Religion in the Canadian Forces & in Canadian Society

[the 48th regulator]

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.

hmmm then what do you call your posts on this thread?

tess

 

[aesop081]

Simply expressing that the individual we are all talking about should have simply done what he was told.........i'm a prime example that you can be non - religious and not open up pandora's box.......

is that alright with you 48th ?

 

[camochick]

The whole thing boils down to the fact that this man is suffering from a lack of respect. What harm would it really do to take off your hat during a prayer. I'm non religious, I actually think religion is a huge joke, but I am often invited to religious events with friends. I attend them, even though I dont believe and I show respect for what these people do believe in. I think this guy probably lacks a few brain cells and just wanted to make a big deal out of nothing for a little attention. It's sad and pathetic that this bonehead got away with this.

Oh and tess, this is a forum of discussion so I think that is what aesop is doing. He is not making some big hoopla about it in public, which I believe is what he meant.

 

[McG]

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. Since that is a purpose which is clearly inimical to the freedom of religion guaranteed by paragraph 2(a) of the Charter, the order given fails the first branch of the test laid down in R. v. Big M Drug Mart, [1985] 1 S.C.R. 295.

I don't think that removing ones hat is respect in the sense of "a public gesture of approval for a religious ceremony" so much as courtesy for those who do believe (much like the respect shown when removing hats at the dinner table or shoes when visiting someone's house).  However, given the appeal court's interpretation, the removal of headdress is equivalent to an approval of the ceremony and so indirectly an acceptance of the religion it represents.  I don't agree with this interpretation of the act of removing headdress, but I agree whole heartedly that we cannot order members of the CF to make an act of acceptance of a religion they do not believe in.

If you do not HAVE a religion, then how can you be offended by participating in someone elses ceremony?

If your belief is that there is no religion, then you may be offended if you feel your are seen as agreeing with an organized religion.

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. 

I would suggest there are better ways to bind soldiers to regimental families.  Especially if a significant element within the regiment do not share the beliefs of the religion.

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.

I cannot agree with this, though it may be a matter of semantics.

We cannot & should not ask any soldier to participate in someone else's religious observance, and we should not expect them to do so.  However, I see nothing wrong with expecting soldiers to be respectful & quiet in the presence of others that are involved in their own religious observance (including on parade).

I'll also add that I've never observed Christian grace during any dinner.  I just stay quiet and allow those who want to observe to do so.

 

[bossi]

Ironically, I'd overlooked something during this discussion ...
Highlanders routinely carry weapons into church (it goes back to the Campbells and some nasty business in The Old Country ... but, I digress ...)

I just ran across a modern day example of this - perhaps not directly pertinent, but ... that's the beauty of The Indirect Approach, eh?

I've only quoted the pertinent excerpt, but you can read the entire article via this link:

http://globalspecops.com/sws.html

On Sheep, Wolves and Sheepdogs
by LTC. Dave Grossman, USA (Ret)

... As a human being, you can be whatever you want to be.  It is a conscious, moral decision. If you want to be a sheep, then you can be a sheep and that is okay, but you must understand the price
you pay.  When the wolf comes, you and your loved ones are going to die if there is not a sheepdog there to protect you. If you want to be a wolf, you can be one, but the Sheepdogs are going to hunt you down and you will never have rest, safety, trust or love.

But if you want to be a sheepdog and walk the warrior's path, then you must make a conscious and moral decision every day to dedicate, equip and prepare yourself to thrive in that toxic, corrosive
moment when the wolf comes knocking at the door.

For example, many officers carry their weapons in church.  They are well concealed in ankle holsters, shoulder holsters or inside-the-belt holsters tucked into the small of their backs.  Anytime you go to some form of religious service, there is a very good chance that a police officer in your congregation is carrying. You will never know if there is such an individual in your place of worship, until the wolf appears to massacre you and your loved ones. I was training a group of police officers in Texas, and during the break, one officer asked his friend if he carried his weapon in church. The other cop replied, "I will never be caught without my gun in church." I asked why he felt so strongly about this, and he told me about a cop he knew who was at a church massacre
in Ft. Worth, Texas in 1999.  In that incident, a mentally deranged individual came into the church and opened fire, gunning down fourteen people.  He said that officer believed he could have saved every life that day if he had been carrying his gun. His own son was shot, and all he could do was throw himself on the boy's body and wait to die. That cop looked me in the eye and said, "Do you have any idea how hard it would be to live with yourself after that?"

Some individuals would be horrified if they knew this police officer was carrying a weapon in church. They might call him paranoid and would probably scorn him.  Yet these same individuals would be enraged and would call for "heads to roll" if they found out that the airbags in their cars were defective, or that the fire extinguisher and fire sprinklers in their kids' school did not work.  They can accept the fact that fires and traffic accidents can happen and that there must be safeguards against them. 
Their only response to the wolf, though, is denial, and all too often their response to the sheepdog is scorn and disdain. But the sheepdog quietly asks himself, "Do you have an idea how hard it would be to live with yourself if your loved ones were attacked and killed, and you had to stand there helplessly because you were unprepared for that day?"  ...

