Poll-Chaplains in CAP

[Major Lord]

Just to get the pulse of the group, without violating anyone's civil rights, I thought I would see where we stand on a group on the utility or value of Chaplains in this highly unscientific poll.

Major Lord

[BillB]

Chaplains are a valuable part of the CAP mission. The problem comes with the few Chaplains that put their religion before the mission. There was a MLO at an encampment that had a three hour moral leadership class (Reg only calls for one hour) and held Vespers every night. Rather than moral leadership these activities tended to be very religious. Cadets went to the nightly vespers, not for moral leadership, but to get out of cleaning the barracks.

[RiverAux]

I voted "No, they just get in the way", though I don't really feel they do, but it was as close to a generic "no" as was offerred.   

[EMT-83]

Just what do you mean by "violate Church and State"?

[Major Lord]

Sorry, they only give you 5 questions in a poll. I would like to ask questions like : Have you ever felt the need to confer with a Chaplain for a moral/spiritual, or ethical issue?" But a poll like that would take more than 5 questions to generate meaningful data.

46.6 % in favor of Chaplains
20 % Not in Favor of Chaplains
5% Indifferent

Not surprising results. Maybe Atheists should have their own Chaplain if the Courts have designated it as a Religion? Personally, I would like a Christian Objectivist Libertarian, one who feels the need to offer sacrifices to the beer god. I think the Atheists and Wiccans will get theirs first though.......

(Its funny that the pro-chaplain percentage is roughly on par with the percentage of people who actually pay Income tax......Coincidence?)

Major Lord

[Major Carrales]

Really?  Is there a need to "fan" the flames of this discussions which really has more to do with the debate over religion and anything beneficial to CAP?

If, for some reason, this continues, I just may support the posting of a thread asking if the past and current Presidential Administrations have been "good" for CAP.  Or, to better make my point, are democrats and republicans better or worse at supporting CAP.

Sorry, Religion and Politics have no place on CAPTALK.

[Major Lord]

Just what do you mean by "violate Church and State"?

Those people who feel that CAP as a pseudo-Govt agency is prohibited from supporting any religious activity in any form.

Major Lord

[EMT-83]

Cite, please.

[Pumbaa]

Seems to be a bit of Christophobia here....

I'm wondering why there are 2 chapels on the base I am on.  Guess the military should not have built them, you know separation and all.

Oh yeah, the Navy Chaplain friend of mine... perhaps we should have him walk the plank?  You know separation and all.

Should not have allowed the Chaplain on our base for this either!

Navy Honor Guard prepare an American flag during a memorial service at Norfolk Naval Station for Lt. Miroslav Steven Zilberman. The Navy pilot's Hawkeye crashed into the North Arabian Sea last week while returning from a sortie over Afghanistan.
http://hamptonroads.com/2010/04/downed-navy-pilot-honored-norfolk-sacrifice#rfq

[NCRblues]

The separation of church and state, that does not exist in the Constitution, but in the federalist papers that have no legal bearing on the Law of the land? 

[raivo]

The separation of church and state, that does not exist in the Constitution, but in the federalist papers that have no legal bearing on the Law of the land? 

"Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion..."

Which is the question, in a convoluted way - whether CAP (and the military, since that's where CAP derives the tradition from) violates that in some way with the existence of a chaplaincy.

[Major Lord]

Cite, please.

This is not my opinion. I believe that argument to be specious and ill-informed, but since the gist of it has been expressed as the opinion of some members, I included it in the poll. For  what specifically are you asking  a citation?

Major Lord

[NCRblues]

Ravio,

This provision in the Constitution has been ruled on several times by the supreme court. They have stated (IE allowing Alabama to re post the 10 commandments in court house's) that it only limits congress from forcing the American people to follow one religion, or from the government from stating we are a one religion nation. This does not limit federal agency's from having a chaplain corp or offering religious services as long as it is equal to all party's involved in said agency's.

[raivo]

Ravio,

NRCblues,

[Major Carrales]

The separation of church and state, that does not exist in the Constitution, but in the federalist papers that have no legal bearing on the Law of the land? 

"Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion..."

Which is the question, in a convoluted way - whether CAP (and the military, since that's where CAP derives the tradition from) violates that in some way with the existence of a chaplaincy.

