New Head Chaplain for Army Division Is:

[Philip]

A Muslim: http://www.mcclatchydc.com/news/nation- ... 49589.html

Interesting. Relevant? Dangerous from a Christian perspective? No big deal?

[PaulSacramento]

He Says:

“Because I have the language from my days as a Christian, I can give them Scriptures from the Bible, and that doesn’t violate my religion,” Shabazz said.

Read more here: http://www.mcclatchydc.com/news/nation- ... rylink=cpy

Well, I guess that means that anyone that USED to be a Muslim ( or can recite passages from the Quran) can, of course, give a Muslim spiritual advise.
Right, lets see THAT being acceptable by Muslims !

[Hortator]

Using the armed forces for social engineering experiments better stop under this administration. A lot of personnel come from traditional backgrounds, and don't really care much for drag shows and God being elbowed out. We may see a drop in the size of our armed forces if non-traditional shenanigans continue, and that's bad for everyone.

[Kurieuo]

From a government utilitarian perspective, religion is religion and serves a particular purpose. With regarding to armed forced, they serve a function of increasing soldier morale.

Evidently, to Christians a Muslim spiritual adviser is unacceptable, just like to Muslim US soldiers a Christian spiritual adviser would be unacceptable. At least, for those within each respective faith who seriously hold to their beliefs.

It seems a better solution to me, is to not necessarily strip a Muslim chaplain of such a title, but rather to have multiple chaplains cater to the religious beliefs representative of those within the armed forces.

[Philip]

K: It seems a better solution to me, is to not necessarily strip a Muslim chaplain of such a title, but rather to have multiple chaplains cater to the religious beliefs representative of those within the armed forces.

The problem isn't diversity - there have long been Muslim chaplains. But the potential issue I would anticipate is, as this new Muslim HEAD Chaplain runs the division's program, what negatives might that be or the Christian (or other faith) chaplains? Will he promote Islam in his directives, perhaps subtlety? Overtly? In this man's mind, he most certainly must believe that Allah has placed him with this position of power and influence for the good of Islam. And that would seem to propel his bias. Perhaps not, or maybe there are some official protocols that might prevent such (?). But it's a concern I would have and watch for. The only way it would work is if all faiths are treated identically, that none are favored, that all participations and interactions with whatever representation is entirely voluntary.

[edwardmurphy]

Interesting.

We know an Army chaplain so we could actually get an insider's perspective. That would be interesting. He unbanned yet?

Relevant?

The lower ranking chaplains in that particular division have a new boss, so they'll find it relevant. Seems unlikely that many of the rank and file knew the last guy, or will ever meet this guy, or the next one, or the one after that. I'm sure some of them will care, but will it be truly relevant even to them? Probably not.

Relevant to anyone outside of the division? Only if they're culture warriors looking for something to get mad about.

Dangerous from a Christian perspective?

There are people who seem to spend most of their time searching for potential threats to Christianity, no matter how trivial (or imaginary), and then blowing them massively out of proportion. Those people will think this is dangerous, and some of them will surely post about it in this very thread. Sadly, those people have a bit of a Chicken Little problem and this thread is about the only place where they're likely to be taken seriously.

No big deal?

Not to me.

[Kurieuo]

No big deal?

Not to me.

[Kurieuo]

K: It seems a better solution to me, is to not necessarily strip a Muslim chaplain of such a title, but rather to have multiple chaplains cater to the religious beliefs representative of those within the armed forces.

The problem isn't diversity - there have long been Muslim chaplains. But the potential issue I would anticipate is, as this new Muslim HEAD Chaplain runs the division's program, what negatives might that be or the Christian (or other faith) chaplains? Will he promote Islam in his directives, perhaps subtlety? Overtly? In this man's mind, he most certainly must believe that Allah has placed him with this position of power and influence for the good of Islam. And that would seem to propel his bias. Perhaps not, or maybe there are some official protocols that might prevent such (?). But it's a concern I would have and watch for. The only way it would work is if all faiths are treated identically, that none are favored, that all participations and interactions with whatever representation is entirely voluntary.

I'd expect them to influence people towards Islam, as I would a Christian, Buddhist or what-have-you. Equally, I'd expect Atheists (who represents these poor souls?) to scoff and ridicule those who believe in something.

As far as I'm concerned, I'd love Christian chaplains to have exclusive jurisdiction, so that then more can come to Christ and receive eternal life hereafter rather than simply perish. Furthermore, I'd expect Christians to behave better -- Ed can think what he wants, but self-sacrifice is core to Christ's life, and if we strive to be more like him also ourselves. Such values could only be a good thing for soldiers working as a unit, so I see practical value to Christian beliefs.

That aside, not everyone believes as we do. The world we live in is imperfect. Ideally, all nations, all people, would confess Jesus Christ is Lord. Yet, that isn't the world we live in. So my comments were in relation to what is practical and real, given people believe many different things as truth. I favour Christianity, and believe Christ's teachings are true, and would love such to be given exclusivity. Others don't favour Christianity, passionately believing in something else, so should be fairly represented even though they're incorrect.

[PaulSacramento]

Well, as an ex-soldier and from my perspective:

When I was in the military is was agnostic at best, though I had been brought up a Catholic.
I never sought "spiritual" counseling ( though I did get some counseling when I got back from Bosnia, we all did).
Those that were spiritual often spoke of how helpful it was to speak to the Chaplin, how his guidance was helpful to them.
The common ground of a shared faith is something that I can see NOW as having a very big effect on people, BUT I never understood that before until I myself, found faith.

In short, I can see how those outwith faith can see this as no big deal, and they, like me at the time, would be wrong.

[RickD]

PaulS wrote:
Those that were spiritual often spoke of how helpful it was to speak to the Chaplin...

"Chaplin"?

You mean Charlie?

[Philip]

PAUL's auto correct software is apparently a film buff!

[Philip]

Thing is, we are not a theocracy, but a democracy. A theocracy would not tolerate such a thing. But we can't operate like that. So, we either have to throw out all representation of faith initiatives and dependencies, or we allow ALL. It's the rules and how those with power respond to them. It could be okay, or it could be very bad.

[RickD]

EdMurphy wrote:
We know an Army chaplain so we could actually get an insider's perspective. That would be interesting. He unbanned yet?

Ed, you really need to start paying attention to what you're posting on. First, you called Jac "Brian". And now you're calling him an Army Chaplain? He's a hospital chaplain.
Do all libs ignore facts like you do?
http://discussions.godandscience.org/vi ... 47#p219447

[edwardmurphy]

I don't recall calling him Brian, but yes, my impression that he was an army chaplain is clearly wrong. Not sure where I got that. Oh well. A chaplain will still probably have an interesting perspective. I imagine that he finds himself working with a non Christian patient on occasion.

Also, thank you for giving me a chance to illustrate the difference between making a factual error and ignoring the facts.

[RickD]

I don't recall calling him Brian, but yes, my impression that he was an army chaplain is clearly wrong. Not sure where I got that. Oh well. A chaplain will still probably have an interesting perspective. I imagine that he finds himself working with a non Christian patient on occasion.

Also, thank you for giving me a chance to illustrate the difference between making a factual error and ignoring the facts.

In regards to calling Jac "Brian", it was audacity not you, that called him Brian. I apologize. I got my leftists mixed up!