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.
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.
Obviously, you couldn't logically infer any of those things from a declaration of non-wokeness, only that if the person making the declaration is himself the dupe and prisoner of any ideology, it isn't that one.
You will quote Shakespeare but you have difficulty coming up with a word or phrase to replace that which logically infers my assumption? No dupe, nor a prisoner just very tired with those who should know better.
(?) Not sure what you're attempting to say with such a strange locution. I merely pointed out the obvious: what my views on race or women are, or the extent to which I may be well- or ill-informed (if you thought about it for a moment you'd realize we're all a blend of the two) is pure speculation on your part... none of which follows from my or anybody else's reservations about the self-proclaimed 'woke.'
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.
Won't say national security is not a controversial topic; also Harper was a mixed bag who did a lot of things then that the LPC is doing now (treating Parliament as something to avoid).
However, 1) This looks like an activist website rather than 'straight' reporting, so I won't take it at face-value 2) the far-left and far-right are more similar to each other than either of them are to the mainstream/centre (both yammering about 'rigged systems', somewhat nihilistic attitudes. etc), 3) RW fascism tends to be obvious and easily identifiable, whereas LW fascism hides itself under the guise of 'equality, diversity', etc. The difference is that the LW has better PR.
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.
Michael, how can you suggest 6.1 is reasonable? What 6.1 and 6.2 taken together state is to get representatives from many faiths, but only "approved" faiths that believe what "we" deem to be acceptable beliefs.
It is literally anti-diverse. Which religions specifically "are not aligned" with the values of the Defence Team. What specifically are those "values" that these religions must adhere to to be acceptable? What specifically constitutes "affiliation".
This literally sets up a test of acceptable religious beliefs as judged by some group of the state. It is thought policiing.
The reason that freedom of belief is in the Charter of Rights and Freedoms, and the UN Universal Declaration of Human Rights, and many other places, is exactly because we've learned both empirically and by philosophical and moral discussion that exclusion by belief leads to oppression, hatred, violence, and tribalist ingroup/outgroup psychology.
Everybody is free to believe whatever they like and to not be punished based on belief, even the most horrible, hateful beliefs. What we police is action and how we treat each other, not beliefs.
The tragic irony here is the circular reasoning that to be promote diversity we need to be more exclusionary; to be more tolerant of people of all be we need to be less tolerant of others beliefs. It is self-contradictory. It is exactly this way that intolerant, ideologically "pure" belief systems take over societies.
Item 6.1 is unreasonable and unacceptable, and the reasons are well established in thousands of years of moral philosophy and empirical evidence, and -- despite being the very basis for modern liberal, tolerant, multi-cultural societies -- it seems that a large enough portion of society has failed to learn any of the reasons we have these protections for belief -- especially beliefs we disagree with -- built into our basic human rights doctrines.
Thank you for this. I had a sneaking suspicion that, if I looked for the committee's original text, it would not be as egregious as the author of this article suggested.
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.
Excellent summary. I think the trouble for many religious groups is that these don’t have the power and influence they used to and they see the writing on the wall.
Using your “first off”, Chaplains or Padres are not ‘leaders’ in the military. Your use of the abbreviation ‘DoD’ shows you know little of the Canadian military context. Chaplains have long provided spiritual support to whatever religion or sect that the soldier was from and better represent diversity than anything this panel recommended. Soldiering is nothing like working in a civilian environment and it is time to stop trying to make it so.
That's fair. I was using 'leaders' in the sense that religous leaders tend to be respected, even by those not of their faith. I have no idea what their ranking is in the military. And, yes, embarrasingly, I defaulted to US terminology ("DoD"). And, I'll fully admit I am far from an expert on the military.
I would observe, though, that the Canadian military does seem to be struggling with issues similar to other organizations -- around creating an environmnent where diversity is welcome -- where women, for example, can have a successful career and not be harassed. In that context, I'm not surprised they are also looking at what is a very unusual relationship with religous organizations and thinking about how to balance a long tradition of providing spiritual guidance with the aim of ensuring everyone in the military feels welcome.
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.
