Thought this was interesting and figured I'd share it with everyone.


http://www.cnn.com/2008/US/07/08/atheist.soldier/index....?eref=rss_topstories

There is a line in the article:

"I was told because I can't put my personal beliefs aside and pray with troops I wouldn't make a good leader," Hall said.

At the risk of being "flamed" - there is some amount of truth to that logic.

Sometimes, a good leader needs to set aside his/her differences, to bond with his/her crew/troops/etc...

If it's, say, a memorial service to ones who've passed, and you, as a leader, know that a) the deceased was a follower of a particular faith that the leader is not a follower of,

and/or

b) the majority of the crew/troops/etc... are of a particular faith that the leader is not a follower of

A good leader, in this situation, would be able to be respectful to those of the faith.

The answer for someone like Hall - bow your head, and think of your golf game. No one has to know that you are not praying to a God or whatever. Your troops will see you doing what they are doing, and it will help build team cohesion.

Just another aside - it seems to me that people who go out to make these lawsuits and such, are usually in it for the publicity. Like a few years ago - can't recall the name, but that guy who sued because his daughter was forced to say "under God" in the Pledge of Allegiance, and then it turned out that not only did he NOT have custody in any manner of this girl, but the girl and her mother, his ex-wife, were devout Christians and had no problem saying "under God"?

I don't think you understand how that kind of role works (and by no means am I claiming to be the guru on such things... just pointing out what I know from others).

Usually, when a group is in a situation like, say, Kirkuk, Iraq, the leader is expected to not only kneel and pray *with* his group but also *lead* the group in said prayer. I fully back this soldier in his decision. It's about time some changes were made in our military. His refusal to lead his group in prayer has absolutely nothing to do with his leadership capabilities and to say so is pure bullshi.t. He could very easily have his next-in-rank lead the prayer.

Like you said, bowing your head and thinking of the game isn't hard and I'm sure he's done it. I know I have. No where has he said that he would refuse soldiers their right to pray to whomever they choose.

This is more related to the pentacle on the headstones than it is to some custody-less father suing for money and attention. As the guy stated, he's not suing for money. He's not asked for a dime. HE just wants to be guaranteed the same freedom that he's laying his life on the line for us. Hell, man, we sent him over there to dodge bullets for us, the least we can do is let him have any promotions he's qualified for without bringing his faith (or lack thereof) into question over it.

Somebody tell me please: if the military supports the freedom of religion (I mean, truly, not just doing lip service), why a leader can't be exempt form leading a prayer? Can't he appoint someone instead? What, the whole strength of the unit will be crushed if the leader does not do it himself?? And who is supposed to take care about spiritual needs of non-Christians in the unit if the leader is a Christian? That does not seem to bother local officials too much, does it?

Sharon, I don't think that Hall is after publicity, at least the article does not provide any support to this angle. I can see why Hall's commanders would prefer a Christian leader (less frictions with aggressive Christians and those who supports them from outside of the military), but that take still isn't right and yes, it is unconstitutional. Not to mention the threats and the measures that had to be taken after them - that's just absurdity for which there can be no excuses. A man who made the choice to put his life at risk and who is qualified for the promotion his faith notwithstanding does not have to deal with any of this BS. He got bigger problems to deal with.

One person that I have gotten to know pretty well thru work is a Jewish Army Chaplain. He has had to conduct "services" for Christian/Catholic soldiers in the field. He learned from a Catholic priest how to baptize and give last rites, as he may be the only chaplain available to the soldiers at that moment of need.

Another friend of mine is a Catholic Priest in the Army (there is a funny story about him - but I won't bore you with that here...). He also told me that on more than one occasion, he'd been called upon to conduct a Passover Service or other Jewish ritual, because there was no rabbi available.

Both also told me that they were learning Muslim traditions and rituals, as with the rise of Muslim members of the military, they may need to perform some Muslim rite.

Is it fair to ask these chaplains to put their beliefs aside, to aid someone of a different faith? Or should they live by a different set of rules, simply because they are "Men of God"?

(By the way, they both also told me that they didn't mind doing this, as it was their mission in life to provide comfort to others...)

Let me pull another statement out of this story:

"Two years ago on Thanksgiving Day, after refusing to pray at his table, Hall said he was told to go sit somewhere else. In another incident, when he was nearly killed during an attack on his Humvee, he said another soldier asked him, "Do you believe in Jesus now?""

It does not say he refused to LEAD the prayer at his table. It says that he refused to "pray" with his fellow soldiers. To me, I read that as he did not, in fact, respect those at his table who were praying. Perhaps his "refusal" was more than just silently sitting there, doing nothing. The reason I say that is, unless he was making an issue out of it, who really would have known that he had "refused" to pray with his fellow soldiers? Maybe he was being a disruptive element at that table, and that's why he was asked to leave. (It just wouldn't make sense to ask someone to leave a table who was just sitting there...) If that were the case, that sort of insubordination would not reflect good leadership qualities.

