Religion

Cadets The Crew Room
61

I agree entirely. In fact, I was going to suggest that the post of wing chaplain could be retained as an advisor but your point about local services being available is every bit as valid at every level of this organisation.

Even at Corps level: while we could retain a Corps chaplain (wouldn’t we also want a corps rabbi, corps imam etc.), if only in an advisory capacity, we could equally seek the advice of specific faithy organisations on an ad-hoc basis if such advice was ever required.

(I have just noticed that this thread is in the Crew Room - cadets only! We really aren’t very good with maintaining that separation, are we?)

62

[quote=“incubus” post=23597]
Even at Corps level: while we could retain a Corps chaplain (wouldn’t we also want a corps rabbi, corps imam etc.), if only in an advisory capacity, we could equally seek the advice of specific faithy organisations on an ad-hoc basis if such advice was ever required.[/quote]

to quote wikipedia

ie a “Chaplain” is by definition not of one religion to need a Rabbi/Imam etc)

as a regualr attendee at RIAT (and for the full two week period) I would argue that the role of a padre is where i see the benefit most.

with 700+ Cadets on site there are bound to be odd balls who miss home, or simply dont get on with their friends. in other cases family bereavement has been learnt while away and in these cases and others the 5 strong padre team are a [pun not intended] a God send to pick up these cases.

padres (in my experience Christians but I know of others about in my travels through the Corps) are trained in some form to deal with being that shoulder to cry on, the ear to rant at or simply be someone to talk to…and in all cases do a far better job than I could any day of the week.

the loss of Padres to the Corps would be noticed by me and the rest of the RIAT Staff team immediately (or at least during the weeks in July) as a separate branch of the Staff team which are specialist in their area in much the same way SNCOs and Officers have their own skills and talents.
Although I dont know of any examples (which arguably is how it should be) there are bound to be examples more locally at unit level where a Padre has been the chosen person to speak to…personally I feel it would be a shame to loss Padres and their identity

disclaimer I am not indicating I approve of the bible bashing padres out there, simply the pastoral care aspect that they provide

63

I know, but the vast majority are some sort of christian and I wanted to emphasize the requirement to seek the perspective from a wide range of different beliefs.

I’d be surprised if normal staff aren’t every bit as capable of dealing with these situations - what you#'ll find is that the padre gets to handle it because they are there because someone thought they needed a padre in case there was something like this.

There may be a case for making arrangements with a local chaplain or other cleric to be on call (assuming that you don’t have CIs who happened to have those skills) should someone particularly need their services but for the vast majority of the time, at both units and camps,we don’t need dedicated chaplains.

64

The problem with cadets talking to staff do they have an assurance of the same confidentiality and or non judgemental ‘trained ear’?
There is also the time factor, how much time could or would you give a cadet in need of a “shoulder to cry on”. Would they feel comfortable confiding in one of us? I had a cadet several years ago who came to me after having problems at home and I suggested they speak to the padre, which they agreed to. The Padre came down and spoke to them that night for about 1½ hours and arranged to meet with them separate to that. They put them into contact with a couple of groups and external agencies. The cadet thanked me later for pointing them in the direction of the padre. I knew that I definitely didn’t have the time to talk with them properly and wouldn’t have the first clue about groyps or external agencies in terms of what’s available or who to contact. I’ve never known the exact nature of the problems they had and never felt I needed to. So I can fully understand Steve’s point about having padres at RIAT, they obviously provide the pastoral support that other staff may not just have the time for regardless as to whether they have the skills or not.

The padres I have known at squadron level have never bible thumped, in fact they have avoided it on the squadron as they don’t feel it is appropriate. It didn’t stop one idiot I had as staff who tried to goad the padre all the time and failed everytime. They’ll chuck in a prayer or reference on Padre’s hour, but that for my money is only to be expected. It would be like having a WO or SNCO who didn’t try and include something to do with drill or dress whenever they did something, only if it was to give someone a rollicking. Mind you IMO SNCOs get more 'bible thumpy" and fanatical than any padre I’ve known, if you regard the various regulations/books as bibles and quoting chapter and verse, which many do, which IMO can be more tiresome than a padre doing likewise, at least with a padre it’s their job, rather than the hobbyist SNCO in the ACO.