There is one relevant difference. Unlike the organizations you quote, and ignoring WW II “zombie” regiments, the expectation is that members of the armed forces might have to give up their lives to protect their fellow citizens of all religions and yes - even atheists. To ask soldiers to do this without the availability of spiritual comfort and support seems to me to be beyond the pale even for this officially Godless governing body.
A valid point, to be sure, but does that necessitate an official chaplaincy? Surely, it should fall on the religious organizations to provide the spiritual services to their believers, not the government.
Of course, these days being a member of the armed forces of a country like Canada is less dangerous than being a commercial fisher or logger.
Necessitate it? Perhaps not. But if the government has a legitimate interest (or duty, one could argue, but take your pick) to ensure the people who are expected to die for it as necessary have access to an appropriate level of spiritual support under any circumstance where they could conceivably be expected to serve, then the military has to come up with a way to make that work both practically and efficiently. Maintaining in-house capacity achieves that, and certainly in a more reliable fashion than outsourcing would. These aren’t religious organizations’ “believers” - they’re the government’s soldiers. It’s on the government to take ownership of their needs.
That all may be true, but that's not what the article is about or the point I'm making.
It may be good governance or management for the CAF to provide spiritual services for personnel so that they are better prepared to kill people and destroy property, but that doesn't rise to the level that troops have a right to a spiritual leader.
And one wonders about those for whom religion is not wanted. Why wouldn’t it make more sense to have qualified mental health personnel providing support?
In case anyone is wondering why I deleted two comments here, "BUT I REALLY DISAGREE WITH WHAT THIS OTHER GUY IS SAYING!!!" actually isn't a convincing reason to behave badly. Disagree all you want. Keep it civil or I'll warn you. If that doesn't work, I'll delete your comments. If that doesn't work, I'll ban you.
Well, you best avoid taking a comparative religion course because that's what it's about. Your comment is such nonsense. Understanding what different religions are about is, in my mind, a Good Thing. It leads to better community relationships.
A government providing for a need or want doesn't rise to the level of a right.
And whatever my beliefs might be, they have nothing to do with the argument being made by Brian Dijkema in the article, anymore than does the colour of my car.
I am an atheist as well but if I were a combat soldier (like the ones who stormed the Normandy Beaches) I would not begrudge my fellow combatants the blessing of a chaplain nor would I feel comfortable denying those mortally wounded the comfort of ‘last rites’.
You nor I have been there - and we should just be thankful for our good fortune.
The folks at Elections Canada, etc are free to go to whatever place of worship they desire when they are at home. They are free to have local spiritual support when they are sick, dying or distressed. Military members in the field should be entitled to the same and that requires a chaplaincy. For those of us who don't require such support, why would we infringe on the rights of others to that support?
So you could bring in civilian chaplains to go to the field with them, the way reporters do. At any point in peace time, soldiers can always go off-base to worship, as they do to shop. In the last 60 years of war, we don't spend much time in the field. "The field", were always safe "green-zone" bases, little towns, where the churches could have chipped in to send civilian chaplains to go to those bases, same as sending missionaries. (Kandahar Airfield had a 2010 population of 20,000; had a TGI Fridays - but no special branch of the military was founded to staff the TGI Fridays; they just hired civilians.)
As a military branch, it's a bureaucracy that exists because it exists because it exists.
Saying that military personal do not have a right to a chaplaincy is not me imposing my views on anyone. How you logically arrive at that notion eludes me.
Is it your view that CAF personnel have a "right" to spiritual services or merely that it is good management that the CAF provides spiritual services? Those are two quite different things.
Canadian soldiers are as diverse a group as any when it comes to culture. faith, or opinion. As an institution, the CAF provides for every facet of a soldier's needs. Chaplains, then, are no different in that respect than providing food, weapons, transportation, entertainment, and everything else that people need to be full time soldiers. The DND's goal is to find chaplains that can operate effectively in a close-knit, multi-faith, disciplined, and intensely bureaucratic institution. It would be counterproductive to hire an iman who refuses to work with jews or protestatants who won't work with catholics, let alone opinions on gender or sexuality.
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...
Comparatively, Canada is actually reasonably well governed by global standards. Are we the best? No, which means there are exemplars in lots of areas we could study and learn from. But, you seem to be conflating the fact that there are areas that need improvement for an actual crisis of governance.
