• We are now running on a new, and hopefully much-improved, server. In addition we are also on new forum software. Any move entails a lot of technical details and I suspect we will encounter a few issues as the new server goes live. Please be patient with us. It will be worth it! :) Please help by posting all issues here.
  • The forum will be down for about an hour this weekend for maintenance. I apologize for the inconvenience.
  • If you are having trouble seeing the forum then you may need to clear your browser's DNS cache. Click here for instructions on how to do that
  • Please review the Forum Rules frequently as we are constantly trying to improve the forum for our members and visitors.

Has anyone been pushed to change religions while in the military

KBCraig

Regular Member
Joined
Aug 7, 2007
Messages
4,886
Location
Granite State of Mind
For as long as I've been aware (Reserve/active duty 1982-1991), military chaplains have always been prohibited from proselytizing. While they're free to conduct chapel services within their own faith, that is secondary to their job as chaplains. Chaplaincy is fundamentally different from pastoral ministry.

Superiors are of course prohibited from applying any pressure to subordinates in religious matters.

None of that ever stopped peers from conversation about religion, or answering questions from those who were interested.
 
Last edited:

ADobbs1989

Regular Member
Joined
Oct 16, 2012
Messages
465
Location
Alabama
Superiors are of course prohibited from applying any pressure to subordinates in religious matters.

Doesn't mean that always works as intended. There are many instances where soldiers were forced to participate in religious practices or suffer the consequences for not doing so. Same with schools, it's prohibited for school officials/teachers/staff to force children to pray or lead them in prayer, but it happens quite often.
 

Bec

New member
Joined
May 3, 2013
Messages
5
Location
AZ
In almost 12 yrs of active service, I have never seen or personally heard of this happening while serving a in multitude of units and deployments. I think a few extreme cases were put under the magnifier, causing DoD to react.
 

joanie

Regular Member
Joined
Mar 27, 2013
Messages
306
Location
..
Did the Pentagon bar Christians from talking about their faith while serving in the military? Not exactly, but a new push to aggressively stop proselytizing has chaplains nervous, according to the Deseret News

According to infowars.com, it's an outright ban on religion while on duty. My take, they plan on sending military into citys in America where some police might refuse to kill people in mass. They don't want their soldiers having any morals, inclined to do the right thing, to follow a higher God than the government.
 

Tess

Founder's Club Member
Joined
Jun 15, 2006
Messages
3,837
Location
Bryan, TX
In almost 12 yrs of active service, I have never seen or personally heard of this happening while serving a in multitude of units and deployments. I think a few extreme cases were put under the magnifier, causing DoD to react.


That was my observation as well, though I've been retired for a while.

My only issue was they wouldn't put "NONE" on my dog tags as religion. I didn't want "atheist", I wanted "NONE" (I recognize lots of gods and worship none). (I think they'll do that now.) In protest, I wrote PROTESTANT - as I was protesting the requirement to list a religion.
 

ADobbs1989

Regular Member
Joined
Oct 16, 2012
Messages
465
Location
Alabama
Did the Pentagon bar Christians from talking about their faith while serving in the military? Not exactly, but a new push to aggressively stop proselytizing has chaplains nervous, according to the Deseret News

According to infowars.com, it's an outright ban on religion while on duty. My take, they plan on sending military into citys in America where some police might refuse to kill people in mass. They don't want their soldiers having any morals, inclined to do the right thing, to follow a higher God than the government.

Possibly the stupidest thing I've ever heard. Morals never have and never will come from religion.
 

CharleyCherokee

Regular Member
Joined
Mar 27, 2011
Messages
293
Location
WesternKy
Possibly the stupidest thing I've ever heard. Morals never have and never will come from religion.

I have to disagree with you, but I think your arrogance pairs well with your ignorance. Morality is, in fact, a learned facet of human life. That being the case, religion is a major contributor in assigning moral values. Does this mean religion is the only thing to assign moral values. Of course not. Your response was lacking in tact as well as fact.
 

ADobbs1989

Regular Member
Joined
Oct 16, 2012
Messages
465
Location
Alabama
I have to disagree with you, but I think your arrogance pairs well with your ignorance. Morality is, in fact, a learned facet of human life. That being the case, religion is a major contributor in assigning moral values. Does this mean religion is the only thing to assign moral values. Of course not. Your response was lacking in tact as well as fact.

Morality is NOT learned. Your opinion disagrees with any and all scientific studies done on the subject.
 

palerider116

Regular Member
Joined
Nov 14, 2010
Messages
572
Location
Unknown
Morality is relative and subjective at best. It can modified and changed to meet the needs or wants of society. There is no universal morality that is innate to mankind.

