Group Preparing to Press Military for Atheist Chaplain

originally posted by: windword
a reply to: NavyDoc

NO! I HAVE proved my point. You have not.

The confidentiality enjoyed in a religious capacity is NOT the same as in a psychological setting. PERIOD!

HIPPA laws and those that govern the military clergy are NOT the same. To believe they are is to believe a lie.

You have continuously suggested that, your opinion, religious personnel should have access to chaplains in order to discuss matter of personal moral conflict, while atheist and agnostic personnel need nothing more than, and should be satisfied with mental health professionals to evaluate and diagnose their mental disorders. Apparently, you fail to see the disparity here!

Since the military has allowed "Humanist" as a religious choice, it only follows that a representative in the Chaplains office must be forthcoming.

And you are wrong. The assertions you made, especially that medial health records are open to anyone and used to deny promotion and assignment are wrong. You haven't proven that this is so, you provided "evidence" that actually contradicted your assertion.

You make these statements over and over again but you simply make them up without any first or even second hand knowledge or evidence of the fact and it is obvious you have zero knowledge of both HIPPA and the military.

I challenge the right of atheist to speak for the free thinkers of Deism.

Deist do not believe in organized religion but DO believe in god.
Deist can and will fight there own battles against organized religion without any help from atheist.

a reply to: NavyDoc

And you are wrong. The assertions you made, especially that medial health records are open to anyone and used to deny promotion and assignment are wrong.

NO!

You continue to put words in my mouth and misrepresent me, as well the position of those requesting a Humanist Chaplain. I never claimed that anyone had access to personnel's medical evaluations. However, psychological reviews are not treated with the same confidentiality as confessions heard by chaplains.

You're purposefully being obtuse in your assertions that psychological evaluations are the same as confession with a chaplain. They aren't the same by any stretch of the imagination and address completely different legal issues.

You're being intellectually dishonest and purposefully ignoring and dancing around the issues of the difference in the kind of service, confidentiality and the safety net provided by military clergy that is not provided by mental health professionals. You're categorizing the same services that the military provides through religious outlets, without question or scrutiny, as a mental health issue if the personnel is non religious personnel.

originally posted by: windword
a reply to: NavyDoc

And you are wrong. The assertions you made, especially that medial health records are open to anyone and used to deny promotion and assignment are wrong.

NO!

You continue to put words in my mouth and misrepresent me, as well the position of those requesting a Humanist Chaplain. I never claimed that anyone had access to personnel's medical evaluations. However, psychological reviews are not treated with the same confidentiality as confessions heard by chaplains.

You're purposefully being obtuse in your assertions that psychological evaluations are the same as confession with a chaplain. They aren't the same by any stretch of the imagination and address completely different legal issues.

You're being intellectually dishonest and purposefully ignoring and dancing around the issues of the difference in the kind of service, confidentiality and the safety net provided by military clergy that is not provided by mental health professionals. You're categorizing the same services that the military provides through religious outlets, without question or scrutiny, as a mental health issue if the personnel is non religious personnel.

No, you, sir are being ignorant and your problem is, that your lack of knowledge and understanding and a lack of integrity causes you to trip up over and over again.

I didn't put any words in your mouth, I quoted you verbatim, several times and pointed out that you were speaking from ignorance and you were incorrect.

Here, let me quote you again:

A person's psychological profile can be accessed and scrutinized by other personnel. It can be used for or against them in reviews for promotions, assignments and in criminal procedures.

This is wrong. This is incorrect. This doesn't happen. I've said it over and over again and you have never presented any official evidence other than "I believe it to be so therefore it must be so even when a guy who has been in the system for 25 years is telling me differently." I thought blind faith was something those superstitious Christians do? Are you deaf or are you stupid?

You've been wrong so many times in this thread:

According to you and your limited Christian view.

Not even close.

And, YES, a service man or woman can just walk into a medical facility and see a psychologist without an appointment?
I don't believe that.

Again, untrue and you think that way, not because of evidence or experience, but because of BELIEF! LOL. You've used "I don't believe that" quite a bit in this thread which is ironic from someone who makes fun of what other people blindly believe.

