The report in the New York Times that atheists are looking for official recognition as chaplains in the US military in order to cater to the needs of non-believing servicemen is interesting.
On the one hand, it's kind of absurd. Atheist chaplains? It's a contradiction in terms. What are they going to teach? Non-belief? What services will they offer? Non-prayers and sermons on evolution? And what comfort will they offer dying soldiers, G-d forbid (oops! Even that doesn't work). Will they say, "Game over. You're going to a place of complete oblivion. Thank you for your service."?
On the other hand, I am completely opposed to any kind of religious coercion and why should non-believing military personnel not have someone they can talk to who shares their absence of faith? If you're an atheist and you've returned from Iraq or Afghanistan and you're finding it difficult, say, to reintegrate to life back home, maybe you don't want to talk to someone whom you think views life only through the prism of faith. In the same way that it might be uncomfortable for a Jewish soldier to talk about his deepest issues with, say, a Catholic Priest, it is arguably just as uncomfortable for an atheist soldier to talk to the same Priest.
Still it would seem that those who profess an absence of belief can't really be religious or spiritual chaplains. If you're an atheist then what you see is what you get. There is no other reality -- higher or lower -- and the word spiritual is nothing but a crude con.
I am well aware that many of my atheist friends will tell me, 'Come on Shmuley. OK, so an atheist 'chaplain' might not be able to offer the same comfort to a soldier who saw his buddy die in Iraq. He won't be able to say to him, 'Your friend is in a better place,' and we concede that telling him, 'Your friend died for a noble cause. Now he is decomposing in a dark grave from which there is no escape,' isn't as compelling as saying that he's up in heaven with the ministering angels. But why offer false comfort anyway, Shmuley? None of it is true and this is just religion once again serving as a balm for people's fear of death, a true opiate of the masses.'
I get it, and I'm not here going to enter into a lengthy discussion about the afterlife, a subject I recently debated with my friend, the world-renowned atheist Christopher Hitchens, and which is available on YouTube.
But even without solving the issue of the possible effectiveness of atheist chaplains, surely if the military agrees to create them there will have to be some new name for the profession, and I would assume they would fall more under the rubric of psychologists and other professionals who try to help those in need without professing, or utilizing, any particular faith.
So. Do I think it's a good idea for the military to have atheist counselor soldiers? Sure. Let's have trained professionals who profess atheism who are made available to non-believing service men and women who are reluctant to discuss personal issues with religious chaplains. But please, call them something that doesn't make a mockery of religion by pretending that someone can be a minister of the religion of non-belief.
Having said all this, I think it worthwhile to point out that the move on the part of atheists to create an official chaplaincy reinforces my firm belief that atheism is becoming its own religion. I will make this point at great length in my upcoming book, The Church of Evolution, slated to come out, G-d willing, later in the year. But there are many people whose atheism is supported by their own creeds and by the same willful denial of certain facts that has in the past characterized many of the faithful. In addition, the new atheists, like Richard Dawkins, demonstrate an intolerance and condescension to people of faith that is very similar to what one sadly finds among some of the most close-minded of religious people.
So perhaps it is just as well that we formalize the new Church of Atheism by creating a formal military chaplaincy.
Rabbi Shmuley Boteach's debates with atheists Richard Dawkins, Christopher Hitchens, and Sam Harris are available on YouTube. His book-length response to the new atheists will be published later this year. Follow him on Twitter @RabbiShmuley.
Follow Rabbi Shmuley Boteach on Twitter: www.twitter.com/RabbiShmuley
Dori Hartley: The Soulful Atheist
"there are many people whose atheism is supported by their own creeds and by the same willful denial of certain facts that has in the past characterized many of the faithful."
Yes indeed, some atheists are in denial about some things. They cling to certain blundering errors about history, such as that the Vatican's Swiss Guard decapitated countless Muslims during the Crusades or that Constantine the Great wrote the New Testament. Some atheists cling to such errors as tenaciously as any believer ever clung to a creed. That doesn't mean that those atheists are religious, it just means that they they have their pet theories about things and are unwilling to actually investigate certain historical topics. It's unfortunate, but if you ask me it just means they're human.
It's really remarkable, this insistence by the religious that atheists are also religious. It's strange and I think it bears some looking into.
It would also be nice it religious people writing about atheists would, now and then, for a change, base a piece about atheists on actual discussions with actual atheists. That would of course be very nice indeed.
Maybe we should start loudly proclaiming that religious people are actually atheists?
Funny that...
I am a trained and ordained minister (although not with UU though I respect them deeply), though personally am an avowed and afirming athiest. My loose knit fellowship includes the religious, and irreligious. Saint and sinner. Christian, Jew, Moslem, Hindu, Mormon and Pagen (in all their wonderful varieties).
I also am a military veteran whose best friends included military chaplains. I came to terms with my athiesm (despite my deep religious upbringing) in the very fear, lonliness and sheer terror pursuant to military duty. My "dog tags" were stamped "No religion please" in lieu of the official "NO PREF". The last thing I wanted was culturally prescribed religious anaesthesia numbing me against the experience of the real as I slip into the unknown.