As for the other incident, have you ever heard the statement "There are no atheists in foxholes?" It's actually rather famous in the military. I would like to believe that the other soldier in that incident was merely trying to break some tension of the recent harrowing event by being a bit of a smart-ass, and really not meaning anything sinister by it. If he did mean something bad - I would hope the military would have dealt with him (the other soldier) in a swift and harsh manner.

Michael Dowd (that custody-less father - the name finally came to me! Or at least close to it!) wasn't suing for money, either. He sued to remove the words from the Pledge of Allegiance. Because he was an atheist and wanted the words "under God" stricken, as it was against HIS belief, and he used his Christian-raised daughter to claim that his right as an atheist parent was being taken away by evil God-people who mandated that those words be recited in the Pledge. The few athiests that I have known in my lifetime - it didn't bother them. They understood that a great majority of Americans DO believe in God (or some "superior being" system), and well...when they said the Pledge, they just didn't say "under God" --- no big deal. It wasn't going to kill them that those words were said...or not said by them. Everyone was happy...nobody was threatened or anything.

As for allowing Pentacles (right?) in national cemetaries - I'm all for it! If that is your faith symbol, it should certainly be allowed. (And if they haven't done so already, I would hope that the Veterans Administration would hurry up and change that!) But, you also have to follow the guidelines at the cemetary - concerning headstone size (I know in the cemetaries in Long Island, NY, there are merely little plaques on the ground - no headstones. My father and mother, and uncle are buried at Calverton...and off-hand, I don't believe that there are crosses on their markers, though they were all devout Catholics, so there may be some restriction on religious symbols, period. I will have to double-check that (as sadly enough, even though my mother has been gone over 3 years, I have not made the trip down there to see her grave...I still have trouble seeing my father's site, and it's been over 25 years for that!).

quote:

Originally posted by sharonkateri:
Is it fair to ask these chaplains to put their beliefs aside, to aid someone of a different faith? Or should they live by a different set of rules, simply because they are "Men of God"?

(By the way, they both also told me that they didn't mind doing this, as it was their mission in life to provide comfort to others...)

If they are also eager to provide comfort to Pagans and other religious groups that have nothing to do with the Old Testament, my hat is off to them. It's a huge task to take on willingly. But yes, IMHO their rules are different because they have different duties and goals than military men, they are more knowledgeable about religios matters and are better prepared for their mission.

quote:

It does not say he refused to LEAD the prayer at his table. It says that he refused to "pray" with his fellow soldiers.

To me, I read that as he did not, in fact, respect those at his table who were praying. Perhaps his "refusal" was more than just silently sitting there, doing nothing. The reason I say that is, unless he was making an issue out of it, who really would have known that he had "refused" to pray with his fellow soldiers? Maybe he was being a disruptive element at that table, and that's why he was asked to leave. (It just wouldn't make sense to ask someone to leave a table who was just sitting there...) If that were the case, that sort of insubordination would not reflect good leadership qualities.

Naturally, he was not a leader at that time, so he didn't lead anything. I assume (since I don't really know) that it is not possible for the leader to just sit there silently during the prayer and do nothing, that the leader is supposed to take a more active part, or at least that it is the case at where Hall is serving.

Do you really expect a serviceman to learn rituals and prayers of various religions in case an appropriate priest isn't available? Wouldn't it make more sense if instead he devoted his time and energy to his direct duties? Could it be that Hall knew what will be expected from him in case of a promotion and made it clear in advance that there will be a problem instead of announcing it after the fact?

Speaking of making sense... how much sense does it make to threaten a fellow soldier's life because he happens to be an Atheist?

quote:

As for the other incident, have you ever heard the statement "There are no atheists in foxholes?" It's actually rather famous in the military. I would like to believe that the other soldier in that incident was merely trying to break some tension of the recent harrowing event by being a bit of a smart-ass, and really not meaning anything sinister by it. If he did mean something bad - I would hope the military would have dealt with him (the other soldier) in a swift and harsh manner.

You are an optimist. A zealous Evangelist would have no problem telling that seriously and meaning it. I can't imagine that someone in their right mind would say it lightheartedly to a person who just escaped a certain death.

quote:

Michael Dowd (that custody-less father - the name finally came to me! Or at least close to it!) wasn't suing for money, either. He sued to remove the words from the Pledge of Allegiance. Because he was an atheist and wanted the words "under God" stricken, as it was against HIS belief, and he used his Christian-raised daughter to claim that his right as an atheist parent was being taken away by evil God-people who mandated that those words be recited in the Pledge. The few atheists that I have known in my lifetime - it didn't bother them. They understood that a great majority of Americans DO believe in God (or some "superior being" system), and well...when they said the Pledge, they just didn't say "under God" --- no big deal. It wasn't going to kill them that those words were said...or not said by them. Everyone was happy...nobody was threatened or anything.

