Religion in the Canadian Forces & in Canadian Society

[mariomike]

I would say hats off to you, but I may offend others....

dileas

tess

Sometimes, it's not a bad idea to take your hat off...:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Fr3mlbv16Cw

 

[Loachman]

RyanC:

Removing one's headdress when so ordered is simply a drill movement. It is not a religious act. Perhaps if the appeal judge spent more time on the parade square ("soldier first" 'n' all) he'd have realized that.

Lt (N) Scott is likewise a numpty, and has some serious growing up to do. I hope that he's out now.

Stand at attention when you're ordered, march when you're ordered, halt when you're ordered, and remove your frakking hat when you're ordered.

Remembrance Day is not a religious event. It's about remembering your predecessors and colleagues. Yes, prayers are said and hymns are sung. That's our tradition, and I hope that that does not change. You don't have to sing or pray along. You can think other thoughts or just "la la la la la" in your head while that's happening, so long as you think about your predecessors and lost colleagues during the two minutes of silence. You do not have to close your eyes or bow your head - I don't - but you have a duty to be there on parade.

Do you refuse to attend weddings of friends and family if they take place in a church?

Are you going to skip the funerals of your dead friends and colleagues? I'd hope not, as that would be pretty disrespectful, nein? Again, you can keep your eyes open and gawk around, and stay silent while others sing or pray, but you can bloody well sit there in the church, with your hat off, and stand when everybody else does to give support to your dead buddy's family by your presence in the church, synagogue, mosque, temple, or whatever with them.

I have no religion either, but that does not mean that I have to act like a twit and whine.

 

[dogger1936]

Remembrance Day is not a religious event. It's about remembering your predecessors and colleagues. Yes, prayers are said and hymns are sung. That's our tradition, and I hope that that does not change. You don't have to sing or pray along. You can think other thoughts or just "la la la la la" in your head while that's happening, so long as you think about your predecessors and lost colleagues during the two minutes of silence. You do not have to close your eyes or bow your head - I don't - but you have a duty to be there on parade.

Thats just it. I've set through many a funeral of buddies unfortunately. Everyone of em Christains of some sort. I even participated in the singing of hymns out of respect for the families...I didnt want to be the guy who looked like he was forced to be there. Not to mention religion plays a big piece for the healing process of these families. As well they will remember that day for the rest of their lifes. I go I participate. While I am not a christain....Imagine that. And quite honestly if a muslim soldier died for this country I would go to the Mosque and act respectful to him and his family. To do otherwise in my opinion is nothing but selfish.

As for the prayers on parade I use it as a moment to reflect...maybe say a word or two to a buddy. The momments of religion doesnt have to be all bad. Take the moment to be alone wth your own thoughts.

 

[George Wallace]

......... I am just asking for the right to my beliefs, and the right not to practice the beliefs of others. being a strong believing atheist i have found that i am quite the minority in the Canadian forces and feel that my religious rights are not taken seriously due to this fact.

You either have no Religion or you do.  You can't have it both ways.  If you are an Atheist, why are you asking for your "religious rights"?  You aren't supposed to have any.

Again i have full respect on everyone and their religious rights

Then why the rant?  Your lack of tolerance is intolerance on your part, and I was under the impression that we as Canadians are not supposed to show intolerance to others beliefs, even though I personally believe that these policies are infringing on my freedoms and allowing less than acceptable foreign factions to impose their desires on me. 

I have never associated Remembrance Day as being a 'Religious Event'.  Your associating 'religion' to a public event shows a lack of understanding. 

I am not ordered to partake in christmas

I think that perhaps you will be.  Being as you don't celebrate it, you are a prime candidate to be 'ordered' (placed on the Duty List in Routine Orders) to do Duty over that period, so that pers who do celebrate it will have the opportunity to do so.  By the way, I usually spell Christmas with a capital "C".

Many thanks from all of us who gladly do not have to do Duty on Christmas because of people like you.

 

[ballz]

Sorry, I had to cut the title to get it all to fit.

