Directives to military chaplains urge expunging God, religion from Remembrance Day, public ceremonies

[IKnowNothing]

I haven't earned the right to have a strong opinion Remembrance Day ceremonies. I won't question what is, or is not important to those that have.

But speaking more broadly, as a rural 6th generation white boy raised in the UCC on crown deeded land, with respect to wanting to raise my kids in the same Canada I was raised in, if take a glance South at the fundamentalism shaping US politics, then at the GTA at the increasing political influence and demographic weight of those whose values I don't share (looking at you Hamas supporters), I view the "de-Christianizing" of any aspect of the Federal government, no matter how seemingly trivial, less as an attack on my traditions/culture then as the price to be paid to try to keep the Canada as I know it safe from fundamentalism of any stripe.

 

[GR66]

To be fair... in my enrollment ceremony 4 people gave the oath of Solemn Affirmation and 1 person swore on the Quran.

Younger people tend to be overwhelmingly less religious than older generations:

"Among the population born in Canada, younger cohorts were significantly less likely than older cohorts to report having a religious affiliation and, when they did, they were less likely to consider their beliefs to be important to how they live their lives (32% of people born between 1980 and 1999 versus 48% and 62% of those born between 1960 and 1979 and between 1940 and 1959, respectively) (Chart 6). These trends, while present, were less pronounced among those born outside Canada, with older and younger cohorts being less distinct from one another."

Making the CAF less religious would increase recruitment, if it had any effect at all.

This highlighted fact may be a major reason that Remembrance ceremonies have traditionally had a notable Christian element to them. Canada of the WWI and WWII generations was considerably more religious (and overwhelmingly Christian) than Canada of today. It's perfectly understandable that Remembrance ceremonies reflected that.

Now as Canada is changing demographically it's equally understandable that those Christian elements will have less resonance with an increasingly non-religious, non-Christian population.

Personally as an agnostic I have no issues with religious elements in Remembrance (and other) public ceremonies as they add significant meaning to many of the participants. I have never found that any religious doctrine was being shoved down my throat at ceremonies I have attended...they were simply expressions of deep faith underlying the significance of the sacrifices that were being honoured.

As for military padre's in general the only interaction I had with them was their provision of support to members and their families when I worked in the JPSU. For some it was deeply meaningful and important support that I don't think could be provided by a Social Worker.

$0.02

 

[Kirkhill]

This highlighted fact may be a major reason that Remembrance ceremonies have traditionally had a notable Christian element to them. Canada of the WWI and WWII generations was considerably more religious (and overwhelmingly Christian) than Canada of today. It's perfectly understandable that Remembrance ceremonies reflected that.

Now as Canada is changing demographically it's equally understandable that those Christian elements will have less resonance with an increasingly non-religious, non-Christian population.

Personally as an agnostic I have no issues with religious elements in Remembrance (and other) public ceremonies as they add significant meaning to many of the participants. I have never found that any religious doctrine was being shoved down my throat at ceremonies I have attended...they were simply expressions of deep faith underlying the significance of the sacrifices that were being honoured.

As for military padre's in general the only interaction I had with them was their provision of support to members and their families when I worked in the JPSU. For some it was deeply meaningful and important support that I don't think could be provided by a Social Worker.

$0.02

Nothing wrong with swearing on the Koran, or the Talmud or the Book of Mormon for that matter. Or the Rig Veda. The point is that the individual has a belief system that backs their oath. Regardless of how you perceive the Great Architect.

 

[Fishbone Jones]

It's pretty sad that you can look at the discourse and information being offered by people who are passionate about CAF protocol as it relates to religious accommodation and reduce it to what is essentially mindless drivel. If a forum can't be used as a place for open and honest discussion, then where should people go?

You just raised hell about people acting superior to others because of what they believe.
Then you turn around and berate Bruce's opinion as sad because he does not fit into your tiny little pigeon hole of personal opinion.
Intolerant of other opinions and beliefs.
You could have asked the same question while limiting it to your last sentence. However, you decided to preface it by denigrating someone who doesn't hold your opinion.
You're acting like trudeau.