Religion establishes a baseline of morality consistent with its beliefs or practices. You will be hard pressed to find any religious text that does not codify its version of morality.

Arguing morality is absolute because its simply right is a poor argument.

That being said, my religious beliefs establishes my baseline for morality.
 
Last edited:

ADobbs1989

Regular Member
Joined
Oct 16, 2012
Messages
465
Location
Alabama
Morality is relative and subjective at best. It can modified and changed to meet the needs or wants of society. There is no universal morality that is innate to mankind.

Religion establishes a baseline of morality consistent with its beliefs or practices. You will be hard pressed to find any religious text that does not codify its version of morality.

Arguing morality is absolute because its simply right is a poor argument.

That being said, my religious beliefs establishes my baseline for morality.

The scientific community would disagree with you. All humans share an innate sense of morality regardless of their religion, race, place of birth, or upbringing. It's part of evolution.
 

palerider116

Regular Member
Joined
Nov 14, 2010
Messages
572
Location
Unknown
The scientific community would disagree with you. All humans share an innate sense of morality regardless of their religion, race, place of birth, or upbringing. It's part of evolution.

They can disagree then. There is no way to eliminate any possibility of a system of morality being learned to prove this assertion. You would have to isolate from all human interaction several infants at birth and let them grow up together to test this theory of an innate sense of morality. No other human interaction could be tolerated. Contamination would skew the results.

As for the theory of evolution, it can be lumped into the same trash heap as this innate morality. Neither pass the scientific method of testing a hypothesis.
 

skidmark

Campaign Veteran
Joined
Jan 15, 2007
Messages
10,444
Location
Valhalla
Apparently everybody who has their knickers in a twist (clockwise or counter-clockwise) has forgotten that the First Amendment protects us from religion - in the sense of a state-sanctioned religion. It gives us the freedom to choose a religion, or no religion, without consequence from the state.

There is a very subtle distinction between coercing one to join a specific religion/hold a specific religious belief and forcing one to participate in the religious practices of a specific religion against one's will. Consider the various invocations of a request for blessings and prosperity for the undertakings of a group. Directing those requests to some amorphous Higher Being is IMHO fairly innocuous as it could well include <begin non-exhaustive list> Cluthulu or The Flying Spaghetti Monster as well as Vishnu or Odin or the stereotypical Judeo-Christian "God". But when the government agent making those supplications directs them specifically towards one god/diety, as opposed to all possible candidates, it crosses the line. The worst example of that is when the government agent waits until the end of the supplication to spriing on the audience that they have been directing their thoughts towards one specific god/diety. The person asked to perform the supplication rite is usually associated very clearly with one or another religion, but when acting as the government agent in charge of seeking blessings they have no business, IMHO, in catching me up in their specific rites.

When a government agent starts actively seeking to cause an individual to select his brand of religion, as opposed to being available to those who have already made up their minds and to those who express a curiosity, the line drawn by the First Amendment has been crossed.

stay safe.
 

ADobbs1989

Regular Member
Joined
Oct 16, 2012
Messages
465
Location
Alabama
They can disagree then. There is no way to eliminate any possibility of a system of morality being learned to prove this assertion. You would have to isolate from all human interaction several infants at birth and let them grow up together to test this theory of an innate sense of morality. No other human interaction could be tolerated. Contamination would skew the results.

As for the theory of evolution, it can be lumped into the same trash heap as this innate morality. Neither pass the scientific method of testing a hypothesis.

Funny how it's a Theory, which means it passed the hypothesis stage with gold stars. However, your view actually does fit the definition of a hypothesis. You want to spout your ideas as facts, then dismiss facts as ideas. No wonder this country is so upside down.
 

marshaul

Campaign Veteran
Joined
Aug 13, 2007
Messages
11,188
Location
Fairfax County, Virginia
http://hotair.com/archives/2013/05/02/pentagon-pushed-to-end-christian-proselytizing/

Did the Pentagon bar Christians from talking about their faith while serving in the military? Not exactly, but a new push to aggressively stop proselytizing has chaplains nervous, according to the Deseret News:

I would take anything reported by Deseret news regarding government and religion with a grain of salt, if not automatically assuming the truth is the opposite of what is reported there.

There's plenty of historical justification/explanation for that perspective on government vs. religion, but that doesn't render it any less biased or subjective.

I always find it amusing, btw, when folks seem paranoid about the US government restricting Christians' religious freedoms. That's a pretty good indicator of their ability to look outside the biases spoon fed them by those who would treat them as another useful idiot. That is to say, it's completely ridiculous on its face. The US government is disproportionately helmed by Christians (or, if not disproportionately, at least to the point of hegemony).

