CAPP 265-2 FLIGHT TIME: Values for Living Nov 2014

[Eclipse]

The Chaplain Corps, and by association the CDI program, suffers from the same predicament as the Health Service Corps,
and in the same fashion is fundamentally unfair to the members involved.

CAP actively recruits members with these skills, appoints them to various (seemingly) important roles,
and then basically tells them "Well, you can't actually use the special skill you were recruited and appointed for..."

Then, it looks the other way as both services do exactly the opposite "for the good of the corps".

Chaplains and Drs, among others, have every right to be indignant (or worse) when presented with this dichotomy,
yet no one seems willing to address it, let along fix it.

And at the end of the day, CAP, Inc. can't figure out why this is a problem.

[lordmonar]

And here I am the Atheist getting ready to defend the bible.   

Eclipse...you are guilty of the same magical thinking by rejecting everything in the bible because it has some things that are based on faith.

Like you said it don't work that way.

If we use that way of thinking then there is no authority...because I can show where Issac Newton was guilty of wrong thinking.   So we have to reject his wisdom on the fundamental laws of gravity....because he thought he could change lead into gold?

[JeffDG]

And here I am the Atheist getting ready to defend the bible.   

Eclipse...you are guilty of the same magical thinking by rejecting everything in the bible because it has some things that are based on faith.

Like you said it don't work that way.

If we use that way of thinking then there is no authority...because I can show where Issac Newton was guilty of wrong thinking.   So we have to reject his wisdom on the fundamental laws of gravity....because he thought he could change lead into gold?

Yep, we can't quote Martin Luther King because he was a preacher too.

[Eclipse]

And here I am the Atheist getting ready to defend the bible.   

Eclipse...you are guilty of the same magical thinking by rejecting everything in the bible because it has some things that are based on faith.

Like you said it don't work that way.

If we use that way of thinking then there is no authority...because I can show where Issac Newton was guilty of wrong thinking.   So we have to reject his wisdom on the fundamental laws of gravity....because he thought he could change lead into gold?

You're making my argument. 

Hindsight shows Newton was correct on some things and incorrect on others, so like everything in life, context
is the key.  If you quote Newton on some physics or math subject where he was proved correct, then his
status as amateur philosopher will have weight, if you punctuate a presentation on the Higgs Boson with:

     "All things are all things and their physical form is fluid like the rain."
                                                                    Sir Isaac Netwon, Transmutation Chronicles

Your entire thesis will be viewed as at least suspect, and probably invalidated on principle.

Profound quotations are only "profound" when they have some basis for their experience
and "wisdom" beyond merely being published.  The Bible, as well as other similar works,
are viewed by many as the literal Word of God, or the Revelation of His plan to mankind.
That is where it gets the majority of its weight of authority - the faith that it is Revelation,
even if only tangential, and not simply the writings of random people who each put their own
spin and flavor into the texts.

Do Presidents swear their oath with their hand on a Bible because it contains a narrative
of Moses leading the Jews from Egypt?  Of course not. They do so because many believe that
the Bible is a literal conduit to a higher, omnipotent authority who will punish those who
make promises in His presence and name that they fail to keep.

Absent that faith, it's just viewed as theater - it might as well be a telephone book as the
Bible because many feel they have equal power.  How would you view the oath if it was
sworn with POTUS' hand on a Penny Saver?

Consider this...there's no question that religion is an increasingly divisive issue in this country,
and further, that CAP is, by regulation, policy, and public statement a non-sectarian, secular
organization.

So accepting those two fundamental, inarguable statements, there are no
secular scholars and philosophers who could bring the same weight of truth to these
CDI sessions without also opening the door to the other, counterproductive issues?

To summarize, I could quote Ecclesiastes 3:1, which would both make my argument, and invalidate it in
the same sentence, depending on the reader.

[SamFranklin]

Teachers deal with the matter of religious content in the curriculum all the time. Thankfully, the Supremes were very clear in Abington v. Shempp. Generally, a public entity can teach *about* religion in an academic context, but cannot proselytize or make truth claims about religious belief. Some practical ways to follow Shempp include:

= study texts academically, not as devotionals
= strive for awareness, not acceptance
= expose kids to a diversity of views, not impose an official view
= inform, not make conform
etc.

I haven't read the lesson in question, but if someone were teaching servant leadership and mentioned that Jesus washing the disciples feet is one example of that, then that'd be a good example of placing a religious text in an academic context and staying true to Shempp.

[Eclipse]

^ There's no reason for CAP leaders to ever venture into those examples, and if they do, they are asking for trouble.

None of CAP's missions include the academic study of religious texts or the increase of religious awareness.
Parents do not bring their kids to CAP to be exposed to other religions, and seniors are not there for that either.
There are plenty of other worthy organizations who make that their mission.

Though I have no issue with Shempp, CAP tends to be closer to Curly Joe most of the time...

[raivo]

Skimming the CAPP, it doesn't appear that the Bible verses quoted even add anything to the discussion at all beyond "and for no real reason, here's what the Bible says about the subject."

So why were they put there in the first place? If they're not contributing to the debate, they're serving no purpose other than to put a decidedly Christian slant on the publication.