As for drafting in local ministers, they would need clearing through the Corps.

1 Like
65

[quote=“MattB” post=23596][quote=“incubus” post=23595][quote=“MattB” post=23594]There is definitely no need for the organisation to introduce matters of faith into what we do: those who want such a thing will most likely already be finding it elsewhere. [/quote][/quote]Agreed, which is why I found the chaplain’s promise rather inappropriate.

Here’s a thought - should we have chaplains in the ATC at all?

Now, firstly I should stress that my overall opinion of the padres I have come across in my ATC career has been generally positive - they’re interesting and enthusiastic people who genuinely appear to be there for the benefit of the cadets.

But what is the point specifically in their being chaplains? The military I can understand - there are people in the forces for whom religious support is very important, and someone based at (the next equivalent of) Camp Bastion can hardly just pop to the local Church of a Sunday. But we don’t have that issue - the longest that we’re with cadets is generally for a week, during which time (a) it’s highly unlikely that they will be unable to access pastoral services somewhere and (b) it’s fairly unlikely that they’ll be on a camp with a chaplain anyway.

So the question really is what would happen if overnight all chaplains became CIs?

They could still dispense individual pastoral care where necessary - in just the same way as a CI who is a paramedic can give first aid - and they certainly wouldn’t be prevented from identifying themselves as a minister.[/quote]

One thing that appears to be overlooked is that Padre are not just there for the cadets but for the staff as well. We as staff are being asked to do more & more with less and less resources. The strain that this is putting on staff, particularly those that want to continue to deliver the same level of opportunities to cadets is immense.

Throw in work and family life and you are looking adult volunteers going ping left, right & centre as they try to maintain their sanity. I know of several units where staff teams have imploded or personalities have clashed purely because both parties are so stressed that they cannot see how to compromise.

Having a chaplain on Sqn provides that universal outlet where you have someone unbiased and independent that staff can talk and rant too knowing their confidentiality will be maintained. By providing that outlet, it gives staff the opportunity for a sanity check with no loss of face and someone to bounce ideas off about managing individuals.

How many over stretched CO would appreciate that there was someone on squadron who they could discuss staff issues with confidentially as they try to figure out how to deal that is the chaos of managing volunteers? How many squadron staff would benefit if the over-stretched CO is warned about riding their staff too hard or not thinking about the staffs reaction to a new policy decision that needs to be implemented.

Remember the chaplains are often intelligent and professionally qualified individuals, often with a background in philosophy and theology and as such are not fools or idiots regardless on how you feel about their personal beliefs. In ideal world the padre would be someone able to provide more than the once a month tick-box citizenship training to the cadets but an integrated instructor in their own right.

For example has anyone used their Padre to help deliver NCO & Leadership training particularly regarding listening and advising others?

Unfortunately, I cannot find the link on Bader but in the minutes of one of the ACMB meetings the corps padre commented on the levels of stress being felt by volunteers across the organisation (I believe he specifically mentioned a high amount of marriage/relationship breakdowns). I personally find it comforting that the very top of the organisation their is someone reminding the decision makers that what is being planned effects real people and our welfare needs to be considered when those decisions are being made.

A challenge to the above would be why not have professional counselor? However religiously motivated Padre’s tend to be more neutral and more purely motivated than pure professional counselors due to the basis for their motivation. I have also found that Padre’s tend to more interested in the individuals welfare than professional counselors are, particular as a lot of counsellors over-specialize in a dedicated type of counseling (marriage, crime victim, medical etc) rather than the general well being & mindfullness counseling of Padres.

People seem to over-focus on the religious aspects of padres which tend to result in detracting & understanding the Padres’ main role. Religion is a philosophical debate that has not been settled in over 5000 years of human history and I severely doubt it will be resolved on a web forum dedicated to the air cadet organisation (if it will be resolved anywhere, it will likely be in a pub which is where most philosophical debates take place). Some of the most religious focused individuals I know and who have tried to convert me to their way of thinking have been atheists & neither were accepting of the fact that others could have different but equally correct views of a subject (not just religion but ATC matters as well).

