The Closing down of a Thread.

[ang1sgt]

I just want to say that the closing down of the "Religion and Faith in Everyday Life " thread is a loss to those of us that participated in that thread, for it's original poster, and those that help to derail it. I guess they feel that they have won and are happy with their choice.

I am angry that something I am very proud of, MY FAITH, is far less important in these Forums than let us say my Political beliefs.

The blind faith that some here in these forums place in one person is just short of Idol worship. Why do these parties get the free ride when it comes to nonsense posts and one-liners? Why is it that these same people are the same one's that scream to others when it happens? Why is it that these people will see this and try to burn me into the ground because I am being honest and open in light of what has transpired here?

Yes, This saddens me to the point where I wonder if this Forum shouldn't be renamed. But that should never happen. I think we all need to STOP, take a breath and remember why this Forum was created, and then Thank the Gentleman that allows this Forum to continue and grow.

I thought the original post was a VALID topic for someone that has Faith and uses Faith in regards to their participation in the Military. As a First Sergeant that has served and has had to use the Chaplain Corps as one of his many resources and support networks, as we are TRAINED to do, I was happy to reply to the Young man and give him "MY" experience while I was in Uniform. I can think of no better response than a man of Faith responding to another man of Faith.

To Seminarian Tim, I apologize if this opens up another round of bashing on this topic. If it does it does, and I hope other people that have Faith will join in and express how they believe and how they use these beliefs in daily life. We are held accountable for our actions in life. I make these points early in the morning after a lot of reflection and prayer. I just have questions as to the Why of some of the actions of others here. I don't expect answers to these questions, I just wonder.

First, A Christian Man that was lost and re-found his Faith,
Second, A Retired First Sergeant that used his beliefs and faith in the Service of Man,
And finally, an American Veteran, Still Proud of his Faith as well as His Duty and Service to God and Country...

[SlightlyCatholic]

To Seminarian Tim, I apologize if this opens up another round of bashing on this topic. If it does it does, and I hope other people that have Faith will join in and express how they believe and how they use these beliefs in daily life.

My original reasons for creating a thread about faith were twofold:

1) Our military wouldn't have a Chaplain Corps if religion weren't important to military members. Therefore, I figured it might be a good idea to at least have a thread within a military forum to talk about it. It is fairly obvious to me (from reading the posts of TOP and others) that there are faithful people here, so I wanted to provide a place for all of us to talk.

2) I am a second year college seminarian, which means that in three short years, I may very well be a Chaplain Candidate for one of our Armed Services. I joined the forum to not only learn about the military, but to see if my unique position as a person of faith might draw out unique and valuable lessons from persons of faith who simultaneously wear (or have worn) a military uniform. My goal is to learn as much as possible about the integration of religion and our military, and the thread was an attempt to make progress in that regard.

I don't mean to make anyone feel uncomfortable by discussing faith. I figured that anyone who felt uncomfortable with religious discussion would simply choose not to participate in the thread. The idea was to provide a place for those who do believe while simultaneously providing space for those who don't. If that was a bad idea, then I sincerely apologize. However, I hope there will always be a place here at Grunt's for people to talk about faith because it is something I see as a very important dimension of the human person. I don't make the rules, so if the Moderators disagree, that is their prerogative.

Perhaps a point for reflection might be these words from the First Amendment to our Constitution: "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof..." Is there a way to allow for religious expression here on Grunt's Military Forum while at the same time preserving the comfort of atheist and agnostic members? That's for the Moderators here to decide, and I hope the answer to that question is an affirmative one.

Thanks for your time everyone, and have a great day.

God bless,

Tim

[Javelin66]

I was disappointed when this thread was stopped as well. I thought that it was appropriate, allowed members to discuss a very important part of their value system, and showed admirable initiative on the part of a new member. In addition, it provided a venue for those new to the military or considering a future in the military to gain insight into the role that religion and faith has played in the careers of experienced veterans.

The stated purpose of this forum is to serve “as an aid for individuals researching the United States' armed forces.” If that is the case, then we should remember that we are dealing with aspirants, not recruits. With that in mind, we have to ask what role we veterans and other experienced members of this forum can best fill.

Despite the fact that some of us have been and still are qualified by our respective services to train or instruct on various topics in the military, I would submit that we cannot consider ourselves to be trainers in this environment due to a set of simple facts: We don’t have trainees, and we have no authority. More pointedly in light of this discussion, we have no tasks or skills to train, rather a set of values that we are trying to instill.

In reality we are informal leaders, people who by the virtue of our experience and training can coach, teach, and mentor those that aspire to be in the military. In that we are trying to instill a set of values, we are essentially trying to teach people how to think, not what to think. There are many ways to do this, but they all have a few things in common: Patience for the often flawed logic and erroneous assumptions of the student, and respect for their views, however misguided.

If our true intent is to help those with an interest learn more about the military, then we should carefully consider how we go about doing it. I’ve brought this up before, and was told that we cannot lower our standards. I am well acquainted with standards and their maintenance, and would counter that there is a middle ground between chaos and ‘zero tolerance’. Standards are effective when they are appropriate, clear, logical, attainable, and universally enforced. All the veterans on this forum can cite many examples of standard that were none of the above and led to the degradation of the organizations combat effectiveness.

I am involved in Cub Scouts. When we have a new members drive, a lot of parents ask what the program is going to do for their boys, and what the program is all about. I tell them that it really isn’t about boys at all, but about men. The Cub Scout of today is the Boy Scout of tomorrow, and that boy will become the kind of man I want running this country when I am retired. I don’t know for sure that the boys will remember everything I teach them in a Den Meeting, but you can bet that they will emulate the way I talk, the way I act, and the way I treat people.