Now, if what you are saying is that what we have could be taken away from us ... I guess Ukraine illustrates that these sorts of possibilities are unfortunately always possible.
At least ours doesn't need a whole foundation to protect armed forces members from being forced into religious observance by, uhh, umm, "religious-zealot" superior officers. The American foundation is so active it has to have its own newspaper, so many are the stories of forced-religion on bases and in service:
I laughed out loud when I opened the link and there is a Lt with her false eyelashes and pretty in pink fake nails.
Not 5 mins before I was scrolling thru the CAF site where it states: BODY ADORNMENT
Make-up. Women may wear make-up for cultural reasons. When wearing uniform, or when wearing civilian clothes on duty, make-up shall be applied conservatively. This precludes the use of false eyelashes, heavy eyeliner, brightly coloured eye shadow, coloured nail polish, bright or vivid lipstick and excessive facial make-up.
CAF tells everyone what is expected down to underwear, mustaches (2 styles) ... aboriginal members whose spirituality embraces the wearing of hair braids and who have been granted permission in writing at the unit level shall be authorized to adopt traditional Aboriginal hairstyles, deportment, behaviour, and headdress.
They cover everything. So while the recommendations seem to imply that those of the Abrahamic persuasions need not apply, I am fairly sure that CAF members who have need of a priest or a rabbi or an imam will be able to. It's not as though there are a lack of various flavours of each.
And according to Wikipedia Canada has 192 chaplains and the USA has 2900 or so (biggest military in the world and all that). The US forces are short staffed especially in non-Christian faiths and women, since many denominations will not allow women to serve as religious leaders.
The salon article has a picture of her when she's on-duty. All dress codes observed.
The MRFF mainly exists to protect staff from being forced to prayers or other religious observances by their officers, a frequent problem in the US, and not here, where there's just no apparent need for such an organization. I don't believe 'lack of chaplains' is an issue in either country.
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?
No Charter rights were shredded by government in response to COVID. Anyone who thinks they were must not be well-informed about what the Charter actually says.
The reason you see people making these sort of statements is because they read the document ‘raw’ without reading the considerable amount of literature about the practical application of the charter.
All can be overridden if "demonstrably justified in a free and democratic society", but the government has at no time met the traditional conditions for this - judges have just used judicial notice (clearly inappropriate in this context) to say that the government is right when they have ruled, while in most cases they have simply denied standing or kicked the can down the road.
Yes, if "demonstrably justified in a free and democratic society." Extraordinary, short term measures are required to deal with a life threatening pandemic. To suggest otherwise is, I suggest, demonstrably indefensible.
You're being, I suggest, unreasonable. There was a global pandemic that was and still is killing people. The population was unvaccinated. Medical services were overwhelmed. People were dying in the thousands per day.
To suggest that the government did not act reasonably and respected rights is unfair and, as I say, unreasonable.
I doubt you'd find any court that would find in your favor should you appeal to the courts to get a ruling that the government was not justified in limiting people's rights for a short period of time and limiting it to the least it was advised was necessary by public health experts.
Respectfully, you have no legitimate case or complaint.
I get that you don't want to look at the evidence. Neither did the government. That's my point. If this were being done properly, we would be seeing detailed expert witness testimony on both sides as to the effectiveness of the restriction (in many cases, although the search and seizure stuff would be different), assessed just like expert witness testimony in any other scientific case (eg medical malpractice). That simply hasn't happened, even though the law clearly calls for it.
Now, you may say that the government was right to shred our Charter rights, but you can't deny that it has and that, in many cases, our rights are still being violated.
Thank you for the link to an article about the Charter of Rights and Freedoms concerning reasonable limits. It fully supports the conclusion that the government acted reasonably.
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.
Racism has been watered down so much everything can be seen in that light. I am very skeptical of people's statistics. Especially when it supports their preconceptions. But it is a good question.
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.
If anyone is willing to consider reading a book discussing the possible origins of freedom I highly recommend a book by Os Guinness titled the "Magna Carta of Humanity". It may add to this thoughtful discussion
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.
Reading the report, I think it does, in fact, reflect our nation's values and citizens. We are no longer a tiny cosmos of sameness. We never were, of course, but that was for the sake of convenience.
