then a "Sunday Morning Church parade" as I do.

Edited to add: Forget it -- I now see your edit!!  ;D


----------



## vonGarvin

Reccesoldier said:
			
		

> Marching in the rain is not a choice if it is raining and you are having a parade outside.
> 
> Having a parade in a church/mosque/synagogue is a conscious choice of venue.
> 
> *Edited to add:*  _Like Vern I willingly attend funeral parades, not out of compulsion, not for the Military but for the deceased.  There is a very big distinction._


To be fair, I agree with you.  I wasn't clear: I was thinking funeral parades in a place of worship.  I do apologise for the confusion.


----------



## geo

From a personal point of view, I do not feel I have to sit in any special structure to meditate and communicate with my god - per my personal beliefs.  A church, a mosque, a synagogue or a gymnasium are only just structures.

If a friend marries and want to invite me & the Mrs.... I will go to lend them my support.
It might be at city hall, in a mosque, a synagogue, a church, someone's backyard or on top of a mountain.... who cares where they hold their exchange of vows.... it's the words and the intent that matters most.

If a friend passes away, I will go to Church, synagogue, mosque or gravesite - I am there to lend my support AND have my last words with an old friend.


----------



## armyvern

geo said:
			
		

> From a personal point of view, I do not feel I have to sit in any special structure to meditate and communicate with my god - per my personal beliefs.  A church, a mosque, a synagogue or a gymnasium are only just structures.
> 
> If a friend marries and want to invite me & the Mrs.... I will go to lend them my support.
> It might be at city hall, in a mosque, a synagogue, a church, someone's backyard or on top of a mountain.... who cares where they hold their exchange of vows.... it's the words and the intent that matters most.
> 
> If a friend passes away, I will go to Church, synagogue, mosque or gravesite - I am there to lend my support AND have my last words with an old friend.


Geo ... breathe ...  ;D

I understand where you are coming from with your post. I too have attended weddings etc in churchs of my own choice.

What is being discussed here is being "ordered" into a Church for a "Church Parade" which is quite the different matter all together. I think though, that we've all managed to agree that a Funeral Parade is acceptable, and that none of us would question attendance at such.


----------



## geo

..phew!


----------



## McG

.... and I think a majority is starting to form around the position that ceremonies to send-off the fallen should be conducted in the religion of the specific member(s), but outside of this there is no place for mandatory religious parade/ceremony for the sake of religion.


----------



## Reccesoldier

MCG said:
			
		

> .... and I think a majority is starting to form around the position that ceremonies to send-off the fallen should be conducted in the religion of the specific member(s), but outside of this there is no place for mandatory religious parade/ceremony for the sake of religion.



Yup, Yup, Yup.


----------



## vonGarvin

MCG said:
			
		

> .... *and I think a majority is starting to form around the position that ceremonies to send-off the fallen should be conducted in the religion of the specific member(s)*, but outside of this there is no place for mandatory religious parade/ceremony for the sake of religion.


I thought that was already the case, no?  
As for the second bullet, I totally agree.


----------



## McG

Mortarman Rockpainter said:
			
		

> I thought that was already the case, no?


I don't know.  I too would think it is that case.


----------



## Trinity

I have been trying not to weigh in.... but it seems the time is appropriate.

Albeit I cannot state for what has happened in the past (decades ago)....

I am unaware of any funeral being mandatory.  I have been to a few CF funerals and
except for the firing party, I believe it was voluntary by everyone.  As it is voluntary it
doesn't matter if the service is religious or denominational as no one is being forced to attend.

There are many Remembrances that are mandatory by the CF and therefore the service must
be multi faith as required as not to a specific religion upon the serving members. 


If being forced to attend a church parade is seen as violation of one's rights, then if one were
FORCED to attend a funeral that was religious I could easily see the same violation taking place. 
But more recently, as I have said, I am unaware of any forced funerals in the CF.  


My opinions only... of course but it's finally a topic that is in "my arc".


----------



## armyvern

Trinity said:
			
		

> I have been trying not to weigh in.... but it seems the time is appropriate.
> 
> Albeit I cannot state for what has happened in the past (decades ago)....
> 
> I am unaware of any funeral being mandatory.  I have been to a few CF funerals and
> except for the firing party, I believe it was voluntary by everyone.  As it is voluntary it
> doesn't matter if the service is religious or denominational as no one is being forced to attend.
> 
> There are many Remembrances that are mandatory by the CF and therefore the service must
> be multi faith as required as not to a specific religion upon the serving members.
> 
> 
> If being forced to attend a church parade is seen as violation of one's rights, then if one were
> FORCED to attend a funeral that was religious I could easily see the same violation taking place.
> But more recently, as I have said, I am unaware of any forced funerals in the CF.
> 
> 
> My opinions only... of course but it's finally a topic that is in "my arc".



But, that's exactly what the Athiests are saying here.

That we wouldn't even need to be "forced" to go to a funeral parade. A Funeral Parade is about laying to rest our Comrade in Arms in accordance with HIS beliefs -- no one is doing this to force THEIR beliefs on us. We _would_ go -- without orders to do so. 

Forcing us to attend other "RELIGIOUS" ceremonies is seen in a different light, even IF they are multi/non-denominational to recognize "everyone's" beliefs. We have NO beliefs, and that's why people have a problem being forced to attend a Church Parade to hear everyone else's espoused.

Doffing our hats on November 11th is not a Church Parade. It's removing our hats as a sign of respect for our fallen (if removing one's hat does not conflict with their own religious practices). That doesn't mean I have to pray. I just stand there and cry actually.

I can remove my headdress when ordered to do so while others pray ... because I just don't pray. And, I don't view taking my hat off as a "religious" move -- I take my hat off 4 or 5 times a day as it is. Removing my beret itself does not insinuate (to ME anyway) that I am being ordered to perform some "religious ritual", but forcing me to attend a Church Parade for the sake of being there to listen to Religious sermons of any nature, none of which are applicable to me, certainly is forcing me to partake in a ritual. I think, that's where the difference lies.


----------



## Yrys

Atheist soldier claims harassment



> JUNCTION CITY, Kansas (AP)  -- Like hundreds of young men joining the Army in recent years, Jeremy Hall professes a desire to serve his country while it fights
> terrorism. But the short and soft-spoken specialist is at the center of a legal controversy. He has filed a lawsuit alleging he's been harassed and his constitutional rights
> have been violated because he doesn't believe in God. The suit names Defense Secretary Robert Gates.
> 
> "I'm not in it for cash," Hall said. "I want no one else to go what I went through." Known as "the atheist guy," Hall has been called immoral, a devil worshipper and --
> just as severe to some soldiers -- gay, none of which, he says, is true. Hall even drove fellow soldiers to church in Iraq and paused while they prayed before meals.
> 
> "I see a name and rank and United States flag on their shoulder. That's what I believe everyone else should see," he said. Hall, 23, was raised in a Protestant family in
> North Carolina and dropped out of school. It wasn't until he joined the Army that he began questioning religion, eventually deciding he couldn't follow any faith.
> 
> But he feared how that would look to other soldiers. "I was ashamed to say that I was an atheist," Hall said.
> 
> It eventually came out in Iraq in 2007, when he was in a firefight. Hall was a gunner on a Humvee, which took several bullets in its protective shield. Afterward, his
> commander asked whether he believed in God, Hall said. "I said, 'No, but I believe in Plexiglas,"' Hall said. "I've never believed I was going to a happy place. You get
> one life. When I die, I'm worm food."
> 
> The issue came to a head when, according to Hall, a superior officer, Maj. Freddy J. Welborn, threatened to bring charges against him for trying to hold a meeting of
> atheists in Iraq. Welborn has denied Hall's allegations. Hall said he had had enough but feared he wouldn't get support from Welborn's superiors. He turned to Mikey
> Weinstein and the Military Religious Freedom Foundation.
> 
> Weinstein is the foundation's president and a U.S. Air Force Academy graduate. He had previously sued the Air Force for acts he said illegally imposed Christianity on
> students at the academy, though that case was dismissed. He calls Hall a hero. "The average American doesn't have enough intestinal fortitude to tell someone to shut
> up if they are talking in a movie theater," Weinstein said. "You know how hard it is to take on your chain of command? This isn't the shift manager at KFC."
> 
> Hall was in Qatar when the lawsuit was filed on September 18 in federal court in Kansas City, Kansas. Other soldiers learned of it and he feared for his own safety. Once,
> Hall said, a group of soldiers followed him, harassing him, but no one did anything to make it stop. The Army told him it couldn't protect him and sent him back to Fort
> Riley. He resumed duties with a military police battalion. He believes his promotion to sergeant has been blocked because of his lawsuit, but he is a team leader responsible
> for two junior enlisted soldiers.
> 
> No one with Fort Riley, the Army or Defense Department would comment about Hall or the lawsuit. Each issued statements saying that discrimination will not be tolerated
> regardless of race, religion or gender. "The department respects [and supports by its policy] the rights of others to their own religious beliefs, including the right to hold no
> beliefs," said Eileen Lainez, a spokeswoman for the Department of Defense. All three organizations said existing systems help soldiers "address and resolve any perceived
> unfair treatment."
> 
> Lt. Col. David Shurtleff, a Fort Riley chaplain, declined to discuss Hall's case but said chaplains accommodate all faiths as best they can. In most cases, religious issues can
> be worked out without jeopardizing military operations. "When you're in Afghanistan and an IED blows up a Humvee, they aren't asking about a wounded soldier's faith,"
> Shurtleff said.
> 
> Hall said he enjoys being a team leader but has been told that having faith would make him a better leader. "I will take care of my soldiers. Nowhere does it say I have
> to pray with my soldiers, but I do have to make sure my soldiers' religious needs are met," he said. "Religion brings comfort to a lot of people," he said. "Personally, I
> don't want it or need it. But I'm not going to get down on anybody else for it." Hall leaves the Army in April 2009. He would like to find work with the National Park Service
> or Environmental Protection Agency, anything outdoors. "I hope this doesn't define me," Hall said of his lawsuit. "It's just about time somebody said something."




I'm posting it as it is in the news today. There was another thread, that has been locked on the subject :
Troops Being Force Fed Christianity

Remember, no slagging others peoples or beliefs.


----------



## LineDoggie

So far in My 27 years Service I have never been pressured nor even asked what My Religious affiliation(or Lack thereof) is other than by the Admin Clerks during SRC processing.
I've served with Catholic, Protestant, Muslim, Buddhist, Rastafarian, etc.  Soldiers both in Combat & Peactime


----------



## tomahawk6

The suit is without merit. Its political why else sue the SecDef if your unit commander violated your rights ?


----------



## LineDoggie

tomahawk6 said:
			
		

> The suit is without merit. Its political why else sue the SecDef if your unit commander violated your rights ?


-Probably because suing the Major in question wouldnt get international exposure for the "Cause". This reminds me of Micheal Newdow suing over his daughter (that he didnt have custody of ) reciting the pledge of allegiance.  Specialist could just as easily have filed an EO complaint with the JAG and that Major would have been cashiered if the allegations were found true.


----------



## Red 6

It puts done to the old adage "there are no atheists in foxholes." :warstory: Seriously, I agree that this Soldier has some sort of political axe to grind.


----------



## Shadowolf

http://www.cnn.com/2008/US/07/08/atheist.soldier/index.html


KANSAS CITY, Kansas (CNN) -- Army Spc. Jeremy Hall was raised Baptist.


Army Spc. Jeremy Hall, who was raised Baptist but is now an atheist, says the military violated his religious freedom.

 Like many Christians, he said grace before dinner and read the Bible before bed. Four years ago when he was deployed to Iraq, he packed his Bible so he would feel closer to God.

He served two tours of duty in Iraq and has a near perfect record. But somewhere between the tours, something changed. Hall, now 23, said he no longer believes in God, fate, luck or anything supernatural.

Hall said he met some atheists who suggested he read the Bible again. After doing so, he said he had so many unanswered questions that he decided to become an atheist.

His sudden lack of faith, he said, cost him his military career and put his life at risk. Hall said his life was threatened by other troops and the military assigned a full-time bodyguard to protect him out of fear for his safety. 

_Suddenly the CF looks alot better. _


----------



## GAP

Why do I come away with the feeling that there is a whole lot more to this story than the tidbits waved here..... :


----------



## Shec

GAP said:
			
		

> Why do I come away with the feeling that there is a whole lot more to this story than the tidbits waved here..... :



Agreed !


----------



## Blackadder1916

GAP said:
			
		

> Why do I come away with the feeling that there is a whole lot more to this story than the tidbits waved here..... :



Perhaps if the OP had added this story to either of the existing threads concerning this matter you would not have had this feeling.

Atheist soldier claims harassment - AP
Troops Being Force Fed Christianity


----------



## The Bread Guy

Time to merge it up then, Mods!


----------



## Shadowolf

I looked, didnt see. My apologies.


----------



## armyvern

Shadowolf said:
			
		

> I looked, didnt see. My apologies.



Now merged, and unlocked.

Let's try to keep it unlocked this time shall we all? 

ArmyVern
The Milnet.ca Staff


----------



## daftandbarmy

Hallelujah (sorry, couldn't resist)


----------



## jollyjacktar

I am an atheist.  Strongly so.  And in being of such a belief, or lack thereof dependant upon your view, I have to accept and understand that I am in the minority amongst my peers.  Religion has always been a part of my experience in the CF from Remembrance Day Ceremonies to Parades (Change of Command/Graduation etc) and everything in between.  It cannot be escaped by me and such is life.  I endure the time given to the subject as it brings comfort to my comrades who need it's embrace.  The Padres I have met in my time with a couple of exceptions have been splendid men and women.  

The only time that I did feel put upon was my Graduation from PLQ.  We were informed that regardless of what belief we held, we would all as one bow our heads in prayer. Period.  As a rule I do not bow my head as to me that is hypocritical given my views and opinion on the subject.  If however, Religion was to become a major part of the requirements of the CF as alluded to in some of the posts about our neighbours to the South, it would be time for me to part ways.  Perhaps this Soldier should have considered the same actions.


----------



## 2 Cdo

jollyjacktar said:
			
		

> The only time that I did feel put upon was my Graduation from PLQ.  We were informed that regardless of what belief we held, we would all as one bow our heads in prayer. Period.  As a rule I do not bow my head as to me that is hypocritical given my views and opinion on the subject.



I'm curious as to why you would think it hypocritical to bow your head, nobody is forcing you to pray or kneel.


----------



## daftandbarmy

jollyjacktar said:
			
		

> The only time that I did feel put upon was my Graduation from PLQ.  We were informed that regardless of what belief we held, we would all as one bow our heads in prayer.



OK, I find that weird. 

Why the heck would anyone have to pray during a PLQ grad parade, unless it was for cold beer at the end? In my short 30 or so years of military service I have never been required to pray during a parade of any kind. Even Remembrance Day parades are set up so there's a two minute silence... no praying required if you don't want to.

I say again, that's just weird...


----------



## Mr.Blakey

I believe that someone who decides to join the forces to defend their country against threats makes them a brave person worthy of respect, but the fact that people are being forced to believe in something that goes against their personal morales and own beliefs is wrong and sounds fascist, beliefs should not be forced upon anyone. We should respect eachother based on the things they do not what they believe. I am agnostic, i don't belittle or question others in their beliefs so i shouldn't be ridiculed as well.


----------



## xena

If I may, he probably feels it to be hypocritical because it would _*appear*_ to a casual observer that he is participating in the prayer by the action of bowing the head.

In all honesty, I am sympathetic.  I think I would have felt awkward if there was a minister or chaplain of a religion I did not believe in offering a prayer to his deity(ies) and I was required by drill to remove my headress and bow my head.

It's been discussed here on a variety of other threads with no success at resolution.

For my two kopecks, it comes down to an issue of "majority practice".  WRT drill, it either should be done by all, or done by none.  That being said, banning padre's and prayers during commemorative portions of services (as some have previously suggested) would be a HUGE dis-service to those who find comfort in them.

Instead of beating a dead horse, let's agree to disagree, and until the statistics say that atheists, or a religious tradition other than RC or Protestant, become prevalent in the CF, things will pretty much stay the way they are.

If it helps, there are religious folks out there that sympathize with the discomfort felt by many atheists.


----------



## jollyjacktar

2 CDO, even though I am a heathen bastard, I do have some honour and standards of conduct.  

An Uncle whom I loved like my Father and I respected very much was a life long Mason.  He was the last of the family line to carry on the tradition, and was also a bachelor with no one other than my self who could carry it on.  One is not asked to be a Mason, one has to ask to join a Lodge.  I knew that he deeply wanted me to ask and carry it on, and it would have been very beneficial to me both professionally and personally to do so, I did not.  I did not because one of the major pillars is to have a belief in a higher power.  I do not have such a belief.  My respect for him and his Lodge, and my honesty forbade me to lie and pretend.  The same goes for my bowing my head in prayer.  I do not pray, and cannot pretend that I am doing so as it is dishonest and I feel improper.  I do remove my head dress with everyone else as it is part of the drill and ceremony.  But I keep my head and eyes firmly to the front, while the remainder pray.  


Daft, some of the Old Men I have served under had a religious bent in them and took every opportunity to have the Padre attend functions and parades.  It is their ship, their show and they can do what they please.  

At the Graduation ceremonies for the PLQ here in Halifax they have a Padre in attendance.  The Naval Hymn is played, and prayers are made.  We were told by DS that we would all bow our heads even if we were like myself, no exception.  It is, afterall a show and you would not want the show to be spoiled by little johnny doing something the other kids are not.

Xena, you are overall correct.  However I do not feel awkward while they offer their prayers.  To me it's BS, but to those who need it, it is a huge comfort.  Let them have it and be comforted by it.  What got my nose out of joint was being required to go against my standards of conduct in those matters.  Praying or appearing to pray.


----------



## Captain Coffee

jollyjacktar - For myself, I tend to view it as a sign of respect for my comrades.  If they feel that they are communing with their God and that that requires removing their head dress and lowering their eyes then I do so as well while I'm with them.  Same is true at memorials.  If you believe in no afterlife why salute the dead, if not for the sake of the living?  If you do believe then it's a sign of respect for those that have gone before and still exist somewhere.  If you don't, then what is it?

Or here's another way to think of it.

If I went to meet the parents of a friend from Japanese heritage, and he bowed when greeting his parents, I would also follow suit.  Wouldn't you?

"When in Rome...."


----------



## FastEddy

Captain Coffee said:
			
		

> jollyjacktar - For myself, I tend to view it as a sign of respect for my comrades.  If they feel that they are communing with their God and that that requires removing their head dress and lowering their eyes then I do so as well while I'm with them.  Same is true at memorials.  If you believe in no afterlife why salute the dead, if not for the sake of the living?  If you do believe then it's a sign of respect for those that have gone before and still exist somewhere.  If you don't, then what is it?
> 
> Or here's another way to think of it.
> 
> If I went to meet the parents of a friend from Japanese heritage, and he bowed when greeting his parents, I would also follow suit.  Wouldn't you?
> 
> "When in Rome...."




Very nicely put  Captain Coffee. If there is nothing else that could or can be said for Religion, is that it does  at times provide "HOPE" whether real, false or what ever.

I imagine a good example of that is to ask any Chaplain, Padre, Medic or Comrade who has held in his arms a Dying or Wounded Comrade.

I think life would be pretty blank without it (Hope). Who are you going to ask for it, Lady Luck, Yourself or Fate.. well that seems like some kind of Belief of sorts.

I can assure you I'm the Biggest nonbeliever out there. But I would also be the Biggest Liar out there if I didn't admit, that more than often, I haven't said God or Jesus please don,t let this be this or that. I wonder why I do that.


----------



## jollyjacktar

Captain Coffee said:
			
		

> jollyjacktar - For myself, I tend to view it as a sign of respect for my comrades.  If they feel that they are communing with their God and that that requires removing their head dress and lowering their eyes then I do so as well while I'm with them.  Same is true at memorials.  If you believe in no afterlife why salute the dead, if not for the sake of the living?  If you do believe then it's a sign of respect for those that have gone before and still exist somewhere.  If you don't, then what is it?
> 
> Or here's another way to think of it.
> 
> If I went to meet the parents of a friend from Japanese heritage, and he bowed when greeting his parents, I would also follow suit.  Wouldn't you?
> 
> "When in Rome...."



Capt. Coffee, I respect your views however I cannot in good conscience act in such a manner anymore.  I have found myself more and more of these years past feeling my atheist beliefs becoming stronger.  While I won't disrespect my comrades who are religious by having a tourets moment and shout out "It's all bullshit" or the like, I also won't disrespect them by putting on a false front and pretend in such a manner.  I am sure that you have heard "to thine own's self be true".  (yeah, I know it comes from the bible as I recall but it does fit)

As for showing manners I may also have also bowed in the same situation.  However, these customs do also have their own standards of how they are to be performed and can be screwed up.  It may be more polite to offer greetings as per your own customs correctly than to make offence by attempting to patronize and messing up.  


Fast Eddy - I think it comes from being raised and living in a Christian society if you are from here originally.  I was raised ACC.  Even though I am now atheistic, I do take the lord's name in vain as any english speaker might be tempted to even though I do not believe.


----------



## PMedMoe

jollyjacktar said:
			
		

> I am sure that you have heard "to thine own's self be true".  (yeah, I know it comes from the bible as I recall but it does fit)



Actually, it's Shakespeare so you can stop worrying.


----------



## jollyjacktar

PMedMoe said:
			
		

> Actually, it's Shakespeare so you can stop worrying.



Phew!!  Thanks, PMedMoe.  Would hate to be batting for the other side there.  I was typing fast this am, and have aluminium pot syndrome or oldtimers, my memory is shot out.  Hamlet, is it not?  At least I think I know where my coat is and so far I have not found lemons all over the shop.


----------



## Captain Coffee

jollyjacktar said:
			
		

> As for showing manners I may also have also bowed in the same situation.  However, these customs do also have their own standards of how they are to be performed and can be screwed up.  It may be more polite to offer greetings as per your own customs correctly than to make offence by attempting to patronize and messing up.



That is a good point. 

And PMedMoe is right, Shaespeare, Hamlet to be specific.  Act 1 Scene 3.  lol  I just happened to have read it last week on vacation.   ;D


----------



## Jarnhamar

Big difference between religion in the Canadian Forces and religion in the US in terms of it being pushed on soldiers.


----------



## RyanC

I am going to try and make this clear THAT I AM NOT! here to speak ill of anyone beliefs , i respect every ones rights to have a religion, a belief and i am not here to challenge those beliefs . I am just asking for the right to my beliefs, and the right not to practice the beliefs of others. being a strong believing atheist i have found that i am quite the minority in the Canadian forces and feel that my religious rights are not taken seriously due to this fact.
 In the QR&O`s its states that i will not be subjected to religious proceedings against my will but i find myself time and time again in ranks with my beret off while a padre prays to a god and a belief system that is not my own and i feel that it infringes on my rights as a Canadian citizen and a soldier. the QR&O`s also states that i must take part in religious ceremonies on remembrance day and a handful of other days.

Has anyone come across the same problem? or just have an honest opinion on the matter?

Again i have full respect on everyone and their religious rights


----------



## vonGarvin

Much as some gentiles will wear a yalmulke when in Jerusalem, or some non-muslim women will wear headcoverings in a Muslim Nation (eg: visiting politicians), I see it as a sign of respect.  


And, "remove headdress" is a lawful command.  Nobody is forcing you to pray, and it's not all about you.  

If you feel that this is an infringement of your human rights, all I can say is this:


----------



## vonGarvin

I just have to ask: are you going to petition to have Christmas removed as a stat holiday, because it infringes upon your human rights?


Just sayin....


----------



## RyanC

I am not ordered to partake in christmas


----------



## chrisf

RyanC said:
			
		

> I am going to try and make this clear THAT I AM NOT! here to speak ill of anyone beliefs , i respect every ones rights to have a religion, a belief and i am not here to challenge those beliefs . I am just asking for the right to my beliefs, and the right not to practice the beliefs of others. being a strong believing atheist i have found that i am quite the minority in the Canadian forces and feel that my religious rights are not taken seriously due to this fact.
> In the QR&O`s its states that i will not be subjected to religious proceedings against my will but i find myself time and time again in ranks with my beret off while a padre prays to a god and a belief system that is not my own and i feel that it infringes on my rights as a Canadian citizen and a soldier. the QR&O`s also states that i must take part in religious ceremonies on remembrance day and a handful of other days.
> 
> Has anyone come across the same problem? or just have an honest opinion on the matter?
> 
> Again i have full respect on everyone and their religious rights



I hope that with time, you'll learn to build a bridge and get over it. 

It's a standing social custom, which in no way infringes on your religious beliefs. It's just a matter of being polite. For the same reason, you'll remove your shoes upon entering a mosque, you salute comissioned officers, hold the door for other people, and say thank you on receiving somthing. Standing social customs. If you don't, you're being rude and look like an ass. Regardless of your own personal religious beliefs, you've also got to respect beliefs of others.


----------



## Michael OLeary

There are some who have a committed political belief in one national party or another, yet they still serve when another party is running the Government and "signing" their paychecks, without feeling it requires them to change their political outlook.

There are some members who would happily see Canada separate its politics and related activities from the monarchy, yet they still present arms when a Royal Salute is ordered without perceiving themselves to become monarchists by doing so.

Some people pray when a Chaplain says his words at a ceremony, others go through the motions without thinking it affects their choice of atheism (or that it changes them somehow if they follow a different religion). 

If some of your fellow soldiers find comfort in the religious aspects of such a ceremony, is it  bad thing to go through the motions with them?

If you a truly an atheist I would expect that it shouldn't bother you at all, since for you it has no more meaning than any other parade movement.


----------



## Journeyman

Technoviking said:
			
		

> And, "remove headdress" is a lawful command.


Apparently not always, according to the CF's Court Martial Appeals Court.



> *Lieutenant (Navy) G.D. Scott v. The Queen*
> On 22 November 2004, the CMAC allowed the appeal of Lieutenant
> (Navy) (Lt (N)) G.D. Scott who had been convicted at court martial
> of disobedience of a lawful command contrary to section 83 of the
> National Defence Act. Lt (N) Scott had been given a severe reprimand
> and a fine of $3,000.00.
> 
> The facts in this case were not in dispute. Lt (N) Scott was ordered
> to attend a Division’s parade at Canadian Forces Base Esquimalt on
> November 28, 2002. During the parade, the chaplain of the unit
> pronounced a short prayer that was followed by the playing of the
> naval hymn. Prior to the prayer, as was tradition, the parade was
> given the order to “remove headdress.” Lt (N) Scott did not remove
> his headdress. At trial, Lt (N) Scott said that he did not comply
> with the order because he felt that his Charter right to freedom
> of religion had been violated by his enforced participation in a
> religious ceremony for which he did not believe.
> 
> The trial judge’s verdict of guilty was predicated on the trial judge’s
> finding that the order to remove headdress was a lawful command.
> 
> The CMAC found that the trial judge’s findings were unreasonable
> and were not supportable by the evidence. The CMAC found that it
> was clear that the order to remove headdress and the prayer that
> followed had religious connotations. All Canadian Forces members
> present had to at least appear to participate in the sentiments
> expressed. The court mentioned, however, that in some cases,
> military exigency might serve to justify the giving of orders that
> may result in Charter breaches. This was not such a case. *The
> CMAC found that Lt (N) Scott’s disobedience was justified as
> the order breached his Charter right to freedom of religion.*


See "CMAC Decisions: Lieutenant (Navy) G.D. Scott v. The Queen," _Sixth Annual Report of the Judge Advocate General on the Administration of Military Justice in the Canadian Forces_, 2005, p. 43
http://www.forces.gc.ca/jag/publications/office-cabinet/AnnRep-RappAnn2005-eng.pdf

But then again, I just found out yesterday that the 'Regimental March' of the Padres is no longer "Onward Christian Soldiers," but is now "Ode to Joy" -- the times are a'changin'


Fortunately, my lack of religion saves me from all this turmoil


----------



## Nauticus

RyanC said:
			
		

> I am going to try and make this clear THAT I AM NOT! here to speak ill of anyone beliefs , i respect every ones rights to have a religion, a belief and i am not here to challenge those beliefs . I am just asking for the right to my beliefs, and the right not to practice the beliefs of others. being a strong believing atheist i have found that i am quite the minority in the Canadian forces and feel that my religious rights are not taken seriously due to this fact.
> In the QR&O`s its states that i will not be subjected to religious proceedings against my will but i find myself time and time again in ranks with my beret off while a padre prays to a god and a belief system that is not my own and i feel that it infringes on my rights as a Canadian citizen and a soldier. the QR&O`s also states that i must take part in *religious ceremonies on remembrance day* and a handful of other days.
> 
> Has anyone come across the same problem? or just have an honest opinion on the matter?
> 
> Again i have full respect on everyone and their religious rights


Everybody else has covered your other questions well enough. But since when did Remembrance Day become a religious ceremony?


----------



## vonGarvin

Well, I guess the CMAC has spoken.  Leave you hats on.

And leave your shoes on when you enter that mosque.  We wouldn't want your precious little human rights violated now, would we?


:


----------



## chrisf

That's it, I'm starting a new religion, the redites, we're forbidden to wear green, anyone want to join?


----------



## Journeyman

Technoviking said:
			
		

> Well, I guess the CMAC has spoken.


I knew you'd be overjoyed.   ;D

While we disagree on religion, I suspect we feel pretty much the same about lawyers   :nod:


----------



## vonGarvin

a Sig Op said:
			
		

> That's it, I'm starting a new religion, the redites, we're forbidden to wear green, anyone want to join?


I'm going to get excommunicated and then become a nudist.  That's a religion, right?   >


----------



## vonGarvin

Journeyman said:
			
		

> I knew you'd be overjoyed.   ;D
> 
> While we disagree on religion, I suspect we feel pretty much the same about lawyers   :nod:


I would say "amen", but....;D


----------



## Michael OLeary

I am a committed carnivore, no meal is complete without a predominant placement and amount of meat.  Yet, I do not feel offended when expected to attend meals where vegetable matter is served.  I remain polite even when it lands on my plate from the kitchen and I do not feel affronted by vegan practices committed by omnivores or vegetarians who are consuming plant matter, even when they do it in front of me.  The parts of a meal that sate their herbivorous intents neither lessen nor degrade my own commitment to carnivorous repasts. I am above their herd instincts, and I shall not be changed by their ruminations.  Meat is my choice, their choice is their own.


----------



## Jarnhamar

Nauticus said:
			
		

> Everybody else has covered your other questions well enough. But since when did Remembrance Day become a religious ceremony?



Yesterday I seem to remember being at a remembrance day ceremony and listening to 2 different priests talk about God and Jesus, Resurrection and accepting His love of you. Think there was some stuff thrown in there about sins too.
Then again they called Afghanistan peace keeping and spoke about all the wounded and dead soldiers from WW1, WW2, Korea, Gulf war and Afghanistan- no mention of the soldiers injured and killed in Bosnia.

RyanC, if you don't like it just ignore it. You could be like Lt (N) Scott  refusing to remove his headdress but do you really want that kind of attention?


----------



## vonGarvin

Grimaldus said:
			
		

> You could be like that officer that refused to remove his headdress but do you really want that kind of attention?


But....we're talking about oppression!  His human rights, man!  His RIGHTS!


:


----------



## mariomike

Technoviking said:
			
		

> And leave your shoes on when you enter that mosque.  We wouldn't want your precious little human rights violated now, would we?



I've been in mosques on business. You put on disposable overshoes if you enter the prayer area. A plastic carpet runner is rolled out along the route you use to access the patient.


----------



## dogger1936

I thought I was losing my mind there a few weeks back when the padre addressed the parade and the order to remove headdress wasn't given....now I guess I know why!

I salute government officials that I despise. I'm sure removing my headdress to show respect to something my fellow soldiers get peace from is no worse that saluting a civilian that I think shouldn't be in charge of a walmart.

Would it be wrong to ask for the SSM to forward the names of the non Christan's to put on duty on the 25th of December?


----------



## Jarnhamar

Technoviking said:
			
		

> But....we're talking about oppression!  His human rights, man!  His RIGHTS!
> 
> 
> :



Which goes back to the other (poppy) thread about Tolerance and how we're taking the whole rights stuff too far.


----------



## the 48th regulator

Too bad we have created a society that by ones intolerance of others views, gives them the right to have their own view tolerated.

dileas

tess


----------



## Michael OLeary

mariomike said:
			
		

> I've been in mosques on business. You put on disposable overshoes if you enter the prayer area. A plastic carpet runner is rolled out along the route you use to access the patient.



And if you weren't there picking up a patient?


----------



## dogger1936

How long before someone is called a Nazi? ;D


----------



## the 48th regulator

dogger1936 said:
			
		

> How long before someone is called a Nazi? ;D



Great, you have almost breached  Godwin's law!

dileas

tess


----------



## mariomike

Michael O'Leary said:
			
		

> And if you weren't there picking up a patient?



I would remove my shoes, if asked to do so.

More on that: 
David Willey BBC News, Amman: 
"Others remarked that the Pope had failed to remove his shoes when he visited the mosque in accordance with Muslim custom. All I can say is that I too was allowed to enter the mosque before the Pope's arrival without removing my shoes.":
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/8041421.stm


----------



## dogger1936

the 48th regulator said:
			
		

> Great, you have almost breached  Godwin's law!
> 
> dileas
> 
> tess



HAHA!

I had no idea it had a name. Thanks!


----------



## Michael OLeary

mariomike said:
			
		

> I would remove my shoes, if asked to do so.



So, the special case(s) of not following custom because of the demands of professional execution of duties is a red herring.



			
				mariomike said:
			
		

> More on that:
> David Willey BBC News, Amman:
> "Others remarked that the Pope had failed to remove his shoes when he visited the mosque in accordance with Muslim custom. All I can say is that I too was allowed to enter the mosque before the Pope's arrival without removing my shoes.":
> http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/8041421.stm



Notably, the reporter gives no context for either situation.  As you offer in your own example, there are occasions when that custom might not be followed without intending insult.


----------



## old medic

RyanC said:
			
		

> the QR&O`s also states that i must take part in religious ceremonies on remembrance day....



I, like Nauticus, question where you would get this from.


----------



## the 48th regulator

dogger1936 said:
			
		

> HAHA!
> 
> I had no idea it had a name. Thanks!





I would say hats off to you, but I may offend others....

dileas

tess


----------



## armyvern

RyanC said:
			
		

> I am going to try and make this clear THAT I AM NOT! here to speak ill of anyone beliefs , i respect every ones rights to have a religion, a belief and i am not here to challenge those beliefs . I am just asking for the right to my beliefs, and the right not to practice the beliefs of others. being a strong believing atheist i have found that i am quite the minority in the Canadian forces and feel that my religious rights are not taken seriously due to this fact.
> In the QR&O`s its states that i will not be subjected to religious proceedings against my will but i find myself time and time again in ranks with my beret off while a padre prays to a god and a belief system that is not my own and i feel that it infringes on my rights as a Canadian citizen and a soldier. the QR&O`s also states that i must take part in religious ceremonies on remembrance day and a handful of other days.
> 
> Has anyone come across the same problem? or just have an honest opinion on the matter?
> 
> Again i have full respect on everyone and their religious rights



A quick search of this site and my posting history will also reveal to you that I am also a staunch atheist ...

It will also reveal to you that I have ZERO problems with following orders and removing my headdress. It is NOT a religious action on my part; removing my headdress does NOt religious me make. In other words, although seen in a religious light by those whom chose to believe in a higher being, as an athiest - the act means nothing to me - I am simply "taking off my beret" and there's nothing worng with that; it's respectful, not religious.

Clear enough?

Remembrance Day!!?? What the fuck does taking part in that have to do with `being religious`?? Since when - if you are an athiest - is taking off your hat a religious act?? You have me way confused; either you are an athiest - or you ain`t.

And, there you have my honest opinion.


----------



## mariomike

the 48th regulator said:
			
		

> I would say hats off to you, but I may offend others....
> 
> dileas
> 
> tess



Sometimes, it's not a bad idea to take your hat off...:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Fr3mlbv16Cw


----------



## Loachman

RyanC:

Removing one's headdress when so ordered is simply a drill movement. It is not a religious act. Perhaps if the appeal judge spent more time on the parade square ("soldier first" 'n' all) he'd have realized that. 

Lt (N) Scott is likewise a numpty, and has some serious growing up to do. I hope that he's out now.