Over and over again, you say "I don't believe that" when confronted with evidence (that you provided yourself BTW) and more than one person who actually were in the system when you were not in a single #ing minute.

When caught, you change your story and your terms or outright ignore it and then go off on another tangent of irrational belief without evidence.

Belief? Is that what atheism is degrading into? Irrational, evidence less belief?

I tell you what. You leave the military alone and we'll still protect you when you get afraid of the dark, okay?

a reply to: NavyDoc

While I agree with a lot of what you are saying Doc
This speaks volumes to me in what windword is trying to get across

You're categorizing the same services that the military provides through religious outlets, without question or scrutiny, as a mental health issue if the personnel is non religious personnel.

You can go back to page one and see that I agree this might be going to far.
But this is an angle that I didn't think about.
You know that the military is a small world, and word spreads fast.
I only have 6 years experience with the military, but in that short time I saw that mental illness is not treated very well in the military... Maybe I didn't get a big enough picture of it but that is what I saw.
I am not sure I can say that mental health issues are met with no question or scrutiny.
Especially when you have to tell them what med's your on( which will be the shrinks first answer IMO) or when you have to go see the shrink.
Those are not met without question or scrutiny IMO.
While if you want to go see the chaplin you can practically drop what you are doing and go see him/ her.

a reply to: NavyDoc

This is wrong. This is incorrect. This doesn't happen.

So, you're telling me that a person's psychological evaluation and diagnosis has no bearing on assignments, promotions etc?

So a person who has disclosed suicidal tendencies or criminality to a military psychologist can feel safe in knowing that no action will be taken to protect themselves or others, and that their secret is safe?

So, a person who confesses spousal abuse, rape or suicidal thoughts to a military chaplain can expect the MP's to come a knockin?

Is this what you're telling me?

Over and over again, you say "I don't believe that" when confronted with evidence

What evidence? You have provided no evidence that HIPPA laws are the same as those laws that protect military chaplain confessions, as you have asserted.

a reply to: Sremmos80

Thank you! Yes, that's what I'm trying to say. It feels like I've been talking to a brick wall!

originally posted by: Sremmos80
a reply to: NavyDoc

While I agree with a lot of what you are saying Doc
This speaks volumes to me in what windword is trying to get across

You're categorizing the same services that the military provides through religious outlets, without question or scrutiny, as a mental health issue if the personnel is non religious personnel.

You can go back to page one and see that I agree this might be going to far.
But this is an angle that I didn't think about.
You know that the military is a small world, and word spreads fast.
I only have 6 years experience with the military, but in that short time I saw that mental illness is not treated very well in the military... Maybe I didn't get a big enough picture of it but that is what I saw.
I am not sure I can say that mental health issues are met with no question or scrutiny.
Especially when you have to tell them what med's your on( which will be the shrinks first answer IMO) or when you have to go see the shrink.
Those are not met without question or scrutiny IMO.
While if you want to go see the chaplin you can practically drop what you are doing and go see him/ her.

I don't know what to tell you. The DOD encoded protection of mental health counseling over a decade ago to keep in compliance with federal law to ensure that people could go to the shrink without question or scrutiny and mental health counseling is just as secure as religious counseling with the exemption of danger to health and others.

If you are talking about perception or scuttlebutt--there is no system that can stop that. The guy who seeks counseling from a chaplain will get just as much notice as one who seeks counseling from a shrink, even more so if the guy never goes to see the chaplain but suddenly starts to. Nobody will notice if holy Joe hangs out with the Christian chaplain all the time but everyone will notice if atheist Joe starts hanging out with an atheist/humanist chaplain. Why? Because there is no atheist or humanist ritual. There is no regular meetings. If one wants strict confidence and privacy, creating an "atheist/humanist chaplain" will do the opposite--it will bring more attention to members because they would have no reason to go to them unless they had something bothering them unlike religious folks who regularly go to chaplains for religious ministry.

