Religion in the Canadian Forces & in Canadian Society

[Brad Sallows]

"Obedience to lawful orders is essential to maintaining necessary discipline in the military. Here, however, there was no clearly military purpose," the court ruled.

Doesn't that conclusion worry anyone?  Is that all it takes to disobey a command: that it have no "clearly military purpose"?  I suppose I should try to find and read the entire judgement in case that quotation is far out of the context lane.

Removal of headdress is a ceremonial aspect of "drill & ceremonial".  The removal of headdress was incidental; why was the case not brought forward on the grounds of being forced to participate in a prayer ceremonial?  Apparently it is no imposition upon his belief system to be present on parade during an officially sanctioned prayer, but the removal of headdress is a grave insult.  My contempt is unbounded.

 

[Michael Dorosh]

Sorry, just noticed this. Plenty of reasons why he is 51 and only a LT(N) but the main one I can think of he was a PO or a Chief that decided to take his commission.

CFR....good point; didn't reallize (don't know why) the Navy does that.  We've had some excellent WOs take their commission in our unit...

DOH. I stand corrected yet again.

 

[Michael Dorosh]

"Obedience to lawful orders is essential to maintaining necessary discipline in the military. Here, however, there was no clearly military purpose," the court ruled.

Doesn't that conclusion worry anyone?  Is that all it takes to disobey a command: that it have no "clearly military purpose"?  I suppose I should try to find and read the entire judgement in case that quotation is far out of the context lane.

Removal of headdress is a ceremonial aspect of "drill & ceremonial".  The removal of headdress was incidental; why was the case not brought forward on the grounds of being forced to participate in a prayer ceremonial?  Apparently it is no imposition upon his belief system to be present on parade during an officially sanctioned prayer, but the removal of headdress is a grave insult.  My contempt is unbounded.

What was their definition of "clear military purpose"?  I don't imagine one exists.  What a cop out.  I can interpret everything we do, from saluting, to putting on clean underwear, as having a "clear military purpose."  I thought the catch-alls were supposed to be in our favour, not against them.  "Conduct prejudicial to the maintenance of good order and discipline" used to catch all this stuff; apparently no longer.

 

[pbi]

Obedience to lawful orders is essential to maintaining necessary discipline in the military. Here, however, there was no clearly military purpose," the court ruled

Apparently "respect" no longer has its place as an important military virtue nor as a basis for discipline. The removal of headdress is recognized as a gesture of respect without any real religious baggage. The order was a lawful one. Hopefully this judgement (which I agree should be reviewed in its entire form) is not the thin end of the wedge. Cheers.

 

[McG]

Apparently it is no imposition upon his belief system to be present on parade during an officially sanctioned prayer, but the removal of headdress is a grave insult.

I wonder if the court could have found that it was within his right to reffuse attendance on a parade including religious proceedings that he did not believe in, but that once on said parade he would be fully obliged to participate?   Such a finding would have removed religion from any mandatory parade.   Would we have been more comfortable with a finding like that?

The removal of headdress is recognized as a gesture of respect without any real religious baggage. The order was a lawful one.

Yes.

 

[48Highlander]

Apparently "respect" no longer has its place as an important military virtue nor as a basis for discipline. The removal of headdress is recognized as a gesture of respect without any real religious baggage. The order was a lawful one. Hopefully this judgement (which I agree should be reviewed in its entire form) is not the thin end of the wedge. Cheers.

    Teaching an SQ course I had 10 soldiers in the platoon state they weren't religious and had no desire to be present for the padre's hour.  I promptly informed them that I am not religious either, but that I would be there.  I went into a little speech explaining that the CF has always prided itself in tolerance and understanding of other peoples beleifs.  And I concluded by stating that respect demonstrated through a willingness to listen, wether or not you agree with someones beleifs, will never harm you, but can do you a lot of good.  I left the decision up to them, but for the rest of the course the entire platoon was present for the padre's hour, and they seemed unusualy attentive at least that first time

    It's too bad this clown didn't get the same message.