Stand at attention when you're ordered, march when you're ordered, halt when you're ordered, and remove your frakking hat when you're ordered.

Remembrance Day is not a religious event. It's about remembering your predecessors and colleagues. Yes, prayers are said and hymns are sung. That's our tradition, and I hope that that does not change. You don't have to sing or pray along. You can think other thoughts or just "la la la la la" in your head while that's happening, so long as you think about your predecessors and lost colleagues during the two minutes of silence. You do not have to close your eyes or bow your head - I don't - but you have a duty to be there on parade.

Do you refuse to attend weddings of friends and family if they take place in a church?

Are you going to skip the funerals of your dead friends and colleagues? I'd hope not, as that would be pretty disrespectful, nein? Again, you can keep your eyes open and gawk around, and stay silent while others sing or pray, but you can bloody well sit there in the church, with your hat off, and stand when everybody else does to give support to your dead buddy's family by your presence in the church, synagogue, mosque, temple, or whatever with them.

I have no religion either, but that does not mean that I have to act like a twit and whine.


----------



## dogger1936

Loachman said:
			
		

> Remembrance Day is not a religious event. It's about remembering your predecessors and colleagues. Yes, prayers are said and hymns are sung. That's our tradition, and I hope that that does not change. You don't have to sing or pray along. You can think other thoughts or just "la la la la la" in your head while that's happening, so long as you think about your predecessors and lost colleagues during the two minutes of silence. You do not have to close your eyes or bow your head - I don't - but you have a duty to be there on parade.



Thats just it. I've set through many a funeral of buddies unfortunately. Everyone of em Christains of some sort. I even participated in the singing of hymns out of respect for the families...I didnt want to be the guy who looked like he was forced to be there. Not to mention religion plays a big piece for the healing process of these families. As well they will remember that day for the rest of their lifes. I go I participate. While I am not a christain....Imagine that. And quite honestly if a muslim soldier died for this country I would go to the Mosque and act respectful to him and his family. To do otherwise in my opinion is nothing but selfish.

As for the prayers on parade I use it as a moment to reflect...maybe say a word or two to a buddy. The momments of religion doesnt have to be all bad. Take the moment to be alone wth your own thoughts.


----------



## George Wallace

RyanC said:
			
		

> ......... I am just asking for the right to my beliefs, and the right not to practice the beliefs of others. being a strong believing atheist i have found that i am quite the minority in the Canadian forces and feel that my religious rights are not taken seriously due to this fact.



You either have no Religion or you do.  You can't have it both ways.  If you are an Atheist, why are you asking for your "religious rights"?  You aren't supposed to have any.





			
				RyanC said:
			
		

> Again i have full respect on everyone and their religious rights



Then why the rant?  Your lack of tolerance is intolerance on your part, and I was under the impression that we as Canadians are not supposed to show intolerance to others beliefs, even though I personally believe that these policies are infringing on my freedoms and allowing less than acceptable foreign factions to impose their desires on me.  

I have never associated Remembrance Day as being a 'Religious Event'.  Your associating 'religion' to a public event shows a lack of understanding.  




			
				RyanC said:
			
		

> I am not ordered to partake in christmas



I think that perhaps you will be.  Being as you don't celebrate it, you are a prime candidate to be 'ordered' (placed on the Duty List in Routine Orders) to do Duty over that period, so that pers who do celebrate it will have the opportunity to do so.   By the way, I usually spell Christmas with a capital "C".

Many thanks from all of us who gladly do not have to do Duty on Christmas because of people like you.


----------



## ballz

Sorry, I had to cut the title to get it all to fit.

"Religious people harbour deep mistrust of atheists, about equal to rapists, says study"
By Steve Mertl | Daily Brew – Sat, 3 Dec, 2011



> Would you trust an atheist to date your sister? If you're a religious person, there's a good chance you wouldn't.
> A study by researchers at the University of British Columbia found believers distrusted atheists more than members of other religious groups, gays and feminists.
> The only group study participants distrusted as much as atheists was rapists, lead author Will Gervais told the Vancouver Sun.
> "People are willing to hire an atheist for a job that is perceived as low-trust, for instance as a waitress," said Gervais, a doctoral student. "But when hiring for a high-trust job like daycare worker, they were like, nope, not going to hire an atheist for that job."
> The study was published online in the Journal of Personality and Social Psychology.
> By contrast, Gervais said atheists did not seem to have the same level of mistrust. They were indifferent to religious belief in assessing someone's trustworthiness.
> "Atheists don't necessarily favour other atheists over Christians or anyone else," he said. "They seem to think that religion is not an important signal for who you can trust."



More at the link http://ca.news.yahoo.com/blogs/dailybrew/religious-people-harbour-deep-mistrust-of-atheists--about-equal-to-rapists--says-study.html


I'm not going to paint all religious people with the same brush, but this is a bit disappointing. While I knew atheists were the most mistrusted minority in America, I didn't think it was this bad...

So much for those religions giving them a "better" set of moral beliefs.


For the record, I'm not atheist, but I am a rationalist.


----------



## Journeyman

Sorry, but this tread went actively RTFO, so I'd best bail -- mythology (or whatever you'll call it) is WAY outside my lane.


----------



## OldSolduer

ballz said:
			
		

> Sorry, I had to cut the title to get it all to fit.
> 
> "Religious people harbour deep mistrust of atheists, about equal to rapists, says study"
> By Steve Mertl | Daily Brew – Sat, 3 Dec, 2011
> 
> More at the link http://ca.news.yahoo.com/blogs/dailybrew/religious-people-harbour-deep-mistrust-of-atheists--about-equal-to-rapists--says-study.html
> 
> 
> I'm not going to paint all religious people with the same brush, but this is a bit disappointing. While I knew atheists were the most mistrusted minority in America, I didn't think it was this bad...
> 
> So much for those religions giving them a "better" set of moral beliefs.
> 
> 
> For the record, I'm not atheist, but I am a rationalist.




I don't really care about  who or what my fire team partner worships , if anything at all.


Besides - is it not illegal to ask a person's religious beliefs on a job application?


----------



## xena

ballz said:
			
		

> While I knew atheists were the most mistrusted minority in America, I didn't think it was this bad...
> 
> So much for those religions giving them a "better" set of moral beliefs.



Well, for what it's worth, some rather vocal atheists have been having a field day setting themselves up as *opponents* to all religion, rather than just non-practioners who ignore the theists, _a la_ Hitchens, Dawkins, _et al_.  It really shouldn't come as much of a surprise that they aren't trusted by religious folks when they're pretty vocal about wanting to _*abolish*_ all religion.  A parallel example would be asking you to trust someone to date your daughter when they've got a track record of being vocal about wanting to abolish Canada and democracy, and they think that all serving military members are mindless, unthinking, baby-killing fascist automatons.  That is, presuming that Canada and democracy and the like, are something dear to your heart, and something you believe in.

And I suppose most religious people are a bit skeptical about atheist's morals in the first place.  They have no reason to have any.  The track record of Soviet Communists being nice guys (_not!  Having murdered clergy and monastics by the hundreds of thousands, so the assertions that they've never engaged in religiously motivated violence is BS_!), and the in-fighting and bickering of Madeline Murray O'Hair and her "American Atheists" organization don't help.  Oh, I know, they talk a lot about altruism and stuff...  Actual history just doesn't support the thesis.

By the way, why are you assuming religious folks are required by their morality to "trust" athiests in the first place?  I don't recall "trust" being mentioned in the 10 Commandments, or the Beatitudes.  Any ideas?


----------



## The Bread Guy

ballz said:
			
		

> For the record, I'm not atheist, but I am a rationalist.


Any religion that worships food vacuum sealed into foil pouches and housed in boxes with condiments and other goodies is certainly one I can get behind.



			
				Jim Seggie said:
			
		

> I don't really care about  who or what my fire team partner worships , if anything at all.


What comedian said something to the effect of, "why hate people based on race or religion when there's SOOOOOOOOOO many other better reasons to hate them?"


----------



## ballz

ivan the tolerable said:
			
		

> And I suppose most religious people are a bit skeptical about atheist's morals in the first place.  They have no reason to have any.  The track record of Soviet Communists being nice guys (_not!  Having murdered clergy and monastics by the hundreds of thousands, so the assertions that they've never engaged in religiously motivated violence is BS_!), and the in-fighting and bickering of Madeline Murray O'Hair and her "American Atheists" organization don't help.  Oh, I know, they talk a lot about altruism and stuff...  Actual history just doesn't support the thesis.



And Christianity gave us Hitler, the crusades, and burning "witches" (aka educated women), and the Muslims gave us 9/11 and jihads. No one is going to win in a measuring contest, and that would be missing the point anyway.



			
				ivan the tolerable said:
			
		

> By the way, why are you assuming religious folks are required by their morality to "trust" athiests in the first place?  I don't recall "trust" being mentioned in the 10 Commandments, or the Beatitudes.  Any ideas?



Actually, what I am assuming (and the whole point for posting the study) is that tolerance is a better moral practice than intolerance, and since various religions argue that they offer "moral truth," they ought to back that claim up with things like tolerance... 

But since you asked, something about "love thy neighbour as thyself" is in there somewhere...


----------



## xena

> By contrast, Gervais said atheists did not seem to have the same level of mistrust. They were indifferent to religious belief in assessing someone's trustworthiness.
> "Atheists don't necessarily favour other atheists over Christians or anyone else," he said. "They seem to think that religion is not an important signal for who you can trust."



By the way, I'd like to know exactly how he got his conclusions for this.  I'm wondering if there isn't some confirmation bias involved.


----------



## ballz

milnews.ca said:
			
		

> Any religion that worships food vacuum sealed into foil pouches and housed in boxes with condiments and other goodies is certainly one I can get behind.



I'm not sure what you're getting at?

But the comedian you're referring to (I believe George Carlin said something similar, although he wouldn't have been the only one) is damn right.


----------



## ballz

ivan the tolerable said:
			
		

> By the way, I'd like to know exactly how he got his conclusions for this.  I'm wondering if there isn't some confirmation bias involved.



There is a link to the study in the article if you are actually wondering, though I'm guessing you're just trying to deny that religions don't exactly practice tolerance.

This study was also sparked from another study in which Atheists were far and above the most stereotyped in the US when asked about presidency.


----------



## aesop081

"My imaginary friend is better than your imaginary friend"

"You can't be trusted, you don't believe in my imaginary friend"

"You can't be trusted, you don't believe in any imaginary friend"


...and i'm the one who is not trustworthy ?

 :


----------



## jollyjacktar

CDN Aviator said:
			
		

> "My imaginary friend is better than your imaginary friend"
> 
> "You can't be trusted, you don't believe in my imaginary friend"
> 
> "You can't be trusted, you don't believe in any imaginary friend"
> 
> 
> ...and i'm the one who is not trustworthy ?
> 
> :



I cannot disagree with you on this point.   :nod:


----------



## The Bread Guy

ballz said:
			
		

> I'm not sure what you're getting at?


My poor attempt at humour - *ration*alist.


----------



## TheHead

ivan the tolerable said:
			
		

> Well, for what it's worth, some rather vocal atheists have been having a field day setting themselves up as *opponents* to all religion, rather than just non-practioners who ignore the theists, _a la_ Hitchens, Dawkins, _et al_.  It really shouldn't come as much of a surprise that they aren't trusted by religious folks when they're pretty vocal about wanting to _*abolish*_ all religion.  A parallel example would be asking you to trust someone to date your daughter when they've got a track record of being vocal about wanting to abolish Canada and democracy, and they think that all serving military members are mindless, unthinking, baby-killing fascist automatons.  That is, presuming that Canada and democracy and the like, are something dear to your heart, and something you believe in.



  Atheists, Agnostics and Anti-theists have plenty of reasons to be good to their fellow human.  Morality is a result of evolutionary progression and religion doesn't have a monopoly on it and never has.  Even when religious organizations were in power and could claim they had "God on their side" they never held any moral highground.  Morality comes from our desire to help our fellow primates out in order to better eachothers lives.   I would hope Ivan that you would have morals and be able to treat other people the way you wanted to be treated for other reasons than reward and threats of eternal punishment.   

  Also you're making a huge generalization about all Atheists when you bring Hitchens or Dawkins into this.  Not all Atheists think as militantly as they do.  It's no better than comparing all theists to the Westbro Baptist Church.

*Edited for spelling*


----------



## xena

ballz said:
			
		

> And Christianity gave us Hitler, the crusades, and burning "witches" (aka educated women), and the Muslims gave us 9/11 and jihads. No one is going to win in a measuring contest, and that would be missing the point anyway.



I'm not sure about the Western heresies (RCs, Protestants and such), but I can assure you that Orthodox Christianity did not give _*anyone*_ Hitler.  At worst, a terrifically distorted and twisted version of Christianity might have incubated his opinions.  See references to Hitler's ideas about an "Aryan Christ" - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hitler_religion.  I'm pretty sure however, that most people, if they think He existed, was actually Jewish.  I'm pretty sure that's a little detail that any sort of Nazified Christianity would have to go to great lengths to dance around.

Again, the Orthodox Christians were generally _*victims*_ of the Crusades, rather than perpetrators - see the sacking of Constantinople for that one.  Historically, the burning of witches was done by *secular* courts rather than ecclesiastical ones.  Heaven know's why I'm defending the Inquisition on this point, but, in the actual history of Rome's Inquisitions, as opposed to popular assumptions, they tended towards leniency with regards to witchcraft accusations, in stark contrast to the secular courts of the day.  IIRC, only four people were convicted of witchcraft by the Inquisition over the hundreds of years of it's existence (I could be wrong about the number, but I'm pretty sure it's under a half dozen).

If anything Orthodox Christianity can be accused of, it would be giving us Stalin.  Good old Joseph, in his youth was educated in an Orthodox seminary.  Legend has it, while in Seminary, ol' Joe was serving as an acolyte (grown up version of an altar boy) and did something wrong during the service.  According to the story, the Bishop who was officiating slapped him across the face for it.  He apparently then and there silently vowed his revenge on the Church.  History shows that he got that in spades.  Moral of the story:  don't smack altar boys.   ;D



> Actually, what I am assuming (and the whole point for posting the study) is that tolerance is a better moral practice than intolerance, and since various religions argue that they offer "moral truth," they ought to back that claim up with things like tolerance...



I'm not arguing with you, as I most certainly agree that tolerance is preferable to intolerance.  However, tolerance is not a Christian virtue.  Love is.  They're not *quite* the same thing.  You can tolerate someone all the while not loving, or even trusting, them.



> But since you asked, something about "love thy neighbour as thyself" is in there somewhere...



Love and trust are not synonyms.

Interestingly, I often find myself sympathetic towards atheists, even if I don't agree with them.  Quite often their reasons for rejecting Christianity are the exact same reasons I rejected _*Western*_ Christianity.  Of course, some have a hard time understanding that not all Christians believe in a God that "so loved the world that He sent His only-begotten son so He could torture Him to death in a most horrific fashion, which was an activity that put Him in a mood to be a teensy bit more forgiving towards everyone else."   :


----------



## xena

ballz said:
			
		

> There is a link to the study in the article if you are actually wondering...



Ooo!  Missed that!  Thanks.



> ...though I'm guessing you're just trying to deny that religions don't exactly practice tolerance.



Which would mean you're guessing wrong.  Thanks for playing though!


----------



## xena

TheHead said:
			
		

> Atheists, Agnostics and Anti-theists have plenty of reasons to be good to their fellow human.



And history shows that they're as spectacularly bad at it as Theists.  They have exactly no advantage there.  It's not religion, or the lack thereof, that is the problem.  It's human nature to be cruel to each other for personal gain.  That's historically demonstrable.  Christianity not only acknowledges that, but it's part of our doctrine in the first place.



> Also you're making a huge generalization about all Atheists when you bring Hitchens or Dawkins into this.  Not all Atheists think as militantly as they do.  It's no better than comparing all theists to the Westbro Baptist Church.



Bravo!  I was wondering if anyone was bright enough to catch that one.  I wholeheartedly agree with you.

It is, however, true that Hitchens, Dawkins, Mahr and such, are the ones that get the airtime, get their movies made and get their books published and promoted.  I'm well aware that their views are far from representative of all atheists.  Regardless of whether they represent the "loudmouth moron fringe" of atheism or not, they end up being the _de facto_ face of atheism to non-atheists.  It's kind of like how the snake-oil salesmen charlatan televangelists and the "don't confuse me with facts" creation science types end up representing Christianity to everyone else.  It's the nature of media that the sane get drown out by the shouts of the not-so-much.

BTW:  "Westboro"


----------



## TheHead

Thanks for fixing that


----------



## ballz

milnews.ca said:
			
		

> My poor attempt at humour - *ration*alist.



Sorry hahaha I laughed when I saw the big yellow words ... there is no way I should have needed that explained to me :facepalm:



			
				ivan the tolerable said:
			
		

> I'm not sure about the Western heresies (RCs, Protestants and such), but I can assure you that Orthodox Christianity did not give _*anyone*_ Hitler.





			
				ivan the tolerable said:
			
		

> And history shows that they're as spectacularly bad at it as Theists.  They have exactly no advantage there.  It's not religion, or the lack thereof, that is the problem.  It's human nature to be cruel to each other for personal gain.  That's historically demonstrable.  Christianity not only acknowledges that, but it's part of our doctrine in the first place.



Again, I think any kind of measuring of goods and bad is completely missing the point. I knew this was coming, but I don't want to get into a debate about religions, my only point in posting is to point out the hypocrisy and intolerance of all these religions towards atheism. Truth be told though, when it comes to these "bad" deeds, the point that any rationalist would make is that no atheist was motivated by atheism to do bad deeds, but various religions do motivate people to do bad things they would otherwise not do if they did not believe in that religion.



			
				ivan the tolerable said:
			
		

> Interestingly, I often find myself sympathetic towards atheists, even if I don't agree with them.  Quite often their reasons for rejecting Christianity are the exact same reasons I rejected _*Western*_ Christianity.



That's curious.



			
				ivan the tolerable said:
			
		

> It is, however, true that Hitchens, Dawkins, Mahr and such, are the ones that get the airtime, get their movies made and get their books published and promoted.  I'm well aware that their views are far from representative of all atheists.  Regardless of whether they represent the "loudmouth moron fringe" of atheism or not, they end up being the _de facto_ face of atheism to non-atheists.



Maher isn't even atheist, he's a rationalist.

Dawkins and Hitchens wanting to "abolish" religion is actually that they just want to abolish things like laws being tied to religion, and having religion taught to children in schools, etc. As far as they're concerned, they don't want anything to do with what you do inside your own home, they just don't want people's beliefs affecting what they do in their daily life. They want the separation of church and state, they don't want kids being taught in school at an early age to believe something that has no evidence to support it. They also believe that religion holds back humanity from finding answers, and they're right, the Catholic church only just recently admitted that it was wrong for putting Galileo in jail for discovering the world is round and that it orbits the sun. 

George Strombolopolous asked Christopher Hitchens, "I guess if it gets you through the night, why not right?" and he said "As long as you don't try and teach it to my children, absolutely. As long as you keep it to yourself I don't mind if you believe in virgin births or resurrections or this kind of thing. But the implication always is that you've got to believe it to or you're going to hell."
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Zrrk0CU4QlE&feature=relmfu @ 2:25 and he says something similar at 3:30 about "going and telling it on the mountain."

So here's the loud mouth moron himself saying that... doesn't sound very intolerant to me, sounds like he just wants to be left alone and not have religion imposed on him. Quite frankly it scares me when the candidate for VP of the US claims that "God has a plan."

As for Dawkins, I have never seen him be anything but patient and respectful, I'd be much less patient so I won't criticize him.

EDIT: To correct an error


----------



## Michael OLeary

ballz said:
			
		

> Again, I think any kind of measuring of goods and bad is completely missing the point. I knew this was coming, but I don't want to get into a debate about religions, my only point in posting is to point out the hypocrisy and intolerance of all these religions towards atheism.



Can you point out any official documents that are in current use by major religions to actively preach, or organize their followers, against atheism in western culture?


----------



## daftandbarmy

Which reminds me of a joke....

One bright, beautiful Sunday morning, everyone in the tiny village wakes up early and goes to their local church. Before the service starts, the townspeople sit in their pews and talk about their lives and their families.

Suddenly, at the altar, Satan appears!! Everyone starts screaming and running for the front entrance, trampling each other in their determined efforts to get away from Evil Incarnate. Soon, everyone is evacuated from the church except for one man, who sit calmly in his pew, seemingly oblivious to the fact that God's ultimate enemy is in his presence. This confuses Satan a bit. Satan walks up to the man and says, "Hey, don't you know who I am?" The man says, "Yep, sure do."

Satan says, "Well, aren't you afraid of me?" The man says, "Nope, sure ain't."

Satan, perturbed, says, "And why aren't you afraid of me?" The man says, "Well, I've been married to your sister for 25 years."


----------



## TheHead

Michael O'Leary said:
			
		

> Can you point out any official documents that are in current use by major religions to actively preach, or organize their followers, against atheism in western culture?



The Bible and the Quran.......


----------



## cupper

Taoism = Shit happens.
Buddhism = If shit happens, it's not really shit.
Islam = If shit happens, it's the will of Allah.
Protestantism = Shit happens because you don't work hard enough.
Judaism = Why does this shit always happen to us?
Hinduism = This shit happened before.
Catholicism = Shit happens because you're bad.
Hare Krishna = Shit happens rama rama.
T.V. Evangelism = Send more shit.
Atheism = No shit.
Jehova's Witness = Knock knock, shit happens.
Hedonism = There's nothing like a good shit happening.
Christian Science = Shit happens in your mind.
Agnosticism = Maybe shit happens, maybe it doesn't.
Rastafarianism = Let's smoke this shit.
Existentialism = What is shit anyway?
Stoicism = This shit doesn't bother me.


----------



## Michael OLeary

TheHead said:
			
		

> The Bible and the Quran.......



Ah yes, the first and only argument of the internet atheist, taking the stance that every Christian must be a theological literalist. Sadly, if that is all you or others can offer, you have given up any credibility or integrity you might bring to the discussion.


----------



## cupper

TheHead said:
			
		

> The Bible and the Quran.......



Be more specific.


----------



## TheHead

cupper said:
			
		

> Be more specific.



Psalms 14:1 off the top of my head.


----------



## the 48th regulator

cupper said:
			
		

> Be more specific.





			
				TheHead said:
			
		

> Psalms 14:1 off the top of my head.



Sorry cupper,

You did get Pwned.

All I have to say, is they are a bunch of Godless Heathens, is all.

dileas

tess


----------



## TheHead

Michael O'Leary said:
			
		

> Ah yes, the first and only argument of the internet atheist, taking the stance that every Christian must be a theological literalist. Sadly, if that is all you or others can offer, you have given up any credibility or integrity you might bring to the discussion.




I never said that every Christians is a literalist.  Thank god there aren't.   30% of American Christians see themselves as literalists about 49% see it as inspired. That is still a large percentage of the population.  I don't see why I can't invoke the Bible though. 79% Americans see it as at least inspired.   Should I quote pastors  who think there should be national date bases for Atheists so they can boycott their businesses?   We all know how well that worked out in the past


----------



## ballz

Michael O'Leary said:
			
		

> Ah yes, the first and only argument of the internet atheist, taking the stance that every Christian must be a theological literalist. Sadly, if that is all you or others can offer, you have given up any credibility or integrity you might bring to the discussion.



I didn't post this because and don't want to turn it into an Atheism vs Agnosticism vs Christianity vs Islam vs Hebrew vs Wicca vs ....

"Every" Christian doesn't mistrust atheists, "every" Muslim doesn't mistrust atheist, and not all atheists are tolerant. Through a large, scientific survey however, the level to which they are "mistrusted" isn't far off from the level that a rapist is mistrusted. That's pretty ridiculous. 

The point is, atheists are discriminated against, even if they aren't being actively told at church to discriminate against atheism. They are, however, being taught that if they don't believe "x" religion, they are going to hell, and that leads to a logical conclusion... other people who don't believe in "x" religion are going to hell, and who goes to hell? Evil people. 

I won't pull out the quotes that say so if you don't want me to. I'm not sure using some of the very blatant, hateful quotes from the holy books that these entire religions are based off is somehow an invalid argument, but I'm not going to since it takes away from my original point. I didn't post this to hate on anybody else's beliefs, I posted it to point out there is a problem with them hating on others beliefs.

I hope this thread doesn't spiral out of control, or into circular arguments. I just wanted to share the study. Make of it what you will, I suppose. I think it's a problem.


----------



## cupper

Being an atheist, with a Protestant mother and Catholic father, it always made filling out NOK forms interesting.

One time when clearing in at the BOR in Moncton the clerk asked "So who do we send for the call if something happens?"

Me "Send a Rabbi."

After we all stopped laughing, the Chief Clerk indicated that the decision would be based on the Primary NOK's denomination.


----------



## Michael OLeary

ballz said:
			
		

> I won't pull out the quotes that say so if you don't want me to. I'm not sure using some of the very blatant, hateful quotes from the holy books that these entire religions are based off is somehow an invalid argument, but I'm not going to since it takes away from my original point. I didn't post this to hate on anybody else's beliefs, I posted it to point out there is a problem with them hating on others beliefs.



Quote away. Then *prove* that every Catholic, Protestant, UCC, Presbyterien, etc., believes, supports and follows each of your chosen "blatant, hateful quotes" to make your case.  That is the flawed assumption you are trying to make your argument out of, and in doing so are showing the very ignorance you are trying to decry.

Feel free to choose your own belief system, but as soon as you attack others with general language, unfounded sweeping assumptions and and the inability to discuss details beyond literal biblical quotes, you have failed. The error that most internet atheists make is to suggest the Bible is the only document ever used by a Christian faith and to choose to believe it is accepted unconditionally in making their specious counter-arguments.


----------



## TheHead

Except he isn't saying EVERY theist believes in that life destroying nonsense but there is a large group that does.


----------



## cupper

the 48th regulator said:
			
		

> Sorry cupper,
> 
> You did get Pwned.
> 
> All I have to say, is they are a bunch of Godless Heathens, is all.
> 
> dileas
> 
> tess



Not Pwned. I know that there are many verses addressing lack of belief in a god in both books.

Just wanted him to be more specific. The Bible is a pretty big book.

Kinda like standing in the middle of the woods and saying "Look at the guy over there by that tree".


----------



## TheHead

cupper said:
			
		

> Not Pwned. I know that there are many verses addressing lack of belief in a god in both books.
> 
> Just wanted him to be more specific. The Bible is a pretty big book.
> 
> Kinda like standing in the middle of the woods and saying "Look at the guy over there by that tree".



That was my fault.  I should have elaborated.  Sorry.


----------



## Michael OLeary

TheHead said:
			
		

> Except he isn't saying EVERY theist believes in that life destroying nonsense but there is a large group that does.



He said "entire religions." The study mentioned above claimed to have surveyed North Americans to which I would assume he must be referring to back up his opinions of the articles' results. Will we now leap to generalizing only that some undefined "large groups" might believe something? I would have expected a little more scientific from the online community of atheism to back up their comments.


----------



## TheHead

So 30% of Christian Americans isn't a large group?


----------



## Michael OLeary

TheHead said:
			
		

> So 30% of Christian Americans isn't a large group?



So, how many stonings occurred in the Unites States last year?

Or do you think there might be some balance among all that inferred literalism?


----------



## cupper

I'm more worried about the other 3 to 4%. They know something we don't. ;D


----------



## McG

ivan the tolerable said:
			
		

> ... I suppose most religious people are a bit skeptical about atheist's morals in the first place.  They have no reason to have any.


I'd suggest that every member of a society has reason to abide by the rules that allow the society to function and exist.  Morals are a vital part of that, regardless of religion (or lack there of).



			
				Michael O'Leary said:
			
		

> ... as soon as you attack others with general language, unfounded sweeping assumptions and ...


He hasn't.  He has said everyone (atheists and individual religious groups) all have skeletons in the closet of history.  Each of the many groups has produced its villains who's behaviour has been a terrible abomination upon society.  Each of the many groups has produced its destroyers who sought to obliterate one to all of the other groups.  Therefore, identification with any of these groups should not warrant anyone being relegated to the status level of rapists.



			
				Michael O'Leary said:
			
		

> He said ...






			
				ballz said:
			
		

> No one is going to win in a measuring contest, and that would be missing the point anyway.






			
				ballz said:
			
		

> Again, I think any kind of measuring of goods and bad is completely missing the point. I knew this was coming, but I don't want to get into a debate about religions, my only point in posting is to point out the hypocrisy and intolerance of all these religions towards atheism.




Going back to an earlier question:





			
				Michael O'Leary said:
			
		

> Can you point out any official documents that are in current use by major religions to actively preach, or organize their followers, against atheism in western culture?


He has pointed to a few.  More importantly, he has pointed to documented empirical evidence that shows the members of major religions do discriminate against atheism.  This does not mean every person who identifies as a member of a religion passively persecutes atheists.  It does prove that as a collective across the continent this is happening.


----------



## ballz

Yeah I don't know how many times I have to repeat that part about "not every..."

And you asked for



			
				Michael O'Leary said:
			
		

> any official documents that are in current use



and that's what you got. The Bible and the Qu'ran are most certainly official and they are currently in use, probably used more so than any other documents you can show me.

Not every person takes it literally, but it doesn't take all of them to be destructive. And apparently it's a lot more people that I previously thought, and that's what bothers me.



			
				Michael O'Leary said:
			
		

> He said "entire religions."



I'm sorry I'm not sure what you're referring to there?


----------



## Michael OLeary

He has been trying to argue biblical literalism and has not produced a single document written by a modern theologian in current use by a major modern church to support his view.  He has only served to generalize the ignorance of some athiests towards religion overall.

I have been asking for the argument of biblical literalism to be proven. It hasn't been.

I do not consider myself a religious man. My wife is working on a Masters in Divinity, so over the past few years I have read quite a few sermons and M Div study papers. I am also in the company of other ministers and student ministers quite often. When I feel like going I attend church with her and meet with her congregations. I have yet to hear, read or see any document or spoken presentation decrying the fact that some people choose not to have a personal faith system. Neither do I ever feel uncomfortable for not being religious myself. As some do with military ceremonies, I follow services closely and ensure my actions are appropriate to the time and place. I fully understand how some people find inner strength from their faith - and I understand how, as in all human endeavours, others can go further - but their choosing to do so is not necessarily the same as persecuting others. That some may does not make an argument against the wider group. Generalizing against "religion" because "some" choose an extreme path is the flawed argument.

How often have we seen the point made here that not all Muslims are terrorists. Why should any of us who believe that stand aside and watch self-proclaimed "enlightened atheists" slag anyone who follows a religion without comment. That would only be hypocrisy.

He is welcome to make his argument, I'm only asking to see a credible one.


----------



## Michael OLeary

ballz said:
			
		

> and that's what you got. The Bible and the Qu'ran are most certainly official and they are currently in use, probably used more so than any other documents you can show me.



Are you aware that there have been theological writings since the Bible? Including many written in the modern era that are used in the education of ministers? Are you aware that placing the Bible's teachings into a modern context for today's society (including setting aside those parts with no modern context or applicability) is actually part of the education of ministers?



			
				ballz said:
			
		

> I'm sorry I'm not sure what you're referring to there?





			
				ballz said:
			
		

> I won't pull out the quotes that say so if you don't want me to. I'm not sure using some of the very blatant, hateful quotes from the holy books that these entire religions are based off is somehow an invalid argument, but I'm not going to since it takes away from my original point. I didn't post this to hate on anybody else's beliefs, I posted it to point out there is a problem with them hating on others beliefs.


----------



## McG

Michael O'Leary said:
			
		

> Generalizing against "religion" because "some" choose an extreme path is the flawed argument.


He has not done such generalizing.  He pointed to a few religious individuals who did choose an extreme path as a counter to another poster who pointed to a few atheists who did the same - the purpose of that reference was to illustrate the generalizations are a distraction from the argument.



			
				Michael O'Leary said:
			
		

> Why should any of us who believe that stand aside and watch self-proclaimed "enlightened atheists" slag anyone who follows a religion without comment.


He has not _slagged anyone [everyone] who follows a religion_.  



			
				Michael O'Leary said:
			
		

> He is welcome to make his argument, I'm only asking to see a credible one.


Here it is, documented and measurable evidence of what he is saying at an aggregate level:  http://www2.psych.ubc.ca/~will/Gervais%20et%20al-%20Atheist%20Distrust.pdf

Again, this does not mean every member of a religion is discriminating against or passively persecuting atheists.  Nor does it mean that any/most religions are officially or actively anti-atheist in the North American context.  But there is something measurable across all the individuals at an aggregate level.  That study is a credible argument.


----------



## Michael OLeary

MCG said:
			
		

> Again, this does not mean every member of a religion is discriminating against or passively persecuting atheists.  Nor does it mean that any/most religions are officially or actively anti-atheist in the North American context.  But there is something measurable across all the individuals at an aggregate level.  That study is a credible argument.



Apparently I missed the unwritten qualifiers to this:



			
				ballz said:
			
		

> Again, I think any kind of measuring of goods and bad is completely missing the point. I knew this was coming, but I don't want to get into a debate about religions, my only point in posting is to point out the hypocrisy and intolerance of all these religions towards atheism.


----------



## vonGarvin

MCG said:
			
		

> That study is a credible argument.


But that's not _his_ argument.  

This is what he said:



> Again, I think any kind of measuring of goods and bad is completely missing the point. I knew this was coming, but I don't want to get into a debate about religions, my only point in posting is to point out the hypocrisy and intolerance of all these religions towards atheism.


(My emphasis on the word "all")


Then it spiralled.


----------



## ballz

Michael O'Leary said:
			
		

> He has been trying to argue biblical literalism



No I haven't. What discussion have you been reading? I have been trying to argue that atheists don't deserve to be "relegated to the status level of rapists." (thank you MCG for articulating it that way).



			
				Michael O'Leary said:
			
		

> That some may does not make an argument against the wider group. Generalizing against "religion" because "some" choose an extreme path is the flawed argument.



I am not arguing against religion, this was never the intent and I made that very clear. Believe whatever the hell you want, just don't tell me that it's okay to put atheists on par with rapists.



			
				Michael O'Leary said:
			
		

> Why should any of us who believe that stand aside and watch self-proclaimed "enlightened atheists" slag anyone who follows a religion without comment.



I didn't proclaim myself to be enlightened, and I pointed out first and foremost that I'm not an atheist. I am claiming that atheist are being scorned as second-class citizens, and I've provided evidence of that. You can bury your head in the sand if you wish.


----------



## McG

Technoviking said:
			
		

> (My emphasis on the word "all")


The study does state at the aggregate level the membership of all the surveyed religions (which are identified in the rpt) had greater intolerance of atheists than rapists.  This was empirically measurable.  

Again, not labeling all individuals nor suggesting it is an official/active aim of the religions.  But, the intolerance exists and is measurable at the aggregate level of the individual membership.


----------



## ballz

Technoviking said:
			
		

> But that's not _his_ argument.
> 
> This is what he said:
> (My emphasis on the word "all")
> 
> 
> Then it spiralled.



Is that seriously the big bad in this whole thing? :facepalm:

If that's the part that's got me so far off from where I was goign, let me clarify. When I said "all these religions" I did not mean "every person who follows any religions." I meant "religions that are not atheist." That is the group that people who are answering these studies and generating the results are from, "all these religions other than atheism."

Who else is giving atheist this level of mistrust if not the various religious groups? It's surely not themselves.

EDIT: If I'm not being clear, just go with what MCG said, he seems to be able to articulate my own thoughts better than I can, anyway.


----------



## Michael OLeary

ballz said:
			
		

> No I haven't. What discussion have you been reading?



This one apparently:



			
				ballz said:
			
		

> The Bible and the Qu'ran are most certainly official and they are currently in use, probably used more so than any other documents you can show me.
> 
> Not every person takes it literally, but it doesn't take all of them to be destructive. And apparently it's a lot more people that I previously thought, and that's what bothers me.





			
				TheHead said:
			
		

> I don't see why I can't invoke the Bible though.



As any theological student would explain to you, before you can invoke the Bible, first you'd have to establish what version you are going to use.




			
				ballz said:
			
		

> I have been trying to argue that atheists don't deserve to be "relegated to the status level of rapists."



And who here is arguing that they should be?




			
				ballz said:
			
		

> Believe whatever the hell you want, just don't tell me that it's okay to put atheists on par with rapists.



