I'm going to weigh in here firmly on the side of the Chaplaincy. I wonder how many of their detractors here have actually seen our padres, up close, doing their ministry in cases of violent death, serious injury, personal catastrophe, or marital disorder? And doing it regardless of the faith of the soldier involved (and, sometimes, the LACK of faith of the soldier involved...). I have also experienced utterly useless Chaplains, but these have been in the tiny minority and usually do not last long.
IMHO a number of fallacies and glib assumptions are being propagated here, perhaps by posters who smugly assume that all "modern" people share their morally arid viewpoint. Let me address some of these, based on what I have experienced:
The latest stats I can easily find are from 2001 - % of Canadians who were non-Christians - 28, % of Canadians with no religion (atheists, humanists, etc) - 16.
Therefore the overwhelming majority of Canadians profess a religious faith of some sort. IIRC, you will find that by far the majority of these are Roman Catholics. Stop by an RC Church next Sunday-chances are you'll find it packed, and packed by Canadians of all different colours and heritage, particularly Asian- and African- Canadian.
The forces need to stop using padres as cheap substitutes for social workers
The forces don't. This is your opinion, and it appears to me to be a particularly ill-informed one. Here is my opinion. We have had ASWOs for years on just about every base, and we also deploy them on operations. (Here in Afgh, for example). And, to carry things a bit further, the modern chaplain is not a "substitute" for a social worker: he IS a social worker. That is the very essence of the Chaplaincy. Most chaplains I know are well trained in a broad field of knowledge and I know at least one who is directly integrated into the psychological care program in the CF.
counselling skills that are supposed to be part of their jobs. It is too easy to "send him to the padre" and make him someone else's problem.
Again, your opinion appears ill-informed. Have you served in any Army field units, or somewhere else? Junior officers in Army field units have (at least since I was one in the 1980's) received varying degrees of training in this area. More importantly, training or not, they do it because they know it is part of their obligation as leaders. Some do it well, some do not.. All have 2ICs, OCs, and CSMs to turn to for help, and usually do. You seem to suggest that it is a kind of reflex to "dump" a soldier on the padre. I would suggest to you that not only is this not true, but that too often the reverse is true: the chain of command tries to do their best by the soldier "in house" when in fact the best thng they could do is integrate the Chaplain early into the team dealing with the problem. I have known a few good battalion padres over the years and this is a common observation from them: they can't do anything if nobody tells them.
As a non religious person I have never felt comfortable speaking with a padre about any matter. I didn't share their beliefs to discuss religion and I certainly didn't want to speak to them about a personal problem
Your choice, of course, but it seems odd that thousands of soldiers do. Nobody is "forced" to go to a chaplain-there are a number of alternatives. Are you afraid that you might not be able to deal with the spiritual challenge involved in confronting a person of faith? After all, if you're a dedicated non-believer, there's really no danger of getting "infected" by that nasty irrational religious stuff, is there now?
Now, before you get on your high horses, maybe I found the only padre in the forces that thought that way but it did, in fact, happen.
Padres, the last time I looked, were human beings. But, think of it this way: it shouldn' surprise you that a doctor would tell you to eat right. It shouldn't surprise you that a chaplain would offer you spirituality: it's what they do. And, anyway, you seem to have survived intact.
Another question, what is the extent of availability of true social workers/psychologists in the forces and are they really members or civilians who work for DND?
See my comment above. We have both types in the CF, and we have access to resources beyond that by contract and referral.And, if you really want, you can do it on your own hook.
BUT, people shouldn't be forced to use them as thier only emotional guide in difficult times.
They aren't.
the guy who is muslim or not religious at all has to talk to him also? Not fair, hence why you cannot smoke in anywhere but public places now days and almost no where indoors unless it's separated. Why should others have to suffer the effects?
Do you have any actual knowledge of how our Chaplaincy deals with this issue? I don't think so. And what do you mean "suffer"?
I don't want to hear thier generic, "God loves you and he will see you through my son"... That doesn't help, at all.
Really? You're sure, now? Human experience, especially in the military, might suggest that for many soldiers it is otherwise. I suggest that if you don't want to hear that, then a) tell them that; or b) go to somebody else.
I'd pay for outside professional help if I really believed I needed it. Then try and see if the Forces would reimburse me later or something.
I'm not sure how much experience you've got, but after a experiencing a few deaths and serious injuries of soldiers, and seeing the chaplains at work, I bet you'll change your mind.
Guardian, please don't give me that drivel about religion being required as a basis for moral values.
"Drivel?" Drivel---right....show me any major society (other than Communism which is a hideous aberrant joke played on humanity...) whose societal concepts of what is morally correct and ethical are not to the greatest extent informed by their dominant religious faiths. In our society it is unquestionably the Judeo-Christian influence. In much of the world it is Islam, or the Hindu faith, or Buddhism.
Atheists don't hate in the name of their god. Atheists don't kill in the name of their god.
No: apparently atheists are quite capable of doing these things on their own. Given their armour against spiritual issues, I'll bet they aren't as troubled by guilt either. However, that is not the point IMHO. Rather it is the implication that to have a religious faith is automatically to pervert and distort it to justify all manner of evil or questionable deeds. I suggest to you that you have only gone half the distance here: all beliefs, all tenets, all "goods" can be (and regularly are) used to explain killing, destruction and deprivation of rights. For examples, I offer "democracy", "freedom"' "self-determination", "security", "ethnic identity" "economic empowerment"; "the class war". etc, etc. The fact is that if we are not to plunge into utter barbarism as a society our actions must be informed by and measured against some commonly held set of guidelines of what is good and acceptable. We must know in what cause, and for what reason, we take human life, or else we are psychopaths. We cannot simply kill and destroy "just because". Has religious faith been used as a rallying point for evil acts? Yes-indisputably. So has every other major tenet of belief or of national policy, except perhaps nonviolence (at whose feet we might lay acts of omission rather than commission...) I fail to see how that sad historical fact reduces or belittles in any way the work our chaplains do. You may not see the need for them. I do. Cheers.
[Moderator note: Typographical edit only - surplus "white space" removed at bottom of post - no alteration of content]
I didn't know that pbi knew everything and that I'm so "ill-informed" my "morally arid viewpoint" isn't worthy of presenting in these hallowed forums. I'll guess I'll just sit back and soak in the omniscience that is pbi in the hopes of making my empty life worthwhile. Or not.
What I was trying to say (and if I failed to bring my point across) is that the CF is trying to build a force that subscribes to ethical values. These values have to be absolute - otherwise they are subject to the changing winds of public or personal opinion, circumstance, or whatever. The values we ascribe to in our society have been more or less codified in institutions and documents like the Charter, the Constitution, the old Bill of Rights, and so forth; however, they didn't BEGIN there. Those documents don't establish moral values; they merely recognize those that have existed in our civilization for centuries. And these values, historically, like it or not, are very much a product of religious influence (in our case, our Judeo-Christian heritage). Different civilizations will have different values - for example, the Arabic stress on hospitality - but invariably you'll find that they are also rooted in religious imperatives. You don't have to subscribe to religious belief to hold moral values, as I said. And sigpig, I'm sure you have and hold moral values as strongly as I do. But to attempt to remove the foundation of our society's values is dangerous - the Communists tried to do exactly that, which is why I cited them. And in recognition that much evil has been done in the name of religion (including my own) I cited Iran and the Spanish Inquisition.
