Atheists are 'discriminated against'?

[stubbornone]

Well, here is the story:

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/blake-pag ... 32279.html

"While there are certainly numerous problems with the developmental program at West Point and all service academies, the tipping point of my decision to resign was the realization that countless officers here and throughout the military are guilty of blatantly violating the oaths they swore to defend the Constitution. These men and women are criminals, complicit in light of day defiance of the Uniform Code of Military Justice through unconstitutional proselytism, discrimination against the non-religious and establishing formal policies to reward, encourage and even at times require sectarian religious participation."

Yep, in this 'long gray line' of hypocrisy and discrimination, our hero above lists ... not a single instance of this supposedly pervasive trend in the military. So, here are some things that our oppressed atheists have to ... painfully tolerate.

#1 - Prayers, those who are religious, and there are many different denominations BTW, will pray. Those who wish to pray collectively are allowed to do - freedom of religious expression is a protected right. Being unconscionably offended by someone else's expression of religion is ... aside from making you a total wanker ... also not about the US Constitution.

#2 - No doubt, just like our hero here, religious groups are afforded space and time to pray and organize, as does the author of this article. Somehow though, allowing others to practice their faith is intolerable to him? But his .. er, religious? views must be afforded sole consideration?

Beyond that, the military really doesn't give a hoop about your faith. It encourages you to have one, in anything, but only because it helps, scientifically proven, to deal with the rigors of combat. You want to be Pagan? More power too ya. You want to be atheist? Great, but we'd encourage you to explore secular humanism, if only to have a non-affiliative source that will help you deal with the emotional aspect of combat.

Somehow, this approach is ... intolerable to young atheists? Science and the effects of combat on human beings are to be rejected in favor of hyperbole?

Well, I for one hope the Army recoups its entire investment in this gravely discriminated dork - who is SO discriminated against that they allowed him into the school, trained him, educated him, allowed him to freely practice and organize his faith - indeed even be a student leader ... and this was intolerable disrespect because the Army didn't shut down everyone else's faith? Prevent the criticism of his precious choices?

Not only will this be an expensive life lesson, but when young atheist super hero joins the actual work force, he'll quickly discover that no employer anywhere appreciates a young crusader who pisses off all their religious clients. What then atheist hero?

The Army is there to win wars. Businesses are there to make money. This guy? Has a lot to learn about how the world works and the costs of excessive pride and rationalization.

I for one advocate that we let him learn that lesson. The last thing our boys need in combat is some wanker talking about how much worse he has it than everyone else around him.

[JoeyKnothead]

From Post 63:

...
Real discrimination is, oh I don't know, crucifying someone.
...

Well shoot a mile, the only definition for discrimination that gets the referenced Christian upset is stringing some dude up on a cross! Break out your rocks boys, stonings are back in fashion!

Or passing a law that requires they pass out stuff they are forbidden by their religion to pass out?
...

While apparently remaining ignorant of the notion that passing out religious proselytizing is "forbidden" by the areligion of others.


Alas, when a god is weak, we see its proponents will be perfectly fine with standing you in a line until you hear their pitch!

[otseng]

wonderkid, serial whiner, lemmings

Moderator Comment

Please do not use sarcastic, derogatory language to describe others, even those not on the forum.

Please review the Rules.


______________

Moderator comments do not count as a strike against any posters. They only serve as an acknowledgment that a post report has been received, but has not been judged to warrant a moderator warning against a particular poster. Any challenges or replies to moderator postings should be made via Private Message to avoid derailing topics.

[Danmark]

Well, here is the story:

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/blake-pag ... 32279.html

"While there are certainly numerous problems with the developmental program at West Point and all service academies, the tipping point of my decision to resign was the realization that countless officers here and throughout the military are guilty of blatantly violating the oaths they swore to defend the Constitution. These men and women are criminals, complicit in light of day defiance of the Uniform Code of Military Justice through unconstitutional proselytism, discrimination against the non-religious and establishing formal policies to reward, encourage and even at times require sectarian religious participation."

Yep, in this 'long gray line' of hypocrisy and discrimination, our hero above lists ... not a single instance of this supposedly pervasive trend in the military. So, here are some things that our oppressed atheists have to ... painfully tolerate.

#1 - Prayers, those who are religious, and there are many different denominations BTW, will pray. Those who wish to pray collectively are allowed to do - freedom of religious expression is a protected right. Being unconscionably offended by someone else's expression of religion is ... aside from making you a total wanker ... also not about the US Constitution.