Where have I, or anyone in the thread, supported that view?




			
				ballz said:
			
		

> I didn't proclaim myself to be enlightened, and I pointed out first and foremost that I'm not an atheist. I am claiming that atheist are being scorned as second-class citizens, and I've provided evidence of that. You can bury your head in the sand if you wish.



Seeking clarification and requesting the use of supporting documents that have been written in the modern era is hardly burying my head in the sand.


----------



## Fishbone Jones

I see the whole problem as organisation of religion. Today's religions, as they have been since they started, are about money, power and control.

All a person need is a belief carried in their heart and head. There is no need for doctrine, books or tabernacles.

Their strength, solace and morals are between them and whatever diety they choose to converse with in private.

Anything else goes back to the money, power and control triade. 

Just look at this thread for the closest example. :argument:


----------



## McG

Michael O'Leary said:
			
		

> He has been trying to argue biblical literalism


I am not convinced that he has been trying.  I believe you were the first to take the discussion down that path here:


			
				Michael O'Leary said:
			
		

> Can you point out any official documents that are in current use by major religions to actively preach, or organize their followers, against atheism in western culture?


Where you have quoted to demonstrate his attempts to argue biblical literalism, you have quoted his replies to your conversations.

Very early in this thread, there were some broad-brush statements made of atheists.  ballz countered (some what sloppily) with a few broad-brushes against religion, not for the purpose of attacking religion but for the purpose of demonstrating the irrelevance/inaccuracy of broad-brush arguments.  I think that is where the thread soured.

His concern, when you cut through the mess of this thread, is over the measurable intolerance toward atheists within North America.


----------



## ballz

Michael O'Leary said:
			
		

> This one apparently:



Key words there, "not every person takes it literally, but..."



			
				Michael O'Leary said:
			
		

> Where have I, or anyone in the thread, supported that view?



Where have I accused you or any specific person of supporting that view? A scientific study was conducted of 770 people and proves it, so it doesn't matter if one of the people who relegates them to that status is here posting in this thread or not. The point is they exist in a larger number than they ought to, and that's a damn shame.

I'm not entertaining this any longer.


----------



## cupper

recceguy said:
			
		

> I see the whole problem as organisation of religion. Today's religions, as they have been since they started, are about money, power and control.
> 
> All a person need is a belief carried in their heart and head. There is no need for doctrine, books or tabernacles.
> 
> Their strength, solace and morals are between them and whatever diety they choose to converse with in private.
> 
> Anything else goes back to the money, power and control triade.
> 
> Just look at this thread for the closest example. :argument:



 :goodpost:

A quote I heard from a very pious but open minded individual who was being challenged on his beliefs

"I don't care about your religious beliefs, so please do me the honour of not caring about mine."

(this was the cleaned up PG-13 version)


----------



## vonGarvin

ballz said:
			
		

> George Strombolopolous asked Christopher Hitchens, "I guess if it gets you through the night, why not right?" and he said "As long as you don't try and teach it to my children, absolutely. As long as you keep it to yourself I don't mind if you believe in virgin births or resurrections or this kind of thing. But the implication always is that you've got to believe it to or you're going to hell."
> http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Zrrk0CU4QlE&feature=relmfu @ 2:25 and he says something similar at 3:30 about "going and telling it on the mountain."
> 
> So here's the loud mouth moron himself saying that... *doesn't sound very intolerant to me*, sounds like he just wants to be left alone and not have religion imposed on him.


It sounds very intolerant to me.  It's not that he doesn't want religion imposed on him.  He wants it banished from his sight.  Imagine if someone were to say that they wanted something they didn't like banished from public view.  Something that is the cause du jour, such as homosexuality.  "As long as you don't try and teach it to my children, absolutely. As long as you keep it to yourself I don't mind..."


----------



## Fishbone Jones




----------



## OldSolduer

recceguy said:
			
		

>



Agreed.


----------



## vonGarvin

Yes.  Very tolerant and open-minded.  Now reread it, but replace the word "religion" with homosexuality.  

Not tolerant at all.


----------



## OldSolduer

Technoviking said:
			
		

> Yes.  Very tolerant and open-minded.  Now reread it, but replace the word "religion" with homosexuality.
> 
> Not tolerant at all.



Good point.


----------



## vonGarvin

I saw that message up on several facebook walls a few months back, and I made the same post as I just did here.  I was labeled small minded, a bigot and I don't know what else.  They made my point because they thought I was insulting gay people.

I just don't think it's tolerance when you say it's ok, but you don't want to see evidence of it's existence, that's all.


----------



## ballz

Technoviking said:
			
		

> It sounds very intolerant to me.  It's not that he doesn't want religion imposed on him.  He wants it banished from his sight.  Imagine if someone were to say that they wanted something they didn't like banished from public view.  Something that is the cause du jour, such as homosexuality.  "As long as you don't try and teach it to my children, absolutely. As long as you keep it to yourself I don't mind..."



Generally, I would think anybody trying to teach someone else's kids something isn't going to be well-received, whether that be religion, politics, sexuality, etc.

I'm treading into dangerous water here, I was considering sending it via PM as I don't think PMs would spiral out of control. I think we've moved away from the other spiral though, anyway here goes :-\

Saying that statement about homosexuals, however, would be rather unjustified. Homosexuals generally don't knock on people's doors to push homosexuality on to others, they don't try and have the schools teach kids curriculum according to beliefs, they haven't tried to have erase one of the Founding Fathers from history, and they don't try and impose laws that would restrict other people's freedoms. If they did, people probably WOULD say things like that about homosexuals a lot more.

So if you said that about homosexuals, you'd be kinda taking an unfair shot out of nowhere at them.

Religion does all of the above, so it's really not that unfair to just want to be left alone. Hitchens isn't advocating it be "taken out of sight." He's not saying don't have a Jesus Christ float at the Santa Clause parade, don't have big churches and congregations and celebrations, etc. He's saying don't do things that affect him and his family.

That said, does Hitchens believe that a world with no religion would be a better world? I am quite sure he does. He's far from alone. But that's not what he was advocating in that comment, anyway.

EDIT: By the way, I used Hitchens as an example because he is without a doubt the most intolerant and offensive of the three that were mentioned. There's no doubt he pushes the envelope. Dawkins is a much better face for atheism, and Bill Maher is just the man.


----------



## Journeyman

Technoviking said:
			
		

> Yes.  Very tolerant and open-minded.  Now reread it, but replace the word "religion" with homosexuality.
> 
> Not tolerant at all.


Now TV, while I seem destined to point out logical inconsistencies, _we both know_ that "religion" and "homosexuality" are not linguistically interchangeable in that argument.

"Homosexuality" is a hotly (can I use that term?), _hotly_ contested sub-set of the term "religion." One term predisposes conjecture on the other.

Argue fair.


----------



## cupper

Journeyman said:
			
		

> Now TV, while I seem destined to point out logical inconsistencies, _we both know_ that "religion" and "homosexuality" are not linguistically interchangeable in that argument.



Same can be said for Homosexuality and Penis.

And buy replacing penis with homosexuality, aren't you leaving out a significant portion of the LGBT community? :dunno:


----------



## Journeyman

cupper said:
			
		

> Same can be said for Homosexuality and Penis.
> 
> And buy replacing penis with homosexuality, aren't you leaving out a significant portion of the LGBT community? :dunno:


I'm sorry, I was talking with TV.   I'm familiar with his intellectual capability.

By trying to transpose penis and homosexuality, linguistically, you're .......nevermind...stick to pre-conceived notions   :


----------



## cupper

Journeyman said:
			
		

> I'm sorry, I was talking with TV.   I'm familiar with his intellectual capability.
> 
> By trying to transpose penis and homosexuality, linguistically, you're .......nevermind...stick to pre-conceived notions   :



:rofl:


----------



## Fishbone Jones

So goes the never ending Canadian saga of trying to be perfectly PC and everyone trying so hard to outdo the other of it. All in the great, unattainable effort to prove you are just that smidgen more tolerant than the person you're speaking to. So wrapped up in your own self righteousness that the other persons feelings and beliefs are to be looked down on and discounted as so much doss from the great unwashed, ignorant and pitiful masses.

Bullshit. I don't give two flying potatoes what you believe or what your soul needs to sleep at night. I won't judge you. You don't judge me.


----------



## xena

My my, I go away for a while, and the discussion spirals into a disturbingly Freudian comparison of the sizes of our philosophies.  Nonetheless, here's a response to ballz post a while back.  I come back when I've done reading the rest...



			
				ballz said:
			
		

> ...my only point in posting is to point out the hypocrisy and intolerance of all these religions towards atheism.


It shouldn't come as a shock, really.  Atheism and Theism are, by definition, intolerant of each other.  Their ideas are incompatible and cannot be combined into a philosophical hybrid.  That being said, there's no reason for people to act rudely towards each other regardless of the others belief or lack thereof.  But, if one hasn't thought deeply enough to realize that religion and atheism are incompatible beliefs, I hold little hope for one's future.


> ...no atheist was motivated by atheism to do bad deeds...


Oooo...  pretty sure there are things like facts that disagree with you on that one.  Terribly aware of the history of the persecution of Christianity (and other religions) under Soviet Communism are you?  Personally know a lot of folks who had family members killed for no other reason than believing in a deity, do you?  Just out of curiosity, what do you *think* all these martyrs were killed for?
My point is that atheists often *claim* that these horrors were perpetrated because of other reasons, but actual history shows differently.
Again, and apparently it hasn't been emphasized enough, it is HUMAN NATURE to harm and be cruel to each other.  It does not spawn from religion, but from our human nature, common to atheists and theists alike.  It just seems to me that Christianity acknowledges that a bit more readily.


> Maher isn't even atheist, he's a rationalist.


Are you sure we're talking about the same guy?  I'm talking about Bill Mahr, the guy who made the "Religulous" movie where he made all the exact same errors in logic as the people he was criticizing.  His little monologue at the end where he encourages people to become activists to ban and outlaw religion puts him, pretty solidly to my mind, in the anti-theist camp.


> Dawkins and Hitchens wanting to "abolish" religion is actually that they just want to abolish things like laws being tied to religion...


If you're talking about places like Saudi Arabia, I'm right with you on that one.  However, I'm not aware of any laws in Canada that are uniquely tied to religions, unless you're errantly assuming that things like charitable tax-exempt statuses and such are religiously motivated.  They're not.  They date from before the Government got into the social safety net business.  At the time, if you were broke, had no income, needed food, shelter, etc., the place you went to for help was a Church, Synagogue or Temple of some sort.  The social safety net was grass-roots and generally run by the various religious groups.  Sometime later, some politicians got it in their head that they could do all this so much better, so they created welfare, EI and universal health care, etc.  And all the welfare fraud examples that we can think of show exactly how good the politicians have been at it.
But also, don't fall into the trap of thinking that Church's tax-exempt status is more than it is.  It just means the Churches, and other religious organizations, don't have to pay corporate income tax, and *a portion* of what people, of their own free will, donate is tax deductible.  Oddly, donations to political parties are 100% tax deductible, whereas donation to homeless shelters and food banks are not.  It must be nice to be a politician, where you can write all the rules to be in your favour...
Other than that, I'm pretty sure neither of us would be in favour of repealing anything along the lines of "Thou shalt not murder", so I'm never too sure what laws the atheists are against...





> ...they just don't want people's beliefs affecting what they do in their daily life.


One's beliefs affects one's actions on a daily basis, regardless of whether one is aware of it or not.  This would be akin to attempting to stamp out breathing.


> They want the separation of church and state


And, in Canada at least, they have it.


> ...they don't want kids being taught in school at an early age to believe something that has no evidence to support it.


Like, that there is no God?  lol!  But seriously, it's important to note that science does not have any data that necessitates the existence of a deity, and, at the same time, it equally has exactly no data that rules it out.  The existence of God is beyond the scope of science, and frankly, science does not speak to that subject without grievious manipulation.  The idea that atheism is more scientific is a fallacy.  This little detail, of course, does not make theism any more scientific either.  Science is 100% neutral on the existence of God, and attempting to make it seem any other way is deceitful.


> They also believe that religion holds back humanity from finding answers, and they're right, the Catholic church only just recently admitted that it was wrong for putting Galileo in jail for discovering the world is round and that it orbits the sun.


Ummm...  not quite.  Galileo was never jailed for heliocentrism, and he most certainly did not discover the world is spherical.  That is a modern myth.  The Greeks knew the earth was a sphere as early as the 6th Century BC.  Galileo was put under house arrest for publicly insulting the Pope.  That is the actual historic fact.  Galileo was not the first person to suggest heliocentrism - that honour goes to a fellow by the name of Copernicus, who, by the way, remained a Priest in good standing with Rome his entire life.  In fact, a good number of Renaissance scientists were all sorts of clergy, too.  Galileo certainly improved Copernicus' ideas, but he did not discover heliocentrism.
Galileo lived in what was then part of the Papal estates, which were lock, stock and barrel ruled by the Vatican and the Pope.  At the time, the Pope was a temporal ruler, as well as a spiritual leader (and technically still is, as the Vatican City is the last vestige of these territories, and constitute an independant country within the city of Rome).  Galileo was funded by the Popes private funds (yeah, a lot of the Popes at the time came from aristocratic families with boatloads of inherited wealth, etc.  I'm not saying that's a good thing - it's just the way it was back then) both in his scientific endeavours and his day to day living.
Galileo then published a booklet where he characterized the opinions of the Pope as belonging to a character by the name of "Simplisicus".  Yup, it's Latin, but you don't need a Latin-English dictionary to figure out what it means.  He publicly called the Pope a Simpleton.  Now, considering this was a day and age when Kings and Queens routinely had people executed for less, the Vatican's imposition of house arrest was relatively pretty lenient.  So, was it really smart of Galileo to publicly insult the guy who not only was funding his science, but paying his rent for him and buying him his groceries?  I'd say not so much.  Galileo's crime was not having the sense that antagonizing the guy with the purse-strings, not to mention the power of life and death over him, was not a really good idea.  Now, does that make religion anti-science by definition?  Hardly.  And repeated assertions that it does are disingenious.
Now, does any of this give me a right to shove my beliefs down anyone's throat?  Not by a long shot!  But, nor does anyone else have the right to shove their beliefs down my throat, and that includes atheist beliefs (or lack of beliefs if one were to insist on phrasing it that way).  Attempting to make my religion something that I cannot publicly practice, or openly discuss in a respectful fashion, is not freedom of religion.  It is anti-religion which is an entirely different thing, and cannot be honestly touted under the banner of "freedom".


----------



## cupper

ivan the tolerable said:
			
		

> Terribly aware of the history of the persecution of Christianity (and other religions) under Soviet Communism are you?



Not sure that this would be the best example to use for your argument. 

Yes, the Soviet Union was officially atheist (although there was limited allowance of the orthodox faith to be practiced through state sanctioned churches) this was just a justification for the policy or religious persecution. The real driver was that the Communist Party could not allow the masses to follow beliefs which were beyond their control, and thus a possible avenue of subversive dialog from outside forces.


----------



## ballz

I've PM'd Ivan to save you all spiralling out of control thing...

Anyway, I enjoy debates about belief systems and all, but they do grow tiring. I hope, if nothing else, people look at the study I posted it and take it seriously. If that were any other group being relegated to the level of a rapist, I would be taking it just as seriously.


----------



## jollyjacktar

recceguy said:
			
		

>



  Beautiful.


----------



## observor 69

recceguy said:
			
		

> Bullshit. I don't give two flying potatoes what you believe or what your soul needs to sleep at night. I won't judge you. You don't judge me.



Best quote yet.  OMG I am agreeing with recceguy.


----------



## Oldgateboatdriver

milnews.ca said:
			
		

> My poor attempt at humour - *ration*alist.



Trust me (pun intended): There are NO rations on MY "A" list.

BTW, my 2c on the study: It shows that the various religions continue to master the art of brainwashing their flocks: It's not acceptable anymore to indoctrinate them into hating and not trusting other religions, so they switch target to the one they can all agree on (and get back to "majority" status).


----------



## cupper

Couldn't decide if this fit here or the stupidest thing today topic.

Watched this on the local newscast tonight. Don't think it is an attack on atheism so much as an attack on bad art, but you decide.

(watch the newscast clip to get a better perspective, as the written article lacks somewhat)

Skeleton Santa Controversy at Loudoun County Courthouse

http://www.nbcwashington.com/news/local/Skeleton-Santa-Controversy-at-Loudoun-County-Courthouse-135070748.html

A skeleton dressed in a Santa suit and nailed to a cross was set up on the Loudoun County courthouse lawn in Leesburg on Monday.

The macabre Kris Kringle was one of the nine approved displays for this Christmas season, but it was not standing for long.  Someone tore the skeleton down, sparking a debate about free speech.


----------



## xena

cupper said:
			
		

> Not sure that this would be the best example to use for your argument.



Why do you think that would be?  Is it inferior to, say, a text-book style piece of propaganda that has been regurgitated in such a way that it isn't entirely obvious that independant thought has not been used to produce it?



> Yes, the Soviet Union was officially atheist (although there was limited allowance of the orthodox faith to be practiced through state sanctioned churches)...



Which were KGB controlled, didn't allow anyone under the age of 18 to attend, and would generally cause you to get arrested for "anti-Soviet activities" if you attended every week, unless you were one of the KGB informers (although, I'll concede that these rules varied somewhat through the years, and were inconsistently applied).  The Soviet Union was more than merely _officially_ atheist - atheism was enforced with jackboots, and people were killed by the hundreds of thousands for refusing to deny their faith.  It had nothing to do with their politics, but completely with their faith.  That was more than just "taking religion out of schools" - this was brutal, state-sanctioned murder for no other reason that the government could not legislate faith out of people, and was perpetrated almost incessantly during their regime.  Also, these "state-sanctioned" Churches were not Orthodox Churches, but mere imitations. Please see:   http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Living_Church and note that the Wikipedia authors are rather slanted and generous towards to the Soviet Government in their comments.



> ...this was just a justification for the policy or religious persecution. The real driver was that the Communist Party could not allow the masses to follow beliefs which were beyond their control, and thus a possible avenue of subversive dialog from outside forces.



Which would mean the Communists should not have allowed participation in any international sporting events, scientific endeavours, humanitarian aid, medical research, and the list goes on...  Because anyone who had any contact with non-Communists would become a "possible avenue of subersive dialog" (sic).  If they really thought the Russian Orthodox Church was a legitimate avenue for outside influences, it would mean they new nothing of Russian culture and how the Russian Church operates, much like many of the very opinionated posters here who seem to insist that they know Orthodox theology better than I do.

I'm pretty sure fairly influential figures, like, oh, I dunno, Karl Marx, for example, held religion in a slightly dimmer view than what you've very optimistically attempted to portray.

Which comes back to the point I made that you commented on:  people who have _survived_ the militantly atheist regime in Soviet Russia know very clearly that they simply had a hate-on for religion, and the spin doctoring that was put on it (which was along the lines of what you stated above) was the rough equivalent of the Nazi's saying that they killed six million Jews "for their own good", and that now someone trying to convince others that they really were a bunch of nice guys and had nothing but the best of intentions all along.  It's propaganda, and it's rubbish.  The real life experiences of these survivors count for more, to my mind at least, than any sort of political theory.

Now, that doesn't mean you have to believe in God, or not.  If you don't have any reasons to believe in God, the tooth-fairy, or the Flying Spaghetti Monster, good for you!  But, just because someone can't get their head around all the details surrounding, for example, particle physics, doesn't mean it doesn't exist.  Similarly, someone's lack of reasons to believe in God, or anything else, for that matter, has exactly no bearing on whether someone else might have good reason to believe.  Especially in a subject that has been repeatedly established that science has no bearing on.  Until someone invents a divinity-litmus, or God-o-meter that actually works, science has no evidence one way or the other.  And, considering the probably most common working definition of God, He exists (_sure, I'll say it so no one has to get their knickers in a twist:_  "if He exists") at least in part, outside of time and space.  Since science is all about measuring, observing and testing things that are part of time and space, it is beyond science's defined ability to determine the existence of God or not.

So, the fact is, atheists are just as un-scientific about their beliefs (or lack thereof) as theists are.  It seems to be an unpopular fact nowadays, but one that people will just have to learn to live with if they have any intellectual integrity.  And just as much as you might not like to have someone else's beliefs forced down your throat, I (and a few others) are tired of having unbelief (and the inexplicably arrogant and false assumption of scientific and historic superiority that seems to go with it these days!) shoved down mine.

So, everyone is free to be an atheist if they like.  They can play with semantics and re-brand themselves "rationalists" if they like.  It's a free country, so they can even be anti-theists if they like.  But, no one should be surprised, or, even more ridiculously, cry "persecution", when they get challenged on their misrepresentation (ie. _*lying*_) about things like science supporting their views, or skewing history to make it more favourable to their opinions.

You know, come to think of it, I don't think I'd be surprised if people would have trust issues with me, if I played as free and loose with the facts as the New Atheist movement does.  Just a thought...


----------



## ballz

Michael O'Leary said:
			
		

> And who here is arguing that they should be?
> 
> 
> Where have I, or anyone in the thread, supported that view?



Just wondering if you are still asking these questions and if you have read Ivan's post about how atheists have earned what that study suggests. :


----------



## xena

ballz said:
			
		

> Just wondering if you are still asking these questions and if you have read Ivan's post about how atheists have earned what that study suggests. :


And what exact post of mine are you referring to?  You may want to take a breath and have a long thought about:

1.  putting words in people's mouths; and

2.  that hyperbole can be a rhetorical device, not intended to be taken literally.

And we've already established that not all atheists (or rationalists) take liberties with history and science.  But, assertions that Galileo discovered the Earth to be spherical, that he was jailed for promoting heliocentrism and that atheists have never harmed anyone to promote their agendas prove that, at least some, do.  Should they be mistrusted for that?  Probably not, as it's likely they've just been sold a bill of goods by someone else who has been just as decieved.  Odds are, there's someone who originally twisted the truth who would be culpable, but I think it would be impossible to determine at this point, and not worth the effort.

Much more could be done by encouraging people to learn _*facts*_ about history and the world around them, rather than the mere opinions of guys who think their philisophical opinions are automatically more valid because they have an advanced degree in a completely unrelated field.


----------



## ballz

You've stated on numerous occasions from your first post to your last post about how it should be no surprise that atheists are viewed the way they are by religious people, and then tried to justify it in numerous, equally stupid ways, such as how they don't have morals, and how Stalin was an atheist, and how they're liars, blah blah blah.


And for the record, I don't need to "re-brand" myself as a rationalist. I'm not an atheist and never was. You might want to check into what "rationalism" is, before you go suggesting people of trying to "re-brand" themselves as if there was ever something wrong with their brand in the first place. I happen to think that the Big Bang Theory and the Invisible Man in the Sky Theory are equally unlikely, and anybody that portrays them as fact or won't admit that they *could* be wrong equally stupid. Some of us aren't so arrogant that we think we have all the answers.

EDIT: Before anybody makes the joke, yes, I am admitting that I don't know everything.


----------



## cupper

You do realize that you just argued the same point I was making.

The persecution had nothing to do with atheism, and everything to do with maintaining control over the population by whatever means necessary. By attacking any and all religious institutions not officially sanctioned by the government, they destroyed any hope that that religion would provide and instill, and they replaced it with fear and blind unquestionable obedience.

One aspect of atheism which the "mainstream" atheist prophets expound is the recognition of free will as motivating factor. Something which totalitarian regimes are diametrically opposed, and will stamp out.

To actually say that the Soviet Union was officially atheist was to give more credit than it deserved. It wasn't a belief that there is no God, and that religion served no purpose in life, but that there should be no belief except that of total faith and trust in the Party, in effect raising the Party to the status of a religion.


----------



## cupper

ballz said:
			
		

> Before anybody makes the joke, yes, I am admitting that I don't know everything.



Don't you just hate f'ing-I-don't-know-it-alls?

 ;D


----------



## ballz

ivan the tolerable said:
			
		

> And we've already established that not all atheists (or rationalists) take liberties with history and science.  But, assertions that Galileo discovered the Earth to be spherical, that he was jailed for promoting heliocentrism and that atheists have never harmed anyone to promote their agendas prove that, at least some, do.



Once again, you always fall back to trying to measure the good's and bad's, and once again, it's stupid. Every major religion has tried to take liberties with history and science, such as the Texas School Board trying to erase Jefferson from history because he coined the term "separation of the church and state."

As for Galileo, there's always three versions of the truth. For the record, he was charged with "heresy," "for holding as true the false doctrine taught by some that the sun is the center of the world", against the 1616 condemnation, since "it was decided at the Holy Congregation [...] on 25 Feb 1616 that [...] the Holy Office would give you an injunction to abandon this doctrine, not to teach it to others, not to defend it, and not to treat of it; and that if you did not acquiesce in this injunction, you should be imprisoned."1

That is a direct translation from the church's documents.

1. Finocchiaro, Maurice A. (1989). The Galileo Affair: A Documentary History. Berkeley, CA: University of California Press

Available online here http://web.archive.org/web/20070930013053/http://astro.wcupa.edu/mgagne/ess362/resources/finocchiaro.html


----------



## McG

Oldgateboatdriver said:
			
		

> ... my 2c on the study: It shows that the various religions continue to master the art of brainwashing their flocks: It's not acceptable anymore to indoctrinate them into hating and not trusting other religions, so they switch target to the one they can all agree on (and get back to "majority" status).


No.  It most certainly does not show that religions "continue to master the art of brainwashing their flocks."  As I pointed out, the study does not show an active, conscious or deliberate effort on the part of organized religions to target anyone or anything.  What the study shows is something (mostly) unorganized at the level of the individuals but which can be measured at the aggregate level.



			
				ivan the tolerable said:
			
		

> You know, come to think of it, I don't think I'd be surprised if people would have trust issues with me, if I played as free and loose with the facts as the New Atheist movement does.  Just a thought...


I assume this bit of verbal irony is the hyperbole to which you refer?


----------



## cupper

ivan the tolerable said:
			
		

> Just a thought...



Reminds me of the radio commercial I hear from time to time for a local non denominational evangelical church. The pastor tells a story or parable, and always end with "Not a sermon, just a thought".


----------



## Bruce Monkhouse

*This must be about the point every year where I get to call you all morons and delete this thread for wasting bandwidth.*

Bruce


----------



## daftandbarmy

Bruce Monkhouse said:
			
		

> *This must be about the point every year where I get to call you all morons and delete this thread for wasting bandwidth.*
> 
> Bruce



That would make a fine Christmas Festivus present.


----------



## xena

ballz said:
			
		

> You've stated on numerous occasions from your first post to your last post about how it should be no surprise that atheists are viewed the way they are by religious people, and then tried to justify it in numerous, equally stupid ways, such as how they don't have morals, and how Stalin was an atheist, and how they're liars, blah blah blah.



Well, atheists are the opposite of theists, are they not?  As such, it seems natural (although not proper to Chrisitan morality, but human nature being what it is...) that a certain level of antipathy exist between the two camps, no?  It's not justified, but it still shouldn't surprise anyone with two consecutive clues.

As far as "stupid" arguments go, you're entitled to your opinion of my arguments.  It doesn't make your analysis necessarily right, but there you are.  If my words gave you the impression that I thought that atheists didn't have morals, I either mis-spoke (I say that because I don't have access to my previous posts on this thread as I type this, so it would be inappropriate for me to _not_ concede this, even though I don't currently recall stating that sentiment), or you've interpreted them wrong.  My point was that atheism doesn't have any *automatic* connection to a moral code.  One could be an atheist that has a very high sense of altruism.  Another person could use atheism as a justification for sociopathic hedonism where they don't care who they hurt, manipulate or, even kill, in the pursuit of their personal sense of pleasure.  If a Christian were to do that (and many have!), they are at least a hypocrite.  Would the behaviour of the atheist who doesn't give a rodent's posterior about anyone but themselves conflict with atheism?  Certainly, they would be in conflict with altruism, but their behaviour would be completely consistent with atheism alone.  It's great when atheism and altruism go together, but history has shown that they don't always do that.  They're not automatically linked.  That's what I've been trying to explain, and that's what you've inaccurately taken for an accusation that "atheists don't have morals."  What I was trying to point out was that atheists aren't specifically required by the tenet(s) of atheism alone, to have morals.  I fail to see how that can even be debated.



> And for the record, I don't need to "re-brand" myself as a rationalist. I'm not an atheist and never was. You might want to check into what "rationalism" is, before you go suggesting people of trying to "re-brand" themselves as if there was ever something wrong with their brand in the first place.



Congratulations!  Good for you!  We should throw you a party!  I wasn't talking about you in the first place, but it's good to see your ego is healthy.  I was referring to Bill Mahr, who, in his monologue at the end of his movie "Religulous", with *exceptional clarity*, puts himself in the anti-theist camp, regardless of what label he prefers for himself.  He can use any label he likes for himself, but his views on religion are anti-theistic.  It's a matter of public record.




> I happen to think that the Big Bang Theory and the Invisible Man in the Sky Theory are equally unlikely, and anybody that portrays them as fact or won't admit that they *could* be wrong equally stupid. Some of us aren't so arrogant that we think we have all the answers.



I happen to think the Big Bang Theory (the real science thing, not the TV show) doesn't really have any serious competition at the moment, so I'm at a loss as to how one comes up with the conclusion that it's unlikely.  But, I'm not a scientist, so there may be a new theory in the process of coming into acceptance that I'm not aware of yet.

Thinking that we don't have all the answers might not be as uncommon as you may think.  It's not that unusual.  What *is* terribly unusual, it seems, is the desire, and possibly skill required, to *share*, rather than impose, what answers we have with other people.  Instead, what is terribly common, is the desire to cram one's answers down other people's throats, and force them to come to the same conclusions as the one doing the forcing.  Sharing requires give and take, respect, the willingness to learn and the ability to admit that one might have come to the wrong conclusion previously.  And before you jump to yet another conclusion, I'm not saying you don't have that.  I'm saying it's just rare in the world at large (in my opinion, based on my personal experience, of course).  And this is precisely where the militant atheists curiously perfectly imitate the fundamentalism that they purport to despise so much.

But, to go back to the original issue of religious folks allegedly not trusting atheists, roughly on the same level as rapists, I think that a mountain is being made out of a mole-hill here.  It sounds a lot like a slow news day, and a reporter took a few sound bytes from an interview, and did their best to "s@x-it-up" and make it all controversial.  I can't remember the exact statistics at the moment, but the percentage of Canadians who bother to go to a Church, Temple or Synagogue of some sort *on a regular basis* is, IIRC, less than ten percent.  The "regular basis" thing is a key point.  The percentage of Canadians that identify themselves as atheists, or refuse any religious affiliation, is roughly the same, somewhere less than ten percent.  What that means is, roughly eighty percent of Canadians don't give a flying whirl about religion one way or the other, even if they're of the curious personal opinion that they belong to a particular faith group, in even if that claim is in stark contrast to their behaviour and attitudes.

Serious practitioners of religion (that's the "regular basis" thing I mentioned earlier) tend to see the ninety percent of the population that isn't them as people who don't believe, because even if one claims to believe, it's meaningless unless it's acted upon.  Militant atheists and anti-theists tend to see the ninety percent of the population that isn't them as believers, regardless of whether the claimed faith is actually acted on.

So this, what could probably be best described as "apatheistic", portion of the populace in the middle balloons up and makes the opposite seem so imposing and "scary" to the two ends of the spectrum.  So, some religious folks might think of atheists as untrustworthy, just as some atheists might thing of religious folks as gullible dupes.  Both generalizations are wrong, but possibly emotionally understandable, no?  Plus, what do you really care what opinion less than ten percent of the population has about you?  Keep doing business with the other ninety percent and have a great day.



			
				MCG said:
			
		

> I assume this bit of verbal irony is the hyperbole to which you refer?



Yes.  And I'll take the time now to offer an apology and retraction, should anyone else decide to be offended at it.  It was not my intend to offend, or paint any group with such a wide brush, just point out that alternate perspectives exist...  Such as why Galileo was jailed.  Obviously, the official record shows he was jailed for heresy.  But, if heliocentrism was heresy, why did Copernicus (who figured out heliocentrism first!) remain a Priest in good standing with Rome his entire life?  If the Vatican was anti-science, why were they funding Galileo, and his work, in the first place?  And if heresy was the issue, why wasn't he tortured and executed for it, like the Cathars?  It seems to me, and a lot of others who try to put all the pieces together, that the heresy charge was a trumped up excuse to make the charge stick, somewhat along the lines of the "contrary to the good prejudice" stuff.  I may be wrong (!), but a simple straightforward heresy charge doesn't fit all the facts.  It seems to me that there were other factors in play here.

Mr Bobbitt, et al, you have my apologies for allowing this discussion to spiral.  I originally was trying to be helpful and postulate possible answers for ballz and his inquiry into why a certain level of mistrust may exist between two opposing groups.  At some points my emotions got the better of me, and it turned into a heated debate rather than a healthy discussion.  Once again, my apologies.


----------



## jollyjacktar

Bruce Monkhouse said:
			
		

> *This must be about the point every year where I get to call you all morons and delete this thread for wasting bandwidth.*
> 
> Bruce



Yes, please do.


----------



## PMedMoe

jollyjacktar said:
			
		

> Yes, please do.



 :nod:


----------



## SeaKingTacco

Why was this thread ever allowed to stay in Canadian Politics?

We should have an area here entitled "pointless arguments we like to have about religion every three months or so (that ultimately solves nothing) ..."

Too wordy?


----------



## Nforce2012

Hello, I'm not sure if this is the right place for this, apologies.

Today I forced by my unit to attend A rememberance ceremony, at the ceremony it was heavily religious.
There was five prayers, three readings from bible, multiple God hymns, multiple speach discussing God. About an hour of religious ceremony followed by five minutes of actual remembering. At no Time was I told that this would be so religious and unable to leave. I was wondering if there was a place I could anonymously complain about being forced to attend a religious ceremony.  Id rather not complain in public or through my direct chain for fear of career sabotage or duties. Or with my name protected.


----------



## Michael OLeary

Had you never been to a Remembrance Day service before this? How could you possibly have no idea what constitutes a Remembrance Day service?


----------



## PuckChaser

Been to a mess dinner yet? You're really gonna be upset when they say grace before the food is served.


----------



## Remius

It isn't a religious ceremony.  It has religious overtones.  And you shouldn't be "forced".  You should do it as part of being in the CF.  Nobody forced you to do anything religious at the ceremony i can guarantee that.  Yes you had to listen to a bit of stuff based on religion.  Big deal, get over it.  Small sacrfice don't you think?  Or is that too much for you?  I bet if this ceremony wasn't on a weekend maybe you wouldn't be complaining.  How about on Monday?  Planning to go into work because you object?  I doubt it. 

You are complaining about nothing.  Nobody violated your freedom of religion.  You just choose to feel that way.


----------



## mariomike

Nforce2012 said:
			
		

> Today I forced by my unit to attend A rememberance ceremony, at the ceremony it was heavily religious.



Some discussion of that two years ago.

"Remembrance Day is not a religious event. It's about remembering your predecessors and colleagues. Yes, prayers are said and hymns are sung. That's our tradition, and I hope that that does not change. You don't have to sing or pray along. You can think other thoughts or just "la la la la la" in your head while that's happening, so long as you think about your predecessors and lost colleagues during the two minutes of silence. You do not have to close your eyes or bow your head - I don't - but you have a duty to be there on parade.":
http://forums.army.ca/forums/threads/25815/post-990519.html#msg990519


----------



## Strike

So, you haven't said what your complaint is really about. That the ceremony had religious overtones?  Muffin. Usss you belong to a religion that forbids recognizing certain holidays/observances (in which case you likely wouldn't be in the military) then you need to step back and be a bit more accepting of tradition, all tradition, even if you don't like it. It's not hurting you at all.


----------



## garb811

Since joining, I have been to more Church Parades, Padre Hours, Police Memorial Services, Mess Dinners, Change of Command Parades, Colour Consecrations, Ramp Ceremonies and Service Funerals than I can remember which had at least some amount of air time for a man or woman of the cloth.  

Ironically, it's not just the big bad military that has compelled me to go to something with religious overtones.  On the civilian side, I have been to funerals, marriages, baptisms and other occasions where god (or gods in one case) was invoked, sometimes when I least expected it.

I am a life long atheist.  I don't complain though as I know it is part of my societal and military obligations.  When the religious pieces start, I opt out by thinking of other things.


