Religion in the Canadian Forces & in Canadian Society

[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]

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]

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]

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?

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?

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]

...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.

...Kindly be specific as to how religious faith is a liability to the CF. ...

...How so are they a liability?...

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.

...As for "subsidizing religions", other than a few tax credits, how does the government subsidize religion?...

...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?...

...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.

...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]

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]

...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).

...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]

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]

..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.

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.

...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]

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]

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]

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.