In Iraq and Afghanistan we implemented 24/7, confidential, no questions asked, mental health "stress shacks" for the very reasons WinWord is going on about. Everything he said is untrue--you can get 24/7, no questions asked, confidential, counseling by mental health professionals without command notification. The only exception being danger to self or others because that is a life and death issue and guess what, if you went to a chaplain and said things that he believed made you a danger to yourself and/or others, he'd get you professional help immediately--that's what they are trained to do in such situations so at the end of it all, there is no difference.

What annoys me is someone who has never been in or done anything in the subject is lecturing someone who has. I'm certain you get annoyed at people who have never done your job but insist on telling you how to do it, yes?

a reply to: NavyDoc

This a about a recognized group of individuals, who call themselves Secular Humanists, asking for and seeking representation in the Chaplains' Offices, because they feel that their needs are not being met.

You, in your infinite wisdom, are telling me, and everyone else, that you know better and that these individuals' requests should be ignored because they're "trouble makers" and "attention seekers" and their needs are adequately being met by the existing, mostly Christian chaplains.

a reply to: NavyDoc

If you are talking about perception or scuttlebutt--there is no system that can stop that.

Does that include all the systems meant to keep everything confidential?

And when word does finally come out, what sounds better?
PFC jones went to see the chaplin end of story, or went to see the shrink end of stroy?
The stigma with going to see the shrink is much worse then seeing the chaplin, but that is a society thing as a whole, not limited to the military.

originally posted by: windword
a reply to: NavyDoc

This is wrong. This is incorrect. This doesn't happen.

So, you're telling me that a person's psychological evaluation and diagnosis has no bearing on assignments, promotions etc?

So a person who has disclosed suicidal tendencies or criminality to a military psychologist can feel safe in knowing that no action will be taken to protect themselves or others, and that their secret is safe?

So, a person who confesses spousal abuse, rape or suicidal thoughts to a military chaplain can expect the MP's to come a knockin?

Is this what you're telling me?

Over and over again, you say "I don't believe that" when confronted with evidence

What evidence? You have provided no evidence that HIPPA laws are the same as those laws that protect military chaplain confessions, as you have asserted.

I have. I even used your citations you provided. You just simple choose to ignore them.

See again, when caught in a falsehood, you change the parameters of the situation. My what a dishonest person. You obviously know nothing of medicine or the military and usually ignorance is forgivable but it is obviously willful ignorance.

Here is how it is--

2.1. General Rule. Communications between a patient and a psychotherapist or an assistant to a psychotherapist
made for the purpose of facilitating diagnosis or treatment of the patient’s mental or emotional
condition are confidential communications and shall be protected from unauthorized disclosure.
However, confidential communications will be disclosed to persons or agencies with a proper and
legitimate need for the information and who are authorized by law or regulation to receive it, unless
the evidentiary privilege described in paragraphs 2.2. through 2.5. applies

This evidentiary rule provides a patient has a privilege to refuse to
disclose and to prevent any other person from disclosing a confidential communication made between
the patient and a psychotherapist or an assistant to the psychotherapist, in a case arising under the
UCMJ, if such communication was made for the purpose of facilitating diagnosis or treatment of the
patient's mental or emotional condition.

when a psychotherapist or assistant to a psychotherapist believes that a patient's mental or
emotional condition makes the patient a danger to any person, including the patient

What does all of this legalese say? Just what I've been saying all along, that the mental health communication is confidential with the exception of danger to self and others. If more is needed, say for a trial, then the court has to subpoena the counselor and have a warrant for records.

The same rules apply to a Chaplain: if you are a danger to self and others, he's going to get you help, just like a shrink would. If there is an investigation and a court case, they can subpoena the chaplain and have him testify (there is one notable exception, can you guess what it is?)

So guess what. If you are depressed or having marital problems, neither the chaplain nor the shrink is going to contact your command. (Yes, I know you don't have a clue about what a "command" is or "chain of command") and your CO isn't going to get to have access to your medical records, even mental health ones so the records are not nor will be used for promotion or assignment. You got that wrong, several times now.

The CO can't even know what your diagnosis is. The only thing he gets to know is if you are coming back to duty or not and if so, what sort of restrictions you have. That's it. He doesn't get to know what meds you are on, he doesn't get to know what your diagnosis is, and he certainly doesn't get to peruse your medical records.

originally posted by: windword
a reply to: NavyDoc

This a about a recognized group of individuals, who call themselves Secular Humanists, asking for and seeking representation in the Chaplains' Offices, because they feel that their needs are not being met.