----------



## cupper

I would say that the next time you are "forced" to attend a "religious" Remembrance Day ceremony, and the prayers are said, and the hymns sung, you could use the time wisely.

Perhaps you could reflect upon how the sacrifice made by those being honoured on this day allows you to live in a country that would give you the right to bitch and complain about something so small and petty.

You know, Lest We Forget, and all that. :facepalm:


----------



## Nfld Sapper

You may have noticed the small table set for one that is off on its own - it is reserved to honour our fallen comrades in arms. This symbolizes that they are with us, here in spirit. We should never forget the brave men and women who answered our nation's call [to serve] and served the cause of freedom in a special way. We are ever mindful that the sweetness of enduring peace has always been tainted by the bitterness of personal sacrifice. We are compelled to never forget that while we enjoy our daily pleasures, there are others who have endured the agonies of pain, deprivation and death.

I would like to explain the meaning of the items on this special table.

The table is round - to show our everlasting concern for our fallen comrades.
The tablecloth is white - symbolizing the purity of their motives when answering the call to duty.
The single red rose, displayed in a vase, reminds us of the life of each of our fallen comrades, and the loved ones and friends of these comrades who keep the faith.
The vase is tied with a red ribbon, symbol of our continued determination to remember our fallen comrades.
A slice of lemon on the bread plate is to remind us of the bitter fate of those who will never return.
A pinch of salt symbolizes the tears endured by the families of those who have sacrificed all.
The Holy Book represents the strength gained through faith to sustain those lost from our country.
The glass is inverted, they cannot toast with us at this time.
The chair is empty because they are no longer with us.
Let us remember - and never forget their sacrifice.

May they and their families ever be watched over and protected."

Taken from: The Regimental Rogue,  The Senior Subaltern » Mess Dinners; Advice for Subaltern Organizers of » Annex C: Toast to Fallen Comrades


----------



## Scott

Dude's a troll, don't bother.


----------



## ballz

Manitoba recently made this decision based on people's freedom of religion.

http://www.torontosun.com/2012/11/09/manitoba-students-can-opt-out-of-remembrance-day-ceremonies



> *Manitoba students can opt out of Remembrance Day ceremonies*
> 
> WINNIPEG - Allowing students to opt out of Remembrance Day services is a matter of religious freedom, Premier Greg Selinger says.
> 
> The premier said he believes an overwhelming majority of students and families wish to participate in ceremonies that honour and remember Canada's war veterans every year. But he isn't interested in forcing anyone who doesn't want to be there to attend.
> 
> "We have religious freedom in Canada and if there's a very specific reason why people, for religious purposes, don't want their children (to attend), that is an option that they have," Selinger said, noting the province has mandated all schools hold Remembrance Day services on or before Nov. 11. "The overwhelming majority of our students will participate now that we require Remembrance Day services to be part of school activities."
> 
> Selinger's comments came a day after an official with the St. James-Assiniboia School Division confirmed a couple students had opted out of Remembrance Day ceremonies in recent years. Officials with other Winnipeg-area school divisions said they couldn't recall any cases under their watch, but they'd likely allow any student to opt out if they objected to attending a school service.
> 
> Veterans expressed disappointment with that position Thursday. On Friday, federal Immigration Minister Jason Kenney joined them in objecting to the opt-out clause.
> 
> "I find it offensive," Kenney tweeted. "They don't opt out of the freedoms secured by our war dead."
> 
> Alberta Premier Alison Redford expressed disappointment Friday about a similar decision made by an Edmonton school board.
> 
> "It is our duty to respect and to honour everyone who has made that sacrifice," Redford told reporters.
> 
> — With files from Joyanne Pursaga



I agreed with the decision, although I was a bit curious why it was being referenced to religion, since to me (and I'm sure you all agree), religion has nothing to do with Remembrance Day. Let's be clear, I'm not a believer of any sort, but I'm not an atheist either. 

That said, I understood why it was being referenced to religion after attending today's ceremony at the Oromocto Mall. I, too, was pretty surprised by how much of it was a church service and how little of it was a Remembrance ceremony, and that was echoed by my peers, even those who are some form of Christian. I knew I'd hear a prayer and a reading or something, but like the OP stated, there was a lot more than expected. Religious "overtones" is a bit of an understatement.

Anyway, I wasn't going to say anything especially since New Brunswick seems to be a God-fearing place and all, but since most people are insinuating the OP is just a whiner or a troll, I figured I'd chime in with my unwanted 2 cents ;D

And no, I've never been to a Remembrance Day ceremony before (except school assemblies, they hardly count). I've always taken the day to remember and reflect on my own, in my own way, not that it's anybody's business.


----------



## SeaKingTacco

The problem is: we the CF are largely guests at ceremonies organized and run by other organizations.

We do not control the content of those services.  And they can be quite "churchy", depending on who is doing the organizing.

That said- it is not a religious ceremony, per se.


----------



## ballz

SeaKingTacco said:
			
		

> The problem is: we the CF are largely guests at ceremonies organized and run by other organizations.
> 
> We do not control the content of those services.  And they can be quite "churchy", depending on who is doing the organizing.
> 
> That said- it is not a religious ceremony, per se.



Good point, something that's probably not considered by the OP. It wasn't considered by myself. I was expecting the base to organize it's own parade and ceremony but it seems like the town did, and we were, as you suggested, just guests.


----------



## George Wallace

mariomike said:
			
		

> Some discussion of that two years ago.
> 
> "Remembrance Day is not a religious event. It's about remembering your predecessors and colleagues. Yes, prayers are said and hymns are sung. That's our tradition, and I hope that that does not change. You don't have to sing or pray along. You can think other thoughts or just "la la la la la" in your head while that's happening, so long as you think about your predecessors and lost colleagues during the two minutes of silence. You do not have to close your eyes or bow your head - I don't - but you have a duty to be there on parade.":
> http://forums.army.ca/forums/threads/25815/post-990519.html#msg990519



Or has the Legion suddenly become a religious order and the Legion Hall a Church?


----------



## turretmonster

The stupid thing is the items that so upset the OP are requested by the people who actually fought to give him the right to whine about it.  You know, the 80-90 year olds who fought in WW2 and now near the end of their days. It gives them great comfort and they have earned the right to sing the hymns and say the words of prayers of remembrance as they wish at THEIR services.  Yes we are guests, but we in uniform also have a moral obligation to be there.  


TM

 :brit poppy:


----------



## turretmonster

"Id rather not complain in public or through my direct chain for fear of career sabotage or duties"

Seriously?  Are you missing just a spine or other body parts as well?

TM


----------



## Baloo

Without getting too worked up into a froth, I think that there is some merit to the discussion of religious ceremony on Remembrance Day.

Most of us have been standing at attention or sitting in pews thinking, "where is the connection?" 

I must profess that I am not religious, haven't been in the slightest for many years. A wayward sheep, if you will. I am most definitely aware of the historical and traditional connection that most units have with certain churches or orders, and that is not a negative in and of itself. Certainly, it can apply just as easily to any cenotaph or monument.

I think where the frustration, at least in my eyes, comes from, is to what degree are we reflecting and honouring our fallen brothers and sisters, and when are we simply an assembled mass for Sunday service? To sit, stand, or kneel, for an hour or more, with no more than a passing and fleeting comment aimed at the fallen, before turning to reflections on the teachings of (insert prophet of choice). It misses the point. 

I've heard a military chaplain hold an audience captivated for an entire service, extoling the virtues of the sacrifice of our forefathers and comrades, their exploits and how much we dearly owe them. I've also heard a civilian priest spend the same amount of time reading various pieces of scripture, watching troops fall asleep or gaze into the rafters in stunned silence.

This isn't an issue, TO ME, about the inclusion of religion, so much as the fact that, let's face it, many services miss the mark. Maybe its a civilian versus military issue, I don't really know where the answer lies. 

Perhaps more of an issue of better co-ordination and discussion with those providing said services. 

But to complain about having to attend a Remembrance ceremony? Give your head a shake.


----------



## FJAG

I've read this thread twice now and it seems to me there's been a lot of piling on when perhaps there was a point that deserves debate.

As I read the question I didn't take it as a complaint about a small religious component at a remembrance ceremony but a complaint about a ceremony that was almost wholly religious in nature with very little remembering.

We all take for granted the fact that we live in a nation with a distinct Christian heritage and that as a result we have many military ceremonies where there is a minor religious element (who hasn't heard grace at a mess dinner and stood for the padre's regimental march of "Onward Christian Soldiers"). Many of those functions are compulsory.  I think though that in general we have tended to make those activities that are purely religious - church parade and padre's hour - more optional.

I won't raise the question whether or not we should take all religion out of our military ceremonies now that we have a more diverse population which includes members who, while devoutly religious, are not Christian or members who specifically oppose all religion. Someone else might by I sure don't have the guts.

But what about the issue where a soldier is ordered to go to a ceremony that is primarily in the nature of a religious ceremony of a specific denomination with which the individual does not identify? What's his recourse?


----------



## SeaKingTacco

His recourse, I think, is to politely raise the subject with CoC in exactly those terms- too little remembering occurred in a ceremony mostly overlaid with religion.

Perhaps, it would cause his unit leadership to reflect on he nature of the ceremony in which they participating.

Perhaps slightly tangential to this thread- after having now attended approximately 33 Remembrance Day ceremonies in my life, I am detecting a tendency  of certain organizers to run these things as if it were still 1947. 

Would it be too much to expect that, from time to time, we not just use last year's ceremony format, but instead acknowledge that there is a new generation of veterans and maybe, just maybe, speak to them, too, in language they might understand?  That language may be slightly less religious in nature.  I don't  know.  In recent years, the two best ceremonies that I attended were all about the act of remembrance, with some minor religious acts that I thought were still appropriate.

Perhaps the OP phrased his complaint badly- but he might still be on to something.


----------



## NavalMoose

Can nothing in this world just stay the same, maybe for the sake of continuity, or just because that's the way this ceremony is? If your knickers are in a twist about having to listen to a bit of religious speakings while at a ceremony to remember those who had fought and died so you can get said knickers in a knot, maybe wearing a uniform isn't for you.  You are a serviceman are you not and that sometimes means doing a "service" for others that might not be your idea of fun. Nobody held a gun to your head to make you join up and if you can't hold in your whining for an hour or so once a year then God help us all. Sometimes the answer is just "no" and in this case it's "suck it up and move on".


----------



## NavalMoose

What next....an app for the "new generation" so they can attend the ceremony via facebook on their phones?


----------



## dimsum

NavalMoose said:
			
		

> What next....an app for the "new generation" so they can attend the ceremony via facebook on their phones?



Hold on....you may be on to something.


----------



## Tank Troll

All this being said I do find the Remembrance Day Parades a bit more religious when they fall on a Sunday than if they fall on a weekday. I asked a Padre about this and he told me some of his peers tend to get more "preachy" on Sunday Ceremonies because they don't normally get to have there regular service because of the timings of the Remembrance Day Ceremonies. So they try to make up for it at the Remembrance Day Parade.


----------



## OldSolduer

Nforce2012 said:
			
		

> Hello, I'm not sure if this is the right place for this, apologies.
> 
> Today I forced by my unit to attend A rememberance ceremony, at the ceremony it was heavily religious.
> There was five prayers, three readings from bible, multiple God hymns, multiple speach discussing God. About an hour of religious ceremony followed by five minutes of actual remembering. At no Time was I told that this would be so religious and unable to leave. I was wondering if there was a place I could anonymously complain about being forced to attend a religious ceremony.  Id rather not complain in public or through my direct chain for fear of career sabotage or duties. Or with my name protected.



Talk to the release clerk on your wait out the door. Stop your frickin snivelling and whining.

Don't like this....GTFO.


----------



## Pat in Halifax

Jim's comment came in as I was typing but it sort of (a little stronger though!) echoes my sentiment. I am wondering how many realize too that the swearing of the allegiance to the Queen as part of what we do on enrollment should indicate that there will most definitely be religious overtones to all that we do. She is, after all, Head (I believe the correct term is actually "Supreme Governor") of the Church of England.
Take it for what it is-a commemorative event.
Someone earlier pointed out that most Services are now community run and though that is in fact true, who do you think their advisers are on organizing said events. I KNOW I am not the only one on here who has had a hand in doing just that.


----------



## Sythen

NavalMoose said:
			
		

> What next....an app for the "new generation" so they can attend the ceremony via facebook on their phones?



Because if, as a "new" Veteran, I don't want to sit at a religious ceremony, that must mean I am lazy, against tradition and some sort of yuppie, right? I don't mind religious overtones, but I do mind a religious service. Freedom of Religion is also Freedom FROM religion. The problem with the all or nothing no compromise attitude of "suck it up" is that eventually someone will take it to court, and win. Then we will have soldiers who are legally allowed to skip the ceremony. And though in a perfect world, no one would.. Everyone knows there are lazy troops everywhere who would just say heck with it.. And how long til that catches on and Nov 11 is just some long weekend for Federal Employees to get their drink on?


----------



## Bruce Monkhouse

I guess since this service should be all about you and making sure you're happy, right??


----------



## NavalMoose

Yes, in answer to your rhetorical questions

Because if, as a "new" Veteran, I don't want to sit at a religious ceremony, that must mean I am lazy, against tradition and some sort of yuppie, right


----------



## Scott

I repeat:



			
				Scott said:
			
		

> Dude's a troll, don't bother.



He hasn't been back and we have seen this crap before.


----------



## Sythen

Bruce Monkhouse said:
			
		

> I guess since this service should be all about you and making sure you're happy, right??



Because comments like this really add to the discussion.  : What happens in 30-40 years when those of my generation, who are not so religious are tired of being told to suck it up, and deal with religion being thrown in our face stop attending Nov 11? The ceremonies will then look a lot like the Legions, right? I will always remember my fallen brothers, but I don't need to sit at a cenotaph where I am made to feel unwelcome as an atheist, to honour their sacrifice.

And NavalMoose, if your opinion of me really mattered, I might be insulted.


----------



## NavalMoose

And NavalMoose, if your opinion of me really mattered, I might be insulted
Feathers are obviously ruffled.


----------



## Sythen

NavalMoose said:
			
		

> Feathers are obviously ruffled.



Speaking of trolls. Welcome to ignore. Must be fun being an internet tough guy, and calling actual war fighters lazy. Anyways, done with you.


----------



## NavalMoose

Speaking of trolls. Welcome to ignore. Must be fun being an internet tough guy, and calling actual war fighters lazy. Anyways, done with you
So when faced with someone who doesn't agree, always revert to insults and throwing out the "I've been there, you haven't" phrase when you don't know if the person has "been there" or not. Bottom line, if you don't like the ceremony, don't go, you won't be missed.  I am now also done with you.


----------



## 57Chevy

Nforce2012 said:
			
		

> At no Time was I told that this would be so religious and unable to leave.



I put together a few words to help you understand better. 

observe: verb
1. Notice or perceive (something) and register it as being significant.
2. Watch (someone or something) carefully and attentively.

observance: noun
1. The action or practice of fulfilling or respecting the requirements of law, morality, or ritual.
2. An act performed for religious or ceremonial reasons.

celebratory: adjective
1. celebrating an important event or a special occasion.

celebration: noun
1.The action of marking one's pleasure at an important event or occasion by engaging in enjoyable, typically social activity.
2.A celebratory event or series of events.

solemn: adjective
1. Deeply earnest, serious, and sober. 
2. Somberly or gravely impressive. 
3. Performed with full ceremony: a solemn High Mass.
4. Invoking the force of religion; sacred: a solemn vow.
5. Gloomy; somber.

tradition: noun
1. the handing down of statements, beliefs, legends, customs, information, etc., from generation to generation,
 especially by word of mouth or by practice: a story that has come down to us by popular tradition. 
2. something that is handed down. 
3. a long-established or inherited way of thinking or acting.
4. a continuing pattern of culture beliefs or practices. 
5. a customary or characteristic method or manner.

traditional: adjective
1. Of, relating to, or in accord with tradition.

ceremony: noun
1.  a formal event performed on a special occasion.
2.  any activity that is performed in an especially solemn elaborate or formal way.
3.  the proper or conventional behavior on some solemn occasion

remembrance: noun
1. The action of remembering something.
2. The action of remembering the dead, esp. in a ceremony.

military ceremony: noun
1. a formal ceremony performed by military personnel.

Please note here the word performed.
Or, to be more clear, 
In the performance of your duty as a soldier you will take part in and observe
the traditional solemn ceremony that is celebrated on Remembrance Day.

It's part of what is known as walking the walk and standing tall in unity with others 
for those who made the ultimate sacrifice, regardless of religious affiliation or beliefs.

Some food for thought and shared with provisions of The Copyright Act.

Why is Tradition Important?
By Elliot Temple
http://fallibleideas.com/tradition

Tradition is existing knowledge. A tradition is a group of related ideas that have lasted for a long time. In some cases people have spent that time trying to improve the ideas. We'll call that a dynamic tradition because it changes over time. In other cases, the focus has been on keeping the tradition exactly the same over time. We'll call that a static tradition because it does not change. Although these approaches are contradictory, some traditions are mixed.
 Dynamic traditions are important because they contain some of our best knowledge. Today, they contain only the best ideas any participants have thought of in the whole history of the tradition. I don't mean they are perfect, but if they missed a good idea, it was despite people's efforts, not intentional. They do a pretty good job of gathering the best ideas, and keeping those around, and discarding ideas that are discovered to be mistaken. The reason dynamic traditions are especially valuable is the sheer amount of thought, criticism and error correction that has gone into them from many people.
 Just because traditions contain valuable knowledge doesn't mean they are always right. Sometimes they aren't. I shouldn't defer to traditions just because a lot of smart people didn't see any way to improve them further. I should defer if I don't see any way to improve them further.
 If I make up a new idea, and I don't see any way to improve it further (in 20 minutes of thought), then it's not particularly reliable. I could easily have missed something. With a tradition, perhaps thousands of people put in twenty minutes of thought, and some others put in years, so even if I don't see any way to improve things, and even if I don't know much about the subject, it has an advantage over just making something up myself.
 All the knowledge in traditions can be intimidating. And no one has time to carefully and critically go through all the details of all the traditional knowledge they use. That's OK. But one should bear in mind two things. First, if something goes wrong — if there seems to be a problem — then relying on tradition isn't good enough. It's not working, and you'll need to tweak something or find another tradition. And second, a thoughtful person should critically evaluate some traditions. It's your choice which, but everyone ought to be good at something and have the experience of trying to improve some knowledge. Everyone should put some serious thought into some area. There isn't much point to life if I don't seriously think about some parts of it.
 In the case of a disagreement, an appeal to tradition is invalid. The tradition might be wrong and someone thinks it is. To address that disagreement, I have to consider their criticism of the tradition, any alternative ideas they have, and any arguments in favor of the traditional idea, and then try to work out what is true. Traditions containing people's best ideas of the past won't always be the best ideas anyone thinks of in the future. The biggest value of traditions is they can often give useful ideas that are not controversial, or starting points which partially solve problems.
 In a disagreement, although we can't say, "This is true because a lot of smart people didn't see anything wrong with it, and who are you to say they missed something?" the fact that something is a tradition is not irrelevant either. Dynamic traditions have, over the years, faced a lot of criticism. They often already include explanations of why common criticisms of the tradition are mistaken. Major traditions have existing literature that provides arguments and ideas on the subject. This literature can answer many disagreements, which are often made in ignorance.
 When we find something wrong with a tradition, if at all possible we should improve the tradition, not abandon it. We should seek a way to modify the tradition but also retain existing knowledge. To keep the most existing knowledge, our change should be as small as possible to solve the problem. If we were to start over from scratch, we may avoid the flaw we found, but we're not perfect and our new ideas will contain other flaws. And new ideas won't have the benefit of decades or centuries of people trying to find and correct flaws. We should consequently be respectful of tradition even as we find errors in it, and try to improve it with new ideas of our own.
 Static traditions are different. Although they've been around a long time, no one has been trying to find mistakes in them, so they aren't very useful. Nor are they innocuous. Consider: why does the static tradition still exist? Why didn't it disappear after its original advocates died? With a dynamic tradition, it's passed on to the next generation because people find it useful, and teach it. A static tradition, too, must have some mechanism for being passed on. But it can't be that people voluntarily learn it due to its usefulness. Because it never changes, and never corrects errors, it's not very useful. Instead, people must in some way be tricked or fooled into it, or indoctrinated, or forced, or brainwashed. Often they are pressured, and made to feel bad, sinful or guilty if they do not follow the tradition. But controlling people's emotions is difficult. Because people are creative and will try to defend themselves, it takes a lot of knowledge to reliably control or manipulate them. Where does that knowledge come from?
 Static traditions are not actually entirely static. The main ideas, doctrine or dogma is kept constant. But the way of passing it on changes. The more people try to preserve the tradition unchanged, and make sure it will last forever, the more creativity they put into mechanisms for transmitting the tradition to the next generation.
 All traditions face a selection effect. For a tradition to last, it has to be passed on from older people to younger people. But only so many ideas can be taught to the next generation. Children are only in school, and in their parents' home, for so many years. The amount of ideas is large, but it's limited. Only a certain amount of tradition can fit. Only the ones that are better at being passed on will make the cutoff.
 Dynamic traditions compete by being as useful as possible. Thus the selection effect pushes them to be better and better. They try to be true, and people like the truest ones so much that they teach them to children.
 Static traditions compete differently. They can't compete with good ideas directly, so they use other approaches such as manipulating or controlling people. In short, in some way they disable the person's creativity so he doesn't realize the tradition is low on useful truth content, and doesn't think of alternative ideas against which a static tradition can't compete. The selection effect for static traditions makes them worse, not better. Any static tradition that fails to create a permanent blind spot in the person runs a serious risk that one day he'll realize it's not a great tradition and doesn't have a lot of useful knowledge. And if he realizes that, whether he ever changes his mind or improves himself, what he won't want to do is teach it to his kids. There will never come a time when his children have some problem or question, and he thinks if he teaches them this tradition it will help them, since he knows it is not useful.
Traditions are important because they contain our best knowledge collected over the years. But they can also be dangerous. Static traditions that induce blind spots in people and are useless at everything except getting themselves taught to children. It is up to us to consider which traditions are which.
                                               ___________________________________________________________

Thoughts ?


----------



## Loachman

Hearing prayers and hymns said and sung by those that believe in God or other deity at any marriage, funeral, Remembrance Day, or other such service has never troubled me, and why should it?

Those that adhere to a faith derive comfort and joy from these things, and who am I to deny them that, even if I do not share their faith?

My only concern in the matter of faith is that people are free to practise the faith of their choosing in the manner that they see fit, so long as it causes no harm to anybody else.

We diminish ourselves by distancing ourselves from those things that give such pleasure to others.
Hearing an occasional hymn or prayer never caused anybody any harm. It is not forced religious indoctrination, which would definitely be objectionable.

I have no sympathy for the original poster. His "suffering" is about as trivial as anything could be when compared to the sacrfices made by those whom we honour on this Day.


----------



## Sythen

Loachman said:
			
		

> Hearing an occasional hymn or prayer never caused anybody any harm. It is not forced religious indoctrination, which would definitely be objectionable.
> 
> I have no sympathy for the original poster. His "suffering" is about as trivial as anything could be when compared to the sacrfices made by those whom we honour on this Day.



As I said in my first post, I have no objection to a couple hymns and reading a passage or two from the bible. Religious overtones don't bother me at all. When its an hour of church stuff and 10 minutes of wreath laying, then I get annoyed. Everything in moderation.

I definitely agree with you in regards to the OP, but just because he is a troll does not mean there is not a discussion to have.


----------



## Michael OLeary

Remembrance Day ceremonies are built on long-standing traditions. Prayers at a memorial service are not an attempt to convert. Participation by uniformed members is military ceremony, not religious rite. I have yet to see anyone propose and write an alternative service with the intent of actually promoting change. Complaining afterwards is easy.

In their origins, Remembrance Day ceremonies were a way for families and communities to remember those who fell on foreign battlefields who could and would not be repatriated for burial in family plots. Those ceremonies were conducted *in the faiths of the fallen*, who in the World Wars, from Canada, would have been predominately (although not exclusively) Christian. The Priests and Ministers who helped conduct these ceremonies would have been those from regimental churches and chapels, those same places that [consecrated] Regimental Colours still hang today in many communities. It was the honouring of lost friends and family members, most of whom would have received Christian burial rites; either abbreviated as they may have been overseas, or in full degree if they had died at home. We attend these ceremonies in honour and memory of the fallen, *it is their service, not ours*. When any of us die, we can choose the words to be said at our our memorials, but is it our place to take away the words that have been said at theirs for these long decades?


----------



## Bruce Monkhouse

Sythen,.........I'm an athiest also,...I just get tired of listening to whiny sniviling [not saying you are one yet] athiests who think listening to prayers and such at a service for the fallen is akin to some kind of hardship.

I am not there for me......................


----------



## jwtg

Reading this thread just makes me wonder what kind of services you are attending.  I've been to a remembrance day ceremony every year of my young life (father was CF and now I'm CF) and have never felt them to be religious services.  Honestly, unless your ceremonies are drastically different than anything I've ever seen, then I can't imagine you've ever been to a religious service if you think they've become the same thing.

Were you made to say 'Amen'? (Which means 'we believe' or 'we agree' or some kid of communal agreement)

Were you made to face to eastward, kneel, and pray? (If so, you've probably got a legitimate complaint)

Were you made to perform or receive a Sacrament, as they would in at least the Catholic faith? (I certainly hope not, because then there would be liturgical issues as well as personal freedom issues)

Were you made to make a declaration of faith, and a statement of your faith in God, Allah, Jesus, a Church, saints, or anything like that? (Again, you've probably got good grounds for complaint.)

Or, did you just have to listen to someone else pray/read scripture for a bit, all the while having the freedom to ignore them or reflect on your own?  If so, then I'm sorry that remembrance day ceremonies aren't cooked to order.  Many others have made good arguments for the reasons behind the traditions and religious undertones.

I can't imagine any remembrance day ceremony actually resembled a church service.  

Also, those of you who are offended, when they reach the part of the national anthem that says 'God keep our land', do you stop saluting?  Does this bother you?  Do you refuse to salute during 'God Save the Queen'?  Does that bother you?  Or are you willing to properly fulfill your uniformed responsibility to support Canada and the Monarchy despite both nation's traditions of faith?


----------



## Fishbone Jones

We've discussed this subject on a number of occasions, with the same results.

There is no need for anyone getting upset, calling out other posters, etc.

The troll that posted the thread has not been here since he put it up.

Glad you all fulfilled his expectations.

This is locked. If you need more eye poking info on the subject, search up one of the other topics that the hit and run trolls post here every year around Remembrance Day\ Christmas time.

Milnet.ca Staff


----------



## b7197

Hey all,

What do you think about the time for worship in the Exercise Op in the field?
Is it necessary or not?
If yes or not, why?
I'd like to hear from you.

Thank you.


----------



## George Wallace

Are you a Padre taking a survey?


----------



## Journeyman

Here we go again.....


----------



## the 48th regulator

Journeyman said:
			
		

> Here we go again.....



Amen to that!

dileas

tess


----------



## JorgSlice

I am a nonreligious folk. Marked so on all my papers.

When I received my I.D. Discs they were stamped with "JEW".
Never been bothered to change it because frankly I stopped caring about that stuff beyond High School.


----------



## FJAG

Its interesting that this thread popped-up when it did. I'm currently writing my fourth book and have wanted to bring to the fore the issue that one of my principle characters is a practising Roman Catholic while the other is an atheist. I've recently been researching the issue and have read several books by atheists explaining their viewpoints as well as several essays by believers as to why they believe in God. Unfortunately the later are often somewhat thin in expressing anything beyond an abiding faith and quite frankly I have been looking for good and cogent arguments that I can adopt for the religious character. That may sound crass to the faithful but quite frankly I am not looking for a straw man to knock down; its exactly the opposite, the character has strength and I don't want his belief system to be hollow.

Coming across this thread has been eye opening and I note that most of the discussions took place almost eight or nine years ago and that while some of the participants are still around many have moved on. I'd be interested where things stand now.

As a starting point I note that at times the mods had to bring some order to the discussion in effect setting some ground rules and in particular stating that participants had to show respect for others' religious beliefs. At this point I think mods should have a thought about whether this thread (and my questions) ought to be shut down or opened up further because quite frankly asking theists and atheists to show respect for each others' position is ignoring the elephant in the room. 

Its almost by definition that neither atheists nor theists respect the belief system of the other. We may be friends; we may tolerate each others existence; we frequently respect each other as individuals but there is no respect for each others' belief systems because deep down we each "know" that the other is either dead wrong or is living a fraud. 

So essentially what I'm saying to the mods is this. Lets talk about why we do or don't respect each others' belief system but keep the discussion one where still remain respectful to each other as individuals.

That said let me start with some basic facts.

1.  North American culture in the last three centuries has been dominated by two sects of the Christian faith which for much of that time was a central part of the vast majority of the peoples' lives. That faith was carried into both our education and military systems. We still have publicly funded Catholic schools in this province and until not too long ago it was clear that the "public" schools were in reality Protestant ones (I still remember reciting the Lords Prayer right after singing O Canada every day and having "bible" not "comparative religion" studies). In the military chaplain services were initiated to minister to the troops in places where access to non-military clergy were not available - a particular need for those denominations where only an ordained priest or minister could perform essential sacraments.

2.  Our society has changed. Rather than almost universal adherence to one or the other of the two principle Christian faiths we now have a large percentage of individuals who do not believe in any supreme being and another large percentage in other faiths. I do not have statistics for the Canadian military but a recent study in the US military hows the following rounded off percentages: Catholics 20%; Baptists 18%; other Protestant 22%; Other Christian 4%; No faith 25%; all others faiths 11%. What's interesting was that almost twice as many enlisted ranks identified as "no faith" as opposed to officers and that personnel under the age of 40 were twice as likely to identify as "no faith" as over 40s. My guess, and only my guess, is that in Canada the "no faith" percentage would be higher.

3.  The right to religious freedom means that a person is free to practice the religion of their choice and also that the person cannot be subjected to any particular religious belief by the state. Some of the earlier posts have discussed some (at least in my opinion) low level intrusions of religion into general service life. You should be aware however that in the US there have been very serious ones because of the upswing in the evangelical movement (particularly in their chaplain corps). Evangelicals proselytize (ie attempt to convert others). This has resulted in major issues such as the blatant attempts by senior officers to convert cadets at the USAF academy and the distribution of camouflage covered Pashto bibles to the locals by US troops in Afghanistan. 

So that leaves me with several basic questions for debate.

1.  My initial question (to help me with my novel) - with everything we have learned in the last two hundred years respecting evolution and the last hundred years about the creation of the universe, why does someone still profess a belief in a supernatural supreme being that concerns itself with the behaviour of individual humans?

2.  Considering the diversity of our military population can we practically cater to all our members' (including atheist ones) spiritual needs or even should we? Should those who profess a given religious or humanist belief seek out pastoral care privately from the civilian sector? Why can't such things as military remembrance services etc become purely secular ones in the hands of COs, RSMs etc? 

 :warstory:


----------



## BorisK

George Wallace said:
			
		

> You either have no Religion or you do.  You can't have it both ways.  If you are an Atheist, why are you asking for your "religious rights"?  You aren't supposed to have any.



This above statement would be one of the more insulting comments contained within the 20 pages I just read... not intentionally I'm sure, but still offensive. [Although to be fair the person blaming 'secular ideology' for Mao, Hitler, Stalin... Was pretty well equally offensive and profoundly ignorant.]

The notion that as an atheist it shouldn't matter if you are forced to participate in theistic activities because you have 'no religion/no beliefs/no opinions on existence' is deeply offensive.  It implies non-theists are incapable of reflection and deep understanding of reality.  Essentially an overt implication that non-theists deserve less consideration in society.  

I can keep my atheism to myself, and it does to not bother me if other people want to practice whatever they want at home, but to parade around CF members as though they are a bunch of Christian Soldiers is divisive and intolerant of those with differing views.  

We can keep many traditions as we evolve and maintain a cohesive team spirit, but paying lip service to the Vatican while on parade in front of society is hardly one of them.


----------



## the 48th regulator

BorisK said:
			
		

> We can keep many traditions as we evolve and maintain a cohesive team spirit, but paying lip service to the Vatican while on parade in front of society is hardly one of them.



And that has to be the most ignorant statement of this thread, considering the fine post right above your's, showing the historical Christian beleifs, and direction, of Canada and the CAF.

dileas

tess


----------



## OldSolduer

the 48th regulator said:
			
		

> And that has to be the most ignorant statement of this thread, considering the fine post right above your's, showing the historical Christian beleifs, and direction, of Canada and the CAF.
> 
> dileas
> 
> tess



I quite a agree. A bit more diplomacy and tact could have been used.


----------



## myself.only

BorisK said:
			
		

> ....but to parade around CF members as though they are a bunch of Christian Soldiers  is divisive and intolerant of those with differing views.
> 
> We can keep many traditions as we evolve and maintain a cohesive team spirit, but paying lip service to the Vatican while on parade in front of society  is hardly one of them.



Honestly, it seems to me you think cohesion is built by denying your mates the solace of their belief system so you don't get seen in public with them.


----------



## muskrat89

> Unfortunately the later are often somewhat thin in expressing anything beyond an abiding faith and quite frankly I have been looking for good and cogent arguments that I can adopt for the religious character



http://www.amazon.com/The-Case-Faith-Investigates-Christianity/dp/0310234697/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&qid=1381179684&sr=8-1&keywords=a+case+for+faith+lee+strobel

I would start there...


----------



## GAP

meh.....


----------



## FJAG

muskrat89 said:
			
		

> http://www.amazon.com/The-Case-Faith-Investigates-Christianity/dp/0310234697/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&qid=1381179684&sr=8-1&keywords=a+case+for+faith+lee+strobel
> 
> I would start there...



Had a look at the Amazon sample and it might fit the bill. Checked my library and they have it so have e-ordered it. Thanks for the tip.


----------



## RSipkes

How does someone in the army maintain a relationship with God in the army? I have many friends who have joined and lost their faith in God. It may not be because of the army but other reasons but there is a pattern with raises some concern for me. I am trying to get in. https://www.facebook.com/bibleversezdaily?ref=hl is a facebook page that posts daily bible texts and it helps me a lot. But I wont be able to view any of that after I join the army, right? Anyone else with this concern?


----------



## PMedMoe

Why wouldn't you be able to view Facebook after you join the Army?

As far as maintaining a relationship with God, that is your choice and your employment shouldn't have any bearing on it.

Or is this just a post to spam your a FB link?


----------



## dangerboy

Sipkes said:
			
		

> How does someone in the army maintain a relationship with God in the army? I have many friends who have joined and lost their faith in God. It may not be because of the army but other reasons but there is a pattern with raises some concern for me. I am trying to get in. https://www.facebook.com/bibleversezdaily?ref=hl is a facebook page that posts daily bible texts and it helps me a lot. But I wont be able to view any of that after I join the army, right? Anyone else with this concern?



Why do you think you can't access Facebook or read the bible if you join the forces?  During your initial training you might not be able to access Facebook daily but they will not stop you from having access to the original source material, the bible.


----------



## George Wallace

Sipkes said:
			
		

> How does someone in the army maintain a relationship with God in the army?



Well.  I don't know.  Perhaps you can ask one of the Padres/Rabbis/Imams currently serving.

As others have already pointed out, you are free to practice your faith, whatever it may be, as a member of the CAF.


----------



## vonGarvin

As I read this thread, I note that I have a Canadian Forces' issue Bible (Catholic edition) off to my side.  I suspect a facebook page spam.


----------



## GnyHwy

George Wallace said:
			
		

> As others have already pointed out, you are free to practice your faith, whatever it may be, as a member of the CAF.



Even Wiccan is recognized!


----------



## TangoTwoBravo

On the off-chance that you are sincere in your question, my service with the army has actually deepened my relationship with God.


----------



## Metsuke

As the subject says, is Germanic paganism accepted in the CAF? Would I be allowed to wear my Mjölnir necklace, a symbol of my beliefs, or would I be required to take it off?


----------



## Marchog

Is this trollery? You've been reading this article haven't you?

http://www.duffelblog.com/2014/01/marines-religious-freedom/#!bCivE6


----------



## George Wallace

Look at http://army.ca/forums/threads/99416/post-1022745.html#msg1022745

Then look at the Canadian Forces Dress Regulations on the wearing of jewelry.