 

[Brad Sallows]

Here is the CMAC "Reasons for Judgement":

http://www.cmac-cacm.ca/decisions/CMAC-476_e.shtml

I will continue to be amazed that a person of "no religious beliefs" (a nullity) could claim to care one way or the other about participation in any particular ceremony - there is nothing to be supported or contradicted.  I have always thought it best to be considerate of others even when it costs me a little inconvenience, and certainly if it costs me none.  I am, however, pleased to see a rare occurrence in Canada in which the tolerance of the many is subordinated to the tolerance of the one.

I suppose he must be of sufficiently strong integrity to never before or hereafter invoke a religious utterance in a moment of weakness, despair, or pain.  Otherwise, he would be merely a posturing hypocrite.

 

[Michael Dorosh]

   The fact that the appellant kept his hat on not because of religious convictions, but because of a lack of them, seems to us to be quite irrelevant. The order that was given and that he knowingly disobeyed was one with the acknowledged purpose, according to both prosecution witnesses and section 3 of the Canadian Forces Dress Instructions was to show "respect" for what was being done and not mere passive toleration. That is to say, it was designed to constrain him to make a public gesture of approval for a religious ceremony in which he did not believe.

??

Here, however, there was no clearly military purpose, but simply the impermissible one of having the entire parade show some level of participation in and assent to the prayers that followed. The order was not lawful and the appellant's disobedience of it was justified.

Anyone agree?

 

[Reccesoldier]

Here is the CMAC "Reasons for Judgement":

http://www.cmac-cacm.ca/decisions/CMAC-476_e.shtml

I will continue to be amazed that a person of "no religious beliefs" (a nullity) could claim to care one way or the other about participation in any particular ceremony - there is nothing to be supported or contradicted.  I have always thought it best to be considerate of others even when it costs me a little inconvenience, and certainly if it costs me none.  I am, however, pleased to see a rare occurrence in Canada in which the tolerance of the many is subordinated to the tolerance of the one.

I suppose he must be of sufficiently strong integrity to never before or hereafter invoke a religious utterance in a moment of weakness, despair, or pain.  Otherwise, he would be merely a posturing hypocrite.

Brad, as for the nulity of his religious beliefs to a fanatical Athiest asking them to display any respect for any religious ceremony would be the same as asking a fanatical islamist to participate in a Hindu ritual. the participation does (for these people ) lend creedence to the "false belief".

I wonder how many devout christians, jews or moslems would remove their headdress out of respect for the tooth fairy.

As I said before, I'm a  non-believer but I'm also a soldier. It costs me nothing to remove my headdress and I just go to my happy place while the ceremony takes place. I'll respect your right to believe and I won't make a stink as long as others respect my right not to believe and act in a similar fashon.

 

[Brad Sallows]

He did not claim to have any particular religious belief; he claimed to have none.  If his argument is that he has no religious beliefs, he can not believe that an order to remove headdress during prayer has any religious meaning for or against him - he has no basis for that interpretation.  The act of removing headdress and standing during prayer was neither more nor less of an imposition on his lack of beliefs than being ordered to stand on one leg (equally devoid of military purpose).  For him, it can only ever be a gesture devoid of meaning; he should follow words of command and mark time in his own mind as he desires during prayer or other religious rituals on parade.  Otherwise, he should have objected entirely to being present on parade for the duration of the religious portion.

I suspect that if pressed, he would have to admit to not having a complete lack of religious belief.  You have to have a frame of reference to make a measurement, even a philosophical one.

 

[Reccesoldier]

I disagree Brad (It's in my nature )

As I said before for a die-hard athiest just being ordered to participate in such a ceremony is an insult. If you to think of Athieism as a "belief" all on it's own, then you are on the right track. In essence what these peiople see themselves as fighting for is the equivalent right to religious expression. They do not want to have to be subjected to the beliefs of the believers, included in their rituals or discriminated against because of their lack of belief.

