http://forumserver.twoplustwo.com/13...s-will-985274/

Full PDF here: http://servicewomen.org/wp-content/u...Litigation.pdf

I suppose if you want to use this to mock religion, I suppose it's not likely that you'll be stopped. But upon consideration of the larger picture, it's a small, petty victory.

pics or gtfo. seriously though do we need two threads on this?

Maybe he started the thread in another forum and mod moved it here.

I say lock this one up.

I don't think you get Aaron's point.

Addressing Aaron--I agree with rizeagainst: while obviously there are more serious issues in this case than the chaplain's response, on a forum about religion, that is the relevant issue. I don't know that it says anything larger about religion as a whole (do pastors or chaplains commonly minimize rape in this way?--I don't know), but that doesn't mean that the chaplain should be condemned for saying this, if in fact he did so. Also, any military chaplain that could think this would be the proper response is clearly unqualified, and so I wonder if this is a sign of a more serious problem in how chaplains are trained or how they view their jobs.

s/b "but that doesn't mean that that the chaplain shouldn't be condemned for saying this."

I assume my insertion is what you intended.

I certainly don't disagree that if the characterization of the chaplain's advice is accurate that there are serious issues about it which need to be addressed.(I'm not particularly convinced of the accuracy of the reporting on this incident, especially with the relatively low quantity of detail given elsewhere in the report and the fact that apparently this is at a low enough level of interest that the chaplain is not being pursued as a part of the lawsuit -- I have no doubt that testimony will be heard regarding the assaults, but I'm skeptical that there will be testimony heard regarding the chaplain. I would not be at all surprised to discover that the anecdote has been amplified for effect.)

I also don't think that there's any reason not to discuss that aspect of it as if it's an important issue. If one is going to take the role of a counselor (of any type -- not just as a "chaplain"), it is important that the counselor be properly trained. And if there is a systematic issue that is as bad as the systematic issue of how sexual assault is handled, it is a big deal.

The association to "religion" is obvious, but the blame of "religion" is not. In particular, it's not at all clear which religion is involved, nor has the argument been made that this particular theological point is consistent with the unknown religious perspective (How could it be if we don't know what it is?). I do not deny that religion provided the language of "God's will" but the advice could well have been "S*** happens. Get over it." (And given the other reporting in the document, this would not seem particularly out of line.)

But, as I said, if the purpose is to simply mock religion, rize et al are free to take this incident and do so. They're not likely to be stopped, nor would it be likely that such a stoppage is appropriate. However, it's also important not to get so wrapped up the enjoyment of those couple sentences that one loses sight on the actual reason that this is being brought forth.

As is the case in theology, a position built around a sentence taken in isolation of its context should be given less credit and less importance than concepts that are repeatedly expressed in multiple places.

By the way, it's worth noting that "S*** happens" is a position that is consistent with a naturalistic or humanistic philosophy. Do we blame those philosophies for reaching that conclusion?

Not to derail from this thread's point, but employing the unqualified seems the main area of culpability for the military.

So if the military didn't employ chaplains at all, where's the culpability?

Do you think it's harmful conclusion?

I hesitate to get involved with this topic, but it could easily be as harmful a response as the chaplain's. Either response could be some kind of comfort I guess, but both are (unless you know the person really well) insensitive, unsympathetic and fraught with potential for harm, given the issue she's coming to you about.

Which you find worse probably depends on which you consider to be the more accurate statement.

This is a religion, god and theology forum...not a forum for discussing stoneage gender discrimination and the sexual offender inclinations of specific members in the American armed forces...so that is why the focus was on the Chaplain.

However, to comment further upon this...the chaplain's action are horrible. Little is more important in the battle against rape than the will to take women who have experienced such things seriously, or else you risk making a culture where rape is not reported and maybe even accepted.

People like this Chaplain stands in the way for solving a serious problem. As far as I'm concerned, he just as bad as the rapist.

If you were raped AaronW, how would you feel if the first person you dare tell this to would simply note that it is "God's will"?

The chaplain could be making the same mistake rize is. He over generalizes.

People tend to frame Christian theology as an either/or. Either its all free will or its all reformed when the truth is a lot of things in theology and about God are paradoxical.

While God rules the world there's nothing to prove he motivates evil actions. God could have allowed a temporary condition in which we become knowledgable of our own evil so we are able to leave it permanently and voluntarily in the future. As Christ says "the only good one is God."

I agree with pretty much everything you say here, although I will note that your title is misleading as to your true position since you don't seem to view the chaplain's actions as simply a matter of "straining the gnat," but as potentially a "big deal."

As for whether we'll ever know, I think that regardless of whether the chaplain is part of the suit the military should investigate the matter more fully and perhaps provide additional(?) training to chaplains (and officers more generally) on how to respond to victims and perpetrators of sexual crimes. Outrage on the part of citizens is the proper response until then.

As for rizeagainst and others using this as an opportunity to mock religion, there isn't much you can do to stop that.