"Religious people harbour deep mistrust of atheists, about equal to rapists, says study"
By Steve Mertl | Daily Brew – Sat, 3 Dec, 2011

Would you trust an atheist to date your sister? If you're a religious person, there's a good chance you wouldn't.
A study by researchers at the University of British Columbia found believers distrusted atheists more than members of other religious groups, gays and feminists.
The only group study participants distrusted as much as atheists was rapists, lead author Will Gervais told the Vancouver Sun.
"People are willing to hire an atheist for a job that is perceived as low-trust, for instance as a waitress," said Gervais, a doctoral student. "But when hiring for a high-trust job like daycare worker, they were like, nope, not going to hire an atheist for that job."
The study was published online in the Journal of Personality and Social Psychology.
By contrast, Gervais said atheists did not seem to have the same level of mistrust. They were indifferent to religious belief in assessing someone's trustworthiness.
"Atheists don't necessarily favour other atheists over Christians or anyone else," he said. "They seem to think that religion is not an important signal for who you can trust."

More at the link http://ca.news.yahoo.com/blogs/dailybrew/religious-people-harbour-deep-mistrust-of-atheists--about-equal-to-rapists--says-study.html


I'm not going to paint all religious people with the same brush, but this is a bit disappointing. While I knew atheists were the most mistrusted minority in America, I didn't think it was this bad...

So much for those religions giving them a "better" set of moral beliefs.


For the record, I'm not atheist, but I am a rationalist.

 

[Journeyman]

Sorry, but this tread went actively RTFO, so I'd best bail -- mythology (or whatever you'll call it) is WAY outside my lane.

 

[OldSolduer]

Sorry, I had to cut the title to get it all to fit.

"Religious people harbour deep mistrust of atheists, about equal to rapists, says study"
By Steve Mertl | Daily Brew – Sat, 3 Dec, 2011

More at the link http://ca.news.yahoo.com/blogs/dailybrew/religious-people-harbour-deep-mistrust-of-atheists--about-equal-to-rapists--says-study.html


I'm not going to paint all religious people with the same brush, but this is a bit disappointing. While I knew atheists were the most mistrusted minority in America, I didn't think it was this bad...

So much for those religions giving them a "better" set of moral beliefs.


For the record, I'm not atheist, but I am a rationalist.

I don't really care about  who or what my fire team partner worships , if anything at all.


Besides - is it not illegal to ask a person's religious beliefs on a job application?

 

[xena]

While I knew atheists were the most mistrusted minority in America, I didn't think it was this bad...

So much for those religions giving them a "better" set of moral beliefs.

Well, for what it's worth, some rather vocal atheists have been having a field day setting themselves up as opponents to all religion, rather than just non-practioners who ignore the theists, a la Hitchens, Dawkins, et al.  It really shouldn't come as much of a surprise that they aren't trusted by religious folks when they're pretty vocal about wanting to abolish all religion.  A parallel example would be asking you to trust someone to date your daughter when they've got a track record of being vocal about wanting to abolish Canada and democracy, and they think that all serving military members are mindless, unthinking, baby-killing fascist automatons.  That is, presuming that Canada and democracy and the like, are something dear to your heart, and something you believe in.

And I suppose most religious people are a bit skeptical about atheist's morals in the first place.  They have no reason to have any.  The track record of Soviet Communists being nice guys (not!  Having murdered clergy and monastics by the hundreds of thousands, so the assertions that they've never engaged in religiously motivated violence is BS!), and the in-fighting and bickering of Madeline Murray O'Hair and her "American Atheists" organization don't help.  Oh, I know, they talk a lot about altruism and stuff...  Actual history just doesn't support the thesis.

By the way, why are you assuming religious folks are required by their morality to "trust" athiests in the first place?  I don't recall "trust" being mentioned in the 10 Commandments, or the Beatitudes.  Any ideas?

 

[The Bread Guy]

For the record, I'm not atheist, but I am a rationalist.

Any religion that worships food vacuum sealed into foil pouches and housed in boxes with condiments and other goodies is certainly one I can get behind.

I don't really care about  who or what my fire team partner worships , if anything at all.

What comedian said something to the effect of, "why hate people based on race or religion when there's SOOOOOOOOOO many other better reasons to hate them?"