Athiesm does not preclude a kind of spirituality. But my spirtuality does not correlate to fairytales and false history passed off as objective truth. That is just irritating.
Some of us don't need religous magicks. We are surprised that anyone does, but to each her own.
http://www.humanism.org.uk/campaigns/equalities/humanist-chaplaincy
I have been near death and I did not need the thoughts of a false god to comfort me. I live my life as well as I can and whatever comes at death will come - but I indeed to do what I can while I'm alive and not waste it in the false hope of some necromantic Disneyland to come.
That's not what things like human grief or fear *have* to be about, certainly for atheists, it's not, and it doesn't mean they don't have spiritual needs or a need for some representation in the chaplaincy corps.
A chaplain, of course, has to be willing to serve *all* beliefs, and they're not supposed to be there to proselytize for non-religion any more than it's proper for all these monotheists to try and use the military to proselytize for *theirs.*
It's true on the streets and it's true (as well as *policy* ) in the military: for clergy in service to a community, *their* needs, not your own theological opinions come first. Contrary to neocon 'what ifs' people going through tough things don't tend to *ask* or *care* what your religion is, ....obviously to hear from your own clergy or traditions is an additional comfort, but minorities, be they Pagan, Abrahamic, or none of the above deserve at least an equal chance at *that,* and what's more, chaplains who *don't* use the suffering of others to try and make some kind of sales pitch.
That's not appropriate, for *anyone.* But atheists and other minorities in matters 'religious' also deserve *representation in the corps.*
Sorry Rabbi, but 'organized religions' has made itself a mockery of its professed beliefs. And
you have demonstrated that ably here. You have chained yourself to a label and you 'believe'
that that label must be interpreted in only one way, your way.
"Chaplain", is a greater label than a Jewish Chaplain, or a Protestant Chaplain, or a Mulsim
Chaplain, etc. A Chaplain SHOULD give comfort to someone in need of someone to unburden
to, regardless of their personal beliefs. If the Chaplain confines himself to comfort only those
of his own beliefs, he shouldn't be in the field at all.
So, maybe there's your answer. They're all-- Chaplains, with no sub-text or pre-text to denote
any specific religious beliefs of themselves or of the man they are supposed to service.
I don't believe in 'your' God, and personally, now, would not want you to be 'my Chaplain' if I
were dying in the field. I would also prefer to be with a dying man in the field than to have you
there.
I do believe in a larger being that doesn't concern itself with human pettiness, those it leaves to
humans to deal with. My beliefs allows any man his beliefs, especially in a time of need.
A Chaplain for atheists? Absolutely!
Ultimately the chaplain's service in the military is at the discretion of the man who holds his Officer Efficiency Rating (OER): and that is his commander.
I have watched chaplains of all sorts and across all creeds twist in the wind in support of immoral missions and ruthless commanders. Ultimately the chaplains are simply human. They twist and prevaricate and proceed to loose their moral way and "their very souls" in the face of trying to stay on the path to promotion or honorable discharge.
Of course, every man is his own exception. But take it from someone who's been there and done that... Religion is a tricky thing. Almost as tricky as secular credentialing.
Talent, Training, Credentialling, Supervision. These are the things that qualify them. Not Creed.
You REALLY need to find some new "atheist friends".
Most of the atheists I've met would not say any such thing. They might talk about the joy of life, the pain of losing someone, and other very human emotions and thoughts.
They wouldn't mention heaven most likely (although they might compassionately offer "false comfort" to a believer who was in a crisis), but there would also be no mention of a possible hell.
This part of the post would be like an atheist saying that a Christian might comfort a soldier who saw his atheist friend die in Iraq by telling him, "Your buddy wasn't saved, so he's slow roasting in hell right now with the other sinners. I'm sorry he died before he found Jesus."
Shame on him. I know he's trying to sell a book, but still, his assessment of what his atheists friends would say is outrageous.
I think your comparison is apt, Chester.
Far from the job being about pushing a particular belief or non-belief, actually, any chaplain who can't or won't serve all doesn't belong in the uniform.
Maybe that's not a job for everyone, but if you can't do the job, find someone who can. Boteach trying to redefine the job to be about having the state define 'religion' in exclusionary ways is *not* doing that. Or seemingly getting it.
Is that what you were going to say?
For the record, I don't much appreciate your command about what I can or can't talk about. Your God gave me the free will to think for myself, and he even said that if any paltry human interferes with that free will, I'm supposed to tell them to shut their talk-hole and get busy with the praying and baptizing. I swear, it's in the Bible, you just have to know how to interpret it.
Thanks for checking in though. I'll remember what I wanted to say eventually, but this IS proof that getting old sucks.
Why do you reply to posts
That you do not read
Also, does closed-mindedness equal religion? Or is it just a characteristic of some people? I fail to see how and why atheism is a religion if we are using closed-mindedness as the litmus test.
Every other mechanism that has function has a maker.
If everything must have a maker, then the maker needs a maker. And now we have a problem that can't be solved. It is usually addressed as "the maker doesn't need a maker," but that obviously is problematic because that means not everything needs a maker, in which case, that entire argument is moot.