The relevant self-development training modules will be helpful
The US Army requires its soldiers to have something called “spiritual fitness.”
The US Army distributes a mandatory survey called an SFT, which stands for “Soldier Fitness Tracker”. The purpose of this survey is to measure an individual soldier’s competency in four areas, Emotional, Social, Family and Spiritual.
Yes really.
Here is what they tell someone who scores badly in that last area:
Spiritual fitness is an area of possible difficulty for you. You may lack a sense of meaning and purpose in your life. At times, it is hard for you to make sense of what is happening to you and others around you. You may not feel connected to something larger than yourself. You may question your beliefs, principles, and values. Nevertheless, who you are and what you do matter. There are things to do to provide more meaning and purpose in your life. Improving your spiritual fitness should be an important goal. Change is possible, and the relevant self-development training modules will be helpful.
Extraordinary, isn’t it? The dreaded gummint instructing people in how to have a sense of meaning and purpose? The gummint imposing a particular sense of meaning and purpose on a very captive audience?
This shit has been part of the VA system for several years. Since they denied my disability claim, I’ve had nothing to do with the VA, but I remember the stories and articles of mandatory “spiritual” counseling and the like from VA hospitals. Who better to corrupt with superstition than someone in pain or desperation?
Ah, I didn’t know that. I should have, but I didn’t.
[…] This post was mentioned on Twitter by Skeptic South Africa. Skeptic South Africa said: The relevant self-development training modules will be helpful http://ow.ly/1aEtsH […]
This is the tip of the iceberg when it comes to the U.S. military. The Marines are especially egregious in their god-talk. A lot of what goes on at the company-level sails far beyond generic theism and into the dark waters of full-blown Christianism. There have been whole books written in recent years about how rampant it’s become.
I don’t have a problem with the parts you quotes. Experiencing meaning is important for people’s well being. The problem here seems to be the US Army using “spiritual” in an attempt to mask what they really mean, being theistic.
You would think that a soldier has already made a declarative statement about their beliefs and principles and values and purpose by dint of signing up to be a soldier.
Of course, that assumes the military isn’t already doing everything in its power to obfuscate what being a soldier actually means. So having propagandized them into signing their lives away, they may as well propaganda some god into them.
Axxyaan, really? You don’t think that stuff is intrusive coming from an employer (unless the employer is a religious institution)? I certainly do. I certainly wouldn’t want an employer – even the military – telling me to have a sense of meaning and purpose, and of what kind.
My experience is similar to what Andy Dufresne alludes to. Compared to being given direct orders to attend Christian chapel when I was in the Army, the passage you quoted is extremely innocuous.
As a skeptic first an an atheist second (in the sense that the latter follows from the former) it’s the “you may question your beliefs, principles, and values” bit that pisses me off. It occurs to me that the military hierarchy, as always, just don’t want the people under their command asking questions but no longer have access to the traditional methods of suppressing dissent. The opportunity to outsource the job to a bunch of literally shameless fundamentalists must have seemed like a godsend. (Except that their religiousity is likely as phoney as that of their compatriots in which case let’s say that it seemed like a good deal.)
@Ophelia
Sure you can see it as intrusive, but questions into the emotional, social and family area can be intrusive too. I don’t think the spirutal/existential area should be of more concern than the others. There is also a big difference between being worried about people not having a sense of meaning and encouraging people to work on that versus expecting people to find that meaning in a particular source e.g. theisme. Your quote doesn’t make it clear that the second that is going on here,
@Francis Boyle
IMO there is nothing wrong with those words in themselves. These words seem to describe someone in an existential crisis and those persons are in general miserable. What is worrying is the method that produced this result. It labels every atheist as someone in an existential crisis.
Oddly enough the UK’s schools inspectors have something similar:
‘Spiritual development relates to that aspect of inner life through which pupilsacquire insights into their personal experience which are of enduring worth. It ischaracterised by reflection, the attribution of meaning to experience, valuing anon-material dimension to life and intimations of an enduring reality. ‘Spiritual’ isnot synonymous with ‘religious’; all areas of the curriculum may contribute topupils’ spiritual development.’
This was put in place by a particularly bonkers conservative minister – and now they’re back, and worse than before.
http://www.ofsted.gov.uk/Ofsted-home/Publications-and-research/Browse-all-by/Education/Curriculum/Religious-education/Primary/Promoting-and-evaluating-pupils-spiritual-moral-social-and-cultural-development
I love that attempt to save it in the last sentence – too late!
“The problem here seems to be the US Army using “spiritual” in an attempt to mask what they really mean, being theistic.”
No; the american military doesn’t mean “theistic” it means “christian”. It will tolerate catholics and jews but really wants protestantism to be the religion of the troops. After all, the USA was founded as a protestant nation don’t you know and all those johnny-come-lately catholics and jews aren’t quite real americans yet. The USA hasn’t really begun to fit in muslims, hindus and buddhists yet.