I'm willing to bet that had this "soldier" (and I use the term loosely) been a devout Muslim, Hindu or freaking Wiccan and asked (as he did) to be excused from the parade, his superiors would have accomodated him.

Perhaps I'm just obstinate but I see the guys point to a certain extent. I have, as I said earlier, asked not to participate in a regimental parade in a church to dedicate a stained glass window. I was refused that requet and told "It won't hurt you to attend", well guess what, that isn't the point. The freedonm to ones religious beliefs also includes the freedom for others to not believe.

I would never deny any of my soldiers their right to attend services of whatever denomination so then what right would any leader have to demand for someone to participate in a purely religious ceremony?

There is in my opinion a certain amount of hypocracy in thinking that the right to religion excludes the right of not having religion.

Cheers,
Zip

 

[48Highlander]

    If you do not HAVE a religion, then how can you be offended by participating in someone elses ceremony?  If I take part in a Church Parade, it has no religious meaning to me, but why would it offend me?  It's just another parade.  Same goes for your window dedication ceremony.  If you're not religious, then you're there to support your regiment, not for the religious aspect.  Refusing to do something just because it's religious is damn foolish.  What if every athiest, muslim, jew, buddhist, and moromon in your unit had also requested not to take part in that parade because the window was in a church which did not teach their religion?  You would have had what, 6 people on parade?  Being an athiest is not an excuse to be ignorant and disrespectful.

 

[aesop081]

    If you do not HAVE a religion, then how can you be offended by participating in someone elses ceremony?   If I take part in a Church Parade, it has no religious meaning to me, but why would it offend me?   It's just another parade.   Same goes for your window dedication ceremony.   If you're not religious, then you're there to support your regiment, not for the religious aspect.   Refusing to do something just because it's religious is damn foolish.   What if every athiest, muslim, jew, buddhist, and moromon in your unit had also requested not to take part in that parade because the window was in a church which did not teach their religion?   You would have had what, 6 people on parade?   Being an athiest is not an excuse to be ignorant and disrespectful.

I have no religion and i dont like being at religious ceremonies !  I have my reason why i have given up on the RC religion and everytime i got to a parade where the padre says a prayer, my blood boils because to me, it is a bunch of bull !  So to answer your question, religion can be offensive to someone who has none.

no offense to anyone

 

[Shec]

  If you're not religious, then you're there to support your regiment, not for the religious aspect.   Refusing to do something just because it's religious is darn foolish. .

Bravo 48th Highlander

Insights from a Jew who  attendeded  Regimental Church Parades at an Anglican Cathedral:

The practical and most beneficial outcome of attending a Church parade is to further bind the members of the Regiment to it and to their comrades.  And for that reason anyone who raises objections to attending is only serving to alienate himself from the Regimental family.    Going on Church Parade does not mean religious conversion or attempts to prosleytize.   Nobody is trying to deny you your human rights.  It means respect which begets respect and that translates into tolerance, acceptance, and unit cohesion.    And, as a collateral benefit you may even learn something and gain some insights into another faith.  But if you're not interested in that, fine, who says you have to listen? 

 

[aesop081]

Don't get me wrong, i wasn't playing devil's advocate or anything.  I hate it but still attend them, i just found my mental happy place.

I agree that diobeying an order on religious grounds is foolish ( excuse me , is there a soldier here that is not of _________ religion so that we can kill the guys in that trench over there ??) but why is it that we go to such lenghts to accomodate this situation ?

 

[Michael OLeary]

..... but why is it that we go to such lenghts to accomodate this situation ?

