Emphasis mine. In other words, "our master's degree level educated chaplains are confused by too long of a list".
We know what you are really doing and would appreciate more effort in these BS memos.
That it is also a Christian pejorative term is irrelevant to the former DoD list.
The religion list doesn't mean that much. The religious respect requirements for the armed forces are codified in law; the DoD can't alter them.
No doubt there are other concrete effects that are buried in reams of DoD policy.
However, the message being sent is far clearer. Expect that the goal is to pare down the current list even further in due time.
(explanation: https://www.fpcmarion.org/2024/04/die-heretic/ )
There's also this: https://theonion.com/various-deities-still-sorting-through-v...
Can be quite funny, though.
Howveer, when knowing what should be in the list, there is the question of what the information is used for, in order to know what divisions are helpful for this purpose.
Technically true but I don't see the word used like that much.
That’s what was officially on my docs, the whole time while in the Air Force
Athiesm continues to not be a religion despite religious people trying to make it stick
Like…leave the religion off the dog tag and that communicates enough right? What’s there to recognize?
I’m super not trying to be antagonistic. I’m trying to understand why an atheist would be upset by this.
If you elect not to go to a religious service, you typically have to keep doing whatever you are doing. Atheists or other less organized religions should be treated equally under the law. If a Christian gets a 90 minute religious service, an atheist should also get 90 minutes to do whatever they want.
You also see this reflected with something like The Satanic Temple advocating for human rights under the guise of religion.
In my opinion, religious organizations should not have any more rights or privileges than businesses.
I am curious how the variety of faith based practices could be handled…I’m super on board with providing a universal spiritual/mental health space regardless of your affiliation. That gets very weird when you start having to account for the variety of schedules and practices.
I am pretty sure I disagree on religious orgs having no more rights than a business. I think that seriously under accounts for the degree of identity that folks get from their religious affiliations and the types of activities businesses and religious groups tend to do.
A business and religious group are pretty fundamentally different…I’d have to reflect a lot longer and harder to come up with a more stable and coherent stance on that. I can definitely think of valid arguments on either side.
This is what was happening in the Army's Chaplain Corps[1] prior to this administration: Seeking to emphasize and credential Chaplains as mental health specialists in an organization with a consistent track record of personnel with pervasive mental health problems.
It seems that has all been scrapped and we're going to fix mental health problems with "good ol' religion".
[1]: I can't speak for the other services but probably the same.
It being a "list of religions" is just a semantic distraction, like saying "bald" shouldn't be on a list of hair colors.
FFS there is no such thing as "of war". It's still "of defense" until Congress actually passes a bill.
As for the rest of that topic... yeah. Fits the expectations one has these days when thinking about "how can the US Administration screw up the lives of anyone not fitting into the world view the average Fox News audience can squish in their brains".
It absolutely is a hill to die on, because that is how fascism always starts and escalates. It's "tiny" and "petty" stuff that gets done first - think of the "Gulf of Mexico" renaming - and when that does not provoke meaningful resistance, the fascists see that as a sign to tighten the ratchet. And rather sooner than later, we see the East Wing of the White House torn down, dozens of people dead in ICE custody and Trump creating slush funds worth billions of dollars.
Also one small potentially controversial decision here that I find amusing in a narcissism of small differences kind of way, Mormons aren't considered Christian according to this list.
Another comment mentions that the rejection of the Nicene Creed does not seem to be the distinction.
I had thought that it is because they have the Book of Mormon, although that is unclear. Orthodox have additional books of the Bible that Catholics do not have, but are still Christian. (Although, I think the additional books that the Orthodox have are still a part of the Bible, and Book of Mormon is different.)
Something that I had heard is that it is because Mormons use a different baptism, which is not Trinitarian. However, it seems that it is Trinitarian, although this trinity is different from that of Christians (even though they still say "the Father", "the Son", and "the Holy Spirit").
Quakers (which are listed as Christian) also apparently do not use baptism (and reject other sacraments as well). Although the Religious Society of Friends is Christian, they do have differences and not all Quakers are necessarily Christian (or necessarily theists).
So, I don't know.
All mainstream Christian denominations are branches of that original church. Some may see each other heretical, but they still acknowledge the common heritage. If you now have a religion that takes some aspects of Christianity, adds something of its own, and rejects the part all those schismatic branches agree on, it does not look like you are a branch of that "one holy catholic apostolic church".
The same applies to Jehovah's Witnesses.
As another comment mentioned, "and yet Jehovah's Witnesses are denoted on the list as a Christian faith".
So are Quakers (also denoted on the list as Christian), which (as far as I can tell) have no creed ; and, furthermore, although the Religious Society of Friends is Christian, not all Quakers are necessarily Christian (there are people of other religions as well, as well as those of no religion).
This does not seem to be specific to the DoD list; I have seen this in other lists as well.
Not at all complicated, you don't get to add another book to the bible and claim to be the same religion.
I grew up in a very liberal christian church. Their take on mormons was "really nice people .. still heretics". Obviously there are bigger problems out there.
(Nevertheless it is the reason I had thought of too (many years ago), although other people have cited different reasons.)
The Book of Mormon postulates some fantasy world perhaps not unlike Middle Earth? And also weird theological stuff from 19th century science-fiction? Sorry, that is a different religion.
[0] expect for the last book of revelations of the future.
Obviously it's a free country, so they can say whatever they want.
The Council of Trent (1545–1563) - explicitly laid out the 73-book canon for the Catholic Church
Council of Rome (382)
Synod of Hippo (393)
The two of the Councils of Carthage (397 and 419 respectively)
Council of Florence (1431–1449)
None of that remotely resembles the Book of Mormon, so honestly you are just really shitty at whatever you are trying to do.
Baptism does not mean water baptism exclusively.[3] What other sacraments did the Nicene creed mention?
The purpose of the new list was to exclude many groups. Christian Quakers exist does not mean non Christian Quakers do not exist. And the category was copied from an older list without much thought plausibly.
[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Trinity
[2] https://www.churchofjesuschrist.org/comeuntochrist/article/d...
[3] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Baptism_with_the_Holy_Spirit
I had not heard that so I looked it up:
-----------
Catholic baptism:
“I baptize you in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Spirit.” The matter is the water poured over the head of the recipient. Traditionally, the one being baptized has water poured over them or is fully emerged in water three times.
Source: https://ascensionpress.com/blogs/articles/the-ultimate-guide...
(Some) Protestant baptism:
Each candidate is presented by name to the Celebrant, or to an assisting priest or deacon, who then immerses, or pours water upon, the candidate, saying
N., I baptize you in the Name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Spirit. Amen.
Source: https://www.bcponline.org/Baptism/holybaptism.html
(Some groups do it differently, but this seems to be common.)
Mormon baptism:
73 The person who is called of God and has authority from Jesus Christ to baptize, shall go down into the water with the person who has presented himself or herself for baptism, and shall say, calling him or her by name: Having been commissioned of Jesus Christ, I baptize you in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost. Amen.
74 Then shall he immerse him or her in the water, and come forth again out of the water.
Source: https://www.churchofjesuschrist.org/study/scriptures/dc-test...
-----------
I am not an expert, but they all seem mostly the same to me?
From the beginning of the Assemblies of God, prophecy has been affirmed as a spiritual gift for the Church today. Since the Day of Pentecost, the Church has functioned as a prophetic community. Any Spirit-filled believer may prophesy while discernment and judgment of prophecy belong to the full body of Christ.
( no vested interest here, I've got Wagyl riding shotgun on the stagecoach of my life )
[note 1] https://www.merriam-webster.com/grammar/tenant-vs-tenet-diff...