#2 - No doubt, just like our hero here, religious groups are afforded space and time to pray and organize, as does the author of this article. Somehow though, allowing others to practice their faith is intolerable to him? But his .. er, religious? views must be afforded sole consideration?

Beyond that, the military really doesn't give a hoop about your faith. It encourages you to have one, in anything, but only because it helps, scientifically proven, to deal with the rigors of combat. You want to be Pagan? More power too ya. You want to be atheist? Great, but we'd encourage you to explore secular humanism, if only to have a non-affiliative source that will help you deal with the emotional aspect of combat.

Somehow, this approach is ... intolerable to young atheists? Science and the effects of combat on human beings are to be rejected in favor of hyperbole?

Well, I for one hope the Army recoups its entire investment in this gravely discriminated dork - who is SO discriminated against that they allowed him into the school, trained him, educated him, allowed him to freely practice and organize his faith - indeed even be a student leader ... and this was intolerable disrespect because the Army didn't shut down everyone else's faith? Prevent the criticism of his precious choices?

Not only will this be an expensive life lesson, but when young atheist super hero joins the actual work force, he'll quickly discover that no employer anywhere appreciates a young crusader who pisses off all their religious clients. What then atheist hero?

The Army is there to win wars. Businesses are there to make money. This guy? Has a lot to learn about how the world works and the costs of excessive pride and rationalization.

I for one advocate that we let him learn that lesson. The last thing our boys need in combat is some wanker talking about how much worse he has it than everyone else around him.

I read the article carefully and am amazed at how you could misread it so completely, not to mention the unfair and misleading way you excoriate this guy. I guess that's your version of Christian love in action, not to mention your ignorance of how the Point violates the Constitution by demanding 'mandatory prayer, the maintenance of the 3rd Regiment Shield, awarding extra passes to Plebes who take part in religious retreats and chapel choirs, as well as informal policies such as the open disrespect of non-religious new cadets and incentivizing participation in religious activities through the chain of command.'

“The Shield of the Third Regiment of the United States Corps of Cadets was designed to be a physical representation of the ideals of the Regiment as expressed in its motto, “Strong Bodies, Strong Minds, Strong Faith.� The shield depicts the ideals through heraldic symbols whose historic significance has developed through the centuries. At the same time, the shield is divided in a reversed tierce per pale design (three parts) to express the past, present and future of the Third Regiment. The colors of the shield represent various branches of the Army in which members of the Regiment will one day serve. The heraldic cross (crossed crosslet) in Chief Dexter (the upper left) was developed during the time of the Crusades. This symbolized fidelity and represents the “Strong Faith� in the Regiment’s motto. The light blue field upon which it is mounted is the branch color of the infantry."
http://freethoughtblogs.com/rockbeyondb ... r-imagery/
It is clear that West Point's policies official and unofficial to violate the Constitution's establishment clause. You completely misrepresent the facts when you present this as if all the Cadet was 'subjected to' was other Cadets praying privately.
…

[stubbornone]

wonderkid, serial whiner, lemmings

Moderator Comment

Please do not use sarcastic, derogatory language to describe others, even those not on the forum.

Please review the Rules.


______________

Moderator comments do not count as a strike against any posters. They only serve as an acknowledgment that a post report has been received, but has not been judged to warrant a moderator warning against a particular poster. Any challenges or replies to moderator postings should be made via Private Message to avoid derailing topics.

Well, then in all seriousness, and not intended as an insult or to be combative, then what is the appropriate method of expressing extreme dislike and abject rejection of a position? Of a course so at odds with common sense and virtue, that it is laughable?

I ask, because when one side can call the other 'evil' and the other side must not refer to someone behaving utterly ridiculously as anything other than a ... loon? What then?

We have a kid claiming bigotry where none exists, resigning as if quitting is a heroic act rather than one of cowardice, and then apparently thinking sarcasm is too rude? So the problem is that atheist boy is actually a hero? But all strong criticism of him is deemed ... uncivil rather that accurately strong?

You will forgive me, as a Soldier, bluntness is often needed - particularly when the choice is between enabling cowardice and condemning it.

So, you will forgive me for seeming combative, but the question is how to strongly express ... the stupidity of a position that is actually cowardice and dishonesty, but being enabled, excused and lauded as .. standing up to discrimination?

I am sure there are atheists who think all criticism of their position is actually uncivil, but ... the reverse certainly does not seem to be the case.