In summary, Padre’s are a fantastic resource but like all volunteers they need to be used properly to get the best effect & benefit. Don’t let differing religious views prevent or block you from using them for more than the mundane, but don’t allow similarity of beliefs cloud your judgement & over indulge them. Introduce them to the staff and encourage (but don’t force) the staff to speak to them and discuss matters with them and avoid matters bottling up. Nurture your padres & if you can use them in training in creative ways then do so. It will build their confidence, help interaction with the cadets/staff and allow you to use their skills that you wouldn’t necessarily be able to.

Chief Tech

p.s. {off-topic & throwing this out there for it to be considered and inwardly digested}
someone earlier referred to some of the religious teaching/stories as being fantasy or fairy stories. It is is neither of these things - it is Science Fiction. Maybe not Q from Star Trek but consider the possibility of aliens or time travel with some of the biblical stories and look where your imagination leads you. :slight_smile:

1 Like
66

What applies to cadets in so far as the occasional need for an independent ear and where they may find one applies equally to staff, as does my recommendation that we should move away from this being an expected post on each unit and one which is fulfilled exclusively by faith-based professionals.

It is unfortunate that the largest pool of people who seem to be trained in listening and consoling are those of the clergy so that is an obvious pool to draw such advisers from and we will continue to draw it so long as there is an expectation for us to do so. I am still unconvinced that we need to have this as a permanent fixture of our establishment though: I’m sure that plumbers, electricians or mechanics are needed by units at a similar frequency yet we aren’t asked to appoint a Squadron Sparky or a Squadron Plumber…

Where there is a difference between cadets and staff is that having a religious attachment to the squadron and a religious context to certain procedures is reinforcing to young people the incorrect message that religion should be a normal thing and a necessary part of society. Staff will tell you where to go; cadets will be less inclined to assert their own freedom of choice.

That is essentially the key argument: however handy a listener may be to a group of people, establishing a religious element in an organisation does a disservice to the many who reject that world-view. There is absolutely no reason for this organisation to take sides in that argument or to materially discriminate one way or another when we can so easily remove the religious veneer from our own organisation with no functional disadvantage whatsoever.

67

I feel I’ve got to challenge this I’m afraid - Staff normally have asked all the questions about life, the universe an everything[sup]1[/sup] where cadets are still going through the process of learning. We actually want them to be learning and thinking and questioning as that will help them make the decisions not just about religion but other matters including leadership helping them to think why things are done (not just because the FS said so). The cadets also have the freedom of choice to accept the religious aspect and deem it a normal & necessary part of society and if they do then that is correct because its their decision regardless of what anyone else thinks.

The religious aspect will be dealt with by the cadets in same manner as any other training we try to deliver - some will conform, some will question with tenacity and others will think it’s a load of rubbish, switch off and play along till its over (normally in the same manner to when they receive a rollocking and a lecture on how they need to improve their attitude).

At the end of the day a lot of the religious debate comes down to others not being prepared to accept other peoples view or opinions differ from their own (i.e. humans being humans) in the same way you have the constant debates over officers teaching drill, dress regs, Tate & Lyles, working parts forward on an empty magazine and all the rest of the standard debates & arguments that make up the ACO. You could even go so far that for some people the ATC is their religion with its ceremonies, fund raising events, silly hats, words and rituals along with its doctrine and organisational teachings and finally sometimes has a being that everyone fears the wrath of, is refered to as ‘God’ and carries a pace stick[sup]2[/sup] :slight_smile: .

Without going too much further down the rabbit hole, you are right to be skeptical about whether a padre should be a permanent fixture as due to the volunteer nature of the organisation it comes down the individual skills & personality of the Padre. A really good one will understand the above and your concerns (and agree with you up to a point) however a fanatical padre (just like any other over opinionated staff member) will cause more issues than they solve. They also tend to be a lot poorer in helping with the welfare front as their narrow viewpoint tends to mean they have difficulty in empathising and listening properly to concerns. Interestingly the officially atheist Soviet Red Army still had ‘Padres’ in the form of political officers which suggests there is a need for the role albeit the terms of reference need to be worked out.

[sup]1 - The really clever ones got the answer 42[/sup]
[sup]2 - What do you nickname a humanist SWO? Commissar? Omnipotent-Being? Neither have quite the same ring to them [/sup]

68

This is getting a bit lengthy and points are being missed I’m sure, so this response is going to be a bit more “picky” rather than a developed argument for the most part…

It is definitely how it is interpreted by some, but a large part of that is down to individual vested interests on both sides.
I clearly fall on the side of those with no religious faith whatsoever and who finds the concept distasteful at best. Others may be more accepting (those who will sit through stuff and ignore it as it is just words) and some will live and breath god and aim to convert the world.

