Well, on the bright side, you got me to write in, so at least I was paying attention.
That was disturbing. I feel like you don't understand the intent or the execution of CAFMPI 03/26 (or the Chaplain General Direction on Chaplain's Spiritual Reflection in Public Settings). You don't even seem to realize the difference between the DND and the CAF. For a podcast that purported to want to examine this directive and its impact, I felt the discussion was a tangled maze of red herrings, non sequitors, false trails and a frankly breathtaking arrogance on behalf of your guest. "Science emerged in the western tradition where Christianity was dominant"? Seriously? I'd say you could make a good argument that the Scientific Revolution happened in spite of the Church's attempt to root out heresy and enforce orthodoxy amongst those budding scientists. I wish I could ask Galileo his opinion. And you completely gloss over the many and significant contributions to science by the Greeks, Arabs, Chinese, Indians, etc. And that, in my humble opinion, is the real point of this CAF directive.
Let me tell you a story. My wife and I are veterans, with a combined 50 years of service in uniform. In 1989 we decided to get married, so I approached my Regimental Padre to ask him if he would perform the service. He refused. Why? Because I was Christian and my wife was Buddhist. And no compromise. He would not even consider a secular service. We were on our own. At that time, spiritual diversity meant you could worship as a Catholic or as a Protestant. That was it. And the non Christians could see that. Every time they had to form up on parade and listen to someone drone on about "Father, Son, and Holy Ghost" it was just another reminder that they weren't included, that their faith was being completely glossed over. Kind of like with Dijkema and his science comment.
In my opinion, there is nothing in CAFMPI 03/26 that compels, controls, or prohibits worship. Religion is still allowed and encouraged in the Canadian Military (my son told me that the CAF has a Buddhist Padre now). What the directive does is make sure that public events, attended by people from all religious leanings, will not make soldiers, sailors, and aircrew feel like their belief systems are second class. If that does not fit, I suppose you could agree to give every religion its turn. I would actually love to see that. Muslim day would be epic.
Not to end on a sour note: Jen, I think you are brilliant and I love to hear your opinions on things. I've just never gotten so mad at one of your podcasts before :) Keep up the excellent work!
I'm a veteran too. For me, I recall the only time prayer was used was at the battalion Christmas dinner. I remember a big cross in a bivouac where one could attend services if they wished. I could be wrong but that is my experience.. I surely don't remember being told to attend a service ever. For me, I think for the vast majority of service members, traditional events like a change of command, a mess dinner, or a Remembrance Day parade have always felt like standard operating procedure—occasions where a traditional invocation or grace was just part of the shared fabric of the day, rather than something that felt coercive or mandatory in a religious sense.
How do the CF members benefit from this new policy? Will this make them more effective in an operational theater. And where does this stop because something has clearly begun here. Currently CF members can wear a crucifix or carry a kirpan, for example, as an article of faith. Rest assured, I am confident the brain trust at NDHQ will be coming for those objects in its own good time.
As soon as I heard and read the term "spiritual reflection" my BS detector went off. That's bafflegab; a hallmark of Justin Trudeau's years in office. For me, this is performative.
However maximum tolerance is not protecting a few from literally everyone else' harmless devotions. The opposite. If you're offended, that's personal... you're a grown up. Resentment is not a reason to oppress, despite our recent cultural disasters.
It is wrong to police, restrict, control, diminish any spiritual symbols or practices unless of course they promote hate and oppression. Doing so is less tolerant, teaches less tolerance, diminishes the richness of our culture, deprives well-balanced, curious people of experience, closes minds, and most of all, as pointed out in the podcast, defies the wishes of the majority of the military who appreciate a variety of spiritual experiences. Doing so is all-of-a-piece with victim cards, BS unethical identitarian sorting, more oppression of the people.
I'm a humanist, an agnostic humanist. I have little idea other than intuition and my own singular life's experience. It's hilarious, and a profound comment on the human condition, when people insist to others that there is/is no god; neither position is provable, and both require blind faith. So... a little humility with an open mind... ?
I want to start by saying I don't mean any of this as an attack. I'm just confused because what you're saying doesn't jive with what the guest said about people having access to more than one chaplain.
Was it just a long time ago and there was only one chaplain type in the province? If so, I don't see how that's relevant because it's already been fixed.