So, short question: how does one express strong disagreement, bluntly, with a position that is utterly without merit without running afoul of civility?

We have a clear cut case of hooliganism, and perhaps it would be better for atheists to actually make a case about why atheist boy is actually making a good choice rather than bristling because someone dismisses him sarcastically as a 'hero'.

Is the intent to debate? Actually have a discussion? Or to attempt to use rules to silence strong criticism of atheism?

After all, as I pointed out earlier in this very thread, atheists can dismiss our positions as 'evil' which seems rather uncivil, and that is certainly stronger than dismissing the pretense of victimization with sarcasm. Indeed, the duty is for us to explain the position despite the pretense. I believe the same challenge is in order for those who appear to be looking for reasons to silence criticism rather than rebut it as Christians have too.

Again, I will happily follow whatever rules there are, but expressing extreme displeasure with a coward who has turned himself in a victim and threatened one of the pillars of our military system with a whiny, totally unsupported accusation? You will forgive me for thinking that such cowardice deserves to be called out ... particularly when it is done public ally, and with a call to the atheist community to support and organize to lionize this ... coward? Liar?

The effects of tolerating this kids actions on a political level and allowing a growing atheist organization to make these snide actions tolerable is a very high cost. And even atheists should know that there is a point at which you can press to hard. And being dressed down with very strong terms is indeed in order ... like when you resign from West Point under false pretenses.

How do you civilly express extreme displeasure with something without running afoul of the atheist reporting of incivility? Sometimes,atheist opinions will be rejected ... indeed the very premise of skepticism and logic requires it.

[stubbornone]

Well, here is the story:

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/blake-pag ... 32279.html

"While there are certainly numerous problems with the developmental program at West Point and all service academies, the tipping point of my decision to resign was the realization that countless officers here and throughout the military are guilty of blatantly violating the oaths they swore to defend the Constitution. These men and women are criminals, complicit in light of day defiance of the Uniform Code of Military Justice through unconstitutional proselytism, discrimination against the non-religious and establishing formal policies to reward, encourage and even at times require sectarian religious participation."

Yep, in this 'long gray line' of hypocrisy and discrimination, our hero above lists ... not a single instance of this supposedly pervasive trend in the military. So, here are some things that our oppressed atheists have to ... painfully tolerate.

#1 - Prayers, those who are religious, and there are many different denominations BTW, will pray. Those who wish to pray collectively are allowed to do - freedom of religious expression is a protected right. Being unconscionably offended by someone else's expression of religion is ... aside from making you a total wanker ... also not about the US Constitution.

#2 - No doubt, just like our hero here, religious groups are afforded space and time to pray and organize, as does the author of this article. Somehow though, allowing others to practice their faith is intolerable to him? But his .. er, religious? views must be afforded sole consideration?

Beyond that, the military really doesn't give a hoop about your faith. It encourages you to have one, in anything, but only because it helps, scientifically proven, to deal with the rigors of combat. You want to be Pagan? More power too ya. You want to be atheist? Great, but we'd encourage you to explore secular humanism, if only to have a non-affiliative source that will help you deal with the emotional aspect of combat.

Somehow, this approach is ... intolerable to young atheists? Science and the effects of combat on human beings are to be rejected in favor of hyperbole?

Well, I for one hope the Army recoups its entire investment in this gravely discriminated dork - who is SO discriminated against that they allowed him into the school, trained him, educated him, allowed him to freely practice and organize his faith - indeed even be a student leader ... and this was intolerable disrespect because the Army didn't shut down everyone else's faith? Prevent the criticism of his precious choices?

Not only will this be an expensive life lesson, but when young atheist super hero joins the actual work force, he'll quickly discover that no employer anywhere appreciates a young crusader who pisses off all their religious clients. What then atheist hero?

The Army is there to win wars. Businesses are there to make money. This guy? Has a lot to learn about how the world works and the costs of excessive pride and rationalization.

I for one advocate that we let him learn that lesson. The last thing our boys need in combat is some wanker talking about how much worse he has it than everyone else around him.

I read the article carefully and am amazed at how you could misread it so completely, not to mention the unfair and misleading way you excoriate this guy. I guess that's your version of Christian love in action, not to mention your ignorance of how the Point violates the Constitution by demanding 'mandatory prayer, the maintenance of the 3rd Regiment Shield, awarding extra passes to Plebes who take part in religious retreats and chapel choirs, as well as informal policies such as the open disrespect of non-religious new cadets and incentivizing participation in religious activities through the chain of command.'