Whether it is “Picking sides” is really determined about how such sides are determined.

Is it “faith” vs “non-faith”? Yes, sides are being picked.
However, if it is “My faith”, vs “Faith B” vs “Faith C” vs “Faith D” vs “belief E” vs “non-Faith F” vs “non-Faith G” then rather than choosing a side we are de-selecting a side and choosing inclusivity and tolerance.

Compare and contrast sexuality and gender identity. It is really none of our business and we don’t weight most of what we do towards one particular proclivity (though we do only let “girls” wear skirts…)

We’ve operated without an inherent religious element for years and are not suffering in any way. When we did have an assigned padre he was a very infrequent attendee and was the less-offensive sort who didn’t bash and who actually had a military background. We are between padres at the moment and it is business as usual: the cadets we have who are particularly devout are members of churches and get their fix there.

Is it really the business of a uniformed youth organisation with an aviation-based theme to be encouraging debates on philosophical questions? Surely this is something that should be happening in schools rather than specialist volunteer organisations!
(cue rather complex side-discussion on the nature of schooling in the UK, Fetch the popcorn)

If it is, is it right that we’d only show one or two points of view instead of covering the gamut of opinion? Why would routine staff not be capable of running such a discussion, as I’m sure that they hold a range of beliefs and views?

This is true, but I have seen pressure and expectation being brought to bear on cadets (and on staff) for them to take part in these very aspects which, as you state, they are free to choose.

I will not deny a cadet or a member of staff who wishes to attend a religious activity, just as will not pressurise a cadet or a member of staff to attend one if they don’t wish to, whatever the occasion. The same applies to shooting, flying, drill (ok, maybe not all drill but competitions at least) etc.

Is it not better to move away from those things which might be putting pressure on someone to take part in something which they are intrinsically opposed to and leaving such activities on the fringe so that those who wish to partake may choose to do so?

And yes, there is a line where you ask “so, what are you doing in this organisation if you don’t want to do x, y and z?”
That begs the question of what is the ATC? Are we an air-themed, uniformed youth organisation or are we an air-themed, uniformed, religious youth organisation?

There are good arguments as to why you may want a padre (of some form) attached to a unit or a camp. Religion still has its fingers in a lot of our society’s pies and plenty of people still hold some sort of belief (across a spectrum of intensities)

I’m more concerned with the intrinsic nature of the organisation: should religious personnel be presiding over (or influencing) our ceremonies or given free-reign to fill an hour in the programme? Should there be an inherent expectation for us to attend predominantly religious activities and to sometimes effectively force people into going against their beliefs in the process?

By modifying our habits and expectations we level the playing fields. Removing “chaplain” from the list of formal jobs at a unit is one of the steps on that road but it needn’t eliminate all connections with the clergy; instead, they move to a more honorary role, like that rich bloke we sometimes have as a civcom president so that we can get a new minibus :wink:

69

I would say it is that it should be as it helps the cadets learn to formulate rational argument and bounce around ideas around atopic, gaining greater understanding - something certainly of use for areas such as leadership and air power. So yes it is our business but only relevant to our training needs & scope (we’re not a think-tank, political party or lobby group). Some of the more philosophical and moral aspected debates (impact on civilians of air warfare, nuclear weapons) may benefit from someone such as the padre who is more likely to tease out the opinions as well as giving that separation (& possibly greater freedom) that cadets would benefit from in such activities.

However you are quite right that there is no reason why routine staff should not be able to do this just as well, however it is very dependent of the individual staff. I kind of get the feeling that the pair of us would be able to facilitate something although some staff may not be so confident.

Regarding the position of Padre, I concur that the Sqn Padre should be one of an honorary position, which to a certain extent it is as they are not treated in the same way as a CI and are ex-officio members of the Civ-com. As such the amount of influence they have is dictated by the sqn commander (lesser extent, sqn staff). However like any other volunteer they should receive guidance & support and not just wheeled out for enrollment ceremonies or told to ‘fill an hour’ with the cadets. You wouldn’t do so with another instructor so why would you with the padre. You would need to make sure that what the cadets do in that hour fits into the overall scheme that you want and the aims for the session are achieved. Otherwise it will end up boring for the cadets not to mention boring & repetitive for the padre.