"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.
And I quote: so is one to assume NOT being woke means you are ill informed , out of date, racist and misogynist . Hmmm
Obviously, you couldn't logically infer any of those things from a declaration of non-wokeness, only that if the person making the declaration is himself the dupe and prisoner of any ideology, it isn't that one.
You will quote Shakespeare but you have difficulty coming up with a word or phrase to replace that which logically infers my assumption? No dupe, nor a prisoner just very tired with those who should know better.
(?) Not sure what you're attempting to say with such a strange locution. I merely pointed out the obvious: what my views on race or women are, or the extent to which I may be well- or ill-informed (if you thought about it for a moment you'd realize we're all a blend of the two) is pure speculation on your part... none of which follows from my or anybody else's reservations about the self-proclaimed 'woke.'
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.
Won't say national security is not a controversial topic; also Harper was a mixed bag who did a lot of things then that the LPC is doing now (treating Parliament as something to avoid).
However, 1) This looks like an activist website rather than 'straight' reporting, so I won't take it at face-value 2) the far-left and far-right are more similar to each other than either of them are to the mainstream/centre (both yammering about 'rigged systems', somewhat nihilistic attitudes. etc), 3) RW fascism tends to be obvious and easily identifiable, whereas LW fascism hides itself under the guise of 'equality, diversity', etc. The difference is that the LW has better PR.
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.
Michael, how can you suggest 6.1 is reasonable? What 6.1 and 6.2 taken together state is to get representatives from many faiths, but only "approved" faiths that believe what "we" deem to be acceptable beliefs.
It is literally anti-diverse. Which religions specifically "are not aligned" with the values of the Defence Team. What specifically are those "values" that these religions must adhere to to be acceptable? What specifically constitutes "affiliation".
This literally sets up a test of acceptable religious beliefs as judged by some group of the state. It is thought policiing.
The reason that freedom of belief is in the Charter of Rights and Freedoms, and the UN Universal Declaration of Human Rights, and many other places, is exactly because we've learned both empirically and by philosophical and moral discussion that exclusion by belief leads to oppression, hatred, violence, and tribalist ingroup/outgroup psychology.
Everybody is free to believe whatever they like and to not be punished based on belief, even the most horrible, hateful beliefs. What we police is action and how we treat each other, not beliefs.
The tragic irony here is the circular reasoning that to be promote diversity we need to be more exclusionary; to be more tolerant of people of all be we need to be less tolerant of others beliefs. It is self-contradictory. It is exactly this way that intolerant, ideologically "pure" belief systems take over societies.
Item 6.1 is unreasonable and unacceptable, and the reasons are well established in thousands of years of moral philosophy and empirical evidence, and -- despite being the very basis for modern liberal, tolerant, multi-cultural societies -- it seems that a large enough portion of society has failed to learn any of the reasons we have these protections for belief -- especially beliefs we disagree with -- built into our basic human rights doctrines.
Thank you for this. I had a sneaking suspicion that, if I looked for the committee's original text, it would not be as egregious as the author of this article suggested.
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.
Excellent summary. I think the trouble for many religious groups is that these don’t have the power and influence they used to and they see the writing on the wall.
Using your “first off”, Chaplains or Padres are not ‘leaders’ in the military. Your use of the abbreviation ‘DoD’ shows you know little of the Canadian military context. Chaplains have long provided spiritual support to whatever religion or sect that the soldier was from and better represent diversity than anything this panel recommended. Soldiering is nothing like working in a civilian environment and it is time to stop trying to make it so.
That's fair. I was using 'leaders' in the sense that religous leaders tend to be respected, even by those not of their faith. I have no idea what their ranking is in the military. And, yes, embarrasingly, I defaulted to US terminology ("DoD"). And, I'll fully admit I am far from an expert on the military.
I would observe, though, that the Canadian military does seem to be struggling with issues similar to other organizations -- around creating an environmnent where diversity is welcome -- where women, for example, can have a successful career and not be harassed. In that context, I'm not surprised they are also looking at what is a very unusual relationship with religous organizations and thinking about how to balance a long tradition of providing spiritual guidance with the aim of ensuring everyone in the military feels welcome.