Today, you likely still wouldn't be able to require a "padre" to perform your wedding in violation of his faith tradition. And that's fair because it's freedom of religion for ALL. If Muslim lady wants an Imam to perform her marriage to an Orthodox Jew, he's going to refuse. This isn't generally regarded as a terrible violation of rights, rather the opposite. Freedom of religion for all. That's part of why we have civil marriage ceremonies. With respect, I don't see how it's reasonable to insist a padre violate his own freedom of religion to accommodate you. Am I missing something?
********
> What the directive does is make sure that public events, attended by people from all religious leanings, will not make soldiers, sailors, and aircrew feel like their belief systems are second class.
The point made in the interview as that your assertion assumes that secular humanism is just neutral. That it isn't a belief system in it's own right and is just a neutral sandbox in which people can have a belief system or not. That's not the case.
Secular humanism is a belief system. Creating secular humanist services and saying that's neutral for all religions is no different from creating a non-denominational Christian service and saying it's neutral for all religions. That's the kind of thing a Christian might think is fair and a Muslim would obviously not. Similarly imposing secular humanism feels okay to people who like secular humanism... and no one else.
Let's be honest, this aggressive secularism is a Francophone cultural thing. Anglos couldn't care less, everyone's faith is their own business.
Francophones, being well represented in Ottawa's upper echelons are just pursuing Laicite. They care about public expressions of religion in a way that is foreign to Anglos. This is similar to the Quebec religious symbol covering ban which the rest of North America thinks is weird.
I really enjoyed this On the line segment, I am not a particularly religious person but I do appreciate its importance to a lot of people, what ever belief they may have. Your guest was very good at articulating the positive aspects of religion without being overbearing about it and his opinion of the D&D bureaucracy that is overseeing this change that is just imposing there own beliefs or lack there of under the guise of inclusion .But it seems to me to be just another example of exclusion. I feel people should be allowed to believe in what ever they want to, and what ever gives them comfort to cope with their own situations, who are we to judge.
All religions have a version of the Golden Rule. Societies rise or flop based on their members' adherence to it. Many religious people presume agnostic people are nihilists, that we don't believe in objective morality. But we don't need a prophet to convince us that a social contract is necessary.
The military is a unique discipline where we need its members to take unusual risks to life. I can see benefit in having religious counselors that help soldiers make peace with that. This would be especially true in a military that undertakes offensive tasks that contradict the Golden Rule. In Canada, that is probably not necessary.
I'm an atheist, verging on being an anti-theist, but even I see an advantage in having chaplains in the forces.
There are believers that need a minister/rabbi/imam/whatever to talk to. I also don't think that just having the religious status is enough, they should have real training in helping people, secular training, not religious training.
Now I will go watch the episode, knowing that a couple of Christians will agree that secular and non secular therapists are needed...
I put some thoughts down while watching the episode so there may be some disjointed notes here
I don't think that Mr Dijkema seems to understand how atheists think. Atheists, for the most part, don't care about your religion. What we care about is how religions try to force their beliefs on everyone else.
Then he brings out the old tropes about science under Christianity, and the persecution of Christians under other religions, implying that religions could be persecuted under a secular government in North America.
He fails to acknowledge the corrosive effects of the current Christian Nationalists in the US or the ongoing genocide in Palestine currently. There are Christian Nationalists in Canada as well.
Chaplains are indeed cheaper than tanks, but people will complain if the military starts to launch chaplains at the enemy...
I will argue that chaplains need secular training as therapists because theological training is insufficient.
I trust that the guest remembers that Numbers 31:17-18 exists as well, as the Canadian military code of conduct is superior to the Christian code of conduct or the Jewish code of conduct.
Re: Palestine, around 21,000 children have died there since 2023, so the Israeli government is condoning these deaths. Hamas does not have a flourishing movement, but its goal is not a happy, healthy environment, it is death to Israel, so it's a short term goal, and all the deaths are good.
I do agree with the logical incoherence of the allowing of First Nations religion in the military but no others. The forced conversion of First Nations people to Christianity is why many indigenous people became Christians, much like many Muslims were converted in the middle east.
As my final thought, the people protesting outside of Jewish schools, or the groups trying to restrict people's healthcare are not atheists or secular humanists.