 

[LF(CMO)]

It's with great sadness that I've read some of the comments on this topic.   The CF has been on a degenerative spiral starting with the   Militia stand down of 1965-66 followed by the UF nonsense of the 70's and now the final emasculation by the PC cops of the day.  
But in a way Christianity has been the author of it's own destruction.   Our British legal system guaranteeing our individual rights and freedoms evolved from a balance of   common law and Christian principles.    It's ironic that in this situation one persons self serving behaviour attacks the system that allows for this in the first place!
In the mid part of the last century we witnessed what happened when Germany, one of the great Christian nations, was separated from it's traditional Christian origins and replaced it with a state religion called Nazism based on wild eyed nonsense!   Is it coincidence that all nations that have preserved democratic goverment have emerged from Christian origins?
As emphasized by Dorosh, 48th H and others, the key word here is RESPECT.   Because of our respect for individual freedom, we allow everyone to have their own personal religious view or none at all.   However, the individual in this case did not return this respect for CF tradition in kind.   The situation also resulted in a disrespect for authority which all successful military structure is ultimately based on.   The CF is on it's way to becoming a sterile, bureaucratic civil service.

 

[Fishbone Jones]

Excellent summation.

 

[McG]

...  Our British legal system guaranteeing our individual rights and freedoms evolved from a balance of  common law and Christian principles.  It's ironic that in this situation one persons self serving behaviour attacks the system that allows for this in the first place!

How has he attacked our system of common law or our system of rights?

In the mid part of the last century we witnessed what happened when Germany, one of the great Christian nations, was separated from it's traditional Christian origins and replaced it with a state religion called Nazism based on wild eyed nonsense!   Is it coincidence that all nations that have preserved democratic goverment have emerged from Christian origins?

I hope that I have misconstrued what you are trying to say above because to me it smacks of supremacist opinion & arrogance.  Specifically, I cannot help but sense a suggestion that all non-Christians are ethically inferior.

 

[bossi]

I hope that I have misconstrued what you are trying to say above because to me it smacks of supremacist opinion & arrogance.

I guess it's all in how one reads it ...
(i.e. to me, it definitely didn't smack of anything improper or incorrect - it seems fairly accurate)

 

[Roger]

So, in other words ... you're saying that on Remembrance Day it's okay to disrepect fallen comrades if you feel like it?  Or, if you don't particularly like some words in the national anthem, you don't have to stand at attention or salute the flag?  The inability of a commissioned officer to follow a simple command is a disgrace

Being an agnostic myself I have always felt certain distaste to removing my headdress at a remembrance parade, in most cases it was a protestant padre who was saying prayers in his full protestant regalia. I removed my headrest in respect to my fallen brothers in all of our wars and peacekeeping missions. I also would have been more comfortable if the padre was in uniform. But religion is a sticky subject and when I needed certain help the padre was always there when the DND was not and I never asked the padre what religion he was. I know that most members of the forces in the two world wars where protestant, but there are many religions in the forces now and everyone needs to be respected.

But just to throw a screw into the subject, what about the jerk that this officer complained to, why did he not care what his religious feelings where and did not respect his wishes. He should be charged, or at least respected his wish and maybe had him stand in the back out of the away or had him come in a civy suit with no headdress. This incident is proof of what is the mater with the forces today, an a#$ of a supervisor taking stupid decisions then being backed and covered by the brass for stupid behavior.

 

[LF(CMO)]

"I removed my headrest in respect to my fallen brothers in all of our wars and peacekeeping missions."

Again, RESPECT is the key word.   Chop, I don't have to know any more about you other than the above and I know that you would be there for your brother no matter the situation.

BTW: Do you know 'Duke' Cuthbert (former CAR)?   He was the Jumpmaster on our 05, 06 June, 2004 60th Anniversary Jump.   Another guy that has my complete and total trust and RESPECT.  

 

[48Highlander]

But just to throw a screw into the subject, what about the jerk that this officer complained to, why did he not care what his religious feelings where and did not respect his wishes. He should be charged, or at least respected his wish and maybe had him stand in the back out of the away or had him come in a civy suit with no headdress. This incident is proof of what is the mater with the forces today, an a#$ of a supervisor taking stupid decisions then being backed and covered by the brass for stupid behavior.

    A stupid decision?  How is telling someone to take off their hat a stupid decision?  If you feel ofended having to take off your headdress in the mess, should you be exused from having to do that too?

 

[Brad Sallows]

>How has he attacked our system of common law or our system of rights?

Directly, he has not.  However, as with all other social changes there are likely to be unforeseen, unintended, and undesirable consequences.  I am not sure I will see in my lifetime the full impact of the ongoing erosion of the values and traditions - religious or not - which laid the fertile ground for our laws and rights.

>In the mid part of the last century we witnessed what happened when Germany, one of the great Christian nations, was separated from it's traditional Christian origins and replaced it with a state religion called Nazism based on wild eyed nonsense!  Is it coincidence that all nations that have preserved democratic goverment have emerged from Christian origins?