----------



## brihard

Hardly an unreasonable question. Either the CF accepts religion or it does not. If it does, the same treatment must be offered to all religions. I don't see Thor'a hammer as any less silly than a kirpan, a cross necklace, not eating pork or praying five times a day.


----------



## George Wallace

Brihard said:
			
		

> Hardly an unreasonable question. Either the CF accepts religion or it does not. If it does, the same treatment must be offered to all religions. I don't see Thor'a hammer as any less silly than a kirpan, a cross necklace, not eating pork or praying five times a day.



The problem doesn't lie there.  What matters is what the Dress Regulations state on the wearing of jewelry.


----------



## Remius

Depends on wether or not it is a recognised religion in Canada.  Given that it likely falls unde new-paganism it might be.  All depends on the resaonable accomodation and how necessary the wearing of Thor's Hammer is to the religion and under what circumstances.  As much as we accomodate religion, it is surprising how accomodating and flexible some religions are when you ask the right questions.


----------



## brihard

George Wallace said:
			
		

> The problem doesn't lie there.  What matters is what the Dress Regulations state on the wearing of jewelry.



As we all know, dress regs can flex for religious requirements. The regs can't sudden become inflexible as a fabricated cop out when someone arbitrarily decides a given religion doesn't count.


----------



## Privateer

Interesting to note that, in the USA, the Department of Veterans Affairs includes "Hammer of Thor" as an authorized "emblem of belief" for inscription on the headstones of deceased veterans.  See item #55 on the link:  http://www.cem.va.gov/hmm/emblems.asp


----------



## ModlrMike

Rather than wring one's hands over the is it, is it not allowed question, perhaps wearing a chain long enough so the emblem hangs below the collar line might work. Some thing like the ID tags chain perhaps?


----------



## Brasidas

ModlrMike said:
			
		

> Rather than wring one's hands over the is it, is it not allowed question, perhaps wearing a chain long enough so the emblem hangs below the collar line might work. Some thing like the ID tags chain perhaps?



Through my courses, crucifixes were always held to that standard. "Its ok as long as I can't see it, and its not ok if I can."


----------



## Metsuke

Thanks for the replies, and thanks for the links! I am having a hard time researching this, so those links have helped.  I don't personally see any reason why it shouldn't be allowed. I don't see it as a piece of jewelry, I see it quite the same as wearing a crucifix. I know that Germanic Paganism is recognized in the USA as a religion, and has the same rights as the rest, but for Canada, i'm not sure; internet just leads me to ask.fm and wiki, which I don't trust all that well. The hammer, is one of the important symbols, but we also have bracelets, and rings, depending on which god they represent, now as I said before, I don't personally see these items as jewelry, but more as religious symbols.


----------



## jeffb

There is a CANFORGEN that covers this. It's CANFORGEN 162/12 and while most CANFORGENs are not readily available on the internet, the Routine Orders of a certain reserve unit are and they explain the policy. Available here: http://www.salh.net/docs/ROs/SALH%20RO%202013-01.pdf

Key points though: 



> Since the promulgation of ref A, the Supreme Court of Canada (SCC) has ruled that a belief does not have to be a mandatory requirement of the faith in order to trigger the right to freedom of religion under the
> Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms. There need only be a sincerely held belief, one that connects the adherent to his or her faith or idea of the divine or that the adherent believes to be a customary tenet of the religion.
> 
> 4. As a result of the SCC decision, commanders in receipt of religious or spiritual accommodation requests should not refuse accommodation on the sole basis of whether or not a belief is a confirmed requirement of the faith. Requests for accommodation on religious or spiritual grounds should also be considered in light of all other factors mentioned in ref A, a process which the local Chaplain may help facilitate, and accommodation should be granted unless it would constitute undue hardship or prevent the CF member from meeting, or being capable of meeting minimum operational standards relating to universality of service as per DOAD 5023-1.



The bottom line as I understand it, and after talking to a Padre about when faced with a similar although not exact request, was that as long as a member presents a request for religious accommodation as a sincerely held belief and there would be no breach in universality of service, the request should be granted. It would seem to me that IF this is recognized religion then you should be GTG so long as it does not breach universality of service. 

One thought I will throw out there though is that there MAY be times when wearing something around your neck may not be in your best interest from a personal safety perspective. I wear a wedding ring and there I times when I take it off as I enjoy having a finger more then I enjoy wearing my ring.


----------



## Rocky Mountains

I find the expression approved religion as being totally odious as does the government of Canada.  Everyone is free to practice their religion.  While you may very well want to wear symbolism, I would have to be convinced that it is critical to your beliefs.  According to the Charter of Rights freedom of religion is subject to reasonable limits prescribed by law as can be demonstrably justified in a free and democratic society.  Freedom of religion is not open ended.  I suspect recognized religions are those with enough members in the forces to justify the employment of Chaplains.


----------



## George Wallace

Rocky Mountains said:
			
		

> I suspect recognized religions are those with enough members in the forces to justify the employment of Chaplains.



There are not Chaplains for each and every recognized religion in the CAF.

Once again, for the OP:  Dress Regulations as to the wearing of jewelry will be the only regulations that you will have to follow.  All the rest of this discussion is fluff.


----------



## George Wallace

Metsuke said:
			
		

> Thanks for the replies, and thanks for the links! I am having a hard time researching this, so those links have helped.  I don't personally see any reason why it shouldn't be allowed. I don't see it as a piece of jewelry, I see it quite the same as wearing a crucifix. I know that Germanic Paganism is recognized in the USA as a religion, and has the same rights as the rest, but for Canada, i'm not sure; internet just leads me to ask.fm and wiki, which I don't trust all that well. The hammer, is one of the important symbols, but we also have bracelets, and rings, depending on which god they represent, now as I said before, I don't personally see these items as jewelry, but more as religious symbols.



Sorry, but they ARE considered "jewelry".


----------



## Fishbone Jones

George Wallace said:
			
		

> Sorry, but they ARE considered "jewelry".



They are no more jewelry than a kirpan or a kara are.

They are symbols of faith.


----------



## Metsuke

But these symbols mean something, they are the ideals of the religion symbolized. Its like the Kara, reminds the Sikh of his/her religious duties, Mjölnir is the same as a Kara. Since this religion is not widely recognized, it is important to remember why you wear it.


----------



## George Wallace

Metsuke said:
			
		

> But these symbols mean something, they are the ideals of the religion symbolized. Its like the Kara, reminds the Sikh of his/her religious duties, Mjölnir is the same as a Kara. Since this religion is not widely recognized, it is important to remember why you wear it.



 :

Yes.....ffs......You can wear it.  According to Dress Regulations you can wear it, but it must not be visible.  

Has that sunk in yet?


----------



## ModlrMike

Let me simplify:

You will be allowed to wear the symbol of your belief system.

You will not be allowed to go about looking like a refugee from a Mr T contest.


----------



## Colin Parkinson

My dog tags said O.D. for my religion, I insisted that it stood for Orthodox Druid    ;D


----------



## Fishbone Jones

Mine were stamped NRE, No Religion Entered.


----------



## Rheostatic

As far as ID disks go, "Pagan" (PAG) is an available option.
http://army.ca/forums/threads/99416/post-1022745.html#msg1022745


----------



## vonGarvin

jeffb said:
			
		

> I enjoy having a finger more then I enjoy wearing my ring.



[tangent]
I enjoyed my sanity more than I enjoyed wearing my wedding ring  

[/tangent]


----------



## OldSolduer

Rheostatic said:
			
		

> As far as ID disks go, "Pagan" (PAG) is an available option.
> http://army.ca/forums/threads/99416/post-1022745.html#msg1022745



Is Jedi also accepted? :


----------



## The Bread Guy

Rheostatic said:
			
		

> As far as ID disks go, "Pagan" (PAG) is an available option.
> http://army.ca/forums/threads/99416/post-1022745.html#msg1022745


Goofy question:  how does someone serve as a JEH (Jehovah's Wintess) in the CF, given the potential of needing a blood transfusion (which the religion bans)?


----------



## Oldgateboatdriver

I guess that's the whole point of dog tags (or ID disks or whatever you call them): Your supposed to read them when the soldier comes in the treatment area: "JEH he! Put him over there and let him bleed to death."


----------



## Bruce Monkhouse

Whereas I would just assume they wish to be saved and if it's a problem afterwards, then they can deal with it.  I don't think most folks follow a religion right to the letter.
I mean I know Catholics that actually had sex before they were married..................with me!!  Bazinga..........


----------



## dapaterson

Bruce Monkhouse said:
			
		

> Whereas I would just assume they wish to be saved and if it's a problem afterwards, then they can deal with it.  I don't think most folks follow a religion right to the letter.
> I mean I know Catholics that actually had sex before they were married..................with me!!  Bazinga..........



Hopefully before you were married as well.  Otherwise your wife is going to be upset.


----------



## George Wallace

Another thing; has anyone known a Jehovah's Wintess to have joined the CAF?  It is totally against every belief they have.


----------



## Bruce Monkhouse

dapaterson said:
			
		

> Hopefully before you were married as well.  Otherwise your wife is going to be upset.



Damn, I hate the small details.....


----------



## Retired AF Guy

George Wallace said:
			
		

> Another thing; has anyone known a Jehovah's Wintess to have joined the CAF?  It is totally against every belief they have.



When I was in Work Point back in the late 70's I knew a guy who_ converted_ to Jehovah Witness. And as far as I can remember he was still in a year or so afterwards when I remustered.


----------



## OldSolduer

milnews.ca said:
			
		

> Goofy question:  how does someone serve as a JEH (Jehovah's Wintess) in the CF, given the potential of needing a blood transfusion (which the religion bans)?



I'd venture a guess that there probably no Jehovah's Witnesses serving.....I could be wrong.


----------



## Messorius

milnews.ca said:
			
		

> Goofy question:  how does someone serve as a JEH (Jehovah's Wintess) in the CF, given the potential of needing a blood transfusion (which the religion bans)?



I think they ban being in the military in the first place, don't they?  Allegiance only to God's Kingdom, and all that.


----------



## The_Falcon

There are several old topics about this (well Wicca, but that gets lumped in with Pagan).  It's actually something I have wondering as well, since I have looking into/researching Asatru/Norse-Germanic Paganism, and how that would play put if I decided to get back in.


----------



## Pencil Tech

milnews.ca said:
			
		

> Goofy question:  how does someone serve as a JEH (Jehovah's Wintess) in the CF, given the potential of needing a blood transfusion (which the religion bans)?



I have some in-laws who are JEH and I don't think that could ever happen because they have a thing against uniforms of any kind, even Girl Guides, so they would never join the military.


----------



## TCBF

Bruce Monkhouse said:
			
		

> ...
> I mean I know Catholics that actually had sex before they were married..................with me!!  Bazinga..........



-Well, that's TWO sins!
-Bazinga!


----------



## xXTheOneRavenXx

As a Wiccan whose also in the military, I can say Pagan in general is allowed on the tags. My tags read: WIC. The reason I know this is because I went through Identification Services HQ to find the answer after my own issues. It's not just the CF Dress Instructions that you have to reference, but also the Religions In Canada publication put out by the government. This particular one does not include Paganism, but gives you an idea on the religious accommodation policies and are both excellent references.

http://publications.gc.ca/collections/collection_2011/dn-nd/D2-147-2008-eng.pdf

The attached document is provided by National Defense Identification Services as the updated list of religions and their abbreviations allowed  on the tags.


----------



## jollyjacktar

George Wallace said:
			
		

> Another thing; has anyone known a Jehovah's Wintess to have joined the CAF?  It is totally against every belief they have.



Yes, one of my youngest boy's school friends.  At least his mother raised him in that faith.  Can't say if he kept up with it once he became an adult.


----------



## bick

Pagan is listed as PAG. Sounds like you are good to go.


----------



## mariomike

Regarding "& in Canadian Society",

Adding a news item: "Should safety trump religious freedom?"

Jun 14, 2016 

Should turban-wearing Sikhs be exempt from motorcycle helmet laws?
http://www.680news.com/2016/06/14/should-turban-wearing-sikhs-be-exempt-from-motorcycle-helmet-laws/

That sensitive topic is being broached by the provincial government as it prepares to debate making turban-wearing Sikhs exempt from current motorcycle helmet laws.

Bill 194 seeks to amend the Ontario Highway Traffic Act to allow Sikh motorcyclists who have unshorn hair, or habitually wear a turban, to ride helmet-less.

Sikhs are allowed to ride without a helmet in British Columbia and Manitoba.


----------



## Lumber

mariomike said:
			
		

> Regarding "& in Canadian Society",
> 
> Adding a news item: "Should safety trump religious freedom?"
> 
> Jun 14, 2016
> 
> Should turban-wearing Sikhs be exempt from motorcycle helmet laws?
> http://www.680news.com/2016/06/14/should-turban-wearing-sikhs-be-exempt-from-motorcycle-helmet-laws/
> 
> That sensitive topic is being broached by the provincial government as it prepares to debate making turban-wearing Sikhs exempt from current motorcycle helmet laws.
> 
> Bill 194 seeks to amend the Ontario Highway Traffic Act to allow Sikh motorcyclists who have unshorn hair, or habitually wear a turban, to ride helmet-less.
> 
> Sikhs are allowed to ride without a helmet in British Columbia and Manitoba.



Didn't this already get looked at and thrown out in Ontario a few years back?

No! Absolutely not! I am very much pro religious-tolerance, and believe in accommodating religious preferences/practices wherever it is possible. But this is far beyond the line that I would draw.


----------



## Loachman

Lumber said:
			
		

> No! Absolutely not! I am very much pro religious-tolerance, and believe in accommodating religious preferences/practices wherever it is possible. But this is far beyond the line that I would draw.



Why? Can't adults make their own choices?


----------



## Lumber

Loachman said:
			
		

> Why? Can't adults make their own choices?



Yes,  but if history has shown me anything,  they can't make _good_ decisions.


----------



## mariomike

Loachman said:
			
		

> Why? Can't adults make their own choices?



That's what we said in 1976 when the seat-belt fines came in.  



			
				Lumber said:
			
		

> Yes,  but if history has shown me anything,  they can't make _good_ decisions.



Until the fine came in, my mother refused to wear her safety belt - it was just a lap belt back then - because she said it wrinkled her dress when she went shopping.  

And she's still driving!


----------



## Loachman

Lumber said:
			
		

> Yes,  but if history has shown me anything,  they can't make _good_ decisions.



So what? It should still be their choice, and their choice alone.

Doing anything without proper protective equipment is never a good thing, but, in this case, nobody else is likely to be harmed by a helmetless motorcycle rider, and the state should therefore butt out.


----------



## brihard

Loachman said:
			
		

> So what? It should still be their choice, and their choice alone.
> 
> Doing anything without proper protective equipment is never a good thing, but, in this case, nobody else is likely to be harmed by a helmetless motorcycle rider, and the state should therefore butt out.



Disagreed. First off, society as a whole has to pay for the medical treatment associated with motor vehicle injuries. Wearing a helmet is likely to considerably reduce the degree of critical injury.

Secondly, if someone wipes out on a motorcycle, you've probably got paramedics and police responding to that. If someone chooses not to wear their bucket, splits their head open and leaves chunks ont he roadway, that's trauma that first reponders may have trouble dealing with. They, and potentially society pay for the impact of that driver's poor decisions.

Driving is privilege, not a right. There are reasonable restrictions on licensed conduct in order to control the harm and risks to the public at large. If an adult wants to make choices not to follow those laws, so be it. But when you choose the behaviour you choose the consequences, and I'm fine with the consequences in some cases being a hefty fine / demerit points to dissuade stupid choices that negatively impact the public.


----------



## ModlrMike

Sikhs have no issue wearing helmets to go to war. They should exercise the same caution when riding a motorcycle.


----------



## Loachman

Brihard said:
			
		

> Disagreed. First off, society as a whole has to pay for the medical treatment associated with motor vehicle injuries. Wearing a helmet is likely to considerably reduce the degree of critical injury.



And also require society's payment for a lifetime of care in the case of an incapacitated yet living person who would otherwise have died. I'd doubt that anybody's actually conducted a decent study of that aspect.



			
				Brihard said:
			
		

> Secondly, if someone wipes out on a motorcycle, you've probably got paramedics and police responding to that. If someone chooses not to wear their bucket, splits their head open and leaves chunks ont he roadway, that's trauma that first reponders may have trouble dealing with. They, and potentially society pay for the impact of that driver's poor decisions.



I'll buy that one.[/quote]


----------



## mariomike

Brihard said:
			
		

> Secondly, if someone wipes out on a motorcycle, you've probably got paramedics and police responding to that. If someone chooses not to wear their bucket, splits their head open and leaves chunks ont he roadway, that's trauma that first reponders may have trouble dealing with. They, and potentially society pay for the impact of that driver's poor decisions.



Our department took that into consideration before we left the academy. They subwayed our recruit class down the old morgue, when it was still on Lombard St., to watch autopsies. They also  showed us some of the old favorites like "Mechanised Death", "Red Asphalt", "Highways of Agony" etc. 
Waste basket in the aisle for those who needed it.
( When video-tape came along later, they actually archived quite a private collection of their own. )

They really wanted to be sure that we understood what we were getting ourselves into. If you showed signs of stress ( we had not heard of PTSD back then ) during probation, you were let go. 

Regarding Sikhs and motorcycle helmets. 

As far as I am concerned, it's a tempest in a teapot compared to how much road safety has improved since when I hired on back in 1972.

There were no helmet laws back then for _anyone_, if I recall correctly.  For sure there were no seat-belt laws until 1976.  

No laminated and tempered glass windshields, airbags, crumple zones, side-impact beams, collapsible steering columns, padded dash and side boards, child car seats, improved fuel system integrity and fire retardant materials ( "the barbeque that seats four" is no longer on the road ), MADD and strict DUI enforcement, more convertibles ( before A/C in cars became common ), "suicide doors" and car doors with serious jamming problems on impact, etc...

You would almost think they are trying to put us out of business.


----------



## dimsum

mariomike said:
			
		

> You would almost think they are trying to put us out of business.



Oh no.  There are more than enough morons to ensure you guys will never worry about getting laid off (as an institution).


----------



## mariomike

Dimsum said:
			
		

> Oh no.  There are more than enough morons to ensure you guys will never worry about getting laid off (as an institution).



 ;D 

Speaking of helmet legislation,

Province's new mandatory pedestrian helmet law takes effect tomorrow
http://www.vancouverobserver.com/sustainability/2012/04/01/bcs-new-mandatory-pedestrian-helmet-law-takes-effect-tomorrow


----------



## mariomike

09/12/2016 

Sikhs barred from Dollarama store
http://www.winnipegfreepress.com/local/sikhs-barred-from-dollarama-store-393067051.html
Men wearing kirpans denied entry, file human rights complaint


----------



## daftandbarmy

Soldiers who have come under fire often find God

A study of American servicemen finds that those who have experienced combat become more devout

IN THE early years after losing both legs on the battlefield, religion held little solace for Lieutenant Dan Taylor. In “Forrest Gump”, a film released in 1994, the disabled Vietnam veteran described how army chaplains would tell him that he could walk next to God in the kingdom of heaven. “Kiss my crippled ass,” he responded, finding his comfort instead at the bottom of a bottle. Later on, while trawling for shrimp alongside the film’s title character, he taunted Forrest, asking: “Where the hell’s this God of yours?” Unexpectedly, the Almighty answered his call, delivering a storm that yielded a catch of biblical magnitude. The unbelieving lieutenant was duly convinced that God was watching him.

According to a working paper published this week by Resul Cesur, Travis Freidman and Joseph Sabia, a trio of economists in America, there is some truth to the adage that there are no atheists in foxholes. Or rather, wartime trauma often makes people turn to God. After analysing two surveys of American soldiers conducted in the late 2000s, they find compelling evidence that those who have served in combat zones and directly engaged the enemy are more likely to attend religious services regularly than are those who have not.
The authors rule out the possibility that soldiers who come under fire might be unusually devout in the first place. America’s armed forces do not consider personal beliefs when allocating soldiers to units. This meant that the three-quarters of respondents who were assigned to combat zones were roughly as pious as the remainder who were not, which created a natural experiment. 

In the first survey that the authors considered, longitudinal data were available for 482 servicemen. This meant that they could control for their attitudes to religion before deployment, as well as their demographic profiles and military records. After making such adjustments, the authors found that soldiers who had served in war zones were about seven percentage points more likely to attend weekly religious services than those without such exposure. However, the overall effect was not quite statistically significant: it was pronounced among those who had already identified as Christians when signing up, but absent among everyone else.

A second, larger survey offered more substantial evidence, considering 11,598 soldiers (though lacking in longitudinal data). Its questions were slightly different, but it showed that respondents who had exchanged fire with the enemy were about two percentage points more likely to attend religious services at least once a fortnight than were those who had not been directly involved in combat, a difference that was statistically significant. Intriguingly, the effect was particularly strong among younger troops, and those who were not officers, even after accounting for various socioeconomic factors. Perhaps junior soldiers are exposed to more traumatic events, or are simply more impressionable.

In that light, the grizzled Lieutenant Taylor seems an unlikely candidate for finding God. But his injury changes the equation. One of the strongest effects in the data was for wounded soldiers, who were about seven percentage points more likely to go to church regularly than were those who had escaped unscathed.

The surveys point to one thing that might have changed since Private Gump served in Vietnam. Although Lieutenant Taylor complained about being harangued by chaplains, respondents in the surveys who had engaged the enemy underwent secular counselling more often than they did guidance from an army padre. This suggests that it is enemy fire, not friendly priests, that makes the difference. 

Despite the solace of faith, soldiers who have come under fire disproportionately suffer from post-traumatic stress disorder and commit suicide. Lieutenant Taylor was inspired by his conversion to turn his life around and buy a pair of titanium legs. In real life, Frank Collins, a British soldier who led the raid on the Iranian Embassy in 1980, became a vicar—and later committed suicide. 

https://www.economist.com/graphic-detail/2018/09/03/soldiers-who-have-come-under-fire-often-find-god


----------



## Infanteer

A more interesting comparison would be to look at these figures compared to other Western militaries.  US society is, in general, [/url=http://www.pewresearch.org/fact-tank/2018/07/31/americans-are-far-more-religious-than-adults-in-other-wealthy-nations/]much more religious[/url] to start with.


----------



## mariomike

daftandbarmy said:
			
		

> Soldiers who have come under fire often find God



They say, "There are no atheists in foxholes."


----------



## Franko

mariomike said:
			
		

> They say, "There are no atheists in foxholes."



I can say with some confidence that "they" are full of shit. Know plenty of troops who were under contact pretty close on a regular basis and are still staunch atheists.

The padre who visited our FOB was constantly dismayed at the turnout for his services. No doubt due in part to him only showing up when someone was blown up, sticking around for a couple of days, then bugging off back to KAF because of the rockets and mortars constantly streaming in daily.

I only know of one who became "born again".

Maybe it's an American thing....


----------



## Gunner98

mariomike said:
			
		

> They say, "There are no atheists in foxholes."



https://quoteinvestigator.com/2016/11/02/foxhole/

'They' said, Trenches, then foxholes, within a half-mile of trenches, on Bataan...

"the earliest citations known to QI point to an anonymous origin during World War 1 for the adage using the word “trenches”. The World War 2 saying using the word “foxholes” also had an anonymous origin, and began circulating by April 1942. Warren J. Clear and Ernie Pyle were important popularizers of the expression. QI hypothesizes that the latter “foxholes” saying was derived directly or indirectly from the “trenches” saying. Interesting precursors were employed by Michel de Montaigne and Hannah More.

Does anyone find the incongruity in that a man/soldier finds God under fire, becomes a vicar and then commits suicide?


----------



## mariomike

Simian Turner said:
			
		

> https://quoteinvestigator.com/2016/11/02/foxhole/
> 
> 'They' said, Trenches, then foxholes, within a half-mile of trenches, on Bataan...
> 
> "the earliest citations known to QI point to an anonymous origin during World War 1 for the adage using the word “trenches”. The World War 2 saying using the word “foxholes” also had an anonymous origin, and began circulating by April 1942. Warren J. Clear and Ernie Pyle were important popularizers of the expression. QI hypothesizes that the latter “foxholes” saying was derived directly or indirectly from the “trenches” saying.





			
				Nerf herder said:
			
		

> I can say with some confidence that "they" are full of shit.



Origin, Usage, Notable counterexamples, References and External links here, if interested,
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/There_are_no_atheists_in_foxholes


----------



## Halifax Tar

Who gives a crap what anyone believes spiritually.  Just don't inflict on others, that's all I ask. 

What ever helps you sleep at night bro.


----------



## mariomike

Halifax Tar said:
			
		

> Who gives a crap what anyone believes spiritually.



That's a major discussion,

Religion in the Canadian Forces & in Canadian Society
https://army.ca/forums/threads/25815.0
25 pages.


----------



## Remius

Sigh.  

https://nationalpost.com/opinion/christie-blatchford-god-forbid-canadian-soldiers-go-anywhere-near-a-church?fbclid=IwAR0uA6sgzQ8_BM011T4EeBQ6NGg6Phfbf94BGtDtUTLsDyUX-Kv9_2P_OxY


----------



## AbdullahD

Smfh

Aren't we a Christian nation? Our head of state is Christian is she not?

Don't a significant number of our soldiers identify as a Christian? I think.. yeah, I smfh.

Abdullah


----------



## Colin Parkinson

Will he also bar his soldiers from taking part in First Nation religious ceremony as part of their official duties?


----------



## dangerboy

I can remember when I was part of the 48th Highlanders which is part of 32 CBG attending a Church parade every year. It was more of a military/unit service than a religous service.


----------



## Jarnhamar

Someone get that man a GBA+ patch.


----------



## Journeyman

The path to hell -- a non-denomination hell of course -- is paved with good intentions.  

I wouldn't be surprised if he saw this edict as a logical follow-on from the uproar (and presumed slapping from the Div Comd) that followed his approving troops in CADPAT with C7s participating in Brampton's Sikh Khalsa (Vaisakhi) parade.
    :dunno:


----------



## Remius

dangerboy said:
			
		

> I can remember when I was part of the 48th Highlanders which is part of 32 CBG attending a Church parade every year. It was more of a military/unit service than a religous service.



This is exactly what they are.  Some of these regiments have long standing relationships with these churches going back 100+ years.  Colours are layed up there, historical links to the community etc etc.

I guess with his order then any type of Remembrance day service is out of the question... :


----------



## mariomike

For reference to the discussion,

Religion in the Canadian Forces & in Canadian Society  
https://navy.ca/forums/threads/25815.200
25 pages.


----------



## Haggis

Remius said:
			
		

> I guess with his order then any type of Remembrance day service is out of the question... :



As long as it's commemorative in nature and not religious.

What concerns me even more is his complete lack of understanding of the role of honourary appointments in the Reserve Force.  You need to pick honouraries who are persons of power and influence or who have deep pockets and a benevolent bent towards "their" regiment.  That choice is better made by the units, regardless of gender and identity politics.


----------



## Jarnhamar

From the article. 



> a group of soldiers — I counted between 15 and 20 — were issued weapons, allowed to march in their military uniforms and were escorted by an armoured vehicle in the annual Khalsa parade for Canada’s Sikh community. It is considered a holy day.
> 
> The soldiers were from the Lorne Scots, one of Stepaniuk’s reserve units based in Brampton. * The CO of the unit said at the time that he signed off on the weapons only after his commander (that would presumably be Stepaniuk, or perhaps the brigadier-general above him) approved the soldiers’ participation.*
> 
> So weapons worn at a Khalsa Day parade good, though against the rules (The Canadian Armed Forces Manual of Drill and Ceremonial), according to army spokeswoman Karla Gimby.
> 
> But soldiers going anywhere near a church, bad, and against rules five years old that no one cared to enforce until now.


----------



## Haggis

> So weapons worn at a Khalsa Day parade good, though against the rules (The Canadian Armed Forces Manual of Drill and Ceremonial), according to army spokeswoman Karla Gimby.



The CAF Manual of Drill and Ceremonial doesn't speak to when soldiers will/will not parade under arms so this spokes*person* is wrong.


----------



## OldSolduer

Journeyman said:
			
		

> The path to hell -- a non-denomination hell of course -- is paved with good intentions.
> 
> I wouldn't be surprised if he saw this edict as a logical follow-on from the uproar (and presumed slapping from the Div Comd) that followed his approving troops in CADPAT with C7s participating in Brampton's Sikh Khalsa (Vaisakhi) parade.
> :dunno:



You may be right.


----------



## daftandbarmy

There are no atheists in foxholes.

This just proves how far away he is/ we all are from a foxhole these days


----------



## BeyondTheNow

Remius said:
			
		

> Sigh.
> 
> https://nationalpost.com/opinion/christie-blatchford-god-forbid-canadian-soldiers-go-anywhere-near-a-church?fbclid=IwAR0uA6sgzQ8_BM011T4EeBQ6NGg6Phfbf94BGtDtUTLsDyUX-Kv9_2P_OxY



Yup. I've heard more complaints/disappointment from members with varying time-in where I'm posted (including atheists, muslims and JWs) than support for this. The sentiment is that they were welcoming of it and had no qualms with entering a church not reflective of their beliefs. 

I get that areas such as metropolitan TO have a much higher concentration of diversity with respect to practicing religions, ethnicity, etc. and perhaps there's been mumblings. But I honestly doubt they've been so substantial as to warrant a blanket directive upheaving a long-time tradition.

I respect a building for the purpose it serves to others. I, in no way, feel obliged to, for example, go to confessional because I walked into a catholic church. I think it's safe to say the same goes for the majority of others.



			
				AbdullahD said:
			
		

> Aren't we a Christian nation?...
> 
> Abdullah



Well, not exactly. Canada, as a whole, doesn't outwardly identify as a "Christian" nation anymore. While the percentage of persons still practising the Christian faith (in all its forms/denominations) is still substantial, we've gotten away from referring to ourselves as having that foundation, as the concentration of some other organized religions has greatly increased over the last 20-30yrs.


----------



## Remius

Our regimental chapel is not the same denomination I practice (or don't depending on how you look at it).  It's about the military service, the history and respect for its place in that history. 

You would think that the CO of 32 CBG would have better things to do...


----------



## Humphrey Bogart

Journeyman said:
			
		

> The path to hell -- a non-denomination hell of course -- is paved with good intentions.
> 
> I wouldn't be surprised if he saw this edict as a logical follow-on from the uproar (and presumed slapping from the Div Comd) that followed his approving troops in CADPAT with C7s participating in Brampton's Sikh Khalsa (Vaisakhi) parade.
> :dunno:



I find this all funny because the problem with the Khalsa parade was never that Sikh soldiers were turned out; rather, it was how they were turned out that was the issue.


----------



## a_majoor

The two key takeaway quotes:



> But most of all, in such small incremental strikes, does Canadian history and tradition lose strength.



and



> Stepaniuk appears to believe there is malevolence there. He also appears to believe that the core business of the Canadian Army is diversity, not training soldiers for war. What a disservice he does to those he leads.



I'm glad that I'm not in 32 Bde, and that my time in the CAF is winding down so I no longer have to put up with or be associated with this sort of social engineering. The armed forces was one of the few places left where "output" was still more important than "process", but that is rapidly going by the wayside as well.


----------



## PPCLI Guy

Colin P said:
			
		

> Will he also bar his soldiers from taking part in First Nation religious ceremony as part of their official duties?



The problem here is that it is a parade...and hence mandatory.  

If the Unit Church Parade was at a mosque, would that change the view of posters here?  Is it okay to order Christians, Hindus, Aboriginal Peoples, Zoroastrians, atheists and agnostics to attend a an Islamic service - or even to entry an Islamic place of worship? Assuming that all the posters here would in fact be in favour of a Mosque parade, would people be okay with removing shoes on entering?  Because we remove our headdress on entering a church in accordance with norms of Christianity.

Mandatory attendance, especially in uniform, at any religious service is, in my opinion, inappropriate.  I'm not even sure I am okay with voluntary attendance in uniform, because despite what another poster has stated, Canada is not "a Christian Country" - it is a country with many Christians in it, and a long history of established Christianity in its communities.  It has just as long a tradition of secularism, and is considered to be a secular state.

So, if it was my call, I would not hold a Church Parade for any soldiers under my command.


----------



## Remius

PPCLI Guy said:
			
		

> The problem here is that it is a parade...and hence mandatory.
> 
> If the Unit Church Parade was at a mosque, would that change the view of posters here?  Is it okay to order Christians, Hindus, Aboriginal Peoples, Zoroastrians, atheists and agnostics to attend a an Islamic service - or even to entry an Islamic place of worship? Assuming that all the posters here would in fact be in favour of a Mosque parade, would people be okay with removing shoes on entering?  Because we remove our headdress on entering a church in accordance with norms of Christianity.
> 
> Mandatory attendance, especially in uniform, at any religious service is, in my opinion, inappropriate.  I'm not even sure I am okay with voluntary attendance in uniform, because despite what another poster has stated, Canada is not "a Christian Country" - it is a country with many Christians in it, and a long history of established Christianity in its communities.  It has just as long a tradition of secularism, and is considered to be a secular state.
> 
> So, if it was my call, I would not hold a Church Parade for any soldiers under my command.



What about funeral tasks with religious flavours to them?  

I've never been ordered to go to a church parade.  I have been ordered to be part of a guard or a pall bearer at a funeral. 

The message this commander is conveying is that church parade is somehow wrong.  If that is wrong then so is every other religious accommodation and observance we have in the CAF.  That isn't something I support.   Accommodating others does not have to mean not accommodating the majority. 

if we have such a long standing tradition of being secular then why are we so welcoming and accommodating people of various faiths? We either go all in or we don't.  This sort of schizo way of dealing with religion in the CAF sends all sorts of confusing messages. 

Christie B hit the nail on the head.


----------



## BeyondTheNow

PPCLI Guy said:
			
		

> ...



This is an example of a something that has significant weight and repercussions to it. How do you explain this action to the entire country? Canadians in different locations will be/are well aware of what's taking place in areas other than 32 CBG wrt military presence and participation at different venues--And here's one BG basically doing what they want as they see fit. Whether I personally agree with it or not is irrelevant. But as far as I'm concerned, this is a direction that should be either CAF-wide or not.


----------



## Humphrey Bogart

PPCLI Guy said:
			
		

> The problem here is that it is a parade...and hence mandatory.
> 
> If the Unit Church Parade was at a mosque, would that change the view of posters here?  Is it okay to order Christians, Hindus, Aboriginal Peoples, Zoroastrians, atheists and agnostics to attend a an Islamic service - or even to entry an Islamic place of worship? Assuming that all the posters here would in fact be in favour of a Mosque parade, would people be okay with removing shoes on entering?  Because we remove our headdress on entering a church in accordance with norms of Christianity.
> 
> Mandatory attendance, especially in uniform, at any religious service is, in my opinion, inappropriate.  I'm not even sure I am okay with voluntary attendance in uniform, because despite what another poster has stated, Canada is not "a Christian Country" - it is a country with many Christians in it, and a long history of established Christianity in its communities.  It has just as long a tradition of secularism, and is considered to be a secular state.
> 
> So, if it was my call, I would not hold a Church Parade for any soldiers under my command.



I think the above is a pretty fair assessment.  I am not a Religious individual myself and believe strongly that the CAF should be 100% secular.  I guess one of the issues is some of these Reserve Units have long standing associations with these Churches and not going there is a break in tradition and if there is one organization other than the RCN that cares about tradition, it is the Militia.  

I would much rather a Reserve Unit organize its own secular service and invite everyone to it but then again, they would actually have to plan/take ownership of something and that might be too hard for some  :nod:

The Honorary Colonel/Captain piece is an entirely different matter.  Honorary Colonels/Captains should have deep pockets as well as be politically connected.  I think the Military at present does a terrible job reaching out to actual business people with solid pedigrees and leveraging their connections.  Many have relatives who served in the CAF/Wars and would probably be very interested in being an Honorary if they were actually approached.  People like E.P. Taylor seem like a distant memory to the present day Canadian Military Honorary Colonels/Captains.



			
				BeyondTheNow said:
			
		

> This is an example of a something that has significant weight and repercussions to it. How do you explain this action to the entire country? Canadians in different locations will be/are well aware of what's taking place in areas other than 32 CBG wrt military presence and participation at different venues--And here's one BG basically doing what they want as they see fit. Whether I personally agree with it or not is irrelevant. But as far as I'm concerned, this is a direction that is either CAF-wide or it isn't.