According to infowars.com, it's an outright ban on religion while on duty. My take, they plan on sending military into citys in America where some police might refuse to kill people in mass. They don't want their soldiers having any morals, inclined to do the right thing, to follow a higher God than the government.

Right, because

A: infowars is a reliable source

and

B: There is any correlation at all with religiosity and morality.

:rolleyes:
 
Last edited:

SFCRetired

Regular Member
Joined
Oct 29, 2008
Messages
1,764
Location
Montgomery, Alabama, USA
1. The basis of morality can be any number of things, to include religion of one persuasion or the other.
2. Morality is learned. If you have ever been a father or mother, you know, from observation, that children are amoral little wretches at best until they are taught better. More proof of this may be obtained by looking at some of our up-and-coming young "celebrities".
3. In a military career started in 1961 and ending in 1991, I never had a chaplain or another soldier attempt to actively proselytize me or anyone else. I did have soldiers who would openly discuss their beliefs, but only if asked.
4. In my experience, those soldiers who changed from one religious belief system to another were inspired by either the example of a fellow soldier or the example of a chaplain. Notice that I said, "by the example" and not "by the words".

An anecdote told concerning the campaign on Guadalcanal during WWII concerned a Protestant chaplain going to Major Lewis B. Puller and asking him to put out an order forbidding the Protestant Marines from converting to Catholicism. Major Puller, in his inimitable growl, said, "Chaplain, when I see you up on the front lines with my Marines as I see the Catholic chaplain, I might consider it." Nothing more was ever heard of that request.
 

marshaul

Campaign Veteran
Joined
Aug 13, 2007
Messages
11,188
Location
Fairfax County, Virginia
1. The basis of morality can be any number of things, to include religion of one persuasion or the other.

I agree. Christians may be moral, but they may be immoral. Same with atheists, to the point that removing Christians will have precisely zero effect on the willingness of an army to act immorally. You'd have to remove all the moral people, and religiosity isn't a good criterion upon which to achieve that end.

2. Morality is learned. If you have ever been a father or mother, you know, from observation, that children are amoral little wretches at best until they are taught better. More proof of this may be obtained by looking at some of our up-and-coming young "celebrities".

I disagree. You're not teaching morality, per se. What you are teaching are values. Many folks confuse the two. Views on the "morality" of guns, drugs, corporations, whatever – these are values. I believe that only aggression is truly immoral, and that this is a biologically-driven constant of near-universiality (sociopaths and the like excepted), with the caveat that values can affect how one sees aggression in their world.

More importantly, empathy is the key to human social cooperation, and moral behavior. Empathy is what sociopaths lack into adulthood. And empathy is precisely what children lack which renders them so seemingly immoral. Empathy is, I believe, partially learned, and partially a result of increasing awareness of the world outside oneself (something children notoriously lack).
 
Last edited:

ADobbs1989

Regular Member
Joined
Oct 16, 2012
Messages
465
Location
Alabama
2. Morality is learned. If you have ever been a father or mother, you know, from observation, that children are amoral little wretches at best until they are taught better. More proof of this may be obtained by looking at some of our up-and-coming young "celebrities".

As has been stated you are not teaching MORALS, as much as you are teaching socially accepted behavior. Those are two different things, and if you would like to say that religion can play a part in teaching socially acceptable behaviors and values then I'll agree with you, but it's not morals. Just because someone doesn't share the same "christian value system" that you do doesn't mean they aren't moral, it means they don't share the same values that you find important. Every study I have seen shows a nearly 100% completely universal connection between all people when it comes to questions of pure morality.
 

OC for ME

Regular Member
Joined
Jan 6, 2010
Messages
12,452
Location
White Oak Plantation
That was my observation as well, though I've been retired for a while.

My only issue was they wouldn't put "NONE" on my dog tags as religion. I didn't want "atheist", I wanted "NONE" (I recognize lots of gods and worship none). (I think they'll do that now.) In protest, I wrote PROTESTANT - as I was protesting the requirement to list a religion.
I had NRP on my dog tags.

Anyway, 20 years a Navy man and not once did any Chaplin or Lay Leader, had Lay Leaders on subs, attempt to change or push anything. Every Sunday morning underway or in port the mess decks were cleared for religious services. If no one showed up for services.....start the movie.

We had three Lay Leaders, Jewish, Protestant, and Catholic. We likely would have had a Muslim if there was a need for one.

There are no atheists in a fox hole.
Meh.
 
Top