Religion in the Canadian Forces & in Canadian Society

[geo]

I've tried to send a response at least twice before, I don't know if the problem is with my ISP (Cable and Wireless is notorious for its poor service) or not but the post just won't go through.  Anyway first of all I see no reason why this topic should be locked, such discussion is healthy.  I've received a lot of criticism for my post, all of which I have taken in stride because that is my impression of what army.ca was created for, to allow CF members and supporters a forum to air their views and disagree while maintaining mutual respect for each other.  None of the replies to my post are what I would deem offensive so I completely disagree with JDBeach about locking this topic. 

That said I stick to my views, I have nothing against atheists or agnostics in general.  When I was doing my first degree one of my favourite archaeology lecturers was an atheist from the USA, who teased me all the time about my Catholicism and we still maintain regular contact.  However, I found the actions of that particular servicemember who generated this discussion a little aboveboard. 

Recently when H.M. Queen Elizabeth the Second visited a Muslim mosque she removed her shoes, as is Muslim tradition, and everyone knows that she is a staunch Anglican.  I have dated females whose religions ranged from Pentecostal to Seventh Day Adventist, to Jehovah's Witness, to Hindu and Muslim.  I was even once in a relationship with an American girl who was a Wickan (and just as hot as those witches in 'Charmed' ).  I've attended the worship services of some of these denominations, and while these girls all realized and had to respect the fact that I would never give up the Catholic Church, I would always respect their customs when in their places of worship.  So what is so hard in showing some respect and performing the simple and symbolic gesture of removing your hat?

Cameron,
your initial posts do not jive with what you are saying now... you came across as very very intolerant.  If I mistoke your stand, good nuff & sorry for the missunderstanding .... if you have changed your views .... good nuff

Chimo!

 

[geo]

+1 Bruce!

 

[Trinity]

I've tried twice to post, hours apart from each other.

Both times... fire foxed crashed.

I probably SHOULD have taken that as a hint NOT to post in this thread.
So I will try to be brief... but informative.

Being this is my area, may I shed some light to help differentiate the argument. 

There is a very big difference between Spirituality and Religiosity.

Much of what chaplains do addresses the spirituality of the situations
and circumstances that we are in.  A ramp ceremony is a service
addressing the need and loss of our in our own spirituality.

It is not done in any specific form of religious denomination.. i.e.
in a roman catholic rite or anglican or united church. 

We are all spiritual beings.  We all fill our spirituality with something.
I choose religion to fill my spirituality. Some choose dance, music, yoga,
painting.  You can try to fill it with bad things such as drugs or alcohol
however their effect is temporary and come with severe consequence. 

So... religion and spirituality are two different things.  No one is ever
forced to go to a religious service (or shouldn't be).  You may be told
to go attend a spiritual service.. i.e remembrance day, etc.

Understand.. I may have worded this poorly as it is VERY difficult
to describe let alone type.  Understand I do not represent the chaplains
branch and I could be VERY incorrect.  These are my own thoughts simply
to put context to the argument as I have been following but refusing to jump
in until specifically asked. 

 

[Trinity]

Just an add on.... It may be classified as an ecumenical service

adjective
1. concerned with promoting unity among churches or religions; "ecumenical thinking"; "ecumenical activities"; "the ecumenical movement" [syn: ecumenic]
2. of worldwide scope or applicability; "an issue of cosmopolitan import"; "the shrewdest political and ecumenical comment of our time"- Christopher Morley; "universal experience" [syn: cosmopolitan]

So.. trying to be all encompassing.  I prefer to think of them as spiritual, addressing the spiritual needs of all, atheists included.
In fact... I plan it to address the needs of all and be non offensive to the best of my abilities. I cannot control the one person who
doesn't want to be there regardless of ecumenical, spiritual or emotional reasons.

 

[geo]

+1 trinity

 

[mainerjohnthomas]

+1 Trinity.
I knew the Padres could get my point across better.

 

[warrickdll]

...
It is not that the military needs religion to fight, it is that the context of sacrifice, grief, and dealing with loss have always had spiritual overtones.
...