 

[ballz]

And I suppose most religious people are a bit skeptical about atheist's morals in the first place.  They have no reason to have any.  The track record of Soviet Communists being nice guys (not!  Having murdered clergy and monastics by the hundreds of thousands, so the assertions that they've never engaged in religiously motivated violence is BS!), and the in-fighting and bickering of Madeline Murray O'Hair and her "American Atheists" organization don't help.  Oh, I know, they talk a lot about altruism and stuff...  Actual history just doesn't support the thesis.

And Christianity gave us Hitler, the crusades, and burning "witches" (aka educated women), and the Muslims gave us 9/11 and jihads. No one is going to win in a measuring contest, and that would be missing the point anyway.

By the way, why are you assuming religious folks are required by their morality to "trust" athiests in the first place?  I don't recall "trust" being mentioned in the 10 Commandments, or the Beatitudes.  Any ideas?

Actually, what I am assuming (and the whole point for posting the study) is that tolerance is a better moral practice than intolerance, and since various religions argue that they offer "moral truth," they ought to back that claim up with things like tolerance...

But since you asked, something about "love thy neighbour as thyself" is in there somewhere...

 

[xena]

By contrast, Gervais said atheists did not seem to have the same level of mistrust. They were indifferent to religious belief in assessing someone's trustworthiness.
"Atheists don't necessarily favour other atheists over Christians or anyone else," he said. "They seem to think that religion is not an important signal for who you can trust."

By the way, I'd like to know exactly how he got his conclusions for this.  I'm wondering if there isn't some confirmation bias involved.

 

[ballz]

Any religion that worships food vacuum sealed into foil pouches and housed in boxes with condiments and other goodies is certainly one I can get behind.

I'm not sure what you're getting at?

But the comedian you're referring to (I believe George Carlin said something similar, although he wouldn't have been the only one) is damn right.

 

[ballz]

By the way, I'd like to know exactly how he got his conclusions for this.  I'm wondering if there isn't some confirmation bias involved.

There is a link to the study in the article if you are actually wondering, though I'm guessing you're just trying to deny that religions don't exactly practice tolerance.

This study was also sparked from another study in which Atheists were far and above the most stereotyped in the US when asked about presidency.

 

[aesop081]

"My imaginary friend is better than your imaginary friend"

"You can't be trusted, you don't believe in my imaginary friend"

"You can't be trusted, you don't believe in any imaginary friend"


...and i'm the one who is not trustworthy ?

:

 

[jollyjacktar]

"My imaginary friend is better than your imaginary friend"

"You can't be trusted, you don't believe in my imaginary friend"

"You can't be trusted, you don't believe in any imaginary friend"


...and i'm the one who is not trustworthy ?

:

I cannot disagree with you on this point.  :nod:

 

[The Bread Guy]

I'm not sure what you're getting at?

My poor attempt at humour - rationalist.

 

[TheHead]

Well, for what it's worth, some rather vocal atheists have been having a field day setting themselves up as opponents to all religion, rather than just non-practioners who ignore the theists, a la Hitchens, Dawkins, et al.  It really shouldn't come as much of a surprise that they aren't trusted by religious folks when they're pretty vocal about wanting to abolish all religion.  A parallel example would be asking you to trust someone to date your daughter when they've got a track record of being vocal about wanting to abolish Canada and democracy, and they think that all serving military members are mindless, unthinking, baby-killing fascist automatons.  That is, presuming that Canada and democracy and the like, are something dear to your heart, and something you believe in.

  Atheists, Agnostics and Anti-theists have plenty of reasons to be good to their fellow human.  Morality is a result of evolutionary progression and religion doesn't have a monopoly on it and never has.  Even when religious organizations were in power and could claim they had "God on their side" they never held any moral highground.  Morality comes from our desire to help our fellow primates out in order to better eachothers lives.  I would hope Ivan that you would have morals and be able to treat other people the way you wanted to be treated for other reasons than reward and threats of eternal punishment. 

  Also you're making a huge generalization about all Atheists when you bring Hitchens or Dawkins into this.  Not all Atheists think as militantly as they do.  It's no better than comparing all theists to the Westbro Baptist Church.