 

[Biomans]

You just raised hell about people acting superior to others because of what they believe.
Then you turn around and berate Bruce's opinion as sad because he does not fit into your tiny little pigeon hole of personal opinion.
Intolerant of other opinions and beliefs.
You could have asked the same question while limiting it to your last sentence. However, you decided to preface it by denigrating someone who doesn't hold your opinion.
You're acting like trudeau.

His opinion was that reading everyone's opinion in this thread would make someone stupider than when they started. In one post he insulted the intelligence of every single person in this thread.

You think that every other opinion, apart from a blanket statement that this whole thread is idiotic, fits into my "tiny little pigeon whole of personal opinions"? I'm intolerant of other peoples opinions and beliefs because I pointed out that this thread is full of useful information where he claimed none?

I think you're upset and aren't really understanding what you're saying. Take a few deep breaths and actually try to engage with people on the topic if you're interested (something Bruce didn't even bother to attempt).

If you can't defend your position/opinion in on open forum, then your opinion clearly isn't thought out. I get it, some people just like to be edgy, most of us grow out of that phase.

"The truly open minded person is neither extreme left or right but gravitating somewhere in the middle using a combination of good judgement, common sense and willingness to learn facts"

 

[Fishbone Jones]

His opinion was that reading everyone's opinion in this thread would make someone stupider than when they started. In one post he insulted the intelligence of every single person in this thread.

You think that every other opinion, apart from a blanket statement that this whole thread is idiotic, fits into my "tiny little pigeon whole of personal opinions"? I'm intolerant of other peoples opinions and beliefs because I pointed out that this thread is full of useful information where he claimed none?

I think you're upset and aren't really understanding what you're saying. Take a few deep breaths and actually try to engage with people on the topic if you're interested (something Bruce didn't even bother to attempt).

It's still his opinion. You can question it without being aggresive
After you buy this site, you can set whatever rules you want about who can participate and what they can say.
I understand perfectly. I also don't need to take any respiratory advice from you, nor am I upset. I actually think your defensive posting is pretty darn funny.
I have engaged on the topic, in this thread. You just haven't read everything.

 

[Biomans]

It's still his opinion. You can question it without being aggresive
After you buy this site, you can set whatever rules you want about who can participate and what they can say.
I understand perfectly. I also don't need to take any respiratory advice from you, nor am I upset. I actually think your defensive posting is pretty darn funny.
I have engaged on the topic, in this thread. You just haven't read everything.

I wasn't being aggressive, you inferred aggression because you didn't like what I was saying. Do people aggressively say "THAT'S PRETTY SAD"?

The 'rules' you're saying I'm trying to set are pretty common manners when engaging in conversation.

You really don't understand what I was saying, or what I've been trying to say all along. It's okay, you don't have to understand if you don't want to.

I certainly haven't read everything in this thread, and I also found your first response to me pretty funny. "Tiny little pigeon whole of personal opinions", when a universe of possible opinions were available was fantastic, 10/10.

 

[Eaglelord17]

This highlighted fact may be a major reason that Remembrance ceremonies have traditionally had a notable Christian element to them. Canada of the WWI and WWII generations was considerably more religious (and overwhelmingly Christian) than Canada of today. It's perfectly understandable that Remembrance ceremonies reflected that.

Now as Canada is changing demographically it's equally understandable that those Christian elements will have less resonance with an increasingly non-religious, non-Christian population.

Which would make sense for remembrance days to still have a significant Christian element to them as the whole point is to remember the fallen, the vast majority of whom for this country were Christians.

Making Rememberence day about the politics and religious/areligious beliefs of the present doesn’t make much sense as to why the whole day exists. It isn’t supposed to be about you, me, or the guy down the street, rather those who didn’t make it home and made the ultimate sacrifice.

 

[NavalMoose]

Handbags at twenty paces...

 

[quadrapiper]

Which would make sense for remembrance days to still have a significant Christian element to them as the whole point is to remember the fallen, the vast majority of whom for this country were Christians.

Making Rememberence day about the politics and religious/areligious beliefs of the present doesn’t make much sense as to why the whole day exists. It isn’t supposed to be about you, me, or the guy down the street, rather those who didn’t make it home and made the ultimate sacrifice.