Military ceremonies, including those concerning sacrifice, grief, and dealing with loss, do not require a padre, or an order to pray. Ceremonies can remain solemn (and even spiritual) without religion. A "moment of silence" can be inserted anywhere a prayer would previously be called for.

Specifically concerning loss, the CF holds its own ceremonies and commemorations - none of which require religious content. The separate ceremonies that are organized by the family are of course formatted for their own beliefs, and taking part in these are not parades (or should not be), though your unit will most likely provide you the time to attend. 


Also (my bolding):

Nothing the military does has a religious component........
...

...
Nothing the military does has to have a religious component...
...

 

[Michael OLeary]

...
Military service and religious beliefs do not have to be mutually exclusive, those who choose to make them so do so because they want (for whatever purpose) to create that strife.  Perhaps it is the externalizing of an internal conflict, or perhaps it is for the attention it brings them.
...

I couldn't agree more.

There is no legitimate reason to have a religious service within the military.

And as for those whose beliefs continue to force them to demand to have religious services in the military - well - I would like to think their complaints have a purpose, other than to cause strife (though I am doubtful).

Perhaps they are just confused, it is difficult for some to see that traditions change and yet still remain traditions. Some seem to think that military customs during their own careers were handed down on stone tablets - instead of seeing them as ever evolving (and often started on a whim, without any real military purpose).

I will however, hold off in judging them to be either mentally damaged or attention hogs though.

...
When one decides that the two are mutually exclusive, it is up to the individual to find their own higher morale path and leave one "faith" or the other to the degree necessary to maintain the dictates of the one they choose to have priority for them.

Again, I agree. If one feels that their beliefs will not allow them to serve within a military without religious services, then it is up to the individual to choose based on their own priorities. After all, the CF will survive without them.

Iterator,

please do not twist my words to your spin on this discussion/argument.  I was speaking of individual beliefs and life choices, and you have extrapolated from the specific to the general in declaring that there is “no legitimate reason to have a religious service within the military”.

You are confusing the concepts of traditional practices with personal beliefs, and ignoring the ability of the organization to change and adapt as it becomes more aware of varying individual influences. As we saw with the rededication of the Vimy Memorial, and as was done with the consecration of the National Military Cemetery, it is possible to take a more inclusive approach to people of all (or no) faiths.

You may claim that the continued inclusion of practices following religious custom have no place in a modern military because there are some who proclaim themselves to be excluded (which is by their own choice), but it is equally valid to state that eliminating all practices bordering on religious observances in order to satisfy the exclusive desires of those few is equally insulting to all those who are comfortable with the traditional observances (whether of not that preference is due to personal religious feelings).

I do find it interesting that while the military has balanced the needs of multiple faiths for many years, a vocal few who proclaim themselves to have no faith are incapable of finding a way to fit in.

 

[warrickdll]

Iterator,
please do not twist my words to your spin on this discussion/argument.
...

The twist is deliberate to show that the argument is as equally valid when reversed.


Reversing the argument is also a commentary on your statement:

...
Military service and religious beliefs do not have to be mutually exclusive, those who choose to make them so do so because they want (for whatever purpose) to create that strife.  Perhaps it is the externalizing of an internal conflict, or perhaps it is for the attention it brings them.
...

Though it was softly delivered, you are stating that those who disagree with you are just troublemakers, and who are either mentally troubled or complete egotists.

...
You are confusing the concepts of traditional practices with personal beliefs, and ignoring the ability of the organization to change and adapt as it becomes more aware of varying individual influences.
...

I think what is being ignored here is the ability of the organization to complete its changes and adaptations to where it is no longer an issue - at all.

It is only a vocal minority who are complaining about the judgment, and who are also grandstanding to have their religious beliefs validated by the continued inclusion of religious content in the CF (either generally or specifically).

I believe that the actions of this minority are detrimental to the well-being of the CF.



The claim that the CF must include religious content, just to appease the few who proclaim that the CF must have religious content (or they will feel excluded), is insulting to the many who will be perfectly comfortable without it. 

 

[Michael OLeary]

It is only a vocal minority who are complaining about the judgment, and who are also grandstanding to have their religious beliefs validated by the continued inclusion of religious content in the CF (either generally or specifically).

I believe that the actions of this minority are detrimental to the well-being of the CF.