“The Shield of the Third Regiment of the United States Corps of Cadets was designed to be a physical representation of the ideals of the Regiment as expressed in its motto, “Strong Bodies, Strong Minds, Strong Faith.� The shield depicts the ideals through heraldic symbols whose historic significance has developed through the centuries. At the same time, the shield is divided in a reversed tierce per pale design (three parts) to express the past, present and future of the Third Regiment. The colors of the shield represent various branches of the Army in which members of the Regiment will one day serve. The heraldic cross (crossed crosslet) in Chief Dexter (the upper left) was developed during the time of the Crusades. This symbolized fidelity and represents the “Strong Faith� in the Regiment’s motto. The light blue field upon which it is mounted is the branch color of the infantry."
http://freethoughtblogs.com/rockbeyondb ... r-imagery/
It is clear that West Point's policies official and unofficial to violate the Constitution's establishment clause. You completely misrepresent the facts when you present this as if all the Cadet was 'subjected to' was other Cadets praying privately.
…

#1 - I do love it when atheists tell me I misread my own profession. I also love it when a single word on a crest is imbued with almost supernatural explanations and apparently with the entire mythos of every religion. In one word.

Here is the definition of faith:

faith
/f�TH/
Noun
Complete trust or confidence in someone or something.

So in a martial sense, when you go into a battle whose outcome is uncertain ... what drives you to believe that you will emerge the victor? Faith in yourself, faith in your friends and fellow Soldiers, faith in your training, faith in your duty, in your leaders leading you into battle ... because there is no fact driven process that allows you to conclude that you will win with certainty ... a fact made clear in the rejection of Effects Based Warfare, and, to be blunt, in our own arrogance in thinking our mighty weapon systems alone would cow and break our enemies ... a mistake that many an Empire before us made ... a mistake I call faith in hubris.

Or, I suppose that single word could mean, "Bring all the atheists in and whip them into submission?"

Well, perhaps we manufacture a God, (though we know we do not), but at least we are not manufacturing reasons to be victims of discrimination - where single non-contextual words become oppressive merely because ONE imbues them with religious sense when a martial one that was intended ... and educated into a martial institution.

But our young atheist knows better than the Generals that attempted to mentor him out of his curmudgeonly obstinance?

#2 - I hate this for you atheists, but being in combat for over a decade and the research is clear. Faith ... in anything, provides a statistically proven benefit in handling the effects of combat ... which Soldiers will be exposed to. The Army's job is to prepare and safeguard our Soldiers, not to cow tow to the non-Soldiers whose feelings are hurt by the conclusions of science and statistics. In short, your feelings matter far less than our Soldiers.

Ergo, the Army pushes 'faith'. We don't care what it is, just that you have something that is PROVEN to help you handle the emotional aspects of combat - of killing other human beings - of watching your friends die, often horribly.

If you are atheist, we'll push you to study secular humanism, Buddhism, or any other spiritual thing, so you are at least armed with the knowledge of something when the consequences of seeing your best friend ripped to shreds by an IED arrives ... and you discover that ... mocking someone else's religion offers you absolutely nothing to deal with the pain and trauma of the situation. You can reject the teachings all you want, but when reality arrives ... the Army's job is to have tools ready to help you - and they have many tools OUTSIDE of you to help ... but only YOU can fix what combat has the potential to make wrong in you.

So what atheist boy is doing? He's attacking the basis of a system that will literally save lives, prevent suicide, and creates a system of intolerance, and objectified victimization.

As a combat veteran, I cannot reject what this kid, with the height of hubris and arrogance, is doing. I have rarely seen a more stubborn selfishness than what this kid is doing.

And bear in mind, a General Officer no doubt, as per the OP, sat down and explained this to young atheist boy. Tried to pull him onto the team ... but a young arrogant child knows best?

I've seen what the Army is attempting to prepare these young men for, and this fool cannot be any wronger. Just as Christians do, atheists deserve the consequences of extremely poor decision making and rationalization.

[Danmark]

#1 - I do love it when atheists tell me I misread my own profession. I also love it when a single word on a crest is imbued with almost supernatural explanations and apparently with the entire mythos of every religion....

Stub, I'm not taking issue with how you 'read your own profession,' but with how you read. Perhaps your anger got the better of you when you read the article, because your restatement of the facts appears to me to be inaccurate. If the facts were as you interpret them, I might share some of your views on the case.