I don't get your point. The military does employ chaplains. The problem I have is not with the idea of military chaplains, but with the purported actions of this specific chaplain. It is certainly possible for the military to use chaplains that would respond appropriately to sexual assault.

The issue of whether the military should have chaplains is a mostly unrelated issue.

Also, I don't think that the hiring practices of the military is the only issue here. I'm also concerned that this incident is a sign of a general culture of permissiveness towards sexual assault or sexism in the military.

This is a pretty ridiculous comparison. The purported actions of the chaplain constitute part of a systematic professional and personal betrayal of a person who has agreed to serve her country by placing herself at risk of death. Rizeagainst overgeneralizes in the manner that almost everyone (definitely including you) does on internet forums. Whenever you make this accusation that atheists, or New Atheists, or particular posters overgeneralize about Christians, you expose yourself as a hypocrite, as you continually push false assumptions and incorrect generalizations about atheists.

It is true that Christian theology has developed many ways to try to avoid this conclusion. However, it is questionable whether any of these attempts to make God not culpable for the evils of this world are successful.

...

The size of the deal of an ill-informed counselor is small relative to the size of the deal of the events that lead up to the counseling. On the one hand, you have a large corpus of evidence that points to a systematic problem, and on the other hand you have two sentences about a chaplain's poor counseling skills.

I agree. I don't expect it to stop. So I'm just taking the opportunity to point out how silly it looks to those who are paying attention.

I'd shrug the person off as if he's ignorant or insensitive, and I'm not sure whether I'd take the time to figure out which one it is.

The phrasing of "God's will" is about as nebulous in the minds of many Christians as "the pursuit of happiness" is in the minds of many Americans. People see it meaning different things at different times (sometimes in a systematic and consistent way, sometimes not), and so that language doesn't always convey the same ideas to different people.

However, there is a difference between "simply noting" that this is "God's will" and using that phrase during the conversation. Given the circumstances, I think it's clear that the chaplain used the phrase *somewhere* during the time of counseling, but it's not clear how exactly that language was used. For example, it could well have been that the chaplain was already doing a crappy job at counseling, the woman was getting agitated because of her frustration, and at some point he mentioned "God's will" and that set everything off. Or it's possible that he just "simply noted" it.

So I hesitate to attribute that level of callousness on the part of the chaplain, but I also admit that it's entirely possible. The absence of information, I believe, should prevent us from trying to draw too specific a conclusion on the nature of this individual's counseling, and too broad a conclusion on the general nature of "religion."

"Harmful conclusion"? Not really.

I think that the conclusion (from both a naturalistic philosophy and a theological position) is true. It's not the conclusion itself that's harmful, but it's the use of the conclusion in a manner that does not edify the other person that is harmful. The Christian phrasing is "speaking the truth in love." It's not sufficient simply to speak truth, but it must be done in a way that is respectful to and caring about the person you're speaking to. Simply being right is not sufficient.

Nothing really to add, just wanted to note I misread the title as swallowing the came. That is all.

You have it backwards. We (or well, some of us atleast) don't use inductive logic and conclude religion is BS because of what this chaplain does.

What this chaplain does is merely the natural implication of religious justification for ethics.

The only reason this is even debated is because it is controversial. If it was about some ethical justifications most Christians could agree on, eyebrows wouldn't even be lifted. Now however, convoluted arguments as to why this example should not apply or accusations towards the politicial biased behinds its application (like your OP) is probably shoveled up in spades.

Seriously?

Yes, this goes in the same category as every other deragatory comment where one tries to blame the victim instead of the offender. "She had it coming because of the way she dressed", "She shouldn't have walked home alone", "She should have gone to church more". It is a cliche, but it is true that rape is rarely about sexual attraction or sinful behavior on the victim's part - it is about power; it has nothing to do with "asking for it". It is not uncommon for female (assault) rape victims to be 70+ years old, and that's because this makes them helpless against the offender.

It is also funny to see how these views are almost exclusive towards women being raped. It is usually just poorly dressed up gender discrimination. I can't prove it because it is always kept out of sight in cases like this, but I'm pretty damn certain this guy would never use this argument towards a man who had been raped by another man.

These kinds of views ultimately all tend to boil to the same thing; they are based on an implied acceptance of women being raped. Not that anyone would ever admit it, but it's there allright.

So yeah, I find him to be just as bad...and in some aspects worse, because people like him actually have the power to stop rapes from happening. Now a bunch of rapists can relax because God is on their side, punishing sinners who ask for it.

I think the problem here is with religious people who insist that both (1) God is personal and intervenes in human affairs and (2) God is worthy of worship. That tension, of course, is what creates the problem of evil, but it also is what gets people to start believing that bad things reflect God's desire and thus must actually be good in some sense.

And if people would grow up and give up the idea that the creator of the universe gives a crap about their pathetic existences, we wouldn't see this sort of thinking-- which is both harmful and offensive-- rise its ugly head.

So yeah, it counts as a harmful effect of religion-- at least the forms of it that are egotistical enough to assert that we are important to God.

Yes

And that is redundant.