It is only a vocal minority who are complaining about the judgment, and who are also grandstanding to have their lack of religious beliefs validated by the continued inclusion complete exclusion of religious content in the CF (either generally or specifically).

I believe that the actions of this minority are detrimental to the well-being of the CF.

 

[warrickdll]

...
I believe that the actions of this minority are detrimental to the well-being of the CF.

We disagree on who the minority is, but it is the detriment where it shows.


The detriment from the minority demanding religious content in CF ceremonies is apparent in the very judgment this topic is about. Commanders are at risk of having to run a continuous obstacle course of legal matters whenever they include religious content.


And what is the detriment from those advocating the removal of the last vestiges of religious content from cluttering up CF ceremonies? Well... there isn't one.

 

[Trinity]

We disagree on who the minority is,

Assuming that the Armed Forces is proportionate more or less to the Canadian Population

Using the 2001 Census  (as the 2006 Census religious figures isn't available)

Total population  29,639,030  100.0%  9.8%  37.3
  Roman Catholic 12,793,125 43.2% 4.8% 37.8
  No religion 4,796,325 16.2% 43.9% 31.1
  United Church 2,839,125 9.6% - 8.2% 44.1
  Anglican 2,035,500 6.9% - 7.0% 43.8
  Christian not included elsewhere (1) 780,450 2.6% 121.1% 30.2
  Baptist 729,470 2.5% 10.0% 39.3
  Lutheran 606,590 2.0% - 4.7% 43.3
  Muslim 579,640 2.0% 128.9% 28.1
  Protestant not included elsewhere (2) 549,205 1.9% - 12.7% 40.4
  Presbyterian 409,830 1.4% - 35.6% 46.0
  Pentecostal 369,475 1.2% - 15.3% 33.5
  Jewish 329,995 1.1% 3.7% 41.5
  Buddhist 300,345 1.0% 83.8% 38.0
  Hindu 297,200 1.0% 89.3% 31.9
  Sikh 278,410 0.9% 88.8% 29.7
  Greek Orthodox (3) 215,175 0.7% - 7.1% 40.7
  Mennonite 191,465 0.6% - 7.9% 32.0
  Orthodox not included elsewhere (4) 165,420 0.6% 79.9% 35.4
  Jehovah's Witnesses 154,750 0.5% - 8.1% 38.7
  Ukrainian Catholic 126,200 0.4% - 1.7% 45.0
  Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints (Mormons) 101,805 0.3% 8.4% 28.7
  Salvation Army 87,790 0.3% - 21.9% 39.3
  Christian Reformed Church 76,670 0.3% - 9.5% 32.3
  Evangelical Missionary Church 66,705 0.2% 48.4% 35.2
  Christian and Missionary Alliance 66,285 0.2% 11.9% 34.5
  Adventist 62,880 0.2% 20.1% 35.5
  Non-denominational (5) 40,545 0.1% 26.7% 33.0
  Ukrainian Orthodox 32,720 0.1% - 5.1% 45.8
  Aboriginal spirituality 29,820 0.1% 175.1% 25.0
  Hutterite 26,295 0.1% 22.3% 22.2
  Methodist (6) 25,730 0.1% 6.1% 43.9
  Pagan (7) 21,080 0.1% 281.2% 30.4
  Brethren in Christ 20,590 0.1% - 22.0% 38.2
  Serbian Orthodox 20,520 0.1% 109.5% 34.8

http://www12.statcan.ca/english/census01/products/highlight/Religion/Page.cfm?Lang=E&Geo=PR&View=1a&Code=01&Table=1&StartRec=1&Sort=2&B1=Canada&B2=1


Thus...  people of no religion only make up 16.2% of CF members.  Hardly a majority.
Also, there is no way to determine of those 16.2% either don't care or even support the fact
of having an ecumenical service (on the various occasions that exist within the CF)

 

[Michael OLeary]

And what is the detriment from those advocating the removal of the last vestiges of religious content from cluttering up CF ceremonies? Well... there isn't one.

And yet, how many threads on this site have devolved into simple arguments attacking or defending tradition, completely separate from analyses of the original context of those activities.  Your view argues that all things with an original religious context should be removed, simply because they once had that context, whether or not current participants widely understand or believe in that context today.

