It’s up to people to decide which religions they follow: it is emphatically not the government’s role to decide which religions are acceptable for the people.
"The panel has noticed..."
This panel and others like it put one in mind of Gonzalo in Shakespeare's The Tempest: He misseth not much. He doth but mistake the truth entire.
"... that “some of the affiliated religions of these chaplains do not subscribe to an open attitude..."
With woke panelists as openness role models, how do the rest of us continue to go so wrong?
"...and the promotion of diversity,”...
How could promoting the ideological projects of the woke ever be considered the responsibility of chaplains, or anybody else besides the woke themselves? How have you managed to avoid noticing that making everyone march to the particular drumbeat you find congenial is logically inconsistent with respect for diversity?
"...and recommends that candidates be screened to ensure that they have “an intrinsic appreciation for diversity..."
Strongly recommend you look up 'diverse'... it's not clear the panel has even a rudimentary grasp of the concept.
"...and a willingness to challenge one's beliefs.”
(?) Please look in a mirror. The foes of openness and diversity are closer than you think.
Canada has been living through the world's first wokester government, and by far the worst one in modern times. Unfortunately, this has coincided with the worst opposition in modern times. Not Canada's finest hour.
Stephen, no doubt the availability of a Chaplain is in the Armed Forces stems from the life and death nature of their work. I’m sure those who are religious in the slightest would benefit from talking to a chaplain when their friends and co-workers are killed or when they could be suffering from PTSD. The act of killing in battle is obviously fraught with emotional and spiritual implications. Very unlike working anywhere else in the public sector except perhaps in a hospital where they also have access to a chaplain.
I was alarmed by the tone of the piece and some of its claims. But then I read the actual recommendations, and I don't get why Dijkema is so up in arms about it. Each of the recommendations is, in my view, reasonable. Judge for yourself:
6.1 Do not consider for employment as spiritual guides or multi-faith representatives Chaplaincy applicants affiliated with religious groups whose values are not aligned with those of the Defence Team. The Defence Team’s message, otherwise, is inconsistent.
6.2 Select chaplains representative of many faiths including forms of spirituality beyond the Abrahamic faiths.
6.3 Review the selection process for chaplains to ensure that, in addition to listening skills, empathy and emotional intelligence, there is an intrinsic appreciation for diversity and a willingness to challenge one's beliefs.
6.4 Find ways to grant educational equivalencies, for example to knowledge keepers, rather than strictly adhering to the prerequisite that all chaplains must have a master’s degree.
First off, when a writer is part of a think tank, understanding the viewpoint of that think tank is important. Cardus is "formed by the teachings of Jesus and by the Christian social thought tradition as it has developed over centuries." I have no problem having people from different points of view share ideas here, but please be more up front as to their stake in an issue. I'm growing tired of 'think tanks' posing as impartial actors.
Secondly, my read on this is it's less about religious freedom and more about the government coming to terms with having religious leaders as part of one of its organizations in an age when modern HR approaches make that somewhat problematic. When your employer has someone who views you as 'lessor' in your workplace, most places would consider that an issue. The complication here is that there is a long tradition of chaplains supporting military staff.
I'm not sure what the right answer is, but having the government recognize this is an issue isn't inherently a terrible thing in my view. Ideally, we'd find a Canadian comprise that would continue to allow soldiers to access spiritual support of desired without the funding of the DoD. Provide multifaith spaces and allow churches to provide (or not) clergy at their own expense.
Remember the day when Orwell's 1984 was just a class essay?
As an atheist, I wonder why any religious organizations are officially involved in Canada's military at all. To the best of my knowledge, there is no "chaplaincy" at Elections Canada, Health Canada, or National Revenue. There is not even a chaplaincy at the House of Commons or the Senate.
Religion, I suggest, has no place in any aspect of the Government of Canada, including the armed forces.
Atta boy Brian. True secularism is inclusive. The Supreme Court has already defined it as such but The Long March continues.
I don't think we Canadians understand just how badly managed our country is. There is more than a slight chance Canada will not exist in its present form much longer. There is too much land and too many resources ( oil and water) the rest of the world wants and will take from us peacefully or not...
Did you really think a government that shredded our Charter and basic human rights as part of its COVID response without significant pushback from courts, media, or the vast majority of the public, would stop there?
Ironically, it was WW1 that cost both my grandfather, AND my wife's, their faith. Both families now in their 3rd generation of church-avoidance.
If these guys had distinguished themselves supporting whistleblowers, and heroes like Rob Furlong, impaled on the bureaucracy, I might be able to rustle up a care for them. If we'd seen a few of them leave the military because they fought so hard, they ended their careers. But nope; just the whistleblowers themselves had to go.
(Funny: I went fact-checking that statement, maybe I missed a story where a chaplain went to bat for a complainant to some heroic degree. The search terms kicked up one chaplain that had to resign when accusations of past abuse came up, another after his conviction for sexual assault. Zero stories of truth-to-power heroism.)
Soldiers can pursue their faith with a little alone-time and the one book; this is too-small an issue for me to more than shrug at.
This report was predictable considering who set it up. Its like the independent panel to pick senators. If the panel has the same ideology you will get senators who believe the same things. That has played out. Now this panel has branded the armed services as racist and full of believes that they don't like and want the government to fix it by defining right beliefs. (I believe they also make up statistics to push their point.)
These people are going to create more division than they eliminate.
Another step toward an Orwellian abyss. So happy that my brief stint in the military was back in the sixties, pre-woke flakiness.
I think C Black summed it up as far as need be in the National Post, roughly, the Department is being dragged into systemic stupidity by our Government.
Perhaps the Minister of National Defence Advisory Panel on Systemic Racism and Discrimination is asking too much of conservative Canadians when assuming all would understand what it is that National Defence in Canada is defending. It is defending that which we have all agreed upon as a country until now, that which we arrived at through the democratic process, the Charter of Rights and Freedoms.
Anyone is free to believe what ever they want after all who would know or should even care about a conversation anyone is having with themselves as no one can ever know what another believes anyway, however no one is free to act on any beliefs that are in conflict with the charter.
No doubt spiritual advisers can assist people in their lives and in their hour of need there is also no doubt they need not invoke a god to do so. It is time for Canada to stop facilitating the church with their individual collective gestures of exclusion and adopt a spiritual model that honours our hard won charter rights and freedoms.
Shouldn't our military reflect our nation's values and citizens? The armed forces, much like the Province of Quebec, wants to sanitize it's organization of any signs, or show of support, for a particular religion, by banning them all. I can understand the Quebec gov't doing what it did, because government should not be seen as being in support of one religion over another. Specially in a country that is so diverse in its make up of citizens. To me, the CAF's plan to just not provide religious services to its members, seems so un-Canadian in its reasoning, and is yet another reflection of the poor leadership decision making that we have been seeing in recent news stories on our military's internal problems.