I'm going to quibble: it's very much about the current audience. We will remember them, lest we forget, and never again are all about now: keeping that memory of the ultimate price paid alive in the current generation, and to give thanks, in a manner meaningful to those living, to both the fallen and to those still with us who put themselves in harms way.

The vast majority of surviving veterans of any kind are from an all-volunteer force drawn from a vigorously, officially multicultural country with two official languages and a parcel of other tongues in use, without even the brace of "default" religions of an earlier era but with practitioners of every major and many of the minor faiths of the world. The bulk of living Canadian combat veterans, if you want to split that hair, are from an even more variable culture, are younger, and are (at least looking at overall trends) less likely to be religious either at all or as actively as their ancestors.

The place for faith-specific tributes to the fallen is in their place of worship, in a manner pleasing to their faith, not at a mass public event.

 

[OldSolduer]

rather those who didn’t make it home and made the ultimate sacrifice.

Bingo - its about the fallen, not all the veterans who made it back. That is the entire purpose of Remembrance Day.

It is ok to hear the "thank you for your service" but I would rather hear someone recite Binyon's Ode to Remembrance.

 

[btrudy]

Which would make sense for remembrance days to still have a significant Christian element to them as the whole point is to remember the fallen, the vast majority of whom for this country were Christians.

Making Rememberence day about the politics and religious/areligious beliefs of the present doesn’t make much sense as to why the whole day exists. It isn’t supposed to be about you, me, or the guy down the street, rather those who didn’t make it home and made the ultimate sacrifice.

Remembrance Day is about the fallen, but it's for the living.

Because the fallen aren't there. That's kind of the point. Remembrance of the loss.

None of which requires any degree of faith in any higher power, nor praying to the same.

And I still stand by my assertion that it's wholly inappropriate for government officials to be doing official prayers at officially designated prayer times at official events to which a whole bunch of other government employees are required to attend, as part of their official government duties. We have a secular government; neither Christianity nor any other religion hold any especial place in government affairs, and it's unreasonable to make an exception in this case.

________

And it's this principle that is the basis for the Chaplain General's direction. In light of recent and not so recent court rulings indicating that the government shouldn't be promoting religion in this fashion (linked to previous in this thread), he's trying to cover the entire branch's asses. Because if the entire branch is irrevokably linked with "promoting religion at public events", then frankly I think there's a decent chance that one day the courts will rule that the branch should be disbanded. And I would agree with that decision if the Chaplains collectively wouldn't be able to stop themselves from using occasions where they're asked to speak. That's not their role. Several people in this thread have said "If the Padres can't do this, why not replace them completely", and are failing to realize that this is an attempt to stop giving a good reason why they should be replaced wholesale with just more social workers or the like.

This is pure CYOA.

This clearly upsets some people who don't seem to value the fact that our government is secular, and I'd suggest that those people learn to suck it up, because that's not about to change any time soon.

 

[Biomans]

Part of the reason some don't value a secular government is because they believe it's only for the weak minded. Apparently "the rule" means millions of young Canadians will become Christians as soon as a war breaks out. Any degree of secularism becomes nonsensical if you hold the belief that everyone is secretly religious.

Self-riotousness isn't limited to religious people, but it sure does come out more frequently from them lol.

 

[Ostrozac]

And it's this principle that is the basis for the Chaplain General's direction. In light of recent and not so recent court rulings indicating that the government shouldn't be promoting religion in this fashion (linked to previous in this thread), he's trying to cover the entire branch's asses.

Not just court rulings. Last year’s report from the Advisory Panel to the Defence Minister made a pretty solid run at the Royal Canadian Chaplain Service. Circling the wagons to try to protect the existence of the capbadge isn’t just something for the Army Reserves.

I think that the last three capbadges we have entirely lost were Pers Admin, Physical Education Instructor, and the Canadian Airborne Regiment. I‘d take odds that Chaplain might be the next If they don’t play their cards right.

 

[Bruce Monkhouse]

Self-riotousness isn't limited to religious people, but it sure does come out more frequently from them lol.