Suddenly everyone's a Constitutional Scholar...

The idea of a "State Religion" as seen in the above "an establishment of religion" is making reference to a "State Church," much like the Church of England was starting with Henry VIII.  After this, there was an extremely bloody time in British History where people had to belong to the "King's Church."  This meant paying taxes and limited free exercise of religion.  So, you had to be a member of the CHURCH of ENGLAND...you could not be JEWISH or ROMAN CATHOLIC and participate in government nor escape persecutions.

One group, the PURITANS, (you know, the people who immigrated to the Americas in the 1600s) had an especially hard time of it.  They actually over threw the Monarchy and replaced it with Cromwell's Republic.  Once the Monarchy was restored...they move to America in "The Great Migration" and Formed Massachusetts Bay.

When the New Republic was build it was suggested that we refrain from what history has taught and refrain from "STATE RELIGION."  The idea of Separation of Church and State is not from the Constitution nor its Amendments...but rather from a letter by Thmoas Jefferson to the Danbury Baptist Church entitled... "On the Separation of Church and State."

http://www.juntosociety.com/i_documents/tjchurchstate.html

If you read it you will find that Jefferson's response is thus ...

On January 1, 1802, in response to the letter from the Danbury Baptist Association, Thomas Jefferson wrote:

Gentlemen:

The affectionate sentiments of esteem and approbation which are so good to express towards me, on behalf of the Danbury Baptist Association, give me the highest satisfaction. My duties dictate a faithful and zealous pursuit of the interests of my constituents, and in proportion as they are persuaded of my fidelity to those duties, the discharge of them becomes more and more pleasing.

Believing with you that religion is a matter which lies solely between man and his God; that he owes account to none other for his faith or his worship; that the legislative powers of the government reach actions only, and not opinions, I contemplate with sovereign reverence that act of the whole American people which declared that their legislature should `make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof," thus building a wall of separation between church and State. Adhering to this expression of the supreme will of the nation in behalf of the rights of conscience, I shall see with sincere satisfaction the progress of those sentiments which tend to restore man to all of his natural rights, convinced he has no natural right in opposition to his social duties.

I reciprocate your kind prayers for the protection and blessings of the common Father and Creator of man, and tender you and your religious association, assurances of my high respect and esteem.

Thomas Jefferson

It says what I have been stating in my posts, that is not the place of government to restrict religion.  The Government is not supposed to be restricting religious worship, nor creating a National Church.


Simply put the phrase...

"Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion..."

is followed by...

"...or prohibiting the free exercise thereof;"

Having a chaplaincy is not an "establishment" of religion, it is an expression of "the free exercise thereof."

[NCRblues]

 :clap:
Very nice Major Carrales!! wish i had your eloquence with words good sir.

[raivo]

I'm not agreeing or disagreeing, just pointing out the basis for the argument.

(I voted "indifferent" - the chaplain program doesn't affect me, so I really don't care one way or the other.)

[RiverAux]

While at the gym I did come up with one legitimate reason for there to be Chaplains in CAP -- to provide chaplain support to the Air Force when needed.  As I said in the other thread, there is a legit need to provide Chaplains for those in the military and if volunteer CAP chaplains can fill that gap I'm all for that as I am for just about all potential AF augmentation programs. 

So, I'm going to change my vote, to "Yes, they do no harm", but given the relative rareness of them providing military support, I can't say that they are invaluable. 

That being said, I still maintain that there is absolutely no organic need for chaplains to provide any services to CAP members.  Would I disestablish the Chaplain corps if I had that power?  Probably not.  I don't think we need it, but it isn't a big enough negative to be worth the fight to get rid of it.  If we didn't have it and someone proposed it, would I support it?  Probably not, but thats not the situation we're in. 

[FARRIER]

Here is another view:

With some people a Chaplain is a person of trust. They are able to approach them on subjects they may feel uncomfortable otherwise approaching others.

[raivo]

Here is another view:

With some people a Chaplain is a person of trust. They are able to approach them on subjects they may feel uncomfortable otherwise approaching others.

That's a valid point - someone who is not religious doesn't have a pastor/rabbi/imam to talk about "things" with.