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.
There is one relevant difference. Unlike the organizations you quote, and ignoring WW II “zombie” regiments, the expectation is that members of the armed forces might have to give up their lives to protect their fellow citizens of all religions and yes - even atheists. To ask soldiers to do this without the availability of spiritual comfort and support seems to me to be beyond the pale even for this officially Godless governing body.
A valid point, to be sure, but does that necessitate an official chaplaincy? Surely, it should fall on the religious organizations to provide the spiritual services to their believers, not the government.
Of course, these days being a member of the armed forces of a country like Canada is less dangerous than being a commercial fisher or logger.
Necessitate it? Perhaps not. But if the government has a legitimate interest (or duty, one could argue, but take your pick) to ensure the people who are expected to die for it as necessary have access to an appropriate level of spiritual support under any circumstance where they could conceivably be expected to serve, then the military has to come up with a way to make that work both practically and efficiently. Maintaining in-house capacity achieves that, and certainly in a more reliable fashion than outsourcing would. These aren’t religious organizations’ “believers” - they’re the government’s soldiers. It’s on the government to take ownership of their needs.
That all may be true, but that's not what the article is about or the point I'm making.
It may be good governance or management for the CAF to provide spiritual services for personnel so that they are better prepared to kill people and destroy property, but that doesn't rise to the level that troops have a right to a spiritual leader.
And one wonders about those for whom religion is not wanted. Why wouldn’t it make more sense to have qualified mental health personnel providing support?
Have you ever served? ‘These days’ are not all days for Canada’s combat soldiers - there is always the possibility they could be cast in harm’s way.
(You might want to ask the combat veterans of the Afghanistan conflict if their job was less dangerous than fishing or logging).
To address your first point, chaplains must be part of the CAF to accompany soldiers in battle. The cannot simply be ‘hangers on’ like the press.
What would that look like when the troops are deployed? The point of the chaplaincy is so that the military can regulate who deploys with the troops.
I don't understand the point you're making. It's rare, as you know, for Canadian troops to deployed in any significant numbers.
Maybe so, but that's when they need chaplains the most.
Someone having a need for a chaplain and Constitutional right to one are quite different things.
Keep it civil.
In case anyone is wondering why I deleted two comments here, "BUT I REALLY DISAGREE WITH WHAT THIS OTHER GUY IS SAYING!!!" actually isn't a convincing reason to behave badly. Disagree all you want. Keep it civil or I'll warn you. If that doesn't work, I'll delete your comments. If that doesn't work, I'll ban you.
Thanks, Matt.
And some old fashioned comfort. You don’t need a religious person for that.
Social work and counseling is what military Chaplin's spend most of their time doing.
Isn't Atheism just another belief system, or religion, but without a god?
The classic reply is that "Atheism is just another religion, the way 'not collecting stamps' is just another hobby".
Not in my view and not for me, personally.
Moreover, as an atheist, I, personally, have no need of a government-paid 'chaplain.'
May be you don't have a need for a chaplain's services, but what about other who are not atheist and do want those services?
The CAF may decide providing chaplain's services is a good thing for some people, but it has nothing to do with rights.
CAF provides, I suspect, mental health services, too, just because it is good for some personnel, not because it's a right.
Distinguishing between religions based on their content violates freedom of religion.
Well, you best avoid taking a comparative religion course because that's what it's about. Your comment is such nonsense. Understanding what different religions are about is, in my mind, a Good Thing. It leads to better community relationships.
The main reason you don't need a chaplain is that you actually aren't a serving member of the military. Am I wrong?
There are all sorts of things I have no need for, but the government provides them for those that do.
But your own personal belief system seems to be very strong.
A government providing for a need or want doesn't rise to the level of a right.
And whatever my beliefs might be, they have nothing to do with the argument being made by Brian Dijkema in the article, anymore than does the colour of my car.
I am an atheist as well but if I were a combat soldier (like the ones who stormed the Normandy Beaches) I would not begrudge my fellow combatants the blessing of a chaplain nor would I feel comfortable denying those mortally wounded the comfort of ‘last rites’.
You nor I have been there - and we should just be thankful for our good fortune.