Not judging by the posts in this thread.
I need to start a new forum ...".AA, "...Atheists who hate Atheists,....huh?, oh it's been taken.

 

[Biomans]

Not judging by the posts in this thread.
I need to start a new forum ...".AA, "...Atheists who hate Atheists,....huh?, oh it's been taken.

'Daily Edgy Comments' may be more your speed, but interesting that you hate Atheists. Your attitude is starting to make a lot of sense.........

 

[Remius]

Not just court rulings. Last year’s report from the Advisory Panel to the Defence Minister made a pretty solid run at the Royal Canadian Chaplain Service. Circling the wagons to try to protect the existence of the capbadge isn’t just something for the Army Reserves.

I think that the last three capbadges we have entirely lost were Pers Admin, Physical Education Instructor, and the Canadian Airborne Regiment. I‘d take odds that Chaplain might be the next If they don’t play their cards right.

And now after all those years we have serious pers admin issue and fitness issues. CSOR replaced the airborne more or less but it took a war to figure out we still needed that sort of capability.

Losing chaplains isn’t so much the loss of any religious vector for me, it’s a ressource that I have that I can tap into to help my subordinates. One that is literally a phone call away. More social workers won’t be the solution despite what some people think.

 

[Edward Campbell]

Indeed. Particularly given the case law quoted in the CAF instructions on this. This is an exercise in proofing CAF against litigation based on evolving case law. The CAF, as a government institution, is legally barred from taking actions that essentially promote or boost religion. While this obviously puts the chaplaincy in more than a bit of a bind, nonetheless this is law that CAF must abide by.

Everyone, please, THIS is the issue. There are some people, including some people inside the government and, indeed, inside the CF who want to find ways to embarrass the institution and accusing the military of "promoting" religion at the expense of inclusivity is one way to do it.

It's not about what most chaplains do, day-in and day-out, or whether there are atheists in L-trenches. It is actually about a Principle of War:

Security – Security is the provision and maintenance of an operating environment that affords the necessary freedom of action, when and where required, to achieve objectives.​

If we don't do this the Gov't will have to (further) ignore our military objectives while it answers complaints, some likely brought by serving CF members, in courtrooms.

 

[btrudy]

Losing chaplains isn’t so much the loss of any religious vector for me, it’s a ressource that I have that I can tap into to help my subordinates. One that is literally a phone call away. More social workers won’t be the solution despite what some people think.

I've heard people say this, but I still gotta ask why?

If we hired on an equal number of social workers, and put them in the same positions that were formerly held by Chaplains, having them do the same roles that the Chaplains currently do (minus the explicitly religious stuff of course), what's the difference here in terms of support for the troops, etc?

No one has adequately explained why they think that the people filling those roles need to be clergy (or clergy adjacent).

 

[Remius]

I've heard people say this, but I still gotta ask why?

If we hired on an equal number of social workers, and put them in the same positions that were formerly held by Chaplains, having them do the same roles that the Chaplains currently do (minus the explicitly religious stuff of course), what's the difference here in terms of support for the troops, etc?

That is exactly what they said about pers admin and Physical Education Instructors.

No one has adequately explained why they think that the people filling those roles need to be clergy (or clergy adjacent).

Because I doubt that a social worker will be on call 24/7. Currently there are weeks if not months of waiting to get anyone an appointment. In the PRES, you can’t even get the right kind of service if you are class A. But you can speak to a chaplain. Direct line. The CAF can barely recruit for most trades so the solution is to get rid of what we have and hope we can recruit trained social workers? No thanks.

And chaplains generally and mostly do what they do as a calling. Not as a profession. So there is a a certain cultural attitude to helping people that is different. Not saying that social workers aren’t dedicated but I have a hard time believing that the same kind of access and availability will happen.

Given the overall shortage of social workers and mental health resources in society as a whole, it’s naive to think that the solution is just to hire more social workers. More than half are leaving the profession in this country, and most can’t handle the case loads they have. So the answer is to get rid of a ressource we have because it offends a few people and hope that we can supplement with a civilian solution? How very CAF.