You aren't looking for an evolutionary process, you're seeking a widespread bookburning.

I guess we can start it with the burning sweet grass bundle.

 

[warrickdll]

...
Thus...  people of no religion only make up 16.2% of CF members.  Hardly a majority.
Also, there is no way to determine of those 16.2% either don't care or even support the fact of having an ecumenical service (on the various occasions that exist within the CF)

The minority are the ones constantly complaining to keep religious content in, and to the detriment of, the CF.

Ecumenical - well... there is no pan-religious ceremony outside of a non-religious ceremony.

 

[warrickdll]

...
Your view argues that all things with an original religious context should be removed, simply because they once had that context, whether or not current participants widely understand or believe in that context today.
...

No, that isn't what I've said.

...
Despite their religious origins, some military traditions and ceremonies are conducted without the overt religious aspects:
- Saluting when boarding a ship continues without the need of a crucifix on the quarterdeck.
- Having a "Moment of Silence" to honour the fallen works much better than "Let us pray".
...

I'm only advocating the limited changes required to fix the problem. Remove the chaplains, the call to prayers, and the church services, and its done.

...
You aren't looking for an evolutionary process, you're seeking a widespread bookburning.

I guess we can start it with the burning sweet grass bundle.
...

It won't be dramatic, but it will keep the CF out of this legal quagmire.

...
Our own individual abilities to be courteous and tolerant should not be an excuse for the committees (that determine military ceremonies in Canada) to lack the ability or imagination to make a few harmless alterations.

 

[cameron]

Forgive me if I take the lazy way out and respond to four replies with one post.  First to Geo, I haven't changed my views, perhaps I just expressed myself poorly in my first post, but misunderstandings do occur in life so no sweat.  To mainerjohnthomas and Bruce Monkhouse +1.  Its ironic that a 'heathen' like myself would get so passionate about religion.  Many 'christians' disapprove of people like me who drink Guinness, smoke Dominican cigars and would think nothing of telling someone to f@#* off if they really step on my toes.  However, while I might not live what many consider to be a christian lifestyle, I have a strong belief in God and feel that religion should play an important role in our society.  mainerjohnthomas puts it so well, when someone gives their life for their country, for a cause, for their comrades-in-arms, the least that can be done for them is to send them to their maker in a reverent manner that honours their noble deeds.

I support Bruce's views about the willingness of some of us to discard something that is such an important part of our moral and social fibre.  I personally feel that the man who believes in nothing has already lost everything.  In response to Iterator, while i'm sure the CF would continue to operate efficiently even if subjected to a complete separation of church and state, why get rid of something that has been such a source of strength and comfort as well as maintaining morale for both individuals and units, especially at a time like now when Canada's military is being tested in a way its never been since Korea?

 

[Disenchantedsailor]

I'm only advocating the limited changes required to fix the problem. Remove the chaplains, the call to prayers, and the church services, and its done.

Now you're talking religious persecution on a grand scale, thats the sort of thing that countries with state religion do. The CF provides services for many denominations, CFB Esquimalt has muslim in the sam chapel that the catholics and protestancts use. You don't agree with chaplains or religion fine so be it, but don't ban religion for us believers. And for the very thing that started this thread, at least that officer kept things within the Military legal system. not the like the "bonehead" challanging the constitutional validitaty of the loyal toast at mess dinners, did he do it in the military justice system, no, in the supreme court, so now we remove the loyal toast, hey why not mess dinners altogether, hey while were at it lets axe the GG and the Queen. Just how far do we take this removal of religion.

 

[warrickdll]

...
...while i'm sure the CF would continue to operate efficiently even if subjected to a complete separation of church and state, why get rid of something that has been such a source of strength and comfort...

At least we agree that removing religious content from CF ceremonies will not have a negative impact on the CF. As to "why": aside from it just being wrong, I have also pointed out the liability that it is. The ceremonies themselves are the source of strength and comfort, the religious content has always been extraneous.

Now you're talking religious persecution on a grand scale...
...

Nothing about removing religious content from the CF could be construed as "religious persecution" (of any scale). The sky is not falling.