The folks at Elections Canada, etc are free to go to whatever place of worship they desire when they are at home. They are free to have local spiritual support when they are sick, dying or distressed. Military members in the field should be entitled to the same and that requires a chaplaincy. For those of us who don't require such support, why would we infringe on the rights of others to that support?
So you could bring in civilian chaplains to go to the field with them, the way reporters do. At any point in peace time, soldiers can always go off-base to worship, as they do to shop. In the last 60 years of war, we don't spend much time in the field. "The field", were always safe "green-zone" bases, little towns, where the churches could have chipped in to send civilian chaplains to go to those bases, same as sending missionaries. (Kandahar Airfield had a 2010 population of 20,000; had a TGI Fridays - but no special branch of the military was founded to staff the TGI Fridays; they just hired civilians.)
As a military branch, it's a bureaucracy that exists because it exists because it exists.
Not providing a chaplaincy for particular religions and infringing a right are two very different things.
That seems like a pretty hard-assed attitude towards those we ask to serve for us.
And if it is hard-assed, what has that got to do with the notion that the chaplaincy in the CFA is about rights?
Probably nothing if you're bound to impose your religion of atheism on anyone who believes differently.
Saying that military personal do not have a right to a chaplaincy is not me imposing my views on anyone. How you logically arrive at that notion eludes me.
Is it your view that CAF personnel have a "right" to spiritual services or merely that it is good management that the CAF provides spiritual services? Those are two quite different things.
Or vice versa.
Simply put, there are no atheists in a foxhole!
Canadian soldiers are as diverse a group as any when it comes to culture. faith, or opinion. As an institution, the CAF provides for every facet of a soldier's needs. Chaplains, then, are no different in that respect than providing food, weapons, transportation, entertainment, and everything else that people need to be full time soldiers. The DND's goal is to find chaplains that can operate effectively in a close-knit, multi-faith, disciplined, and intensely bureaucratic institution. It would be counterproductive to hire an iman who refuses to work with jews or protestatants who won't work with catholics, let alone opinions on gender or sexuality.
In short, righteous dickheads need not apply.
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...
Comparatively, Canada is actually reasonably well governed by global standards. Are we the best? No, which means there are exemplars in lots of areas we could study and learn from. But, you seem to be conflating the fact that there are areas that need improvement for an actual crisis of governance.
Now, if what you are saying is that what we have could be taken away from us ... I guess Ukraine illustrates that these sorts of possibilities are unfortunately always possible.
I agree, feeling that we have all but been absorbed by our southern neighbour.
with Vancouver becoming a reverse Hong Kong...
If only Hoover could find a way to utilise our vacuum of leadership :)
At least ours doesn't need a whole foundation to protect armed forces members from being forced into religious observance by, uhh, umm, "religious-zealot" superior officers. The American foundation is so active it has to have its own newspaper, so many are the stories of forced-religion on bases and in service:
https://www.militaryreligiousfreedom.org/
I laughed out loud when I opened the link and there is a Lt with her false eyelashes and pretty in pink fake nails.
Not 5 mins before I was scrolling thru the CAF site where it states: BODY ADORNMENT
Make-up. Women may wear make-up for cultural reasons. When wearing uniform, or when wearing civilian clothes on duty, make-up shall be applied conservatively. This precludes the use of false eyelashes, heavy eyeliner, brightly coloured eye shadow, coloured nail polish, bright or vivid lipstick and excessive facial make-up.
CAF tells everyone what is expected down to underwear, mustaches (2 styles) ... aboriginal members whose spirituality embraces the wearing of hair braids and who have been granted permission in writing at the unit level shall be authorized to adopt traditional Aboriginal hairstyles, deportment, behaviour, and headdress.
They cover everything. So while the recommendations seem to imply that those of the Abrahamic persuasions need not apply, I am fairly sure that CAF members who have need of a priest or a rabbi or an imam will be able to. It's not as though there are a lack of various flavours of each.
And according to Wikipedia Canada has 192 chaplains and the USA has 2900 or so (biggest military in the world and all that). The US forces are short staffed especially in non-Christian faiths and women, since many denominations will not allow women to serve as religious leaders.
I'm sure CAF will get it sorted out.
The salon article has a picture of her when she's on-duty. All dress codes observed.