Regarding the rest of your points I think we are dangerously approaching the point of consensus and agreeing. :slight_smile:

1 Like
70

Notwithstanding the excellent discussion points, sorry, couldn’t resist:

How do you get unwanted ghosts out of your padre? :lol:

71

Putting aside the lively debate on whether religion should/should not have a place in the ACO, or whether faith or atheism is ‘right’, consider the following.

Eleven years ago I was away staffing a large wing run camp, during which a close relative died in particularly traumatic circumstances leaving me emotionally shattered and unable to fall back on the support of my family. The only person that spent time to try and pull me back up onto an even keel was the padre. Looking back at all the personnel there, I do not think that there was anyone better able or ‘qualified’ that would have been able to help.

So, is there place for someone fulfilling the role of padre? My considered belief is yes, no matter which book they choose to read.

72

2 things: the debate is not between religion and atheism in the ATC, it’s between religion and secularism which is an important difference.

Secondly, would it have made any difference if he was a CI who was a priest, instead of being in the role of chaplain?

73

I was not trying to advocate that we must have a traditional christian minister as a padre. It was that in my opinion there is and should be space for someone to fulfil that ROLE no matter whether they be religious/agnostic/atheist.

I would not have cared, then or now whether they had been a priest there as a CI, it was someone to talk to, who would listen and discuss what had happened that was important.

74

It is odd though how the debate is encouraged by those who would to profess to not have any faith. Secularism is all about breaking the link between state and religion, ie The Establishment, which is ironic when you consider the organisation we are part of and by association us, could be said to be very much ensconced within The Establishment.

Frankly as someone who is a Christian, I couldn’t actually care less if we didn’t have padres of any colour, but the organisation would be a poorer place as we would lose that pastoral support, because as I have said the clergy are far more experienced in listening non-judgemental and confidential. Our village vicar has worked in a drug rehab centre, a prison and children’s care homes. My padre does work with in the local homeless shelter, young parents home, old people’s complex (I asked if they were touting for business) and is part of the pastoral team in two schools in the borough. They choose not to work in the schools in our town to give more confidentiality.

Wouldn’t a CI who was a priest be de facto padre / chaplain, in the same way as a CI who is an RCO or SAAI would be the de facto shooting officer? My old padre used to come over and run the gardening project as that was a passion of their’s, could have been anyone but it wasn’t. It was a shame when they moved on.

75

It is odd though how the debate is encouraged by those who would to profess to not have any faith. [/quote]
Why is it odd? If I was to make a group breakfast in which all I served was bacon sandwiches, it’d be the vegetarians whom I’d expect to have an issue with it.

Wouldn’t a CI who was a priest be de facto padre / chaplain, in the same way as a CI who is an RCO or SAAI would be the de facto shooting officer? My old padre used to come over and run the gardening project as that was a passion of their’s, could have been anyone but it wasn’t. It was a shame when they moved on.[/quote]That’s really the point.

I have no issue with the concept of a de facto chaplain - the question I posed was whether it was right or appropriate in this day and age to have a specific position for them.

76

Perhaps instead of a ‘Chaplain’ every unit should instead have a ‘Counsellor’?
I’ll be sending the letter out to Deanna Troi 1st thing tomorrow!

It does remove the need to associate Religion with the functions that most of us actually want in the 'Padre’s role. I did once think about trying to engage a Humanist Celebrant as a Padre, but found there were may more impportant things to be doing.

As long as the Padre does not drag his imaginary friend into everything, then I’m not too worried which ‘flavour’ he happens to be!

MW

77

I think a Rastafari chaplain would be a winner.
The soundtrack to Padré’s Hour would be fantastic.

78

[quote=“wdimagineer2b” post=23723]I think a Rastafari chaplain would be a winner.
The soundtrack to Padré’s Hour would be fantastic.[/quote]
Might be fun although there is the potential visit from the drug squad!!

Although personally I’m not too sure about the soundtrack … more of a rock and blues man.