It's nothing new to try and balance religious beliefs and military service:

Apr 27, 1913 - The March of the Lone Baptist. "As the Headquarters' file of Regimental Orders for 1913 and most of 1914 was destroyed in the Halifax explosion in 1917, and as a prolonged search has failed to discover copies in Ottawa, or at any of the Regimental Depots, the exact sequence of events in this period is now difficult to ascertain, but, thanks to private diaries and similar memoranda, a record of some incidents has been preserved. There was, for example, the March of the Lone Baptist, an event unparalleled in the Regiment's, or perhaps any other regiment's, history.
From the time when the unit assumed garrison duties in Halifax in 1905, it had been the custom of the band to march in the church parades of the Church of England, Presbyterian and Roman Catholic detachments in rotation, leaving the smaller denominations to proceed without musical accompaniment. On the complaint of certain Ministers in Halifax against what they considered unfair discrimination, the Honourable the Minister of Militia and Defence ruled that all denominations must be treated alike and that the band must accompany each detachment in turn. In accordance with these orders, Sunday, April 27, was allotted to the Baptist denomination. There were three Baptists serving in the Regiment in Halifax at the time, two of whom were on detached duty, but the orders were explicit. Accordingly, the lone Baptist was paraded, Lieut. H.T. Cock assumed command of the parade, the Regimental Sergeant-Major took his appointed post, two police joined the detachment as usual, the band of approximately 40 pieces struck up an appropriate air, and off the Baptist was marched to his place of worship more than a mile away. Flattering as the escort must have been, the service would have seemed to have displeased him. No exact explanation is now available, but it is on record that he paraded before the Commanding Officer and changed his religion on the following day, an example which the adherents of other minor denominations were prompt to follow. - The Royal Canadian Regiment, 1883-1933, R.C. Fetherstonaugh, 1936

Divine Service.
2.  Soldiers of the Roman Catholic, or Presbyterians persuasions, are to be regularly marched to, and from, their own places of Public Worship under the command of an officer if their number shall exceed twenty; and in charge of a Sergeant if not exceeding that number; and the Officer or Sergeant is to remain with them during the performance of the service. - Standing Orders for the Regulation of all Duties in the Garrison of Halifax, Nova Scotia, 1857

Or soldiers' reactions to being paraded for divine services:

Ninety-five percent of the Battalion heartily detested Church Parade and would do anything in reason to get out of it. - Private Frank Richards, 1857 quoted in J.M. Bereton, The British Soldier; A Social History from 1661 to the Present Day

 

[aesop081]

Even i , as unreligious as one can get, manage to find a reason to go to padre's hours during basic......it was the only hour of peace and quiet i could get......the padre was understanding...he told us non-religious guys that we could sleep if we wanted, that he understood........

 

[Brad Sallows]

Atheism does not mean "without religious belief", it means "disbelief in existence of a deity".  The CMAC document cited "...the appellant, who says that he has no religious belief...", which is not the same as being an atheist.

I wonder if he, or any other avowed non-Christian, has observed Christian grace during a mess dinner or removed headdress during a Remembrance Day parade.  That would tend to nail one down as a posturing hypocrite if one objects to participating in religious observances under other circumstances.

To refuse to participate in someone else's religious observance, irrespective of one's own beliefs, ultimately just strikes me as very small.  "Tolerance", for those of you who profess to embody the supposed Canadian Value of Tolerance, is the quality of putting up with things to which you object.

 

[the 48th regulator]

I Think we should not get faith and religion mixed up.  I have had discussions with various padres (our regiment has been blessed with some very good ones) and one Padre posed that question to me.

"Where is your faith at?"  

I proceeded to tell him of my not being involved as much in my religion, R.C, as I should but that I have a great belief in the divine, He explained that ones faith and ones religion are two different things.  Religion is just a method to express ones faith, but faith is the belief, whatever it is, that keeps us going.  You did not necessarily have to follow a divine being to explain some of the mysteries in life, as long as you find an explanation that satisfies you.

It made a hell of a lot of sense.  I may send you an e-mail using Microsoft Outlook, but you may open it with Express or any other program, but in the end you still are able to read my msg.

That's my opinion, and I have one request, stop bashing the RC order you Godless heathens otherwise you will feel the wrath of my Dio...


hehehehe

tess

 

[aesop081]

i have given up not only on RC but on all religion as well............ but you don't see me making a public big deal out of it.