The MRFF mainly exists to protect staff from being forced to prayers or other religious observances by their officers, a frequent problem in the US, and not here, where there's just no apparent need for such an organization. I don't believe 'lack of chaplains' is an issue in either country.
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?
No Charter rights were shredded by government in response to COVID. Anyone who thinks they were must not be well-informed about what the Charter actually says.
The reason you see people making these sort of statements is because they read the document ‘raw’ without reading the considerable amount of literature about the practical application of the charter.
Sections 2a - closing churches, 2c - trucker convoys, gathering size restrictions, 2d - trucker convoy funding, 6(1) - right to leave, 6(2)a - move to any province, 7 - vaccine mandates, 8 - trucker convoy, 9 - quarantine hotels, 10c - quarantine hotels, 15(1) - equality rights.
All can be overridden if "demonstrably justified in a free and democratic society", but the government has at no time met the traditional conditions for this - judges have just used judicial notice (clearly inappropriate in this context) to say that the government is right when they have ruled, while in most cases they have simply denied standing or kicked the can down the road.
Yes, if "demonstrably justified in a free and democratic society." Extraordinary, short term measures are required to deal with a life threatening pandemic. To suggest otherwise is, I suggest, demonstrably indefensible.
You're making an assertion without evidence. That's exactly what the government did in shredding our charter rights. Here is some background: https://www.justice.gc.ca/eng/csj-sjc/rfc-dlc/ccrf-ccdl/check/art1.html
You're being, I suggest, unreasonable. There was a global pandemic that was and still is killing people. The population was unvaccinated. Medical services were overwhelmed. People were dying in the thousands per day.
To suggest that the government did not act reasonably and respected rights is unfair and, as I say, unreasonable.
I doubt you'd find any court that would find in your favor should you appeal to the courts to get a ruling that the government was not justified in limiting people's rights for a short period of time and limiting it to the least it was advised was necessary by public health experts.
Respectfully, you have no legitimate case or complaint.
I get that you don't want to look at the evidence. Neither did the government. That's my point. If this were being done properly, we would be seeing detailed expert witness testimony on both sides as to the effectiveness of the restriction (in many cases, although the search and seizure stuff would be different), assessed just like expert witness testimony in any other scientific case (eg medical malpractice). That simply hasn't happened, even though the law clearly calls for it.
Now, you may say that the government was right to shred our Charter rights, but you can't deny that it has and that, in many cases, our rights are still being violated.
Thank you for the link to an article about the Charter of Rights and Freedoms concerning reasonable limits. It fully supports the conclusion that the government acted reasonably.
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.
LOL! They make up stats! Too funny Pat.
Happens to often
How do you know?
Racism has been watered down so much everything can be seen in that light. I am very skeptical of people's statistics. Especially when it supports their preconceptions. But it is a good question.
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.
Conrad Black is hardly a reputable source of information or analysis.
No but he's a terrific aider and abettor. There's nothing like a spell in the clink to finetune one's talents.
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.
If anyone is willing to consider reading a book discussing the possible origins of freedom I highly recommend a book by Os Guinness titled the "Magna Carta of Humanity". It may add to this thoughtful discussion
Os Guinness, great-great-great grandson of Arthur Guinness, the Dublin brewer. He has written 30 self-help books with great titles.
Fit Bodies Fat Minds: Why Evangelicals Don't Think and What to Do About It.
The American Hour: A Time of Reckoning and the Once and Future Role of Faith
The Last Christian on Earth: Uncover the Enemy's Plot to Undermine the Church
Unspeakable: Facing Up to the Challenge of Evil
The Call: Finding and Fulfilling the Central Purpose of Your Life
I've never heard of him which is a bit surprising as I'll read almost anything tho I'm not big on self-help. 30 books! Impressive.
Exactly. I come from a tradition that emphasized the private nature of worship. I no longer go to my local UCC because it’s become so daft.
I was brought up in what is the big daddy of Abrahamic traditions. We do Hanukkah for the kids. And Xmas:)
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.
Reading the report, I think it does, in fact, reflect our nation's values and citizens. We are no longer a tiny cosmos of sameness. We never were, of course, but that was for the sake of convenience.