"What we care about is how religions try to force their beliefs on everyone else."
This is not happening in the military. It's also rare in religion. This sounds like resentment.
Re persecution: Again, prohibited by the military... and nothing to do with religion, lol. Humans persecute other humans for what they think, full stop. Sick Canadians are persecuting Canadian Jews just because they're Jewish. People in my town of Victoria are persecuted because they disagree that free drugs are the solution, or that reconciliation should include mutual respect. Religion and persecution are obviously coincidental.
Re Christian Nationalists... huh? Bad, cruel, stupid people with harmful ideas everywhere including in the NDP, CPC, unions, etc. Are you bigoted against Christians?
Chaplins don't need secular training. The most atheists and secular humanists need psychologists and they get them.
Re Palestine... huh? What does this have to do with any of this argument?
"forced conversion of FN..." , again, huh? I know a lot of serious faithful Christian FN who would be offended, but you carry on, lol.
> The forced conversion of First Nations people to Christianity is why many indigenous people became Christians, much like many Muslims were converted in the middle east.
Uh no. Not "much like". The conversion to Islam in the middle east was literally conducted at sword point, as in refusal to convert resulted in your immediate murder. The many harms of residential schools thankfully did not include priests putting a bullet in the back of the head of anyone in the village who refused to convert to Christianity.
> implying that religions could be persecuted under a secular government in North America.
What do you mean "could be"? Secular governments oppressing the religious is a simple fact of history and of the present day. North America isn't magically immune to this. Quebec's secular government is persecuting Sikhs RIGHT NOW by requiring them to violate their religion in order to fully participate in public life. This isn't hypothetical. We have a government in Canada right now that is imposing it's own spiritual outlook on the world by making adherence to it, the price of entry into society.
> I do agree with the logical incoherence of the allowing of First Nations religion in the military but no others.
I don't know if you mean you agree that it's logically incoherent and therefore not okay or that it is and that's okay because you feel bad about history.
Hi Jen,
Well, on the bright side, you got me to write in, so at least I was paying attention.
That was disturbing. I feel like you don't understand the intent or the execution of CAFMPI 03/26 (or the Chaplain General Direction on Chaplain's Spiritual Reflection in Public Settings). You don't even seem to realize the difference between the DND and the CAF. For a podcast that purported to want to examine this directive and its impact, I felt the discussion was a tangled maze of red herrings, non sequitors, false trails and a frankly breathtaking arrogance on behalf of your guest. "Science emerged in the western tradition where Christianity was dominant"? Seriously? I'd say you could make a good argument that the Scientific Revolution happened in spite of the Church's attempt to root out heresy and enforce orthodoxy amongst those budding scientists. I wish I could ask Galileo his opinion. And you completely gloss over the many and significant contributions to science by the Greeks, Arabs, Chinese, Indians, etc. And that, in my humble opinion, is the real point of this CAF directive.
Let me tell you a story. My wife and I are veterans, with a combined 50 years of service in uniform. In 1989 we decided to get married, so I approached my Regimental Padre to ask him if he would perform the service. He refused. Why? Because I was Christian and my wife was Buddhist. And no compromise. He would not even consider a secular service. We were on our own. At that time, spiritual diversity meant you could worship as a Catholic or as a Protestant. That was it. And the non Christians could see that. Every time they had to form up on parade and listen to someone drone on about "Father, Son, and Holy Ghost" it was just another reminder that they weren't included, that their faith was being completely glossed over. Kind of like with Dijkema and his science comment.
In my opinion, there is nothing in CAFMPI 03/26 that compels, controls, or prohibits worship. Religion is still allowed and encouraged in the Canadian Military (my son told me that the CAF has a Buddhist Padre now). What the directive does is make sure that public events, attended by people from all religious leanings, will not make soldiers, sailors, and aircrew feel like their belief systems are second class. If that does not fit, I suppose you could agree to give every religion its turn. I would actually love to see that. Muslim day would be epic.
Not to end on a sour note: Jen, I think you are brilliant and I love to hear your opinions on things. I've just never gotten so mad at one of your podcasts before :) Keep up the excellent work!