*Edited for spelling*

 

[xena]

And Christianity gave us Hitler, the crusades, and burning "witches" (aka educated women), and the Muslims gave us 9/11 and jihads. No one is going to win in a measuring contest, and that would be missing the point anyway.

I'm not sure about the Western heresies (RCs, Protestants and such), but I can assure you that Orthodox Christianity did not give anyone Hitler.  At worst, a terrifically distorted and twisted version of Christianity might have incubated his opinions.  See references to Hitler's ideas about an "Aryan Christ" - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hitler_religion.  I'm pretty sure however, that most people, if they think He existed, was actually Jewish.  I'm pretty sure that's a little detail that any sort of Nazified Christianity would have to go to great lengths to dance around.

Again, the Orthodox Christians were generally victims of the Crusades, rather than perpetrators - see the sacking of Constantinople for that one.  Historically, the burning of witches was done by secular courts rather than ecclesiastical ones.  Heaven know's why I'm defending the Inquisition on this point, but, in the actual history of Rome's Inquisitions, as opposed to popular assumptions, they tended towards leniency with regards to witchcraft accusations, in stark contrast to the secular courts of the day.  IIRC, only four people were convicted of witchcraft by the Inquisition over the hundreds of years of it's existence (I could be wrong about the number, but I'm pretty sure it's under a half dozen).

If anything Orthodox Christianity can be accused of, it would be giving us Stalin.  Good old Joseph, in his youth was educated in an Orthodox seminary.  Legend has it, while in Seminary, ol' Joe was serving as an acolyte (grown up version of an altar boy) and did something wrong during the service.  According to the story, the Bishop who was officiating slapped him across the face for it.  He apparently then and there silently vowed his revenge on the Church.  History shows that he got that in spades.  Moral of the story:  don't smack altar boys.  ;D

Actually, what I am assuming (and the whole point for posting the study) is that tolerance is a better moral practice than intolerance, and since various religions argue that they offer "moral truth," they ought to back that claim up with things like tolerance...

I'm not arguing with you, as I most certainly agree that tolerance is preferable to intolerance.  However, tolerance is not a Christian virtue.  Love is.  They're not quite the same thing.  You can tolerate someone all the while not loving, or even trusting, them.

But since you asked, something about "love thy neighbour as thyself" is in there somewhere...

Love and trust are not synonyms.

Interestingly, I often find myself sympathetic towards atheists, even if I don't agree with them.  Quite often their reasons for rejecting Christianity are the exact same reasons I rejected Western Christianity.  Of course, some have a hard time understanding that not all Christians believe in a God that "so loved the world that He sent His only-begotten son so He could torture Him to death in a most horrific fashion, which was an activity that put Him in a mood to be a teensy bit more forgiving towards everyone else."  :

 

[xena]

There is a link to the study in the article if you are actually wondering...

Ooo!  Missed that!  Thanks.

...though I'm guessing you're just trying to deny that religions don't exactly practice tolerance.

Which would mean you're guessing wrong.  Thanks for playing though!

 

[xena]

Atheists, Agnostics and Anti-theists have plenty of reasons to be good to their fellow human.

And history shows that they're as spectacularly bad at it as Theists.  They have exactly no advantage there.  It's not religion, or the lack thereof, that is the problem.  It's human nature to be cruel to each other for personal gain.  That's historically demonstrable.  Christianity not only acknowledges that, but it's part of our doctrine in the first place.

Also you're making a huge generalization about all Atheists when you bring Hitchens or Dawkins into this.  Not all Atheists think as militantly as they do.  It's no better than comparing all theists to the Westbro Baptist Church.

Bravo!  I was wondering if anyone was bright enough to catch that one.  I wholeheartedly agree with you.

It is, however, true that Hitchens, Dawkins, Mahr and such, are the ones that get the airtime, get their movies made and get their books published and promoted.  I'm well aware that their views are far from representative of all atheists.  Regardless of whether they represent the "loudmouth moron fringe" of atheism or not, they end up being the de facto face of atheism to non-atheists.  It's kind of like how the snake-oil salesmen charlatan televangelists and the "don't confuse me with facts" creation science types end up representing Christianity to everyone else.  It's the nature of media that the sane get drown out by the shouts of the not-so-much.

BTW:  "Westboro"