[HairyEyeball]

The 'problem' wasn't with the topic, but with 'where it went' and how some members reacted to perceived 'attitudes'. Those who have been here for the previous iterations of the forum have seen discussions of this and other 'sensitive' topics, and there is no reason such discussion cannot continue.

It was the originator of the thread who requested the lockdown, and with the directions the discussion took, it wasn't a bad call. There is, however, no reason to not open a similar thread, but with the strong suggestion that any contributor pay more attention than usual to how the message may be read and 'interpreted'.

[mtnsldr]

With all due respect, that is the problem you saw.

The problem I saw was a poster tried to start an intelligent (albeit borderline depending on conduct) conversation on what could be a controversial topic. He seemingly got cut down for a purpose I still can't figure out. Subsequent "explanations" didn't provide anymore insight as to the origins of the first objection.

I'm sorry, I can't understand how calling a 19 year old Seminary Student an "amatuer philosopher" and a "post whore", and referencing their discussion (which others are participating in, and seem to be enjoying) as nearly reaching the "point of mental masturbation" is a constructive alternate viewpoint.

[HairyEyeball]

What you see obviously depends on where you stand. Everyone has their own opinion of where, how and why the discussion 'went south', depending on just how much of the 'peripherals' they may be aware of. Personally, if anyone here can claim to be perfect, I'm perfectly willing to walk away and let him, her or it shoulder the load.

[SlightlyCatholic]

Hairy made the "post whore" comment because I am the member with the most posts, and I really haven't been here very long at all. Bottom line: I posted too much, too soon. That's my fault. The part about my being an "amateur philosopher" and the "mental masturbation" comment originates from my questioning things like regulations involving the Purple Heart. Again, I felt like doing an ethical thought experiment into the regulations themselves. It was probably unnecessary, and I probably shouldn't be questioning military regulations. Hairy's critiques (the "peripherals") were deserving and on point.

While I am thankful that such offenses (if that's the correct word for them) were brought to my attention, what caught me off guard was the manner in which they were made visible to me. What I expected was a private message with a stern warning and a few possible consequences for noncompliance...what I received was a public proclamation of error. Personally, I realize that my actions warranted correction but I think the problem was in the way I was corrected (publicly instead of privately) and the medium used to administer such correction (a post about my behavioral defects in a thread about religion).

Hairy, you seem like you have a loud personality and that can be a great personality trait. I can tell that you have no reservations about telling people off in front of a crowd of people. I was always taught to "praise in public and correct in private". You don't seem to follow that rule, and that's your style of leadership as a moderator here on the forum. All I'm saying is that perhaps your critiques regarding my posting behavior may have been better served in a private message or even a profile post rather than in a "religion and faith" thread. Please take my words as a suggestion and not a criticism...all I'm doing is trying to get at the heart of why the thread went the way it went, and how we can prevent it from happening again.

[soccermark23]

I am the member with the most posts, and I really haven't been here very long at all. Bottom line: I posted too much, too soon. That's my fault.

I for one have absolutely no problem with someone posting a lot. Frankly the more people post, the more discussions we are able to have with different topics. The matter of an absurd matter of post really comes into play when the majority of a users post are of the brief "one liner" variety. An example of this would be responding to every thread with a simple "I agree" or "I disagree."

Posts like that add absolutely nothing to a conversation and make it seem like someone is just trying to pad their post count as opposed to making a good contribution to not only the topic at hand, but the forum as a whole.

I have always had a belief in the theory of, "Praise in public; punish in private." And I think that is something we as a community need to revert back to. Sure it is alright to disagree with someone and have a good ole fashion debate, but when comes to the point of calling someone out on something you have issue with, I believe it is generally best left to be done through the privacy of a private message.

[mtnsldr]

Seminarian Tim:

From all the posts of yours I've read, you've attempted to contribute to the forum in a positive way. While the volume may be large, the quality hasn't been low.

Sometimes this comes up on here where the "unwritten rule" comes out about people "posting too much." I'm not sure what the metric is that this is measured against, yet it continues to rear its ugly head.

HE, you can take whatever position you want, and your post there is ambiguous enough to ensure that you do not admit fault, and infer that I should go back to my corner since I am evidently not perfect. So be it. If you are unaccepting of criticism, well that's your problem not mine. However, since that isn't what you "wrote" you might make the argument that I'm just misunderstanding you. Regardless, it still does not address the issue at hand, which is what warranted the original rebuking of Tim's thread.

Mark: I tend to agree that discipline is best in private. However, there is also a need to publicly address the standards. In an example, if an officer walks past a group of Soldiers (or Airmen) who do not salute, an NCO will address them loudly and in the group to ensure that the message of acceptable behavior is understood by all. Similarly in this event we need to address what is acceptable behavior, especially since more than a few people have taken exception to the conduct seen recently.

[soccermark23]

Mark: I tend to agree that discipline is best in private. However, there is also a need to publicly address the standards. In an example, if an officer walks past a group of Soldiers (or Airmen) who do not salute, an NCO will address them loudly and in the group to ensure that the message of acceptable behavior is understood by all. Similarly in this event we need to address what is acceptable behavior, especially since more than a few people have taken exception to the conduct seen recently.

I agree with you here Adam, and your example goes along with my thinking. In public I'd saying addressing a group in that manner is alright, but on an individual basis, especially in the setting of this forum, the majority of the time it can be handled in private.