I'm a veteran too. For me, I recall the only time prayer was used was at the battalion Christmas dinner. I remember a big cross in a bivouac where one could attend services if they wished. I could be wrong but that is my experience.. I surely don't remember being told to attend a service ever. For me, I think for the vast majority of service members, traditional events like a change of command, a mess dinner, or a Remembrance Day parade have always felt like standard operating procedure—occasions where a traditional invocation or grace was just part of the shared fabric of the day, rather than something that felt coercive or mandatory in a religious sense.
How do the CF members benefit from this new policy? Will this make them more effective in an operational theater. And where does this stop because something has clearly begun here. Currently CF members can wear a crucifix or carry a kirpan, for example, as an article of faith. Rest assured, I am confident the brain trust at NDHQ will be coming for those objects in its own good time.
As soon as I heard and read the term "spiritual reflection" my BS detector went off. That's bafflegab; a hallmark of Justin Trudeau's years in office. For me, this is performative.
I'm sorry that happened to you, and it was wrong.
However maximum tolerance is not protecting a few from literally everyone else' harmless devotions. The opposite. If you're offended, that's personal... you're a grown up. Resentment is not a reason to oppress, despite our recent cultural disasters.
It is wrong to police, restrict, control, diminish any spiritual symbols or practices unless of course they promote hate and oppression. Doing so is less tolerant, teaches less tolerance, diminishes the richness of our culture, deprives well-balanced, curious people of experience, closes minds, and most of all, as pointed out in the podcast, defies the wishes of the majority of the military who appreciate a variety of spiritual experiences. Doing so is all-of-a-piece with victim cards, BS unethical identitarian sorting, more oppression of the people.
I'm a humanist, an agnostic humanist. I have little idea other than intuition and my own singular life's experience. It's hilarious, and a profound comment on the human condition, when people insist to others that there is/is no god; neither position is provable, and both require blind faith. So... a little humility with an open mind... ?
> We were on our own.
I want to start by saying I don't mean any of this as an attack. I'm just confused because what you're saying doesn't jive with what the guest said about people having access to more than one chaplain.
Was it just a long time ago and there was only one chaplain type in the province? If so, I don't see how that's relevant because it's already been fixed.
Today, you likely still wouldn't be able to require a "padre" to perform your wedding in violation of his faith tradition. And that's fair because it's freedom of religion for ALL. If Muslim lady wants an Imam to perform her marriage to an Orthodox Jew, he's going to refuse. This isn't generally regarded as a terrible violation of rights, rather the opposite. Freedom of religion for all. That's part of why we have civil marriage ceremonies. With respect, I don't see how it's reasonable to insist a padre violate his own freedom of religion to accommodate you. Am I missing something?
********
> What the directive does is make sure that public events, attended by people from all religious leanings, will not make soldiers, sailors, and aircrew feel like their belief systems are second class.
The point made in the interview as that your assertion assumes that secular humanism is just neutral. That it isn't a belief system in it's own right and is just a neutral sandbox in which people can have a belief system or not. That's not the case.
Secular humanism is a belief system. Creating secular humanist services and saying that's neutral for all religions is no different from creating a non-denominational Christian service and saying it's neutral for all religions. That's the kind of thing a Christian might think is fair and a Muslim would obviously not. Similarly imposing secular humanism feels okay to people who like secular humanism... and no one else.
Let's be honest, this aggressive secularism is a Francophone cultural thing. Anglos couldn't care less, everyone's faith is their own business.
Francophones, being well represented in Ottawa's upper echelons are just pursuing Laicite. They care about public expressions of religion in a way that is foreign to Anglos. This is similar to the Quebec religious symbol covering ban which the rest of North America thinks is weird.
Question is, why can't they just let it go?
Hi Jen
I really enjoyed this On the line segment, I am not a particularly religious person but I do appreciate its importance to a lot of people, what ever belief they may have. Your guest was very good at articulating the positive aspects of religion without being overbearing about it and his opinion of the D&D bureaucracy that is overseeing this change that is just imposing there own beliefs or lack there of under the guise of inclusion .But it seems to me to be just another example of exclusion. I feel people should be allowed to believe in what ever they want to, and what ever gives them comfort to cope with their own situations, who are we to judge.
It’s hard to hate someone who’s story you know
Keep up the good work
Brian seems like a very good friend
Take care
All religions have a version of the Golden Rule. Societies rise or flop based on their members' adherence to it. Many religious people presume agnostic people are nihilists, that we don't believe in objective morality. But we don't need a prophet to convince us that a social contract is necessary.