Another pretty fair assessment, either all do it, or nobody does it seems to be a pretty good policy.


----------



## mariomike

daftandbarmy said:
			
		

> There are no atheists in foxholes.



I remember the "Soldiers who have come under fire often find God " discussion.  



			
				mariomike said:
			
		

> They say, "There are no atheists in foxholes."





			
				Nerf herder said:
			
		

> I can say with some confidence that "they" are full of shit. Know plenty of troops who were under contact pretty close on a regular basis and are still staunch atheists.


----------



## Jarnhamar

PPCLI Guy said:
			
		

> The problem here is that it is a parade...and hence mandatory.
> 
> If the Unit Church Parade was at a mosque, would that change the view of posters here?  Is it okay to order Christians, Hindus, Aboriginal Peoples, Zoroastrians, atheists and agnostics to attend a an Islamic service - or even to entry an Islamic place of worship? Assuming that all the posters here would in fact be in favour of a Mosque parade, would people be okay with removing shoes on entering?  Because we remove our headdress on entering a church in accordance with norms of Christianity.



I see where you're going with that (I think). I'm an atheist. I'm not a fan of the church being so closely associated with the military and parades and ceremonies but I'm desensitized to it. 
Would going to a mosque bother me? Yup it definitely would - which is probably pretty hypocritical of me if I'm being honest.

But also being honest , and without trying to go down a rabbit hole too much, I think a church is more tolerant than a mosque when it comes to observing rules. I've seen sikh's wearing turbans and if I remember correctly jewish people wearing kippah's at church and no one made a big deal about it. 

Forget about taking shoes off, would a female soldier have to enter a mosque through a side door and cover their head like the 3 female MP's who accompanied the prime minister on his visit to a mosque have to do?

I feel like churches have become pretty open to other religions and atheists alike. I'm not so sure the same can be said for mosques yet. (of course maybe I'm wrong)

I do see your point though and agree. I'd be fine with never stepping foot in a church again. 


It makes me wonder whats next on this road. 
Should we ban kilts because it's insensitive to make people from different cultures adopt Scottish customs?
Should we ban wearing medals because it makes CAF members without any medals feel inadequate in their DEU's?
Should we ban DEU's themselves because making a CAF member pick between male and female DEU's could cause gender identity stress (or something to that effect?) for members who identify as neither?


----------



## Humphrey Bogart

Jarnhamar said:
			
		

> It makes me wonder whats next on this road.
> Should we ban kilts because it's insensitive to make people from different cultures adopt Scottish customs?
> Should we ban wearing medals because it makes CAF members without any medals feel inadequate in their DEU's?
> Should we ban DEU's themselves because making a CAF member pick between male and female DEU's could cause gender identity stress (or something to that effect?) for members who identify as neither?



Sounds like we need to go back to this:







Then we can all look terrible together  ;D


----------



## daftandbarmy

Jarnhamar said:
			
		

> I see where you're going with that (I think). I'm an atheist. I'm not a fan of the church being so closely associated with the military and parades and ceremonies but I'm desensitized to it.
> Would going to a mosque bother me? Yup it definitely would - which is probably pretty hypocritical of me if I'm being honest.
> 
> But also being honest , and without trying to go down a rabbit hole too much, I think a church is more tolerant than a mosque when it comes to observing rules. I've seen sikh's wearing turbans and if I remember correctly jewish people wearing kippah's at church and no one made a big deal about it.
> 
> Forget about taking shoes off, would a female soldier have to enter a mosque through a side door and cover their head like the 3 female MP's who accompanied the prime minister on his visit to a mosque have to do?
> 
> I feel like churches have become pretty open to other religions and atheists alike. I'm not so sure the same can be said for mosques yet. (of course maybe I'm wrong)
> 
> I do see your point though and agree. I'd be fine with never stepping foot in a church again.
> 
> 
> It makes me wonder whats next on this road.
> Should we ban kilts because it's insensitive to make people from different cultures adopt Scottish customs?
> Should we ban wearing medals because it makes CAF members without any medals feel inadequate in their DEU's?
> Should we ban DEU's themselves because making a CAF member pick between male and female DEU's could cause gender identity stress (or something to that effect?) for members who identify as neither?



Church parades? Meh... I could take it or leave it.

Continuing the employment of first class Padres (of multiple faiths) to ‘minister’ to the spiritual - and other mental health and wellness needs of our troops as required?

Absolutely.


----------



## Colin Parkinson

PPCLI Guy said:
			
		

> The problem here is that it is a parade...and hence mandatory.
> 
> If the Unit Church Parade was at a mosque, would that change the view of posters here?  Is it okay to order Christians, Hindus, Aboriginal Peoples, Zoroastrians, atheists and agnostics to attend a an Islamic service - or even to entry an Islamic place of worship? Assuming that all the posters here would in fact be in favour of a Mosque parade, would people be okay with removing shoes on entering?  Because we remove our headdress on entering a church in accordance with norms of Christianity.
> 
> Mandatory attendance, especially in uniform, at any religious service is, in my opinion, inappropriate.  I'm not even sure I am okay with voluntary attendance in uniform, because despite what another poster has stated, Canada is not "a Christian Country" - it is a country with many Christians in it, and a long history of established Christianity in its communities.  It has just as long a tradition of secularism, and is considered to be a secular state.
> 
> So, if it was my call, I would not hold a Church Parade for any soldiers under my command.



I agree it should not be mandatory or any form of coercion. As part of my official work in the Public Service I have had to attend FN religious ceremonies and each meeting is started with a prayer, guess what would have happened if I stepped out to avoid that as part of my beliefs?


----------



## daftandbarmy

Colin P said:
			
		

> I agree it should not be mandatory or any form of coercion. As part of my official work in the Public Service I have had to attend FN religious ceremonies and each meeting is started with a prayer, guess what would have happened if I stepped out to avoid that as part of my beliefs?



Which is why, unlike some people, I remain a big fan of good PS unions who can help mitigate any career damage as a result of these types of personal choices.


----------



## YZT580

Atheism is making a god out of not having a god.  It is still a religious conviction.  So for those who figure that no one should be compelled to attend a religious service great.  Just don't tell those who wish to that they can't.  As for religious parades they fall under the category of tradition: the same tradition history that requires officers to wear swords and requires little bits of rope to be attached to the sleeve and so on.  Tradition is a good thing and having a commanding officer who belittles tradition is bad; particularly when dealing with reserve formations who are often (no always) anchored to a community and cling to the community's ideals.  This commanding officer is demonstrating that he knows absolutely nothing about leadership.  imho


----------



## Colin Parkinson

daftandbarmy said:
			
		

> Which is why, unlike some people, I remain a big fan of good PS unions who can help mitigate any career damage as a result of these types of personal choices.



I would still be labelled a racist and it would have impacted my ability to work with the bands, so I bit my tongue. It's very amusing when the PC crowd are expecting a "traditional FN ceremony" and then the elder gets up and recites the lords prayer, lots of squirming by the PC's much to my delight.  :nod:


----------



## Blackadder1916

Colin P said:
			
		

> . . .  As part of my official work in the Public Service . . .



And that's the difference.  As a public servant, you've had to "conduct business" (even if that business is only representing your government department) with groups while they are incorporating a religious aspect to events.  There are certain circumstances when military members have to "conduct business" at functions that may have a religious component separate from their military function; an example would be a bearer party or honour guard at a funeral.  A church parade is different; the sole purpose is to bring soldiers to a place of worship for the purpose of worship, there is no other separate military requirement for them to be there.

I remember church parades at Cornwallis, if you didn't attend one of the services, you had to remain outside the chapel until the service (and the after-service coffee and cake) was over.  At least at CFOCS Chilliwack, the mandatory attendance (inside or outside the church) was limited to the first Sunday.  Thankfully, that sort of stupidity is passed, or I hope it is as I noted in Ms Blatchford's article that the mandatory attendance at religious services has been prohibited for at least five years according to the Chaplain's Manual.

PPCLI Guy's comments were spot on.


----------



## BeyondTheNow

YZT580 said:
			
		

> Atheism is making a god out of not having a god.  It is still a religious conviction.  So for those who figure that no one should be compelled to attend a religious service great.  Just don't tell those who wish to that they can't.  As for religious parades they fall under the category of tradition: the same tradition history that requires officers to wear swords and requires little bits of rope to be attached to the sleeve and so on.  Tradition is a good thing and having a commanding officer who belittles tradition is bad; particularly when dealing with reserve formations who are often (no always) anchored to a community and cling to the community's ideals.  This commanding officer is demonstrating that he knows absolutely nothing about leadership.  imho



Bingo.

And what you outlined is happening almost verbatim. At least 1 25+ year serving mbr of the unit wants to attend the church service that up until now the unit has paraded to every year. The mbr is now being told that they're forbidden to attend. A couple of honouraries have voiced their confusion and displeasure with the situation, and word is now getting out to community members who frequent the occasion(s) also. This is becoming nothing but another bad PR run for CAF. As well, some are of the belief that the unit itself made this decision, so thus begins the damage control...


----------



## ModlrMike

Atheism = I don't believe, but it's fine if you do.

Antitheism = I don't believe, and it's wrong if you do.


----------



## AbdullahD

Jarnhamar said:
			
		

> I see where you're going with that (I think). I'm an atheist. I'm not a fan of the church being so closely associated with the military and parades and ceremonies but I'm desensitized to it.
> Would going to a mosque bother me? Yup it definitely would - which is probably pretty hypocritical of me if I'm being honest.
> 
> But also being honest , and without trying to go down a rabbit hole too much, I think a church is more tolerant than a mosque when it comes to observing rules. I've seen sikh's wearing turbans and if I remember correctly jewish people wearing kippah's at church and no one made a big deal about it.
> 
> Forget about taking shoes off, would a female soldier have to enter a mosque through a side door and cover their head like the 3 female MP's who accompanied the prime minister on his visit to a mosque have to do?
> 
> I feel like churches have become pretty open to other religions and atheists alike. I'm not so sure the same can be said for mosques yet. (of course maybe I'm wrong)
> 
> I do see your point though and agree. I'd be fine with never stepping foot in a church again.
> 
> 
> It makes me wonder whats next on this road.
> Should we ban kilts because it's insensitive to make people from different cultures adopt Scottish customs?
> Should we ban wearing medals because it makes CAF members without any medals feel inadequate in their DEU's?
> Should we ban DEU's themselves because making a CAF member pick between male and female DEU's could cause gender identity stress (or something to that effect?) for members who identify as neither?



You are.. not wrong. Sadly. Doesn't make it right, logical or mature. 

But you are not wrong, far to many mosques are backwards in regards to respect between the sexes. But not all.. just disproportionately more Mosques, sadly.

Now having said that, all the mosques that I have been too, have been pretty accepting of other religions as long as an issue was not being made of it. So I would not foresee a huge issue with CF members doing anything at a Mosque... heck most likely our esteemed Ladies would be ok as well to stay with the CF men.. but... yeah... (having said that I have seen a Pastor come, accidentally make the wrong statement and hahaha lol yeah... good times lol)

But again this is Islamic culture not the religion.

This road has no end, because to many Canadians are.. what is it called? Virtue signalling? Instead of maturing and respecting other religions, cultures, ideologies and political convictions.. they feel the need to force everyone into a bland version of Canada.. were everyone acts how certain groups of people demand they act.

I am upset about this because the CF was to me, a bastion against this idiotic onslaught. In a way... what happened to being able to respect something without following or believing in it?

I want my kids to grow up respecting other beliefs. Hell, if a Christian padre wants to come to my town to talk (most likely only my kids) about the importance of remembrance day and the importance of the CF members christian convictions, I would support it! As long as the intent was not conversion, but education.

I'm pissed, I know I am rambling, but this is BS. I am just sick and tired of it. This is just going to lead to more opportunities for those to stage their protests to enforce their beliefs upon the Canadian Forces. No one should be "forced" to accept another religion to be in the CF, but if you are being forced to show respect to another religion or honor it or remember it.. who the heck cared?

Remove head dress in a Church, Shoes in a Mosque. What's the big deal? Wouldn't it help make people see the CF as friends and possibly help with talented recruitment? My aunty is a strong babtist lady and before every meal she says a prayer, I. Join. Her. With it. Holding hands, saying amen etc. Respecting another belief, does not take you out of your own. Maybe don't say amen etc, but no religion that I know of does respecting another religion remove you from yours. I could be wrong though.

We are trying to be more sensitive to "minorities" so we are doing less. Why not do more! So the CF does christian parades, cool. I know we have Islamic priests as padres, hell I have talked to them (am considering a third career when I am done travelling) and I am sure they could arrange a parade to honor Muslims. If they can't, and if the CF wants that, contact me, I will do my darndest to make Muslims be on board.

Or screw it. Take my firearms, take my right to raise my kids as I see fit, take my right to enjoy classic cars, old boats, make me pay more taxes, take my rights to hunting, fishing and camping. I love Canada, Most Canadians too even. But what about our traditions, our culture, our history, I love that too, even the bad parts.

I've been rambling to long, who knows maybe I shouldn't be upset about this and I am part of the problem as a rich, white, dude.

Abdullah

P.s I know Canada is not a christian nation, that was said in a childish fit more in spirit then reality. I need to grow up sorry again.


----------



## Remius

Blackadder1916 said:
			
		

> There are certain circumstances when military members have to "conduct business" at functions that may have a religious component separate from their military function; an example would be a bearer party or honour guard at a funeral.  A church parade is different; the sole purpose is to bring soldiers to a place of worship for the purpose of worship, there is no other separate military requirement for them to be there.



A funeral is a religious rite.  There is no separate business there.  The sole purpose of the a soldier in an honour guard or pall bearer is to participate in the funeral rite.  It is completely integrated.  It is not some separate thing that just happens at the same time. 

if we are going to go full on secular then soldiers should never be at any funeral in any official capacity unless it is devoid of any religious connotations. 

We can't have it one way for some things and one way for others.    

No religious types at the national war memorial on 11 November.  Instead have a PAFFO give a non religious speech. 

While were at it "In Flanders Fields" has religious connotations and should be amended.  

Get rid of the padre part of the CAF.  Social workers can take that on. 

Are you going to be buried at Beechwood cemetary?  Remove the choice to have Crosses or Crescents or stars of David.  You can do it on the civy side but we don't want to offend the dead or families that might be visiting former soldiers.  

Why are we even asking for religion on PEN forms and dog tags.  Ditch that stuff. 

Weddings?  Well no uniforms if it is a religious ceremony but you are gtg if it is at city hall.

Almost every Highland regiment has a St Andrew's Cross on their headdress.  why are we forcing anyone not of that faith to wear that?!! 

Junior Ranks holiday dinner?  Turkey? stuffing?  Yeah, it's not a xmas party but be real, it is exactly that.  Time to forgo that.   

See what this leads to? 

The very fact that this commander was ok with Sikhs to parading on a Sikh holy day but bans church parades tells me enough about what the motivations are. 

So if you don't like church parades don't go.  If you do, go.  If most people don't go they'll stop happening.   Let nature take its course but don't tell people what they can and can't do.  they only thing I'll agree to is that they should not be mandatory.  But in my experience, most members of my unit from a variety of faiths or non faiths go because it is a regimental activity and that's the way they see it. 

Imagine an activity where people from different faiths and culture can get together to follow a tradition that may not be their own and manage not to kill each other.  Crazy world we live in.  Ban it before it spreads...


----------



## a_majoor

> But most of all, in such small incremental strikes, does Canadian history and tradition lose strength.



Herein lies the problem. If we accept that history and tradition is meaningful, then we also need to  understand the history and context of things like church parades. Units have longstanding ties to churches and communities (think of "Freedom of the City"), and new soldiers will learn about the unit, its history and its place in the community with a church parade either on Remembrance Day or when going to the church where the colours are laid up. The fact the colours are laid up at a church and not a temple or mosque reflects the origins and history of the unit, and of Canada as a whole. Unless the Padre is also evangelizing as part of the church parade, normal people are going to treat the parade for what it is: establishing and deepening ties with a part of the community where the unit came from.

As a negative counter example, there is a Boer War monument in Victoria Park, London, which is essentially abandoned and ignored (the official Cenotaph is at the South West corner of Victoria Park). 1 RCR left decades ago, and none of the other units mentioned on the plinth have any connection to London either. The families of the dead may have moved away generations ago. The connection has been allowed to wither away and become lost over time. I can see the same thing gradually happening to the "Holy Roller" tank monument in the north of Victoria Park as WWII veterans from the First Hussars pass, although the unit does make an effort to continue remembrances there.

So stamping out history and tradition in the name of preventing "offence" to a small minority of individuals (who might not even be connected to the Armed Forces) is stupid and counter productive. The moments it takes to educate serving members will pay off in the longer term, and using that same time to educate civilians as to "why" we do what we do can also change that "support that is a mile wide and an inch deep" we get from the public. And if a local Temple or other place of worship wants to invite the unit for a visit or a parade, then more power to them and to the unit for accepting.

As an aside, I'll also mention that we are expected to learn more about religions and customs in places we deploy, and Padres are now tasked to do "Religious Leader Engagements", so cutting ourselves off from that source of information and experience here at home is just going to make the job even harder "over there". /rant


----------



## FJAG

YZT580 said:
			
		

> Atheism is making a god out of not having a god.  It is still a religious conviction.  So for those who figure that no one should be compelled to attend a religious service great.  Just don't tell those who wish to that they can't.  As for religious parades they fall under the category of tradition: the same tradition history that requires officers to wear swords and requires little bits of rope to be attached to the sleeve and so on.  Tradition is a good thing and having a commanding officer who belittles tradition is bad; particularly when dealing with reserve formations who are often (no always) anchored to a community and cling to the community's ideals.  This commanding officer is demonstrating that he knows absolutely nothing about leadership.  imho



Sorry. Atheism is neither a god nor a religious conviction. It is a conviction that there is no deity and therefore a rejection in any belief of a deity or any religion based on one. That doesn't mean atheists can't respect individuals that do have beliefs or follow a religious practice. Personally I'm very selective. There are some religions which IMHO do not deserve respect because they have components to them which foster subjugation, inequality or violence.

I'm with PPCLI Guy on this one. Back in 2005 the USAF Academy was investigated for incidents of evangelical staff and cadets actively proselytizing.



> The panel's investigation found a "religious climate that does not involve overt religious discrimination, but a failure to fully accommodate all members' needs and a lack of awareness over where the line is drawn between permissible and impermissible expression of beliefs." Evidence discovered during the investigation included antisemitic remarks, official sponsorship of a showing of the film The Passion of the Christ and a locker room banner that said academy athletes played for "Team Jesus."



The problem is that deeply devout leaders could use the hierarchical structure of the military to push their own religious beliefs on subordinates. 

I'm not a great fan of accommodating any religious beliefs. The problem is where do you draw the line on what the system needs to accommodate? The fact of the matter is that there really can't be any line when one deals with such things as nebulous as religious beliefs. Any line is ultimately arbitrary. That said, I do recognize that some accommodations are necessary if we truly wish to be an inclusive society.

I don't buy the "tradition" argument either. There was a time when slavery was part of the "traditional Southern lifestyle". That's done with. Every tradition has a first day and a last day. We can create new "traditions" when we find some repetitive activity useful. We can end a tradition when its usefulness has expired or it becomes anathema to our modern culture or mores. Sometimes it takes great courage to say "this tradition needs to end" and take the steps to do so.

IMHO, religion is very much a private matter. Individuals in any organization, including the military, should have the opportunity to practice it, with a degree of reasonable accommodation. It should not be an official activity, even if only voluntary. People on this site constantly complain about unit COs wasting the troops time and training budget on grandiose "social" activities. My question is: why should the public fund salaries for soldiers to attend church parades?

Quite frankly I would suggest that, but for deployed troops, all religious functions in Canada should be an individual's private affair using local, civilian facilities and ministers. However, I do understand and acknowledge the usefulness of chaplains for deployed troops because they perform worthwhile functions that go far beyond mere religious services and quite frankly I haven't come up with any better alternative way of delivering those services.

 :stirpot:


----------



## Remius

FJAG, you are equating institutional state sanctioned slavery to a Unit's church parade? 

If people were forced to go I could see the link.  If it was a hotbed of attempts to convert I could see the link. 

The example is a little extreme.

I always took ours as an opportunity to see more of my unit's history (Like regimental artifacts) and participate in what I consider a social function (normally there is a reception after).  Our chapel is not of my denomination, I never felt like someone was trying to evangelize me and great efforts have gone into making everyone feel welcome.  That particular parish also takes great pride in being the regimental chapel and are great stewards and caretakers of our history.

If people stop going the tradition will die, and I'm sure for some parts of the CAF it has but for other parts it still happens.  Let nature take it's course.  We used to have a ladies' auxiliary.  but that stopped well before my time.  I'm sure it was a great thing at the time but it faded but not because someone engineered it. 

Blatchford said it right.  No one is being harmed by this.


----------



## FJAG

Remius said:
			
		

> FJAG, you are equating institutional state sanctioned slavery to a Unit's church parade?
> ...



No! No, I'm not.

What I am saying is that there is no magic in the word "tradition". Just because something is a tradition doesn't mean that you have to keep following it blindly _ad infinitum_. What you need to do is to determine if it still plays a useful role in our current culture and then decide as to whether or not it should be kept on.

We don't bring soldiers home on their shields anymore like Spartans; we don't consult the entrails of chickens before a battle anymore like the Romans; we don't use the lash as a punishment anymore like the British did. "Traditions" change.

Do you get my point now?

 :cheers:


----------



## mariomike

I recall some groans about church parades. Not about religious convictions. But, about the preparation of kit required. 

We had ours up in Hillsburgh for some reason.


----------



## dapaterson

FJAG said:
			
		

> we don't consult the entrails of chickens before a battle anymore like the Romans;



No, that's what we have CFTPO for.


----------



## Remius

FJAG said:
			
		

> No! No, I'm not.
> 
> What I am saying is that there is no magic in the word "tradition". Just because something is a tradition doesn't mean that you have to keep following it blindly _ad infinitum_. What you need to do is to determine if it still plays a useful role in our current culture and then decide as to whether or not it should be kept on.
> 
> We don't bring soldiers home on their shields anymore like Spartans; we don't consult the entrails of chickens before a battle anymore like the Romans; we don't use the lash as a punishment anymore like the British did. "Traditions" change.
> 
> Do you get my point now?
> 
> :cheers:



I did get your point.  I agree to an extent.  I just thought the slavery comparison a bit over the top. 

 Harmless traditions though should be allowed to run their course.  I have no issue stopping traditional hazing, harassment and anything else that might harm someone. 

 But this is an example of PC gone too far.


----------



## Kirkhill

Humphrey Bogart said:
			
		

> Sounds like we need to go back to this:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Then we can all look terrible together  ;D



Babies and bathwater....

Uniform uniforms are no bad thing - if the uniforms are well designed.  

Just like mental asylums are no bad thing - if the asylums are sympathetically managed.


----------



## quadrapiper

FJAG said:
			
		

> Quite frankly I would suggest that, but for deployed troops, all religious functions in Canada should be an individual's private affair using local, civilian facilities and ministers. However, I do understand and acknowledge the usefulness of chaplains for deployed troops because they perform worthwhile functions that go far beyond mere religious services and quite frankly I haven't come up with any better alternative way of delivering those services.


Not entirely sure why the Chaplaincy hasn't been shifted entirely to support that role: perhaps host a suitable number in e.g. Service or Medical formations. The need for active chapels providing duplicate services to the local community's places of worship is less clear.

Someone else made a comment about funerals, referring to those as entirely religious rites: one assumes that's entirely up to the deceased or their family, who might opt for a funeral both entirely secular and including whatever military presence/participation might be suitable.


----------



## McG

Remius said:
			
		

> A funeral is a religious rite.  There is no separate business there.  The sole purpose of the a soldier in an honour guard or pall bearer is to participate in the funeral rite.  It is completely integrated.  It is not some separate thing that just happens at the same time.
> 
> if we are going to go full on secular then soldiers should never be at any funeral in any official capacity unless it is devoid of any religious connotations.


Can you really not differentiate between a attending a funeral or memorial, where the purpose is to commemorate one or more fallen, from attending church, where the purpose is participation in religious ceremony/rite?  Others can't distinguish a religious event from a community event with religious/cultural injects reflective of the participants? And do people really believe some of the slippery slopes and absurd extrapolations in this thread? The next step after not attending church as a regiment is to cast off uniforms?  Really?

Anyway, this thread is about a reserve brigade's decision and one of the arguments in this thread is that the parades are about connecting with communities. If we are going to spend Class A days on a parade, lets spend those Class A days on a *military* parade out in the public where all members of the community can see and connect with the activity.  Let's not waste those days hidden away being sermonized in church parade which will only ever be noticed by an ever shrinking segment of the population that happens to have the correct religious affiliation.


----------



## Remius

MCG said:
			
		

> Can you really not differentiate between a attending a funeral or memorial, where the purpose is to commemorate one or more fallen, from attending church, where the purpose is participation in religious ceremony/rite?  Others can't distinguish a religious event from a community event with religious/cultural injects reflective of the participants? And do people really believe some of the slippery slopes and absurd extrapolations in this thread? The next step after not attending church as a regiment is to cast off uniforms?  Really?
> 
> Anyway, this thread is about a reserve brigade's decision and one of the arguments in this thread is that the parades are about connecting with communities. If we are going to spend Class A days on a parade, lets spend those Class A days on a *military* parade out in the public where all members of the community can see and connect with the activity.  Let's not waste those days hidden away being sermonized in church parade which will only ever be noticed by an ever shrinking segment of the population that happens to have the correct religious affiliation.



Sure I can.  We either go all in or not.  That is my point.  But most funerals are religious (I'm not making up the definition of a funeral rite) and involve a place of worship where mass or whatever will be conducted.  Even those that are not religious still use practices borrowed from other faiths.  Burials, cremations whatever.  I've carried caskets in church in uniform and have been paid for it.  So yeah if it is just a commemoration or celebration of life then all fair but the moment you add religion then bad!  

Why are we picking on one thing and not the others?  This CO was ok with allowing participation in a Sikh holy day but it's not ok to have a unit participate in something they might have been doing annually for over a century?  It's virtue signalling.  Between that and stating that unless they find women to fill honouraries they won't fill the spots, do the math, add it up and it is a PC agenda gone too far. 

If he had just said, church parades are not mandatory and class pay is not authorised but units can still participate as they see fit based on their history and heritage that would be one thing.  This is not that though.


----------



## BeyondTheNow

MCG said:
			
		

> Can you really not differentiate between a attending a funeral or memorial, where the purpose is to commemorate one or more fallen, from attending church, where the purpose is participation in religious ceremony/rite?  Others can't distinguish a religious event from a community event with religious/cultural injects reflective of the participants? And do people really believe some of the slippery slopes and absurd extrapolations in this thread? The next step after not attending church as a regiment is to cast off uniforms?  Really?
> 
> Anyway, this thread is about a reserve brigade's decision and one of the arguments in this thread is that the parades are about connecting with communities. If we are going to spend Class A days on a parade, lets spend those Class A days on a *military* parade out in the public where all members of the community can see and connect with the activity.  Let's not waste those days hidden away being sermonized in church parade which will only ever be noticed by an ever shrinking segment of the population that happens to have the correct religious affiliation.



You’re choosing to single out only one element of the issues raised, while simultaneously disregarding the connections between the significance of such a move and the optics of a (seemingly) rogue brigade—a brigade that is now accumulating a bit of a list of instances where they’ll (very publically) do what they want apart from the standards of the rest of CAF. Whether the _“slippery slopes and absurd extrapolations”_ mentioned actually come to fruition or not isn’t the point. 

Narrowing the field of focus to one minute viewpoint rather than observing the entirety of the issue is a problem. This is significantly more than just _“a reserve brigade’s decision.” _ (That makes it sound as though you’re deducting the weight of this down to something as benign as stating the brigade will no longer include cheese in box-lunches.) Again, one of the major points of all of this is that it’s an example of a major alteration to the way things have been done (and expected) CAF-wide. Whether anyone reading personally agrees or disagrees with military presence/parades/participation in churches really isn’t the point.

Even if one doesn’t agree with the possibility of specific agendas at play by snr cmd which were mentioned, there’s still a very problematic bigger picture forming here and it can affect components some people haven’t even thought of. A quick example?  Let’s look at the band. (yes, yes, I’m well aware some don’t give two shits about the band—anywhere—not the point.) It’s steeped in tradition and purpose and has its place among all types of services, ceremonies and parades alike and always has. But the majority of pers aren’t aware of just how many of their Regimental pieces and marches are directly taken from hymns--either in their entirety or mere excerpts. The majority of the tunes are wholly religious, mostly taken from Christian British composers throughout history. So in the spirit of what’s been expressed by some here, it’s important we do away with them completely—there’s no place for any type of Christian affiliation among CAF tradition in any form, right?


----------



## Kirkhill

> When this bleeding war is over;
> No more soldiering for me.
> When I get my civvy clothes on,
> Oh! How happy I shall be.
> No more church parades on Sundays,
> No more asking for a pass.
> We can tell the Sergeant Major
> To stick his passes up his arse!



http://www.musicanet.org/robokopp/english/whenthis.htm

Circa WW1   ;D ;D ;D


----------



## BeyondTheNow

Chris Pook said:
			
		

> http://www.musicanet.org/robokopp/english/whenthis.htm
> 
> Circa WW1   ;D ;D ;D



Lol. Thanks for that :rofl:


----------



## mariomike

> When this bleeding war is over;
> No more soldiering for me.
> When I get my civvy clothes on,
> Oh! How happy I shall be.
> No more church parades on Sundays,
> No more asking for a pass.
> We can tell the Sergeant Major
> To stick his passes up his arse!





> MARKO
> (yelling)
> AT EASE!
> 
> HOFFY
> Break it off, boys! At ease for the
> news!
> 
> The ruckus subsides.
> 
> MARKO
> Today's Camp News!
> (reading)
> Father Murray announces that due to
> local regulations the Christmas
> midnight Mass will be held at seven
> in the morning!
> 
> STOSH
> You can tell Father Murray to --
> 
> MARKO
> At ease! He also says, quote: All
> you sack rats better show up for the
> services and no bull from anybody.
> Unquote. At ease!


----------



## Blackadder1916

That's what you need in the army.

https://youtu.be/B9PV-smPTds?t=901


----------



## daftandbarmy

Blackadder1916 said:
			
		

> That's what you need in the army.
> 
> https://youtu.be/B9PV-smPTds?t=901



And don’t let him find you wearing your hat in the Mess!


----------



## McG

BeyondTheNow said:
			
		

> ... there’s still a very problematic bigger picture forming here and it can affect components some people haven’t even thought of. A quick example?  Let’s look at the band. (yes, yes, I’m well aware some don’t give two shits about the band—anywhere—not the point.) It’s steeped in tradition and purpose and has its place among all types of services, ceremonies and parades alike and always has. But the majority of pers aren’t aware of just how many of their Regimental pieces and marches are directly taken from hymns--either in their entirety or mere excerpts. The majority of the tunes are wholly religious, mostly taken from Christian British composers throughout history. So in the spirit of what’s been expressed by some here, it’s important we do away with them completely—there’s no place for any type of Christian affiliation among CAF tradition in any form, right?


There's one of those slippery slopes. Nobody is stretching the argument to say that things with long lost religious origins should be thrown away. That's a strawman. You can't defend any need for compelling the members of the regiment to go be lectured on Jesus, so you make the argument about something else. You make it about something nonsensical that is easy to dismiss.  But the nonsensical strawman is not what this is about.

Wearing military uniforms is fine.
Maintaining old regimental marches is fine.
Attending funerals is fine.
Attending public ceremonies with religious/cultural injects that reflect participating audiences is fine. 
Compelling the members of a regiment to attend a church for the purpose of observing a Christian religious service is not fine.
Compelling the members of a regiment to attend a mosque for the purpose of observing an Islamic religious service is not fine.


----------



## Kirkhill

https://www.research.ed.ac.uk/portal/files/11956555/The_Abolition_of_Compulsory_Church_Parades_in_the_British_Army.pdf



> *The compulsory church parade was one of the oldest traditions in the British army, dating back to the
> seventeenth century. In 1946, shortly after the end of the Second World War, the practice was abolished.*
> This was a significant moment in Army–Church relations since the compulsory attendance of soldiers at
> divine worship had been an official acknowledgement of the importance of religion as a guiding force in the
> corporate life of the army. This article explores the background to this historic decision and the unsuccessful
> efforts of senior officers in the late 1940s to restore the ritual.



In the name of Christ, can't we move on?


----------



## FJAG

Chris Pook said:
			
		

> https://www.research.ed.ac.uk/portal/files/11956555/The_Abolition_of_Compulsory_Church_Parades_in_the_British_Army.pdf
> 
> In the name of Christ, can't we move on?



Just one more  --- and because you started this particular one just above.  ;D

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BK4p7tbwv1w

 :cheers:


----------



## BeyondTheNow

MCG said:
			
		

> There's one of those slippery slopes. Nobody is stretching the argument to say that things with long lost religious origins should be thrown away. That's a strawman. You can't defend any need for compelling the members of the regiment to go be lectured on Jesus, so you make the argument about something else. You make it about something nonsensical that is easy to dismiss.  But the nonsensical strawman is not what this is about.
> 
> Wearing military uniforms is fine.
> Maintaining old regimental marches is fine.
> Attending funerals is fine.
> Attending public ceremonies with religious/cultural injects that reflect participating audiences is fine.
> Compelling the members of a regiment to attend a church for the purpose of observing a Christian religious service is not fine.
> Compelling the members of a regiment to attend a mosque for the purpose of observing an Islamic religious service is not fine.



Second paragraph agreed. Wholeheartedly. (But I’ll again reiterate a point raised by multiple users that in conjunction with members not being forced to attend, then CAF also can’t force members NOT to attend.)

Ref the “strawman”—Unfortunately mankind has a pretty lengthy history of anecdotal evidence during various scenarios where situations of what many initially thought were implausible and largely ridiculous circumstances ended up staring them right in the face, even military/defence related—Simple policy issues to full-out combat specific. So I haven’t much faith in humanity’s ability to know when to draw the line in some instances. If the right (or wrong) people get into a position of power, can push their agendas, and they have the support of many, and/or are surrounded by those who don’t check them, then all too often trying to undo the damage once they’re through is almost impossible. (But I digress—this could easily turn into a politics thread.)

My point is simple; we all do it, or we don’t. This is a position that should’ve been properly weighed then executed equally if all were in agreement across the board. And has been clearly mentioned, CAF can’t show support for some religious practices and not others. Especially, again, when it’s only one part of CAF choosing to do something very visibly (and questionable by CAF and outsiders alike) on their own, then leaving the individual units to conduct clean-up and take the hits of negative press and instances of community discourse.


----------



## Kirkhill

FJAG said:
			
		

> Just one more  --- and because you started this particular one just above.  ;D
> 
> https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BK4p7tbwv1w
> 
> :cheers:



 ;D ;D ;D :cheers:


----------



## The Bread Guy

Chris Pook said:
			
		

> In the name of Christ, can't we move on?


I think I see what you did there ...


----------



## mariomike

I like where the Chaplain asks the men, "Was this trip necessary?"
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XrnB1OMhETI


----------



## FJAG

That raised an interesting memory.  Many years ago, when still with the artillery (early 1970s while Vietnam was still a thing), I signed up for the US Army Advanced Artillery Officer's extension course. Every week or so I would receive a package in the mail from Fort Sill providing me with another study module. One of those was on the US Army Chaplain Corps and the left me with the clear impression that one of the major purposes of the Corps was to instill the will to fight as much as it was to bring God to the soldier. I think that has been toned down a bit but my impression at the time was that the Corps was just one of the tools that a Commander had at his disposal to advance the mission.

 :cheers:


----------



## mariomike

FJAG said:
			
		

> One of those was on the US Army Chaplain Corps and the left me with the clear impression that one of the major purposes of the Corps was to instill the will to fight as much as it was to bring God to the soldier. I think that has been toned down a bit but my impression at the time was that the Corps was just one of the tools that a Commander had at his disposal to advance the mission.
> 
> :cheers:



That was always my impression. Above all else, keep the wheels rolling.

Since the title of this discussion is "& in Canadian Society", where I worked they always had a departmental Chaplain. Still do, but a lot of the pep talks have been taken over by the staff psychologist since the early 1980's. 