I think it would be helpful if you were to pretend you are the judge advocate officer assigned to defend a person in the position of this Cadet. For the thought experiment you could even suppose him to be a young Christian in a military school 'infested' with Muslims. He gets fed up with having to be interrupted 5 times a day for those @$#%^#@! Muslim prayers and that he has the impression Muslims receive preferential treatment because of their faith.

Re: your:
So, short question: how does one express strong disagreement, bluntly, with a position that is utterly without merit without running afoul of civility?
....
Is the intent to debate? Actually have a discussion? Or to attempt to use rules to silence strong criticism of atheism?

Taking the last line of your question first, Osteng, who I believe owns the list and moderates it, is a Christian. I also understand that the moderators represent differing and opposing view points, so your implication of favoritism toward atheists is not warranted.
Re: your question about how to express your feelings in a civil manner, I'm sure you have the ability to do so. Patience and strong self control* are virtues the military prizes, so I'm sure you are well equipped.

You can simply state your 'strong disagreement with X'. You could say, as you have, "Your position is utterly without merit." Sometimes it is helpful to try to find one of your opponents' valid points. Recognizing when someone we violently disagree with actually gets SOME thing right, not only helps you to moderate your tone, but it may give at least the illusion of fairness, thus making your criticism stronger since it comes from a seemingly fair minded and objective person.


_________________________
My son has 15 years in with the Military and has served in Kosovo and the Pentagon (which was where he was on 9/11). I remember about 12 years ago when we walking together late at night and were accosted by hooligans shouting at us from a car. My instinct was to take them on and shouted something back. My son calmly suggested to me that we just walk away. I was very proud of him because he had the courage, good sense and self control to tell his old man to cool his jets.

[Bust Nak]

Here is the definition of faith:

faith
/f�TH/
Noun
Complete trust or confidence in someone or something.

Incorrect. That is one definition of faith. Here is the another definition, one that fits in with the context with regard to the history of the shield in question:
Strong belief in God or in the doctrines of a religion, based on spiritual apprehension rather than proof.

Ergo, the Army pushes 'faith'. We don't care what it is...

Incorrect. The testimony offered specified Christianity as the perfered faith.

So what atheist boy is doing? He's attacking the basis of a system that will literally save lives, prevent suicide, and creates a system of intolerance, and objectified victimization.

Incorrect. He is attacking institutional promotion of Christianity in a government organisation.

Well, then in all seriousness, and not intended as an insult or to be combative, then what is the appropriate method of expressing extreme dislike and abject rejection of a position? Of a course so at odds with common sense and virtue, that it is laughable?

My advice is not to express such opinion at all.

I ask, because when one side can call the other 'evil' and the other side must not refer to someone behaving utterly ridiculously as anything other than a ... loon? What then?

Then you should compare the post you are referring to, and your own post and see where you have gone wrong. Namely, you can attack ideas but you can't make it personal.

We have a kid claiming bigotry where none exists, resigning as if quitting is a heroic act rather than one of cowardice, and then apparently thinking sarcasm is too rude? So the problem is that atheist boy is actually a hero? But all strong criticism of him is deemed ... uncivil rather that accurately strong?

Why was there a need to mention cowardice in the first place? And I don't think the problem is with your sarcasm re:hero, but with your explicit attack of "whiner," "lemmings" etc.

You will forgive me, as a Soldier, bluntness is often needed - particularly when the choice is between enabling cowardice and condemning it.

If you can't help but condemn precieved cowardice then perharps this debating forum is not for you.

Is the intent to debate? Actually have a discussion? Or to attempt to use rules to silence strong criticism of atheism?

Sound like you are saying you are a victim of religious discrimination. If you want to debate, then address my points both here and in my earlier post.

The effects of tolerating this kids actions on a political level and allowing a growing atheist organization to make these snide actions tolerable is a very high cost.

Secularism is worth it I think.

[100%atheist]

wonderkid, serial whiner, lemmings

Moderator Comment

Please do not use sarcastic, derogatory language to describe others, even those not on the forum.

Please review the Rules.


______________

Moderator comments do not count as a strike against any posters. They only serve as an acknowledgment that a post report has been received, but has not been judged to warrant a moderator warning against a particular poster. Any challenges or replies to moderator postings should be made via Private Message to avoid derailing topics.