I still don't think that two cases are comparable besides the fact that both don't pursue monetary compensations. Dowd demanded to make it his way, never mind the offended majority of citizens and astronomical costs of doing what he wanted. Hall merely asks to keep his secular affairs apart from anyone's religious preferences.

quote:

As for allowing Pentacles (right?) in national cemeteries - I'm all for it! If that is your faith symbol, it should certainly be allowed. (And if they haven't done so already, I would hope that the Veterans Administration would hurry up and change that!) But, you also have to follow the guidelines at the cemetery - concerning headstone size (I know in the cemeteries in Long Island, NY, there are merely little plaques on the ground - no headstones. My father and mother, and uncle are buried at Calverton...and off-hand, I don't believe that there are crosses on their markers, though they were all devout Catholics, so there may be some restriction on religious symbols, period. I will have to double-check that (as sadly enough, even though my mother has been gone over 3 years, I have not made the trip down there to see her grave...I still have trouble seeing my father's site, and it's been over 25 years for that!).

That story was about refusal to put a pentacle on headstones of fallen Wiccans without any regards to particular space/whatever circumstances. A principal decision based on the military's belief that Wicca is not a recognized religion. That it is indeed isn't so or that other equally young religions are allowed to put their symbols on headstones made no difference. There was a long totally unnecessary battle before the matter got resolved. What is happening to Hall seems to go along the same lines: here's how the military sees it, if you don't agree - too bad for you.

quote:

I can't imagine that someone in their right mind would say it lightheartedly to a person who just escaped a certain death.

Then again, how many people would be in "their right mind" after having just experienced bullets whizzing by? (I gotta be honest - I couldn't imagine being in direct fire like that. I don't think it was meant to be "lighthearted" exactly, but I don't know that the other soldier meant anything sinister by it, either; but like I said, if an investigation showed that he did mean something bad by that statement, then I would expect the military to nail 'im for it.)

As for the cemetaries - I am fairly certain Arlington does allow religious emblems on headstones (from what I recall of pictures I've seen). I am more familiar with the two cemetaries in Long Island: Pine Lawn (where my mother's parents are buried) and Calverton (where my parents and uncle are buried). I have not been to my grandparents' site in - man, 15 years? Maybe even 20...I'm embarrassed to say that. I would not remember if there were any symbols on their stones (and at Pine Lawn, they did have actual headstones). At Calverton, they only allow small plaques at the head of the grave. The last time I was down at Calverton was for my mother's funeral in early January 2005. There are no headstones - just little bronze-colored markers along the ground. Off-hand, I don't recall there being any symbol on the markers at all. (And it may simply be that the size of the plaque is prohibitive to include such a symbol - of any kind...)

Rules and regulations vary from cemetary to cemetary, as to headstones/headstone appearance, allowed floral arrangements, special entombment options (i.e., "vaults"), etc. You'd have to check with a specific cemetary (probably the info would be available online, too), to see what's allowed.

(And, is that case still going on? I seem to recall hearing that the Vets Admin did agree to allow Wiccan and/or Pagan symbols on markers, at least a year or two ago. Then again, it could have been some news-blurb about that story in the wee hrs of the AM while I was sleeping with the TV on, and the story got distorted in my dreams...)

Up to 2007 US military did not allow pentacles on headstones. It was not on a cemetery to cemetery case, the pentacle was not allowed anywhere because it was not on the Veterans Administration's list of approved symbols of belief that could be put on headstones or markers, and no commentary accommodations or eligibility issues were at play. Hence the lawsuits against the VA (there were more than one). Eventually the Veterans Administration caved in, approved the pentacle and paid all legal fees, so that particular case is closed. Followers of Asatry, Shinto, and many other religions are still can't have their symbol of faith on a headstone or marker because it's not on the short list of those approved by the VA.

Sorry, I have to say that I do view praying with fellow soldiers in those kind of times is very important, no matter your beliefs. I haven't been in a war, but I was trained to be a military officer. I'm also friends with many military, and many officers that have been overseas. The amount of vets I know from Vietnam is pretty well off the charts. When you're preparing to put your life on the line, the thought of prayer and your fellow troops bowing their head, knowing that you are all in one another's thoughts, that you're important enough to them that thoughts of personal beliefs are set aside for a moment. It's important to know that someone is giving you that thought, more than just in words. Words are great, but the unity that can come from a gathering like that will stay in your heart.