Seemed to me the only difference was one gave you a cigarette, the other gave you a cookie.


----------



## RocketScientist

Jarnhamar said:
			
		

> I've seen sikh's wearing turbans and if I remember correctly jewish people wearing kippah's at church and no one made a big deal about it.


I've seen the same at a Mosque. In fact, I was the tour guide for a Jewish group when we held an "open house" in a Mosque in Toronto after the Quebec mosque shooting. Many of them kept their kippahs on. You would be required to take your shoes off ONLY in the areas where people pray, since the Islamic prayer involves touching your head to the floor. I'm sure you, too, wouldn't touch your face where someone else stood with their dirty shoes.



> Forget about taking shoes off, would a female soldier have to enter a mosque through a side door and cover their head like the 3 female MP's who accompanied the prime minister on his visit to a mosque have to do?


Everyone would be required to dress modestly, but covering the head would be optional. Again, we regularly entertain women at Mosques who do not don headwear. The PM's companions probably did so out of respect and/r for the public outreach.



> I feel like churches have become pretty open to other religions and atheists alike. I'm not so sure the same can be said for mosques yet. (of course maybe I'm wrong)


Sir, I invite you to visit your local Mosque with your family and friends at your earliest convenience (once COVID dies out). We would be happy to have you and clear up your misunderstandigs. Here's a tip: show up on a Friday night and you'll get probably get a free meal out of it. Hope you can handle your spicy Biryani!


----------



## daftandbarmy

ACE_Engineer said:
			
		

> Here's a tip: show up on a Friday night and you'll get probably get a free meal out of it. Hope you can handle your spicy Biryani!



Two thumbs up to that! Great food, and very welcoming people...  :nod:


----------



## tonykeene

This has been a fraught topic throughout the four decades plus of my service, and also my children's time as Cadets.  I think the simplest takeaway I have now, in retirement, is that in this country every single individual has the right and freedom to decide what they will, or will not do as regards religious observance.
This then collides head-on with the military need for unit cohesion and discipline.  This is especially true in the army, and in particular in combat arms units, all of which seem to have some sort of connection, official or otherwise, to a Christian church.  In 2017 I watched as my old regiment was marched into an Anglican church under command, there to sing "Onward Christian Soldiers!" beneath the gaze of their pace-stick toting NCOs.  It's very hard to believe this was completely free of coercion.
The practice of compulsory divine worship in our forces actually stems from Napoleonic times, when the Duke of Wellington (who was also a firm supporter of corporal punishment) mandated imposed religion on his troops as a disciplinary measure.  He wanted his men to be afraid of three things:  The lash, Hellfire and himself.
Oddly, centuries later, I still was able to detect a faint whiff of this attitude among senior officers (and some junior ones) whenever I challenged the idea of a compulsory religious observance.
(A note here:  This isn't just about formal church services and parades, but the inclusion of prayer into otherwise secular events such as the change of command of a unit, opening of a new building, unveiling of a plaque etc.  You go there to take part in what is not supposed to be about religion, but they call on the padre anyway and often the command to remove headdress is given.  Even though it is no longer compulsory, it is intimidating.)
When I was in Bosnia (I did four tours) our British colleagues sent out an invitation to all troops in the multinational division to attend a Remerbrance Day service.  The invitation specifically stated that this was a Christian religious service for Remembrance Day, and of course attendance was not, repeat NOT, compulsory.  That same afternoon the Canadian HQ sent out a notice that "All Canadian Pers Will Attend."  It was bold face and underlined.
Now, QR&O has for a very long time stated that CF members cannot be forced to attend religious services against their will or beliefs.  Yet here it was, in the first decade of the 21st Century.
I pointed this out to the junior officer in the HQ who had sent out this memo, and was told that I should prepare myself for a court martial.  No kidding.
Fortunately cooler heads prevailed and an amending memo was sent out making attendance voluntary.
The problem here is that even if a religious ceremony is described as voluntary, persons in authority often take it upon themselves to unofficially ensure a good turnout.  I've witnessed this personally many times, not only in the Reserves, but at Cadet Summer Training Centres.  I personally have seen kids in Cadets threatened with extra drill and work, I have heard them being derided and sneered at, essentially to make sure they didn't stand aside from the church parade.  And I kid you not.  (My complaints about this resulted in a decade-long campaign of character-assassination, threats and intimidation, including a rather strained interview with the MPs in a very small room.  Simply because I asked why my kids were threatened into going to church.) 
The commanding officer at Trenton actually decided one year that Cadets who chose not to attend Sunday worship were to be formed up in a body, marched off the site and held under guard in a modular tent "so as not to disturb the church services in progress."  At least he didn't have their buttons ripped off "a la Dreyfus".
It is almost impossible to hold an event in the military without pressure being put on people to attend and take part.  It's certainly hard-wired into the army mindset, if not others.  There also seems to be a belief that a white person, with an AngloSaxon name, could not really be anything but a Christian, and my experience has been that, upon stating my preference, I was invariably and immediately challenged, scoffed and sneered at, and derided.
A Canadian soldier does not have a religion, any more than he, or she, has a skin colour, ethnicity or sexual orientation.  Military service should have nothing to do with any of those things.
I realize all these things have great meaning for a lot of people, and that changes like this can be confusing and cause pain.  Laying up of Colours in Christian churches, traditional ceremonies like Copper Sunday etc.  We must find ways to change the substance of these traditions, without losing their meaning, that of loyalty, service and duty, and the conection to history
As  a retired old soldier, and as a Canadian, I know we can do it.
Thank you all for caring, and taking part.


----------



## Kilted

I disagree with you on a number of things. First, religion is significantly different then skin colour, you can't choose your skin colour and you can't change it. Religion for many people is part of what sets their ethics. The Canadian Forces ethos even admit that our ethics are based on Judeo-Christian values, as are most western laws. For many people, of many faiths, their military service is a lower priority then their beliefs. Some of the stories you give are very outdated. In the current environment of acomodation there is no way that someone would be forced to attend something of a religious nature. It is also not solely Christian customs that are observed. The Toronto Scottish recently had a parade at a Hindu temple. Traditions are traditions for a reason, we live in a society that has many religions, we can not remove all traces of religion from everything over fear of offending someone. I realize that this is the way things are heading. The joke use to be "what are they going to do, take Christmas from me?" Might actually come true one day.


----------



## tonykeene

I assure you they are not outdated.  YouTube contains videos from two years ago or later of such units as The Black Watch and others laying their Colours on a Christian altar after marching in "by the numbers" under command.  Even if this were completely voluntary (which is not as I delineate above, with peer pressure and veiled threats and the fear of ostracism) it has another very deleterious effect.
As the Forces try harder and ever harder to recruit from different faith communities, these public displays of official Christianity give the lie to those efforts.  Anyone seeing an entire regiment marching into a cathedral could be forgiven for assuming that at least token obeisance is a required part of service.
I agree that religion can be changed as a matter of personal choice, and it often is.  You can't change your skin colour but you can change your religion.  These days of course you can also change your gender, but that's another discussion.
But in Canada today the highest law of the land says that race, religion, gender, ethnicity and so on are in fact equal, and must be dealt with equally.  Whether we think they are or not, the law is the law.
No commanding officer today would dare hold an event only for the males in the unit, or only for the white members.  Holding an event just for adherents of a faith is equally wrong and should be called out as such.  My suggestion is that events like this should be bottom up.  That is, members of a faith group should be able to organize an event for members of their faith, with support from command and the chaplains.
When it is command orginated and directed, it can very easily veer off into coercion, as I know all too well from many personal experiences.
Last year I attended a decoration day event at a local cemetery, something which the air cadet squadron there takes part in.  Prior to the event I specifically inquired about whether it was a religious event, and whether the cadets themselves had been told about any religious content.
I was assured by the commanding officer that it was not religious and that therefore all cadets should be willing to attend.
I recorded the entire ceremony.  It was 25 minutes of prayers, hymns, blessing and Bible readings, including a full blown sermon about Christ.  The kids were subjected to this while on parade under the command of their officers.
This is NOT what the Cadet Program is supposed to be.  And believe me, as I wrote in my earlier post, reserve regiments still do these things and will continue to do these things as long as they can get away with it.
The Supreme Court of Canada ruling in 2015 is binding, on ALL governments and governmental agencies.  That includes the military.
No matter which side of this discussion we come down on, eventually the law will trump tradition.  I just hope we can find a way to work through it without hurting people, or the organization.
Thank you for talking about it.


----------



## mariomike

I didn't mind Church Parade. I felt it improved unit solidarity.

We have our municipal department's chaplain. He's an active member of our organization.


----------



## FJAG

I'm with you on this, tonykeene.

My first exposure to the process was in 1966 with the old Toronto Garrison annual church parade which would march everyone to Queen's Park for a religious service. We had two, and only two, choices: Roman Catholic or Protestant. My young Jewish buddy thought the Catholic one would be better because there was less singing and he got to kneel for a while.

Back in the 60s the Army was still a predominantly white, Christian organization and while change has been slow in coming, change nonetheless there has been and we are becoming a more multi-cultural organization. I've always seen the benefits that a padre can bring to an organization through private counselling etc and while most that I've been in contact with have done a very good job of ministering to all faiths (and for that matter, the faithless), I do wonder if we wouldn't be better off to have a secular counselling service which would truly be egalitarian and equally accessible to all. Too many ignore the padre system because of it's religious overtones but who could well use a professional counselling serice.

I've been following the issue in the US military where the bias of the leadership to fostering coerced spirituality is much more overt than here. Particularly rankling to me is their argument that their blatant proselytising isn't an attack by them on the 1st Amendment rights of their subordinates but that limiting their doing so is an attack on their own personal 1st Amendment rights to spread their faith.

At least in Canada, most of the issues we have are because we thoughtlessly follow the old format for activities with the proforma prayers etc without truly thinking about what we are doing and whether or not it's time to put a stop to it. What really is the purpose of a prayer before a meeting, regardless of which faith it's expressed in? or whether it's given by three different padres? Someone will always be left out. Faith, or a rejection of faith, should be left to the individual to follow in his own ways. A moment of silence could easily replace a moment of religion during an activity. For that matter is even that necessary? Colours could be laid up in regimental or other museums or in Federal institutions. There are any number of ways that we can de-religionize the CF, if we put our minds to it.

For Kilted.

What purpose is served by exchanging one religious service for another like the Tor Scots going to a Hindu temple? While teaching tolerance of other people's faiths, that's not part of the military's mission statement. Just because many of our ethical standards have some of their roots in the Judeo-Christian faith does not mean we have to keep following that faith because the same ethical standards grew in other non Judeo-Christian cultures as well.

I personally think that the military's recognizing aboriginal customs in ceremonies is a positive step BUT we should do so without incorporating aboriginal spirituality into the process. I've thought a little as well about the heritage of our Highland units and those named after British/Canadian royalty and wondered whether we'd be prepared these days to form an Indo-Canadian regiment in Ontario or BC which could be a substantial recruiting draw. Highland units originally were formed to capitalize on recruiting from the large Scottish immigrant communities at the turn of the 19th/20th centuries. While still following highland customs and traditions they are no longer an assembly of Presbyterians or Catholics. Why couldn't an Indo-Canadian unit be the one that incorporates Indo-Canadian traditions and customs without the spirituality element? That said, I would presume the country's Judeo-Christian collective conscience would balk at such a concept. And that's too bad.

I don't think that tonykeene is saying that we "remove all traces of religion from everything over fear of offending someone". What he is suggesting is that everyone follow whatever faith they want, but that as an institution, the CF be truly secular and not just pretend to be so by removing all vestiges of religion from its activities because they are unnecessary embellishments that are being thoughtlessly perpetuated. Instead, we should focus on our non-religious "traditions, without losing their meaning, that of loyalty, service and duty, and the connection to history".

 :cheers:


----------



## tonykeene

Thank you.  I'd like to see the Forces follow the same rules as Service Canada, or any other governmental organization.  That is, stop concerning itself with the religion of its members and simply provide staff and facilities for those who wished to do it.

If a manager at any other government department called for prayer or blessing at the start of a meeting or conference, it would hit the fan very quickly.  If my local Service Canada office decided to formally ally itself with the local Anglican Church, ditto.  Yet a reserve unit CO can do it and the general response is: "Oh that's nice.  It's tradition!"

In 2017 we held a parade ceremony in my community for the 100th anniversary of Vimy Ridge.  The opening was three Christian prayers by three padres, and the ceremony itself was 25 minutes of blessings, Bible readings and a sermon, followed by a benediction at the end.  The only people who actually said anything about Vimy Ridge were the mayor and the MPP.  When I questioned the military and civilian organizers, the answer I got was something along the lines that all those men who went up the ridge that morning were Christians, and besides which, it was Easter Sunday!!

The present chaplain general has spoken now at two Remembrance Day ceremonies in Ottawa.  While his remarks were emotional and filled with meaning, he made no mention of any religion or god.  He made it so that every single person there felt included.

That is as it should be.

It is interesting that in my four decades of service, the padres I have spoken with have almost always agreed with me.  It is the command chain that insists compulsory religion is necessary.  That's because it is, along with the military justice system, mainly a disciplinary tool.  It is intended to enforce unit cohesion and conformity.

Hearken as I prophesy.  One of these days some reserve or Cadet CO is going to pull one of these stunts and someone is going to get a lawyer and go to the Human Right Commission.  Since the Supreme Court of Canada has already issued a binding ruling, that will be game over.

Hasten the day.


----------



## Ostrozac

I have to admit, this all seems rather odd to me. I spent 8 years serving in all three regular battalions of The RCR, and since then have been warming chairs in various headquarters, and at no time during that service did I attend any sort of military religious service in a place of worship. The only officially religious things I have seen are quite minor in their scope — prayer/grace at formal dinners, funerals, and Remembrance Day services.

People are still doing church parades? Really?


----------



## tonykeene

Yes, it's interesting that some people can spend their entire career and never run into it.  But for others it becomes a real problem.  It depends on your CO's feelings and how it plays out.

In 2006 I watched absolutely aghast as the CO of the Ceremonial Guard in Ottawa threw several soldiers off parade in the Cartier Square Drill Hall because they did not wish to pray with him.  He stood with his arm extended toward the door as they were required to walk away from their unit, their Colours and their fellow soldiers simply because, as Canadians, they did not wish to take part in a government-imposed worship service.

Not only were they thrown off parade, they were thrown right out of the building.

I find this appalling.


----------



## brihard

tonykeene said:
			
		

> Yes, it's interesting that some people can spend their entire career and never run into it.  But for others it becomes a real problem.  It depends on your CO's feelings and how it plays out.
> 
> In 2006 I watched absolutely aghast as the CO of the Ceremonial Guard in Ottawa threw several soldiers off parade in the Cartier Square Drill Hall because they did not wish to pray with him.  He stood with his arm extended toward the door as they were required to walk away from their unit, their Colours and their fellow soldiers simply because, as Canadians, they did not wish to take part in a government-imposed worship service.
> 
> Not only were they thrown off parade, they were thrown right out of the building.
> 
> I find this appalling.



I was rank and file at CG in summer 2006. When did this take place? I never heard of this. I'm wracking my brain trying to remember who the CO at the time was.


----------



## mariomike

Ostrozac said:
			
		

> People are still doing church parades?



Don't know if they still are, but we used to parade here,
https://pccweb.ca/standrews-hillsburgh/


----------



## lenaitch

I'm not from a military background and it strikes me that being pressed-ganged into participating in a religious event is anachronistic.   If the issue is overt or subliminal coercion, particularly in a rank-based organization, then I agree.

However, the concept of 'if it doesn't speak to me then it offends me' as being rather curious.  Does having colours laid up in a religious place really offend anyone?  If a faith leader makes a religious invocated over said colours, even if those words mean absolutely nothing to me, how am I negatively impacted by simply standing/sitting there observing it?  

I'm not a religious person but have attended numerous personal funerals, police funerals, memorials, a Red Mass and other events where religious invocation has taken place, and simply stand by quietly in respect of whatever is taking place.  I suppose in all cases I could have chosen not to attend, but that strikes me as a tad selfish and disrespectful of the friend/colleague/entity that I wished to acknowledge, remember or celebrate.  

Another curiosity these days, at least in public service, is if someone suggested a prayer or other religious invocation at an event, they would be pilloried, but if they suggested an aboriginal smudge ceremony, they would be applauded.


----------



## Kat Stevens

lenaitch said:
			
		

> I'm not from a military background and it strikes me that being pressed-ganged into participating in a religious event is anachronistic.   If the issue is overt or subliminal coercion, particularly in a rank-based organization, then I agree.
> 
> However, the concept of 'if it doesn't speak to me then it offends me' as being rather curious.  Does having colours laid up in a religious place really offend anyone?  If a faith leader makes a religious invocated over said colours, even if those words mean absolutely nothing to me, how am I negatively impacted by simply standing/sitting there observing it?
> 
> I'm not a religious person but have attended numerous personal funerals, police funerals, memorials, a Red Mass and other events where religious invocation has taken place, and simply stand by quietly in respect of whatever is taking place.  I suppose in all cases I could have chosen not to attend, but that strikes me as a tad selfish and disrespectful of the friend/colleague/entity that I wished to acknowledge, remember or celebrate.
> 
> Another curiosity these days, at least in public service, is if someone suggested a prayer or other religious invocation at an event, they would be pilloried, but if they suggested an aboriginal smudge ceremony, they would be applauded.



 :goodpost: Exactly this. Not hard to take off your hat and shut your festering gob for five minutes.


----------



## SupersonicMax

Target Up said:
			
		

> :goodpost: Exactly this. Not hard to take off your hat and shut your festering gob for five minutes.



Just like it is easy for the CAF to make their ceremonies secular.

As an institution, the CAF should not (and can not) favour a religion over another.  It is one thing to voluntarily go to a religious ceremony; it is an entirely other thing to be forced into it.


----------



## dapaterson

SupersonicMax said:
			
		

> Just like it is easy for the CAF to make their ceremonies secular.
> 
> As an institution, the CAF should not (and can not) favour a religion over another.  It is one thing to voluntarily go to a religious ceremony; it is an entirely other thing to be forced into it.



In 2004, that issue went before the Court Martial Appeal Court, where a Lt(N) who forewarned his chain of command that he did not believe in God and should not be put out on a church parade, refused to obey the order "Remove Headdress" in advance of a prayer.  While the military judge found him guilty, the competent CMAC noted "the judge's finding was unreasonable and is not supportable on the whole of the evidence".  Further, "there was no clearly military purpose, but simply the impermissible one of having the entire parade show some level of participation in and assent to the prayers that followed. The order was not lawful and the appellant's disobedience of it was justified."

https://decisions.cmac-cacm.ca/cmac-cacm/cmac-cacm/en/item/7837/index.do?


----------



## PuckChaser

Ostrozac said:
			
		

> People are still doing church parades? Really?



From Tony's examples, it seems more of a PRes issue where those units are directly tied historically to a specific church or denomination. The heritage link is completely understandable, but those current COs and RSMs really need to understand the new demographics of Canadian society aren't majority Christian as they were in 1944, which is completely OK. 

Every "prayer" I've been witnessed to from a CAF Padre in the Regular Force has started with "Please take a moment to reflect with whatever your personal faith allows" (I'm paraphrasing) and avoids overt references to God which would link more directly to Christianity than the myriad of other faiths that are welcome in the CAF today.

At the end of the day, the only Church parades I've ever been "forced" to attend were funerals, and would have felt the same amount of personal drive to attend should they have been in a Synagogue, Mosque, Gurdawa or any other religious place of worship to honour that fallen member.


----------



## FJAG

lenaitch said:
			
		

> I'm not from a military background and it strikes me that being pressed-ganged into participating in a religious event is anachronistic.   If the issue is overt or subliminal coercion, particularly in a rank-based organization, then I agree.
> 
> However, the concept of 'if it doesn't speak to me then it offends me' as being rather curious.  Does having colours laid up in a religious place really offend anyone?  If a faith leader makes a religious invocated over said colours, even if those words mean absolutely nothing to me, how am I negatively impacted by simply standing/sitting there observing it?
> 
> I'm not a religious person but have attended numerous personal funerals, police funerals, memorials, a Red Mass and other events where religious invocation has taken place, and simply stand by quietly in respect of whatever is taking place.  I suppose in all cases I could have chosen not to attend, but that strikes me as a tad selfish and disrespectful of the friend/colleague/entity that I wished to acknowledge, remember or celebrate.
> 
> Another curiosity these days, at least in public service, is if someone suggested a prayer or other religious invocation at an event, they would be pilloried, but if they suggested an aboriginal smudge ceremony, they would be applauded.



There is a point that stops well of "this offends me".

Like you, I have stood silently at hundreds of ceremonies when a religious component takes place. I've never been offended by other people's religiosity. In fact I think at most of those ceremonies the majority took no part in the prayer but like myself stood there silently. I doubt that we stood there out of respect for that religion but instead we did so because it was expected of us.

While I'm not offended by religious ceremonies at public functions, I do ask myself--pretty much every time--"why are we doing this? What purpose does it serve?" It's not like a national anthem or a pledge of allegiance to the country or Queen. It's only a nod to one particular religious sect and done mostly as a matter of rote.

I won't argue the prayer v smudging issue although my understanding is that smudging per se can be cultural without being spiritual in the same way that burning incense does not necessarily indicate a spiritual element. That said, I agree with you that when smudging is used as a part of a spiritual ceremony there is no difference from holding a prayer but while there may be a small minority (the easily outraged amongst us) that pillory one while applauding the other, I think the vast majority of Canadians do neither; we simply stand by silently letting it happen.



			
				dapaterson said:
			
		

> In 2004, that issue went before the Court Martial Appeal Court, where a Lt(N) who forewarned his chain of command that he did not believe in God and should not be put out on a church parade, refused to obey the order "Remove Headdress" in advance of a prayer.  While the military judge found him guilty, the competent CMAC noted "the judge's finding was unreasonable and is not supportable on the whole of the evidence".  Further, "there was no clearly military purpose, but simply the impermissible one of having the entire parade show some level of participation in and assent to the prayers that followed. The order was not lawful and the appellant's disobedience of it was justified."
> 
> https://decisions.cmac-cacm.ca/cmac-cacm/cmac-cacm/en/item/7837/index.do?



I find myself somewhat embarrassed in that in 2004 I was still serving with the JAG and the appellant's counsel, Denis Couture, was well known to me but I have absolutely no recollection of ever having heard of this decision. I find it disturbing that it did not get wider notice. IMHO, it is absolutely bang on target. 

 :cheers:


----------



## Ostrozac

PuckChaser said:
			
		

> From Tony's examples, it seems more of a PRes issue where those units are directly tied historically to a specific church or denomination. The heritage link is completely understandable, but those current COs and RSMs really need to understand the new demographics of Canadian society aren't majority Christian as they were in 1944, which is completely OK.



But aren’t we Regulars, by reputation cosseted in our isolated small town garrisons, supposed to rely heavily on the Reserves for connecting with Canadians? Don’t these PRes COs and RSMs realize that Canadian culture is now quite heavily secular? There was this whole thing called the Quiet Revolution, and then also some other stuff.

In an RCR battalion if the CO wanted to work on Sunday we’d go to the field or have a Freedom of the City parade. But never a church parade.


----------



## Remius

PuckChaser said:
			
		

> From Tony's examples, it seems more of a PRes issue where those units are directly tied historically to a specific church or denomination. The heritage link is completely understandable, but those current COs and RSMs really need to understand the new demographics of Canadian society aren't majority Christian as they were in 1944, which is completely OK.



It isn’t just PRES units that have direct heritage and historical link to a specific church or denomination.  I would argue that it is more part of the Regimental system than PRES vs REG.  All Regiments seem to have historical or heritage links to some church or another.  Either Protestant or Catholic.  

I have never seen anyone forced to go to a church parade.  Or to do anything they didn’t want to other than show signs of respect, like taking your hat off or respecting a moment of silence. 

  And while Canadian society does not have the same Christian majority that it did in 1944 it still is majority Christian.  It is shrinking though absolutely.  But remember that the CAF, in particular those parts that are Regimental are nowhere near reflective of the current Canadian society make up.  

And perhaps that is why vestiges of a religious time gone by still remain.  

Jr ranks xmas dinners, heavily laden with western christian traditions still occur and xmas concerts are still performed by all CAF bands.  And while it may seem as being non denominational they are all linked to one particular faith at one particular time of year.


----------



## Jarnhamar

I find rememberance day ceremonies feel like 70% or 80% prayers and reading from the Bible. A few times I've walked away thinking to myself that "the troops" hardly got mentioned at all.


----------



## Remius

Jarnhamar said:
			
		

> I find rememberance day ceremonies feel like 70% or 80% prayers and reading from the Bible. A few times I've walked away thinking to myself that "the troops" hardly got mentioned at all.



I don’t find the national one to be that way at all.  Although they have religious representatives reading or speaking most link it to the fallen.  Not too much bible reading.  

Maybe it is just the more local ones?


----------



## Jarnhamar

Remius said:
			
		

> I don’t find the national one to be that way at all.  Although they have religious representatives reading or speaking most link it to the fallen.  Not too much bible reading.
> 
> Maybe it is just the more local ones?



That makes sense.


----------



## mariomike

lenaitch said:
			
		

> I'm not from a military background and it strikes me that being pressed-ganged into participating in a religious event is anachronistic.   If the issue is overt or subliminal coercion, particularly in a rank-based organization, then I agree.



Only resentment I recall about church parade was the preparation of uniforms and vehicles required.    

Our departmental chaplain doesn't push religion, but offers spiritual support. He shows up, at least. That's the main thing, in my opinion.

At our pensioner luncheons ( temporarily suspended during the pandemic ), the chaplain always gives a prayer before the meal is served.


----------



## Jarnhamar

[quote author=mariomike]
At our pensioner luncheons ( temporarily suspended during the pandemic ), the chaplain always gives a prayer before the meal is served.


[/quote]

They should bless the ambulances before leaving for the day and after coming back every shift.


----------



## mariomike

Jarnhamar said:
			
		

> They should bless the ambulances before leaving for the day and after coming back every shift.



No. The prayer is for friends no longer with us, and those facing serious health problems. That may be difficult for some to appreciate.


----------



## Jarnhamar

mariomike said:
			
		

> No. The prayer is for friends no longer with us, and those facing serious health problems. That may be difficult for some to appreciate.



People in the back of ambulances face serious health problems.


----------



## mariomike

Jarnhamar said:
			
		

> People in the back of ambulances face serious health problems.



Do you have a point to make, or just trolling?


----------



## Jarnhamar

mariomike said:
			
		

> Do you have a point to make


Of course.


> the chaplain always gives a prayer before the meal is served.



That's passively pushing religion on someone just like blessing ambulances. More so I'd say.


----------



## mariomike

Jarnhamar said:
			
		

> That's passively pushing religion on someone



It's pensioners. I've known some for almost half a century. Never heard anyone complain, until now.


----------



## tonykeene

First of all I'd really like to comment on the cordial and courteous nature of all these posts.  This was not the case 18 years ago when I logged on here and commented on the issue of Lt(N) Scott who was court-martialled for keeping his lid on during prayers.
Both he and I were subjected to a lot of snark, to say the least.  But times and people and circumstances do change, and we are witness to that.
Some of the comments here are about things like smudging ceremonies.  Great.  These are a perfect example of what I meant earlier by bottom-up religious events.  The Aborginal members ask for it, and the CO and padre provide support and assistance.  The entire unit is not praded for it under command.
Similarly, one of my colleagues in Public Affairs one day got together with some like-minded members, and held a session in one of the conference rooms at NDHQ for giving witness, which is an evangelical Christian tradition.  Again, help was provided by a chaplain, and the various members' bosses gave them the time to go and take part.
Nothing I have said here is about preventing people from performing religious rituals or ceremonies.  It is about ending top-down command directed religion, such as prayer on parade, at the opening of buildings, change of command etc.  Once you are on parade you are a captive audience; there should be nothing done or said that in any way excludes you because of your race, religion or gender, or any of the other grounds we now recognize.
Then there is Remembrance Day (We might also include here Battle of Britain and Battle of the Atlantic), which in Ottawa for the past three years, I think, has involved only the Chaplain-General speaking about sacrifice and service, and inviting people to reflect according to their conscience.
Oh how I wish it were so elsewhere.  In the city near where I live every single one of these events is an all-out Christian tent revival.  They go from opening prayers to blessings, to joint recital of The Lord's Prayer, to blessing of the wreaths followed by the Book of John and on and on and on.
And yet this is a very diverse community.  There are turbans and hijabs visible on parade, and the crowd also contains women in shalwar kameez etc.
I've given up, after a decade of trying to talk the Legion into at least acknowledging diversity and making some kind of invitational statement.  I wonder why someone from the nearby base, or the hometown reserve unit, hasn't said something to them about it.
They remain deadpan adamantly opposed.  And yet they wonder why today's veterans don't join them.
Here's something to think about.  We who are retired depend on the Legion for help in dealing with VAC.  I myself have used this, and I'm very grateful.  The Legion has done great service to veterans for almost 100 years.
But it is failing, at a rate of about 10,000 members per year.  It is almost entirely white, male dominated and comes down somewhere to the far right of Archie Bunker.  There are 250,000 members, and only about 55,000 in the category that includes veterans.  Yet this group also includes Coast Guard and all police services.
I've been tracking the numbers for 30 years.  They are losing at least 10,000 per year, on average, and the gap between veterans and the others is widening.
Yet they remain adamant in their defence of Christian religion on any and all occasions, and it seems as if the racist incidents are increasing too.  And not to make too much of it, their Vera Lynn and Brussel Sprouts view of our military history.
How long can it last?


----------



## Remius

The chaplain general does speak at the national remembrance day ceremony.   But so does Rabbi Bulka and a representative of the aboriginal community.


----------



## tonykeene

Yes, Speak is the operative word.  But they don't pray in any sense.  Their presence as representatives of the inclusive and welcoming nature of Canada is eloquent.

I think as this evolves we will eventually see this become the norm.  It simply has to.


----------



## mariomike

tonykeene said:
			
		

> There are 250,000 members, and only about 55,000 in the category that includes veterans.



At a typical Legion branch, how many worked with, or even knew each other prior to retirement?

Personally, having known those in my little group for decades before we retired, I've come to love every damn one of them.

So, as far as religion is concerned, if the chaplain does a lunchtime prayer, I'm ok with that.


----------



## gwp

tonykeene said:
			
		

> Yes, Speak is the operative word.  But they don't pray in any sense.  Their presence as representatives of the inclusive and welcoming nature of Canada is eloquent.
> 
> I think as this evolves we will eventually see this become the norm.  It simply has to.



The Canadian Forces Chaplain's manual is a worthy read.
https://d2y1pz2y630308.cloudfront.net/24851/documents/2020/8/ICCMC%20Handbook%20Bilingual%20-%20March%2020192305843009231559303.pdf

Along with the Legion Chaplain's Manual
http://portal.legion.ca/docs/default-source/branch-and-command-resources/Ritual-Awards-Protocol/chaplainsmanual_2015_e.pdf?sfvrsn=a65c7a58_0


----------



## FJAG

mariomike said:
			
		

> ...
> So, as far as religion is concerned, if the chaplain does a lunchtime prayer, I'm ok with that.



And I'm not. I may silently tolerate it but I'm not okay with it. And therein lies the problem when it comes to faith issues. Who get's the final say as to whether or not you have to be an unwilling bystander to something you disagree with?

Sure, a prayer before a lunch or before a council meeting is a small thing and prayer wasn't the thing that kept me out of the legion when I transferred from the regular force and my out clearance included a form to join the legion. At the time it was that I had to swear to God that I'd never been a member of the Nazi Party or the Communist Party and their intolerable smoking that made me crumple the form up and ash can it.

Just an aside on Chaplains. During my career I've known over a dozen different ones both Protestant and Catholic. Some became my friends and all of them were really decent guys who cared about the troops and did a really great job. Any comments I have made about my dislike for religion in general has nothing to do with the folks in the Chaplain Corps who I respect as individuals very much.

 :cheers:


----------



## Jarnhamar

mariomike said:
			
		

> It's pensioners. I've known some for almost half a century. Never heard anyone complain, until now.



Serious question, would your pensioner friends complain if the chaplain was sick for a few weeks and an imam from a local mosque read some prayers from the Quran?


----------



## RangerRay

When I was in back in the ‘90s, I remember given a choice between Church Parade and something even less interesting. Usually the choice was “Church Parade” or “hang out at the shacks with the DS doing tasks”.  Everyone chose Church Parade. 

Once when someone objected to Church Parade, we were told we could hang out with the Atheist Discussion Group instead. I don’t think anyone chose the last option.


----------



## tonykeene

I guess it varies branch to branch.  Some are more adamantine that others.

Oddly I live near a major base, where personnel have been deploying on operations for decades, yet all the Legion branches around here give the impression that our military activity ceased on VE Day.  They often don't even have anything about Korea on display (It took the Legion 30 years to admit those veterans), and apart from one scrunched up little blue beret in the back corner of a display case, I've found nothing from Cyprus, the Middle East, Bosnia etc.

Every year in November they run up flags on the lampposts with pictures of Second World War personnel, and set up displays in local businesses, full of battledress, Spitfires, Vera Lynn and white Christian crosses.

It's as if they are willing away any changes that have taken place in the past 75 years.


----------



## mariomike

FJAG said:
			
		

> Who get's the final say as to whether or not you have to be an unwilling bystander to something you disagree with?
> 
> :cheers:



The Chief. Don't like it? Don't come.


----------



## SupersonicMax

mariomike said:
			
		

> The Chief. Don't like it? Don't come.



I hope this is tongue in cheek.  This attitude, regarding religion or any protected rights, has no place in any government institution. We've made great strides in being more inclusive and provide an environment where people can shine. Let's not go back in time where you had to be a white, anglo saxon, christian male to feel at home in the CAF.


----------



## mariomike

SupersonicMax said:
			
		

> I hope this is tongue in cheek.  This attitude, regarding religion or any protected rights, has no place in any government institution. We've made great strides in being more inclusive and provide an environment where people can shine. Let's not go back in time where you had to be a while, anglo saxon, christian male to feel at home in the CAF.



It's not the CAF. And it's not the Legion.


----------



## Jarnhamar

FJAG said:
			
		

> And I'm not. I may silently tolerate it but I'm not okay with it.



I really like and enjoy Native American mythology, history and spirituality. I've been to a few sweat lodge ceremonies and loved it.

First Nations ceremony while in uniform? Super weird and awkward. Feels out of place to have soldiers in uniform sitting through something like that (ie task force tomahawk)

I'm a non-practicing non-believing catholic(if that make sense). I'm not really bothered by christian ceremonies because I've been exposed a bit growing up and since joining the army, I've been exposed to it. So conditioning and inoculation? I can easily tune it out.

I would imagine for someone without the years of exposure it could be really weird and awkward. 

I found exposure to 'the church' way more prevalent in the reserves than regular force.


----------



## Jarnhamar

mariomike said:
			
		

> It's not the CAF. And it's not the Legion.



You brought it up in a conversation predominately about religion in the Canadian Forces, where people were talking about religion in the Canadian Forces.


----------



## mariomike

Jarnhamar said:
			
		

> You brought it up in a conversation predominately about religion in the Canadian Forces, where people were talking about religion in the Canadian Forces.



So was I. I was in the PRes, and our unit did Church Parades.

Not going to apologise for that either. 

You should re-title the Subject: Religion in the Canadian Forces & in Canadian Society


----------



## Jarnhamar

I'll edit to get back on topic.


----------



## FJAG

Jarnhamar said:
			
		

> I really like and enjoy Native American mythology, history and spirituality. I've been to a few sweat lodge ceremonies and loved it.
> 
> First Nations ceremony while in uniform? Super weird and awkward. Feels out of place to have soldiers in uniform sitting through something like that (ie task force tomahawk)
> 
> I'm a non-practicing non-believing catholic(if that make sense). I'm not really bothered by christian ceremonies because I've been exposed a bit growing up and since joining the army, I've been exposed to it. So conditioning and inoculation? I can easily tune it out.
> 
> I would imagine for someone without the years of exposure it could be really weird and awkward.
> 
> I found exposure to 'the church' way more prevalent in the reserves than regular force.