Well, then in all seriousness, and not intended as an insult or to be combative, then what is the appropriate method of expressing extreme dislike and abject rejection of a position?

If you want to learn how to be polite and civil you can start by keeping your "extreme dislikes" to yourself. Also, when I exteremely dislike someone's position, I simply do not reply to his/her comments as I did until now with this OP and this thread.

As to the OP, I find that the very institute of chaplans in military is odd and unconstitutional, because it takes taxpayers money to sponsor religion. But on another hand, the military is a big communist organisation that does not necessarily needs to comply with the Constitution, civil and human rights laws. People who sign up for the army volutarily relinquish their rights, so I have some mixed feeling about them and their rights.

[Danmark]

If you want to learn how to be polite and civil you can start by keeping your "extreme dislikes" to yourself. Also, when I exteremely dislike someone's position, I simply do not reply to his/her comments as I did until now with this OP and this thread.

As to the OP, I find that the very institute of chaplans in military is odd and unconstitutional, because it takes taxpayers money to sponsor religion. But on another hand, the military is a big communist organisation that does not necessarily needs to comply with the Constitution, civil and human rights laws. People who sign up for the army volutarily relinquish their rights, so I have some mixed feeling about them and their rights.

Technically 100% I suppose I agree with you about Chaplains and their place in the military if the Chaplin were to represent Christianity or any other faith in his capacity as a military chaplain; however, a chaplain in the military is supposed to minister to the spiritual, ethical, family and personal needs of the troops. He is not supposed to preach his particular faith to his captive audience. Making this point clear would have strengthened the OP's case. Whether in the military or a State prison, the chaplain's role is to strengthen the morale of the troops, not preach any particular dogma or doctrine. When they stick to that role, there is no Constitutional issue. Atheists have 'spiritual' and emotional needs too. And the Chaplain should minister to them as well. A soldier must have loyalty and fight for his brothers and sisters in his fighting unit, and it is usually that loyalty, rather than to god and country, that is uppermost in his thinking in combat, not some bit of precious doctrine.

If the Chaplin's particular faith is, say, Roman Catholic, he should be candid with the troops about that, but he should take special care to let the outliers in his 'congregation' know that he is there for them just as much as for Catholics. So he should take extra care when talking to evangelicals, muslims, Jews and Mormons to communicate that his door is wide open to them as well. In fact it is a special opportunity he has, because the outliers may have their prejudices broken when they have a warm friendly conversation with chaplain they were prepared to reject.

In other words the Chaplain should reflect the opposite of what this message sends:
...expressing extreme displeasure with a coward who has turned himself in a victim [sic] and threatened one of the pillars of our military system with a whiny, totally unsupported accusation? You will forgive me for thinking that such cowardice deserves to be called out ... particularly when it is done public ally ...[sic]

[100%atheist]

Technically 100% I suppose I agree with you about Chaplains and their place in the military if the Chaplin were to represent Christianity or any other faith in his capacity as a military chaplain; however, a chaplain in the military is supposed to minister to the spiritual, ethical, family and personal needs of the troops. He is not supposed to preach his particular faith to his captive audience. Making this point clear would have strengthened the OP's case. Whether in the military or a State prison, the chaplain's role is to strengthen the morale of the troops, not preach any particular dogma or doctrine. When they stick to that role, there is no Constitutional issue. Atheists have 'spiritual' and emotional needs too. And the Chaplain should minister to them as well. A soldier must have loyalty and fight for his brothers and sisters in his fighting unit, and it is usually that loyalty, rather than to god and country, that is uppermost in his thinking in combat, not some bit of precious doctrine.

If the Chaplin's particular faith is, say, Roman Catholic, he should be candid with the troops about that, but he should take special care to let the outliers in his 'congregation' know that he is there for them just as much as for Catholics. So he should take extra care when talking to evangelicals, muslims, Jews and Mormons to communicate that his door is wide open to them as well. In fact it is a special opportunity he has, because the outliers may have their prejudices broken when they have a warm friendly conversation with chaplain they were prepared to reject.

In other words the Chaplain should reflect the opposite of what this message sends:
...expressing extreme displeasure with a coward who has turned himself in a victim [sic] and threatened one of the pillars of our military system with a whiny, totally unsupported accusation? You will forgive me for thinking that such cowardice deserves to be called out ... particularly when it is done public ally ...[sic]

I understand the points you make and in part I agree with you that Chaplins as psychotherapists is a good idea. BUT, why don't they (military) hire professional psychotherapists indead?