You, in your infinite wisdom, are telling me, and everyone else, that you know better and that these individuals' requests should be ignored because they're "trouble makers" and "attention seekers" and their needs are adequately being met by the existing, mostly Christian chaplains.

And yet, neither you nor those people (a small group with a political agenda, not "the troops") have been able to explain exactly what needs are not being met that are not already covered and exactly how having this mythological creature known as a "humanist chaplain" will meet those needs nor how one qualifies as one in the first place.

"Barf?" What are you, 12? And you in your complete ignorance of the military, healthcare, and what is and isn't provided have the temerity to tell us in the system what we can or cannot do or what needs are met? Talk of speaking from an ignorant position.

As another person in the thread stated, there are over 110 "religions" recognized by the services. There are not nor can there be 110 different chaplain designations. It is not practicable nor feasible. Given that the vast majority of atheists in the service are perfectly fine without needing an imaginary chaplain to hold their hand and don't see the need for this silliness, then if we are to add a chaplain designation, it should be to cover a larger amount of people who actually want it--wiccan, or Norse Pagan, or something along those lines.

originally posted by: Sremmos80
a reply to: NavyDoc

If you are talking about perception or scuttlebutt--there is no system that can stop that.

Does that include all the systems meant to keep everything confidential?

And when word does finally come out, what sounds better?
PFC jones went to see the chaplin end of story, or went to see the shrink end of stroy?
The stigma with going to see the shrink is much worse then seeing the chaplin, but that is a society thing as a whole, not limited to the military.

But is it? Given the increasing dislike for organized religion and secularization of society, that really does not hold that true anymore. With recent news of sexual scandals and molestation in the clergy, going to the chaplain is becoming considered "creepy" is many younger circles. Check out the comic "Terminal Lance" where the "creepy chaplain" is only made fun of. It is the most popular comic in the Marine Corps.

a reply to: NavyDoc

Oh yes, seen many terminal lance comic's.
Favorite one is about why everyone smokes in the military ( the short term benefit of smoke breaks outweighs the long term affects of smoking is the gist of it)
Again, I am just going off of my short time in the corps, like i had said, maybe I didn't get a big enough picture.
But the picture I got was religion was treated much differently then mental illness.
Seems the rumors that got out were always about the people that went and saw the shrink, no mention of the ones that visited the chaplin.

originally posted by: Sremmos80
a reply to: NavyDoc

Oh yes, seen many terminal lance comic's.
Favorite one is about why everyone smokes in the military ( the short term benefit of smoke breaks outweighs the long term affects of smoking is the gist of it)
Again, I am just going off of my short time in the corps, like i had said, maybe I didn't get a big enough picture.
But the picture I got was religion was treated much differently then mental illness.
Seems the rumors that got out were always about the people that went and saw the shrink, no mention of the ones that visited the chaplin.

I started out as an O311 and even now, decades later, Terminal Lance makes me laugh, probably because things haven't changed much in the last 20, 30, or 100 years. A grunt is a grunt is a grunt.

a reply to: NavyDoc

2.1. General Rule. Communications between a patient and a psychotherapist or an assistant to a psychotherapist made for the purpose of facilitating diagnosis or treatment of the patient’s mental or emotional condition are confidential communications and shall be protected from unauthorized disclosure. However, confidential communications will be disclosed to persons or agencies with a proper and legitimate need for the information and who are authorized by law or regulation to receive it, unless the evidentiary privilege described in paragraphs 2.2. through 2.5. applies

See? Not so secure after all............

This evidentiary rule provides a patient has a privilege to refuse to disclose and to prevent any other person from disclosing a confidential communication made between the patient and a psychotherapist or an assistant to the psychotherapist, in a case arising under the
UCMJ, if such communication was made for the purpose of facilitating diagnosis or treatment of the patient's mental or emotional condition.