...
...CFB Esquimalt has muslim in the sam chapel that the catholics and protestancts use. You don't agree with chaplains or religion fine so be it, but don't ban religion for us believers.
...

What is required is very minor, and in no way a ban on religion.

Religions, their associated buildings, and their employees, are the same as any other service industry in Canada. Wherever it is viable these organizations will set up shop. If there was some problem meeting the demands then it should be privately contracted out (sort of like Canex or something similar), or if overseas - then contracted much like translators are (in any case, not an internal matter for the CF).

Each individual needs to take care of their own religious beliefs; they shouldn't require the government to hold their hand on this matter. A member of the CF shouldn't be increasing the administrative burden by demanding that the military provide them with the religious content in their life - more self-reliance is needed, not less.

 

[Michael OLeary]

Nothing about removing religious content from the CF could be construed as "religious persecution" (of any scale). The sky is not falling.

What is required is very minor, and in no way a ban on religion.

I'm only advocating the limited changes required to fix the problem. Remove the chaplains, the call to prayers, and the church services, and its done.

So, what you are saying (for example) is that a dying soldier, who happens to be a Roman Catholic, would be denied last rites in a field hospital, because you would dispense with the Chaplaincy and all of its trappings and rituals.

And you call this a modernizing approach that levels the field for all?

What, exactly, was the problem you thought you were fixing?

 

[Emenince Grise]

Religions, their associated buildings, and their employees, are the same as any other service industry in Canada. Wherever it is viable these organizations will set up shop. If there was some problem meeting the demands then it should be privately contracted out (sort of like Canex or something similar), or if overseas - then contracted much like translators are (in any case, not an internal matter for the CF).

Each individual needs to take care of their own religious beliefs; they shouldn't require the government to hold their hand on this matter. A member of the CF shouldn't be increasing the administrative burden by demanding that the military provide them with the religious content in their life - more self-reliance is needed, not less.

You are making an argument for the individuation of religious belief. That is certainly one perspective, however it is not how Canadian society sees religious faith. Nor it is how the military (as I understand it) sees religious faith.

Canada has historically seen religion and its associated activities as being "value added" to the benefit of society as a whole. That is why, for example, churches can apply for a 50% rebate on GST and why churches are able to issue a tax credit for contributions. It has never been seen as a "service industry", either by society or itself.

We have never subscribed to the doctrine of the separation of church and state in Canada. While there is no "established church" in Canada (that being abolished in the 1850's) one would he hard-pressed to find an aspect of Canadian social policy, for example, from Medicare to the Canada Pension Plan, that was not deeply and profoundly influenced by the religious beliefs of those who initiated those policies. Perhaps a little deeper study of Canadian history is in order.

The Canadian Forces themselves to not provide, as I understand it (I'm just a lowly CivO), the religious content to members. After all, it's not the padre standing up and pouring a sermon down the member's throats. Religious service attendance is not mandatory. It is available and it is the role of the padre to facilitate that religious activity, if the member wishes it. And many, many do.

What the padre does at a given event is, I understand, at the invitation of the CO. If the CO wants the padre present, it is so. One would hope that the CO would reflect the religious beliefs of the members of their unit.

It is also the members who seek out the padre for advice, counsel, encouragement and reflection. The padre is present, nothing more. The padre in the CF also has a unique ability to address the Chain of Command. 

Finally, it is the mandate of the padre and the Chaplain General's office to be concerned both for the welfare of the members but also for their families. I understand that is a unique mandate among all the service branches. That the CF has incorporated that mandate into itself is both progressive and profoundly helpful to the members, I believe. But perhaps I'm biased.

One more thought. What you are advocating in your idea of "contracting out" sounds very much like a return to the days of a century ago where a local minister or priest was invited, usually by the CO, to be the unit chaplain. What the CF discovered was that such an approach didn't work. The demands on chaplains became so huge and so challenging that specialized training was required. The incorporation of chaplains into the CF was a direct result of operational requirements which emerged during and after WW2. The book "Peacetime Padres" by Rev. (Major) Ab Fowler (Ret.) has a lot on this change.

My apologies if I have offered a differing opinion. And if I have offended my Chaplain colleagues, I stand corrected.