>I hope that I have misconstrued what you are trying to say above because to me it smacks of supremacist opinion & arrogance.  Specifically, I cannot help but sense a suggestion that all non-Christians are ethically inferior.

To suppose that absence of democratic government necessarily makes a people ethically inferior would be incorrect.  Not all variations of democratic government have arisen in nations with Christian origins.  However, a Christian (particularly, Protestant) heritage does seem to be correlated.  I haven't really read enough yet to decide whether cultures with values which encourage democratic systems of government are naturally amenable to Christianity, or vice versa.

 

[48Highlander]

Well, Israel and Pakistan are both functional democracies which seem to defy the idea that only Christians can behave democraticaly.  I'm sure there are more, but none I can list without doing some fact checking first.

 

[LF(CMO)]

"Is it coincidence that all nations that have preserved democratic government have emerged from Christian origins? "   Please fellows, I purposely posed it as a question.    It is not a defining statement, so therefore nothing can be inferred from it in any way other than the question it poses.

" Well, Israel and Pakistan are both functional democracies which seem to defy the idea that only Christians can behave democratically.   I'm sure there are more, but none I can list without doing some fact checking first"  
Actually '48', we can add Japan and India in there as well.   Pakistan and India from the British.   Japan from Gen MacArthur.   Israel would slide in under Judeo-Christian, as politics and Government are a function of the Old Covenant.   Concepts such as private ownership of land, individual worth and accountability, compulsory military service, King by the grace of God, fair judgement with the right of appeal, respect for women etc. are all part of our British Heritage derived originally from OT concepts.   I'm not in any way implying that other cultures and religions don't embodie some of these principles.   But who has put them together in a system that has functioned as well as ours has???

BTW: The Americans owe everything they have to their British roots as well.   There was nothing revolutionary in the American Revolution!! ( remember Americans believe all kinds of crazy things, like they won the War of 1812 etc.)   The AR was just a replay of the Civil War a 100+ years previous.   It really could not be justified and only time will tell whether it was the right thing or not.

 

[48Highlander]

That's a meritles argument.  Just because democracy started in a christian society doesn't mean that it couldn't have evolved under other religions.  And the fact that it's developing in other places due to the influence of primarily christian countries does not mean that those countries aren't legitemate democracies.  You may as well state that only christians can make propper weapons since they were the first to create firearms.

 

[McG]

To suppose that absence of democratic government necessarily makes a people ethically inferior would be incorrect.

That is true.  However, my concern is based on the entire quoted paragraph and not just its final sentence.

Please fellows, I purposely posed it as a question.  It is not a defining statement, so therefore nothing can be inferred from it in any way other than the question it poses.

As you were trying to make an argument against the court's decision, I can only assume we are supposed to infer something from it.  I am most concerned with where you were trying to go with linking the Nazi success to the absence of a Christian government.

That's a meritles argument.

And unless it was intended to present some inferiority on non-Christions, I still do not see how it was expected to further an argument that in a free & democratic society we should allow military personnel to have someone else's religious beliefs imposed on them.

 

[Infanteer]

Considering that the idea and functionality of democracy (and the related political dialogue) predates Judeo-Christian culture in the West by a good four centuries, I hardly see the direct correlation between Judeo-Christian values and a democratic system.

However, the flavour of democracy that we currently practice is more then likely got a good injection of influence from 20 centuries of the presence of Christianity in the West - if one is to believe Weber and The Protestant Ethic and the Spirit of Capitalism (but what does this say for all those lazy Catholics? ).

Gress' From Plato to NATO is a good look at the different contributions to the composite picture that is Western society.

 

[Roger]

    A stupid decision?   How is telling someone to take off their hat a stupid decision?   If you feel ofended having to take off your headdress in the mess, should you be exused from having to do that too?

When I was told to remove my headdress is was to say a prayer, not a tradition of removing my beret to go in a mess. I was never comfortable removing it for prayer, in fact it pissed me off that I had to listen to a prayer when I did not pray. Its all in perpesctive. But I am a minority and you are in the majority, because of this I am forced to do a behavior I dislike and do not believe in. Yes I sucked it up and changed my perpective to a positive one, when all the others where praying I thought of all of our brothers that had died before us to give us what we have in Canada, a free country to live in freedom, yes freedom to have a choice.

 

[Blackhorse7]

Chop, I think your missing the point here.

You can not be religious all you want (I myself believe in God, but I'll be damned if I can remember the last time I was in a Church or prayed).  Being pissed off about having to remove your headdress and listen to a prayer is a little ignorant of others in my eyes.  Nobody said you had to pray, or for that matter, pay attention to the prayer.  This Officer's actions is akin to sticking your thumb in someones eye.  Nobody was saying "Pray!  That's an order!"  But to refuse what in my eyes was a lawful command generated out of respect for others is not acceptable.  It is a gesture of respect for those others around you that you remove your headdress.

And you are right... Canada is a land of freedom and free choice, but it is also a country of tolerance and respect for others beliefs.  Those are some of the other things those fallen brothers died for.