I've always liked the way the Kiwis have incorporated Maori customs into their basic military culture.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xI6TRTBZUMM

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wumW-zeBV6c

 :cheers:


----------



## daftandbarmy

The closer soldiers get to the meat grinder, the more important it is to have a good Padre on the team, whatever the 'flavour':

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-k_ab0XjOII

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=seARBWmT_S4

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2GmX_ItYC-w


----------



## Ostrozac

daftandbarmy said:
			
		

> The closer soldiers get to the meat grinder, the more important it is to have a good Padre on the team, whatever the 'flavour':



That’s one perspective. Another perspective was shown in the Vietnam War, where the People’s Army of Vietnam acquitted itself well, even though it lacked chaplins and was officially nonreligious, as was the communist government of North Vietnam that it served. The NVA certainly had more than a few atheists in foxholes.

You could say that the spiritual support to an army needs to match the specific needs of that army. And armies change over time. Canadian society is both more diverse and more secular than it was a hundred years ago. The Chaplain General seems to understand that, but it seems that not everyone has gotten the message.


----------



## Drallib

I became a Christian 6 years ago after joining the military, and I'd like to share my thoughts on the topic.

Before putting my faith in Christ, in the military, we would say the 'Engineer Prayer'. I never thought anything about it. _To the non-believer, it's just words (Edit: when I was a non-believer, it was just words)_. Even the prayers by Padres, like someone else mentioned, they state that you can pray how you see fit (or something like that), and I don't think they're allowed to say Jesus' name.

As a believer, do I want people to hear the Word of God, yes. But at the same time, I would understand if the Muslim (or other religion) would opt-out of the Christian service. If I were in their position, and we were told "you're going to go to a mosque and go on your knees to pray to Allah" I would probably refuse and take the consequences. Now, if I were told we were going in to sit in the back and just observe, that's fine. I know many Christians who were invited to mosques and they would check it out.


----------



## lenaitch

Interesting discussion.  I can add little more since I am not nor have ever been in the military tent.  It is often difficult to isolate culture from religion in some ceremonies or observances, and I agree that it can be a little awkward or uncomfortable if one is not familiar with the drill.  I have attended a couple of Hindu weddings and Catholic services and just try to do what everybody else is doing.

Probably because I don't really think about it much, I'm never quite clear on the concept of 'freedom of religion' vs. 'freedom from religion', and have no clue where Canadian jurisprudence falls on it.  The issue seems much more alive in the US.  It may be that I'm simply tolerant, or just don't care that much one way or the other.  I was raised in the United Church (long since fallen) which has to be one of the blandest, believe-pretty-much-anything-you want' churches.

As Canadian society evolves, it seems like a good thing public body practices evolve along with them, and it sounds like the military is evolving, even though it sounds like the message hasn't reached into all corners yet..  In bygone days in my memory, in the Ontario public service, being a Mason was a good career thing and being Catholic was not and it is a good thing that has long since been eradicated.  I suppose the challenge is to not throw out all history and tradition with the bath water.  No doubt there is some SJW waiting to demand that all crosses be removed from Commonwealth War Cemeteries. Tradition can often be the sea anchor that keeps an organization from flopping around in the present, but it shouldn't be a boat anchor that drags it down either (poetic huh?).  Being from Ontario, I've had fairly minimal involvement with the RCMP, but the one thing I have always admired them for is the place that their history and traditions play.


----------



## quadrapiper

FJAG said:
			
		

> Who get's the final say as to whether or not you have to be an unwilling bystander to something you disagree with?


Of the various ceremonies and events mentioned here, the only one I can think of where "smile and nod" would be the best plan for the day would be a funeral, in relation to whatever faith, if any, the deceased/their family wanted involved. I'm on the fence as far as existing venues for laying up colours, except to say the moment that venue breaths a word out of line with CAF policy re: social concepts, inclusion, etc. the relationship ends and the regimental items leave. Certainly, if a new "community" venue is sought, it should be secular, extremely long term, of some dignity, and hopefully busy.

Everything else can and should be secularized.


----------



## CBH99

lenaitch said:
			
		

> I have attended a couple of Hindu weddings and Catholic services and just try to do what everybody else is doing.




I realize what I'm about to ask isn't contributing to the overall discussion, so I apologize beforehand.

May I ask, how was your experience at the Hindu weddings??  Objectively??


The only reason I ask is last summer, I went to two Hindu weddings (The only 2 I've ever been invited to) -- and I had an ABSOLUTE BLAST!  The dresses the women were wearing were absolutely amazing, jaw dropping.  And I don't mean that in any sort of sexual or suggestive way - the dresses worn, even by ladies in their 70's, were absolutely gorgeous.

I don't dance.  At all.  I am NOT a dancer.  I dance about as well as a white kid from the suburbs is supposed to dance.  My dance skills are 0.  Solid 0.

But the guys at the wedding (for those who haven't been to a Hindu wedding, it's quite common for a group of guys to get together and do their traditional dances) forced me to get on my feet and taught me some of their basic moves.


All in all, the most fun I've ever had at any weddings   :nod:


----------



## lenaitch

CBH99 said:
			
		

> I realize what I'm about to ask isn't contributing to the overall discussion, so I apologize beforehand.
> 
> May I ask, how was your experience at the Hindu weddings??  Objectively??
> 
> 
> The only reason I ask is last summer, I went to two Hindu weddings (The only 2 I've ever been invited to) -- and I had an ABSOLUTE BLAST!  The dresses the women were wearing were absolutely amazing, jaw dropping.  And I don't mean that in any sort of sexual or suggestive way - the dresses worn, even by ladies in their 70's, were absolutely gorgeous.
> 
> I don't dance.  At all.  I am NOT a dancer.  I dance about as well as a white kid from the suburbs is supposed to dance.  My dance skills are 0.  Solid 0.
> 
> But the guys at the wedding (for those who haven't been to a Hindu wedding, it's quite common for a group of guys to get together and do their traditional dances) forced me to get on my feet and taught me some of their basic moves.
> 
> 
> All in all, the most fun I've ever had at any weddings   :nod:



Same here.  Both sons of a high school friend married Hindu girls from university and one opted for a more traditional wedding (the other was, for want of a better term, 'barely Hindu').  It was at a G&CC and my buddy is quite the carpenter and built the covered wedding alter  ('mandap').  You are so right about the dresses.  Much colour, layers, jewelry, make-up, henna, etc.  Preparation must have taken forever. 
 Both the groom's mom and aunt (both 'western') got into it as well.  Of course we didn't understand what was happening but there seemed to be a lot of different things going on at different times and locations, then seemingly nothing, then something else, and so on.   It did seem to take forever.  Very different than a typical western wedding which are more 'linear' (I am told Sikh weddings are also more linear and shorter, like ours).

I don't remember much about the reception other than it was more typical western.  I don't recall any spontaneous dancing, but have been told that the 'folk' dances are regional - perhaps her family is from a more urban area, I don't know.  We aren't party people and it was a fair drive for us so we did our usual and bugged out shortly after the meal.  Wedding receptions are for young people, and we ain't (never sure I ever was).


----------



## tonykeene

The basic problem is that religion, specifically Christianity, has been hard-wired into the Forces for centuries.  However, it has not been so for any other government agency.  As a result deferring to Christianity has been conflated with loyalty and willngness to serve, fitness as a soldier etc.
As an example, the official history of the Canadian Grenadier Guards features pages dedicated to the Regimental Grace, Regimental Church and so on.  Thumbing through this book gives the decided impression that this is a Christian regiment, which of course it is not.  Any other government agency would not be allowed to do this.  Your local Service Canada office would not be allowed to form an official alliance with the local Anglican Church.  But your local reserve unit does do it with impunity.
I understand the appeal of tradition.  My family is steeped in it.  I realize how hard it must be for many to accept this.  But as the CF does not have religious criteria for membership, then it cannot have such for participation.  If the Forces will accept you as an atheist, then you should not, in your career, have to stand under command and hear about any religion.
It's that simple.
However, this also means that Forces members must be free to express and obseve their own faith traditions.  But this must be done without any command involvement other than the provision of support.  Members of the unit should not be encouraged or forced to attend under threat, implied or overt.  But too often this is the case, when the pace sticks go into action.
The Forces are a coercive environment.  This is as it must be.  But we must be careful not to use it to enforce things which in reality have no relation to operational effectiveness.


----------



## tonykeene

This entire thread is actually moot and irrelelvent.  The Supreme Court of Canada ruled in the "Saguenay" case that all levels of government (and government agencies) must be neutral towards religion.  This means no church parades, no religious blessing of Colours, no blessings of buildings, no prayer on parade, no religious grace at mess dinners etc.  It's all over.  The chaplain general on Remembrance Day 2019 complied with this ruling in his remarks when he made no religious references whatsoever.  The discussion is over.  The Forces have no role whatsoever is requiring CF members to take part in or acknowledge religions.   This means regimental prayers, graces, official church affiliations etc are all gone.  Game over, end of story.  Get used to it.


----------



## Bruce Monkhouse

Responding to yourself???


----------



## SeaKingTacco

Bruce Monkhouse said:


> Responding to yourself???


Tony is merely doing a victory lap for Atheism…


----------



## tonykeene

SeaKingTacco said:


> Tony is merely doing a victory lap for Atheism…


Well no, not really.  All I'm saying is that no matter what your opinion, the issue has been decided.  It is the law.  Most regiments in the Army have official alliances with Christian churches, many have officioal prayers, Graces, blessing etc.  These have been created over generations of service, but nevertheless they are now gone.  Just as an event could not include statements about the superiority of the white race, or the male sex, they may not now include acknowledgements of the primacy of a religion, or of faith over lack of faith etc.  Throughout my more than 40 years of reserve service, my lack of religion was a constant source of ridicule, contempt, insult and threat.  ("Oh, this is Major Tony Keene, our resident heathen." YUK!)  The medals on my chest are as good as anyones, yet I have had to take off my hat, bow my head and keep my mouth shut as official state priests told me about the primacy of Jesus Christ.
After four tours of operational duty, I had to sit and listen as a senior officer, wearing the CD and Canada 125 ribbon,  told me I'd change my mind "as soon as the bullets start flying."
Enough is enough.  If Service Canada can't conduct religious services for its employees and the public, so the Forces cannot.  It's that simple.  It's the law.


----------



## cavalryman

Yep. Like SKT said, a victory lap for atheism. But no matter how you look at it, atheism is a faith all of its own, and good old Tony is presenting himself as a martyr. Nicely done.


----------



## brihard

Yeah, dude, nobody had touched this thread since your last post in January. “Moot” appears to have already been the case. It was a necrothread til you opened it up again.

I didn’t do as much time in as you - 14 years PRes, just the one tour, but not once did I ever have anything happen that caused me to believe that anyone in CAF gave a shit about my lack of religious belief. I was never disadvantaged by it, never made to observe anything I didn’t want to. I never got butthurt if grace was said at a dinner, and nobody cared that I just sat there not mouthing anything. Most troops weren’t. I definitey didn’t begrudge the presence of the Chaplain at any of our numerous ramp ceremonies in Kandahar when we sent dudes home from tour early. I’m going to respectfully suggest that you’re staying pretty hung up on something that hasn’t really mattered in a long time now. You retired in 2006. You’re beating a horse that was dead and buried many years ago now. Let it go. Or at least stop pretending you still have a finger on this particular pulse.


----------



## Kilted

Traditions die hard. I'm sure I'm not the only person who knows that there is a difference between what regulations say and what actually happens. In reality what I expect many of these traditions to be passed on to the various Regimental Associations which are mostly made up of former members. It may not be the whole regiment taking part in a church parade, but the Regimental Association could host it and if troops show up its of their own free will. Retired Regimental colours could be entrusted to Regimental Associations, who could then deposit them in churches.


----------



## Remius

tonykeene said:


> Well no, not really.  All I'm saying is that no matter what your opinion, the issue has been decided.  It is the law.  Most regiments in the Army have official alliances with Christian churches, many have officioal prayers, Graces, blessing etc.  These have been created over generations of service, but nevertheless they are now gone.  Just as an event could not include statements about the superiority of the white race, or the male sex, they may not now include acknowledgements of the primacy of a religion, or of faith over lack of faith etc.  Throughout my more than 40 years of reserve service, my lack of religion was a constant source of ridicule, contempt, insult and threat.  ("Oh, this is Major Tony Keene, our resident heathen." YUK!)  The medals on my chest are as good as anyones, yet I have had to take off my hat, bow my head and keep my mouth shut as official state priests told me about the primacy of Jesus Christ.
> After four tours of operational duty, I had to sit and listen as a senior officer, wearing the CD and Canada 125 ribbon,  told me I'd change my mind "as soon as the bullets start flying."
> Enough is enough.  If Service Canada can't conduct religious services for its employees and the public, so the Forces cannot.  It's that simple.  It's the law.


Should we stop all military provided funerals and services?  Divest ourselves of our military cemetery? 

When you die are you okay being disposed of as bio waste? 

Should we as an organisation divest ourselves of being able to minister to our members spiritual well being regardless of their faith or lack thereof? 

Service Canada doesn’t send its employees to die or into lethal situations.  (Mind you Monday mornings in those client service offices might qualify). 

Given that we may have to order our people to kill and or die or do harm to others, all things that could indeed go against their beliefs, is that not something that should be managed?

Not saying you are wrong.  I don’t think anyone should be forced or ordered into any religious ceremony or spell casting session.  

But it opens up a Pandora’s box. 

But your beef seems to be aimed at Christian observances in the CAF.


----------



## Bruce Monkhouse

Any atheist who thinks it's some kind of major butthurt to sit through some religious  stuff is an idiot/thudfuck/moron/take your pick/etc.......I'm an atheist and I attended lots of ceremonies during the 80's.....and yet here I am, mentally unscathed all these years later.


----------



## Jarnhamar

tonykeene said:


> After four tours of operational duty, I had to sit and listen as a senior officer, wearing the CD and Canada 125 ribbon,  told me I'd change my mind "as soon as the bullets start flying."


You should have challenged him to a honour duel.



tonykeene said:


> Enough is enough.  If Service Canada can't conduct religious services for its employees and the public, so the Forces cannot.  It's that simple.  It's the law.



I'm not sure what spirits are bringing this up with you now but the CAF actually doesn't push religion and church services on members like it used to. It's been a long time since I've personally seen it.  The CAF appears to have removed a lot of the influence and power (for good or for ill) from padres when it comes to compassionate postings, getting out of exercises and such.


----------



## Kilted

Jarnhamar said:


> You should have challenged him to a honour duel.


That is legal now, or at least changlleng someone to one is.


----------



## Jarnhamar

Kilted said:


> That is legal now, or at least changlleng someone to one is.


A staple of officer mess life if I do say so chap.


----------



## tonykeene

Kilted said:


> Traditions die hard. I'm sure I'm not the only person who knows that there is a difference between what regulations say and what actually happens. In reality what I expect many of these traditions to be passed on to the various Regimental Associations which are mostly made up of former members. It may not be the whole regiment taking part in a church parade, but the Regimental Association could host it and if troops show up its of their own free will. Retired Regimental colours could be entrusted to Regimental Associations, who could then deposit them in churches.


Yes, that would probably be a possible change, and it would probably work.  Also I think as society changes, gradually so will these traditions.  I'd like to live to 150 in order to see it!!


----------



## tonykeene

Remius said:


> Should we stop all military provided funerals and services?  Divest ourselves of our military cemetery?
> 
> When you die are you okay being disposed of as bio waste?
> 
> Should we as an organisation divest ourselves of being able to minister to our members spiritual well being regardless of their faith or lack thereof?
> 
> Service Canada doesn’t send its employees to die or into lethal situations.  (Mind you Monday mornings in those client service offices might qualify).
> 
> Given that we may have to order our people to kill and or die or do harm to others, all things that could indeed go against their beliefs, is that not something that should be managed?
> 
> Not saying you are wrong.  I don’t think anyone should be forced or ordered into any religious ceremony or spell casting session.
> 
> But it opens up a Pandora’s box.
> 
> But your beef seems to be aimed at Christian observances in the CAF.


Funerals are personal , like weddings.  We observe a person's passing in terms of his or her own faith.  This has nothing to do with ministry; we need chaplains to do that.  What I object to is the use of religion to add pomp and circumstance to an event that really has no religious significance.  And it's not about Christianity; it only seems that way because, essentially, it is Christian prayer, or the semblance of it, that is used.  I've never seen a parade ordered to its knees for Muslim prayer.  I'm sure if it were, I certainly would no longer be the only one objecting.


----------



## Bruce Monkhouse

Well I'd be more then happy to honor my Muslim brothers/sisters in arms by kneeling in prayer with them.

Respect for others is a wonderful thing...


----------



## tonykeene

Great idea!  A few years ago I was invited to my local mosque (it's out in the countryside near where I live) to represent the veterans' group I belonged to at a ceremony to honour victims of a mass shooting.  It was indeed an honour to go there, wearing my beret and medals, take off my shoes at the door and stand alongside people from all over my community.  And of course I've attended many weddings, funerals etc in churches and synagoues.  Not a problem, because these were about individual people, and their beliefs..
What I am talking about is the use of prayer or religion at events that are not supposed to be religious such as the presentation of Colours, or a dinner.  Everyone should be included, and if blessings etc are offered in a religious sense, then that automatically excludes those of us who are not religious.  We are, in effect being told that we are secondary.  We don't belong in the first rank.
Using Colours as an example, we are told they exemplify the Regiment.  That means everyone in the Regiment, not just those who believe in God.  The ceremony should not only include this, it should stress it.  Cohesion is, of course, the whole point.
In my last year of service I saw three soldiers literally ejected from a parade.  The CO told them to fall out, pointed at the door, and they were required to walk away from their Colours, their unit, their fellow soldiers, simply because, as Canadians, they chose not to pray under military authority.  They weren't just ejected from the parade, they were marched out of the building.  It was an appalling thing to watch.
Does that create unit cohesion?  I trust such things are not being done anymore.


----------



## Bruce Monkhouse

I do Crossfit....


----------



## Remius

tonykeene said:


> Funerals are personal , like weddings.  We observe a person's passing in terms of his or her own faith.  This has nothing to do with ministry; we need chaplains to do that.  What I object to is the use of religion to add pomp and circumstance to an event that really has no religious significance.  And it's not about Christianity; it only seems that way because, essentially, it is Christian prayer, or the semblance of it, that is used.  I've never seen a parade ordered to its knees for Muslim prayer.  I'm sure if it were, I certainly would no longer be the only one objecting.


I’ve never seen a parade ordered to it’s knees at all.  In 25 years.


----------



## Remius

tonykeene said:


> Great idea!  A few years ago I was invited to my local mosque (it's out in the countryside near where I live) to represent the veterans' group I belonged to at a ceremony to honour victims of a mass shooting.  It was indeed an honour to go there, wearing my beret and medals, take off my shoes at the door and stand alongside people from all over my community.  And of course I've attended many weddings, funerals etc in churches and synagoues.  Not a problem, because these were about individual people, and their beliefs..
> What I am talking about is the use of prayer or religion at events that are not supposed to be religious such as the presentation of Colours, or a dinner.  Everyone should be included, and if blessings etc are offered in a religious sense, then that automatically excludes those of us who are not religious.  We are, in effect being told that we are secondary.  We don't belong in the first rank.
> Using Colours as an example, we are told they exemplify the Regiment.  That means everyone in the Regiment, not just those who believe in God.  The ceremony should not only include this, it should stress it.  Cohesion is, of course, the whole point.
> In my last year of service I saw three soldiers literally ejected from a parade.  The CO told them to fall out, pointed at the door, and they were required to walk away from their Colours, their unit, their fellow soldiers, simply because, as Canadians, they chose not to pray under military authority.  They weren't just ejected from the parade, they were marched out of the building.  It was an appalling thing to watch.
> Does that create unit cohesion?  I trust such things are not being done anymore.




I have not nor have I ever seen anything like that.  I’ve also never had any complaints about anything like that either.  Most were fine with whatever.  I’m Roman Catholic.  A good chunk of those things (which are mostly relegated to association functions) in my unit were Protestant in nature.  I never took issue with it.  A lot of highland regiments have st Andrew’s crosses in their cap badges.  I never saw or heard anyone complain. 

You are using whatever anecdotal stories you have from your past to start a fight over something that really does not exist CAF wide. It may exist in silos in some places but it certainly isn’t as widespread as you think.  

Also you are not using the right definition of what Colours represent.  Consecration of colours is not a religious ceremony.  It’s a military one.  Does it have religious overtones?  I suppose.  But it’s ceremonial.  YOU are not being subjected to any religious indoctrination, no one is converting you, no one is saying you are converting or forcing you to believe anything.   Consecration serves to reinforce the values of honour and loyalty to crown and country.  Not God or gods or whatever.  

There are plenty of traditions that stem from religion.  Some people observe them without being religious. 

To sum up though, consecration of colours and remembrance observances ARE NOT ABOUT YOU.


----------



## daftandbarmy

tonykeene said:


> *In my last year of service I saw three soldiers literally ejected from a parade.*  The CO told them to fall out, pointed at the door, and they were required to walk away from their Colours, their unit, their fellow soldiers, simply because, as Canadians, they chose not to pray under military authority.  They weren't just ejected from the parade, they were marched out of the building.  It was an appalling thing to watch.
> Does that create unit cohesion?  I trust such things are not being done anymore.


----------



## tonykeene

I think it's time for me to retire from this conversation.  Throughout I trust I have maintained a reasonable and courteous manner of discussion.  I have not attacked anyone personally, and I never called anyone "dude" or any other name.
However, if that is the way things are discussed these days, then an old guy like me should bow out with as much grace as possible.
May you all stay safe and well.


----------



## daftandbarmy

tonykeene said:


> I think it's time for me to retire from this conversation.  Throughout I trust I have maintained a reasonable and courteous manner of discussion.  I have not attacked anyone personally, and I never called anyone "dude" or any other name.
> However, if that is the way things are discussed these days, then an old guy like me should bow out with as much grace as possible.
> May you all stay safe and well.



If you're referring to one of my favourite 'memes of outrage' above, I'm just pissed to hear that my/ any Army would do that to three innocent soldiers.

That's all.


----------



## lenaitch

tonykeene said:


> Everyone should be included, and if blessings etc are offered in a religious sense, then that automatically excludes those of us who are not religious.  We are, in effect being told that we are secondary.  We don't belong in the first rank.



This is from the school of 'if it doesn't speak directly to me, then it offends me', which is a refuge for many these days, inside and outside of faith discussions.


----------



## SeaKingTacco

tonykeene said:


> I think it's time for me to retire from this conversation.  Throughout I trust I have maintained a reasonable and courteous manner of discussion.  I have not attacked anyone personally, and I never called anyone "dude" or any other name.
> However, if that is the way things are discussed these days, then an old guy like me should bow out with as much grace as possible.
> May you all stay safe and well.


Then why, may I ask, did you necro-respond yesterday to you own post, in a nearly dead thread?

I can only surmise, Tony, that you enjoy the drama.


----------



## Bruce Monkhouse

tonykeene said:


> Game over, end of story.  Get used to it.






tonykeene said:


> I think it's time for me to retire from this conversation.  Throughout I trust I have maintained a reasonable and courteous manner of discussion.




Really?  Well this thread seems to be your ball, take it home if you wish.


----------



## Kilted

Remius said:


> I’ve never seen a parade ordered to it’s knees at all.  In 25 years.


The only story that comes to mind with this was at a Church Parade with my allied unit in the United Kingdom.  Being an Anglican service there was a time when the majority of those in attendance knelt.  Being a Presbyterian I didn't, no one cared other than the Roman Catholic who was beside me who told me that I was supposed to be kneeling. Granted that is more a difference between customs than actual belief.  Although, if it wasn't for the military I would probably never have gotten the opportunity to attend an Anglican service.  I'm pretty sure that every time I have been in an Anglican Church I have been in uniform, with the exception of times when I have gone places as a tourist, Westminister Abbey for example.


----------



## brihard

tonykeene said:


> I think it's time for me to retire from this conversation.  Throughout I trust I have maintained a reasonable and courteous manner of discussion.  I have not attacked anyone personally, and I never called anyone "dude" or any other name.
> However, if that is the way things are discussed these days, then an old guy like me should bow out with as much grace as possible.
> May you all stay safe and well.



“Dude” is not calling you a name, nor have there been any personal attacks. In any case, you do you- but when you come out of nowhere to revive a dormant thread with a rant that’s at least fifteen years dated, yeah, there will be some pushback from those with more recent CAF time.

Anyway, have a good one.


----------



## Good2Golf

Religious oppression in the CAF may have resulted in a few being drummed out of the mob in double quick-time, but things really went downhill for the CAF when we stopped wearing ascots with work dress…


----------



## daftandbarmy

Good2Golf said:


> Religious oppression in the CAF may have resulted in a few being drummed out of the mob in double quick-time, but things really went downhill for the CAF when we stopped wearing ascots with work dress…
> 
> 
> View attachment 66699


----------



## FJAG

Okay, I've stayed out of this but tonykeene has a point here and most of you are defending ceremonies that stem from a religious basis on the grounds that they are traditional military activities.

That's really not the issue. The issue is inclusion and exclusion - either overtly or covertly/systemically.

Let's take the example the consecrating of colours. Consecration is a religious act. From the Canadian Oxford:



> 1. make or declare sacred; dedicate formally to a religious or divine or purpose



This from the Heritage site:



> New Colours shall not be granted the dignity of Colours until consecration has taken place, nor shall they be carried on parade until they have been consecrated. Once Colours have been consecrated and presented, they shall be accorded the highest honours at all times and treated with great respect and care.



Effectively the routine is to have a Queen's representative (either the GG or a provincial LG) "present" the colours which denotes their coming from the crown and then having a padre "consecrate" them thus making them sacred.

We can hum and haw all we want about tradition, but effectively for anyone serving in a regiment, their colours are not sacred until made so in a religious rite. The tradition this comes from goes back to times where folks were mostly devout and almost exclusively belonged to the same religion (albeit different branches of Christianity). The time was that anyone who wasn't a Christian was in such a minority that they had no choice but to buckle under (and yes, I had to kneel on occasion at church parades). I don't have proof but my guess is that in any given unit there are fewer practicing Christians than there are atheists, or those who practice no religion or those who practice a different religion.

We certainly wouldn't ask a Sheik soldier to remove headdress, but just as an example the simple fact that we have a unit remove headdress and lower their heads for an interdenominational prayer, is having them stand out at being "different" for a religious ceremony that doesn't fall under their practice. The same for the non religious folks. Why demand a practice that has absolutely no meaning to them.

The point about respecting other people's religion is quite valid. I've been to a Jewish synagogue and behaved according to their traditions. I did it voluntarily and that's the point - voluntarily. I even consider a ramp ceremony to be an affair that honours the individual fallen warrior and which, quite rightly, ought to be a service of whatever faith the individual held as important. I see it no different then attending a Shinto wedding even if my attendance may not be fully voluntary.

However, when a tradition is brought up during a general military event that is religious in fact or based on a religious tradition, regardless of what faith it comes from, it makes everyone a captive. It doesn't matter whether it is a prayer made at the beginning of a meeting, or the consecration of colours or even a government organized remembrance day ceremony. If it contains overtones of a specific or any religion, its not proper. I, for one, do not have a problem with padres at these events giving a speech on the value of human life but I can understand where there are some who do object.

The point is that times have changed and our society has changed. The word "tradition" as a defence to a government practice that forces people to attend and even participate in practices that are effectively religious in nature is no longer appropriate regardless of how imbedded into our military culture.

🍻

ps.



Good2Golf said:


> Religious oppression in the CAF may have resulted in a few being drummed out of the mob in double quick-time, but things really went downhill for the CAF when we stopped wearing ascots with work dress…



Like my old Robin Hood combat hat, I also still have my "combat" gunner dickie (go ahead D&B - make your little joke but that's what they were called)


----------



## Bruce Monkhouse

FJAG said:


> Why demand a practice that has absolutely no meaning to them.


Like saluting an Officer?  Maybe I can object to the commissioning scroll requirements since they come from the Crown?

Wait, everyone salutes everyone, so no one feels "non-included".

But to answer your question, 
It's called 'respect'....something I dearly wish most of my fellow atheists had.


----------



## FJAG

Bruce Monkhouse said:


> Like saluting an Officer?  Maybe I can object to the commissioning scroll requirements since they come from the Crown?
> 
> But to answer your question,
> It's called 'respect'....something I dearly wish most of my fellow atheists had.


That's deflection. Saluting has no religious connotation to it.

And you are evading the issue. The "no meaning to them" clearly refers to a religious bias inculcated into a military tradition, not every tradition.

And within context, I can "respect" an individual practicing his religion. I do not have to tolerate a state foisted religious practice on me. None of us should whether we are atheists or those practicing a different religion. 

🍻


----------



## daftandbarmy

FJAG said:


> Like my old Robin Hood combat hat, I also still have my "combat" gunner dickie (go ahead D&B - make your little joke but that's what they were called)



I would never joke about such a serious subject. Much


----------



## Bruce Monkhouse

Wasn't your scroll "commissioned"' by the head of the Church of England?


----------



## FJAG

Bruce Monkhouse said:


> Wasn't your scroll "commissioned"' by the head of the Church of England?


Nope by the sovereign of Canada. Her secondary duties are of no interest to me. Neither is the basis of her divine right to rule.

Think about the broad concepts rather than trying to find loopholes in a system riddled with them.

🍻


----------



## Bruce Monkhouse

FJAG said:


> . Her secondary duties are of no interest to me.


"To you" doesn't  mean "to everyone".


----------



## FJAG

Bruce Monkhouse said:


> "To you" doesn't  mean "to everyone".


That's true. I find that I'm more tolerant than most and less tolerant than some on most issues.

That doesn't mean that I have to buckle under.

🍻


----------



## Good2Golf

FJAG said:


> Nope by the sovereign of Canada. Her secondary duties are of no interest to me. Neither is the basis of her divine right to rule.


Divine right?  I thought we were an Anarcho-syndicalist commune?

And on topic, while Canadian society inclusively considers atheism…and agnosticism, incidentally, it continues to include those who follow a God-based faith as well.  Considering all the recent rewording of the national anthem to be more inclusive and less misogynistic, God (in whatever un-constrained form) remains in place within said anthem.  Thus it would seem with the inclusion of some element of religion, although significantly and responsively reduced over the years to the minimalist form represented in today’s CAF, that the CAF remains a representation of the society it defends today, that so too has reduced explicit reference to religion in official affairs, but has not eliminated it.  

Perhaps those still with issue could present a case for how the CAF’s diminuation of religion had proportionately lagged behind that of societal Canada on the whole?


----------



## quadrapiper

FJAG said:


> This from the Heritage site


It's irritating that a comprehensive housecleaning hasn't been conducted as far as religious elements in ceremonial.

Doing a 200/201 edit is _free_; ditto quietly letting church affiliations lapse, and, if anyone was still running church parades or delivering prayers on parade, just letting that practice vanish. Ditto grace etc. at dinners. Pulling laid up or deposited colours, and anything else by way of artifacts, back to the armoury until a secular home can be found is a morning's work. Let the senates, associations, old guards, etc. know that their input, in this, is _not_ welcome. Let the chaplains know they've no ceremonial role unless asked by the member or family to officiate at a service funeral or wedding.

Any shrieking outside the CAF will die down quickly enough to be irrelevant.


----------



## Kilted

quadrapiper said:


> It's irritating that a comprehensive housecleaning hasn't been conducted as far as religious elements in ceremonial.
> 
> Doing a 200/201 edit is _free_; ditto quietly letting church affiliations lapse, and, if anyone was still running church parades or delivering prayers on parade, just letting that practice vanish. Ditto grace etc. at dinners. Pulling laid up or deposited colours, and anything else by way of artifacts, back to the armoury until a secular home can be found is a morning's work. Let the senates, associations, old guards, etc. know that their input, in this, is _not_ welcome. Let the chaplains know they've no ceremonial role unless asked by the member or family to officiate at a service funeral or wedding.
> 
> Any shrieking outside the CAF will die down quickly enough to be irrelevant.


The Regimental Associations are run by civilians, they can do whatever they what.  Besides people complaining about this page, I have never heard anyone complain about being present when any religious content is present in a ceremony.  Most of which when it happens is done by civilian organizations anyways, mostly the Royal Canadian Legion or local municipalities. I didn't complain when there was a First Nations religious element incorporated into the parade that I would have avoid according to my religious beliefs if it had of happened elsewhere.  Takening back old colours would be wrong for many reasons.  For one many of them are old and may be damaged by being moved.  I would be interested to find out who has legal ownership of those colours.  Another thing is that those colours represented versions of regiments from a society that was far more religious than today.  Why should we retroactively break that connection?


----------



## daftandbarmy

Kilted said:


> The Regimental Associations are run by civilians, they can do whatever they what.  Besides people complaining about this page, I have never heard anyone complain about being present when any religious content is present in a ceremony.  Most of which when it happens is done by civilian organizations anyways, mostly the Royal Canadian Legion or local municipalities. *I didn't complain when there was a First Nations religious element incorporated into the parade that I would have avoid according to my religious beliefs if it had of happened elsewhere.  *Takening back old colours would be wrong for many reasons.  For one many of them are old and may be damaged by being moved.  I would be interested to find out who has legal ownership of those colours.  Another thing is that those colours represented versions of regiments from a society that was far more religious than today.  Why should we retroactively break that connection?



I've been part of various 'smudging' ceremonies delivered by various First Nations groups.

In my experience they always ask you if you'd like to participate, and clearly honour the values of choice for any religious ceremony.

There's alot we could learn from that IMHO


----------



## Remius

The CAF does not have the lead on the National Remembrance Day Ceremony.  We participate but it’s run and scheduled by the Legion and Veterans affairs.  Not us.  We are certainly a stakeholder.  So maybe take up this issue with them?  Not sure how other ceremonies are dealt with in other locales but somehow I doubt the CAF leads those either.


----------



## FJAG

Good2Golf said:


> God (in whatever un-constrained form) remains in place within said anthem.


And even more blatantly in the Charter of Rights and Freedoms:


> Whereas Canada is founded upon principles that recognize the supremacy of God and the rule of law:



🍻


----------



## daftandbarmy

FJAG said:


> And even more blatantly in the Charter of Rights and Freedoms:
> 
> 
> 🍻



Ladies and gentlemen, I give you: the Defender of the Faith!


----------



## quadrapiper

Kilted said:


> The Regimental Associations are run by civilians, they can do whatever they what.  Besides people complaining about this page, I have never heard anyone complain about being present when any religious content is present in a ceremony.


The associations certainly can do as they like: was suggesting letting them know that there would be no point in trying to lobby anyone about any secularization.

Not sure of your context, but religion is a standing complaint about Remembrance ceremonies (which, absolutely, aren't generally CAF led) around here, both from uniformed members and civilians.

If colours and the like are no longer recoverable, fine: that said, make sure relationships with religious organizations and venues _end_ to a "don't call us, we certainly won't be calling you" degree.


----------



## HiTechComms

Serious question. I tried looking for this on DND website, couldn't find any information but this thread might actually fit into my inquiry. Civilian life is not the same as military.
Never really thought about this until now, as its been settled issue for me for long time but I am curious to know how this is handled nonetheless.

How does CAF handle a Living Will, Advanced Directives? 
I have living will for a DNR, (no CPR), amongst some of my clauses, if I am incapacitated due to head injury or a spinal injury which would leave me unable to function at a certain quality of life. IE Walking, Breathing unassisted, Heart conditions which require extraordinary measures to keep functioning. IE Transplant. etc..

I fully understand that some situations this is an issue, as it is not really applicable to certain situations IE: EMT, Firefighters, Field medical assistance. This is purely Hospitalization question.


----------



## Blackadder1916

HiTechComms said:


> I fully understand that some situations this is an issue, as it is not really applicable to certain situations IE: EMT, Firefighters, Field medical assistance. This is purely Hospitalization question.



Since the CAF no longer operates hospitals in Canada, though they may have staff or designated units in some civilian facilities, it may be a moot point.  In most cases, tertiary care for serving members in Canada will likely be provided by civilian health care providers who will be governed by whatever policies/regulation/custom are then applicable to their hospital or province.


----------



## HiTechComms

Blackadder1916 said:


> Since the CAF no longer operates hospitals in Canada, though they may have staff or designated units in some civilian facilities, it may be a moot point.  In most cases, tertiary care for serving members in Canada will likely be provided by civilian health care providers who will be governed by whatever policies/regulation/custom are then applicable to their hospital or province.


Thank you for the answer.


----------