This ^^ simply states that a service members isn't compelled to disclose confidential information to a psychologist.

when a psychotherapist or assistant to a psychotherapist believes that a patient's mental or emotional condition makes the patient a danger to any person, including the patient

This is exactly what I have been saying all along! Confidential confessions to a psychologist are not necessarily protected communications.

The same rules apply to a Chaplain: if you are a danger to self and others, he's going to get you help, just like a shrink would. If there is an investigation and a court case, they can subpoena the chaplain and have him testify (there is one notable exception, can you guess what it is?)

Nope......

^^ This is what YOU say. Prove it! Do you have a citation for this information? This is why my first post in this thread was a question.

Is a chaplain required to keep records of the concerns and confessions of service men and women? Are they required to report when a soldier states they want to "end it all" or asked forgiveness for beating their wife and children? Is a chaplain required to log and report confessions of rape or civilian murder?

According to my understanding and what I've read, the answer is "NO".

By law, psychologists are required to keep records, diagnose, evaluate and make recommendations, that are accessible to others under certain situations. They are also required by law to report certain behaviors and concerns.

Clergy are not required to keep records or make judgments, evaluations or recommendations when to comes to service men and women's concerns. They are forbidden to breach the confidentiality of the service member that they are serving.

As communications with a chaplain are confidential, information exchanged with a chaplain during a counseling session is considered privileged and is therefore protected under law. The Army, Air Force, Navy and Marine Corps all have the same rules about confidentiality: everything is confidential. The legal term is “privileged communication,” which means that it is a service member’s right to decide whether a chaplain can reveal what has been discussed. Without permission, the chaplain must maintain the confidence.
www.realwarriors.net...

So, to sum it up, religious service members have access to intimate counseling through the Chaplain's Office that is guaranteed to be confidential while non-religious service men and women do not enjoy that guaranteed benefit, and their confessions and concerns become "medical records" that are available to others on a "need to know" basis. This is a disparity that concerned "Secular Humanist" service men and women are asking to be addresses through the Chaplain's Office.

What's the big deal? Why does this bother you so much?

See again, when caught in a falsehood, you change the parameters of the situation. My what a dishonest person.

Now you're calling me a liar? What falsehood have I conveyed? You keep proving my point and failing to prove your own!

They do realize that Atheism is not really a religion don't they?.

Since they do not recognize a deity, who or what are they going to pray to or whatever it is they are going to do?.

I obviously don't understand I don't think.

Or is it actually as confusing as it seems?.

An Atheist Chaplain?.

I had no idea athiest believed in an afterlife and were spiritual, spiritual, it what sense?

a reply to: MyHappyDogShiner

This issue isn't necessarily about "Atheism" but about Secular Humanism, of which some, but not all atheists align.

What do secular humanists believe?

Secular humanists believe that this is the only life of which we have certain knowledge and that we owe it to ourselves and others to make it the best life possible for ourselves and all with whom we share this fragile planet.
We believe that human beings have made society what it is - the good and the bad.
We find no evidence for supernatural causes of, or remedies for, humankind's condition.
We believe that people are best able to solve this world's problems when they are free to use reason and knowledge as their tools.
We recognize these realities:
Humankind has, over the millennia, evolved codes of moral and ethical conduct necessary for survival of the individual and the species.
Also, over the millennia, humankind has created deities (gods) to account for the natural world and devised mysteries and myths to assuage the fear of death by promising immortality.
These gods and myths evolved into a variety of religions, which selectively adopted elements of society's evolving codes of conduct and claimed for those codes some form of supernatural or divine-origin.
These religions have provided (and still provide) the rationale for compassionate behavior but also for hatred, bigotry, and brutal inquisitions, wars, crusades, pogroms, and holocausts causing untold misery and countless millions of deaths

www.humanistsociety.org...

a reply to: FlyersFan

more detestable crap from assholes without a cause that waste resources and time on non issues only important to them....so they can "stick it to religion".

keep pushing.

Eventually you will be pushed back.

a reply to: Stormdancer777

I don't believe in a God or gods, but I believe in reincarnation and that we are all spiritual beings having a physical experience. I believe in a spiritual hierarchy, guides and even spiritual masters, but I don't believe in one god that created and oversees everything, or in a heavenly reward or hell as a punishment.