The military is a unique discipline where we need its members to take unusual risks to life. I can see benefit in having religious counselors that help soldiers make peace with that. This would be especially true in a military that undertakes offensive tasks that contradict the Golden Rule. In Canada, that is probably not necessary.
Does this policy mean a CF member who is like to die, no longer can receive last rites?
Weird Jen is the best Jen! Go tell McGuinty!
I'm an atheist, verging on being an anti-theist, but even I see an advantage in having chaplains in the forces.
There are believers that need a minister/rabbi/imam/whatever to talk to. I also don't think that just having the religious status is enough, they should have real training in helping people, secular training, not religious training.
Now I will go watch the episode, knowing that a couple of Christians will agree that secular and non secular therapists are needed...
Sick
Really sick
I put some thoughts down while watching the episode so there may be some disjointed notes here
I don't think that Mr Dijkema seems to understand how atheists think. Atheists, for the most part, don't care about your religion. What we care about is how religions try to force their beliefs on everyone else.
Then he brings out the old tropes about science under Christianity, and the persecution of Christians under other religions, implying that religions could be persecuted under a secular government in North America.
He fails to acknowledge the corrosive effects of the current Christian Nationalists in the US or the ongoing genocide in Palestine currently. There are Christian Nationalists in Canada as well.
Chaplains are indeed cheaper than tanks, but people will complain if the military starts to launch chaplains at the enemy...
I will argue that chaplains need secular training as therapists because theological training is insufficient.
I trust that the guest remembers that Numbers 31:17-18 exists as well, as the Canadian military code of conduct is superior to the Christian code of conduct or the Jewish code of conduct.
Re: Palestine, around 21,000 children have died there since 2023, so the Israeli government is condoning these deaths. Hamas does not have a flourishing movement, but its goal is not a happy, healthy environment, it is death to Israel, so it's a short term goal, and all the deaths are good.
I do agree with the logical incoherence of the allowing of First Nations religion in the military but no others. The forced conversion of First Nations people to Christianity is why many indigenous people became Christians, much like many Muslims were converted in the middle east.
As my final thought, the people protesting outside of Jewish schools, or the groups trying to restrict people's healthcare are not atheists or secular humanists.
I'm an agnostic humanist...
"What we care about is how religions try to force their beliefs on everyone else."
This is not happening in the military. It's also rare in religion. This sounds like resentment.
Re persecution: Again, prohibited by the military... and nothing to do with religion, lol. Humans persecute other humans for what they think, full stop. Sick Canadians are persecuting Canadian Jews just because they're Jewish. People in my town of Victoria are persecuted because they disagree that free drugs are the solution, or that reconciliation should include mutual respect. Religion and persecution are obviously coincidental.
Re Christian Nationalists... huh? Bad, cruel, stupid people with harmful ideas everywhere including in the NDP, CPC, unions, etc. Are you bigoted against Christians?
Chaplins don't need secular training. The most atheists and secular humanists need psychologists and they get them.
Re Palestine... huh? What does this have to do with any of this argument?
"forced conversion of FN..." , again, huh? I know a lot of serious faithful Christian FN who would be offended, but you carry on, lol.
There's a few things to unpack here.
> The forced conversion of First Nations people to Christianity is why many indigenous people became Christians, much like many Muslims were converted in the middle east.
Uh no. Not "much like". The conversion to Islam in the middle east was literally conducted at sword point, as in refusal to convert resulted in your immediate murder. The many harms of residential schools thankfully did not include priests putting a bullet in the back of the head of anyone in the village who refused to convert to Christianity.
> implying that religions could be persecuted under a secular government in North America.
What do you mean "could be"? Secular governments oppressing the religious is a simple fact of history and of the present day. North America isn't magically immune to this. Quebec's secular government is persecuting Sikhs RIGHT NOW by requiring them to violate their religion in order to fully participate in public life. This isn't hypothetical. We have a government in Canada right now that is imposing it's own spiritual outlook on the world by making adherence to it, the price of entry into society.
> I do agree with the logical incoherence of the allowing of First Nations religion in the military but no others.
I don't know if you mean you agree that it's logically incoherent and therefore not okay or that it is and that's okay because you feel bad about history.