Eventually the supreme court will declare this religionizing unconstitutional and the armed services will have to find another way to keep sticking religion to the troops. Rest assured they will find a way.
@Ken,
Could you clarify what you find wrong with the text you quoted. I understand I may be missing background information which gives this text a meaning I’m ignorant of. But without such context I don’t see what is wrong with this text. To me the last sentence doesn’t look like an attempt to save but an attempt to prevempt attempts from people who would like to use this text as if “spiritual” was synonymous with “religious”
I think it is the phrase “intimations of an enduring reality” that sets my alarm bells ringing. The impression it gives me is that the minister wanted to ensure that pupils were instructed in a magical view of the world, but wanted plausible deniability. The context you are missing may be memories of John Patten.
http://www.independent.co.uk/opinion/come-hell-parents-or-boycotts-profile-john-patten-religiously-reforming-education-1472655.html
Ken – ewwwwwwww.
Axxyaan, I entirely agree that questions into the emotional, social and family area can be intrusive too, but I don’t think employers should ask questions of that kind either. Employers are employers; they don’t get to own their employees.
The military is different, to be sure, but I think there ought to be limits all the same.
Francis,
They do still have access though, don’t they? Isn’t that what basic training is all about?
My understanding of the change in the U.S. military is that evangelical fundamentalists have been allowed to (illegally) require fundamentalist Xtian allegiance from recruits. This has occurred at the same time as Rush Limbaugh’s show was the only talk-radio broadcast on US Armed Forces radio, 1990-late 00s. So the armed forces, originally meant to be politically neutral, have become anything but. This is a dangerous development in terms both of domestic violence (Timothy McVeigh) and foreign relations (wars on Muslim countries).
(Yes, the decision to go to war is a civilian one, niceties of asking Congress first being temporarily beside the point.)
What I actually meant by my last 1/2-sentence garble, is that aggressively fundamentalist Christian attitudes among soldiers at war in a Moslem country will do nothing to prevent atrocities willful murder WikiLeakable events.
@Ophelia
I probably should have been clearer: they technically can’t be sexist now or even homophobic. They can’t afford to be seen to be too far from accepted societal values. But as you rightly point out again and again and not once too often religion gets a pass where nothing else does. Religious degradation is socially acceptable. That makes it a valuable tool to the military.
@Axxyaan
The words I quoted are pretty much a textbook definition of skepticism. Only the phrase “lack a sense of meaning and purpose in your life” describes anything approaching existential crisis. And the phrase “it is hard for you to make sense of what is happening to you and others around you” probably appeared somewhere on Yossarian’s SFT report.
@Ken,
Thanks, I understand better now. I didn’t understand that last sentence very well so I, lazyly, assumed it just went on in the same vein as before. But now I have browsed through my dictinary and I understand your concern, especially in combination with the link you provided. Being a Belgian I didn’t have memeries of John Patten.
@Ophelia,
I think we largely agree. I just find it a bit strange that if you have problems with intrusion in all those areas, you only used boldface on “spiriruality.”
@Francis,
These words describe the turmoil people can go through when in an existential crisis. Like parents who just lost a child. Maybe they are a textbook definition of skepticism too, but going strictly by the words Ophelia quoted, I would say my interpretation is more applicable than yours.
@Axxyaan
But it’s not a question of whose interpretation is more applicable. What’s so odious about the whole thing is precisely that it’s an equivocation – both interpretations are in play. Sure it’s possible that Sgt. Justin Griffith, the soldier who received this comment, is a man in an existential crisis but I’m willing to bet that what prompted this ugly piece of sermonising was no more than the fact that he is an atheist and a skeptic.
@Framcis
That is all very well possible, but you don’t provide elements for why I should accept your view. Take a look at the follwing link: THE HUMANIST. Now read the quotes that Ophelia provided in her article. I don’t see anything in those quotes that contradict the situation as decribed in the article I linked too. I also see nothing wrong with what is going on in that article.
So as far as I can see there as multiple possibilities for your protest, the two most likely being: (1) You are confusing spirituality with religiosity. (2) You have extra information that makes it at least probable that the US army is dishonestly wording what it is actually doing.
I am more than happy to accept that (2) is the case here. Un fortunatly your contributions don’t make that clear.
Axxyaan, I bolded “spiritual” because that’s the subject of this post. I bolded it to make it stand out.
“Spirituality” often is synonymous with religiosity; it’s often used just as an evasive substitute word, either because people think it sounds more special and impressive and thoughtful or because people want to get around legal curbs on government establishment of religion.
No, I don’t have extra information. I made a judgement based on my understanding of US culture which, in part, is based on the many excellent articles on the subject that Ophelia has posted and linked to here over the years. That’s why I used the expression “willing to bet”. Nor do I confuse ‘spiritual’ with ‘religious’. If someone tells me that they are “spiritual not religious” I’m not going to claim that they’re lying or even terminally confused (though I’d be inclined to suspect the latter). But if they want me to believe they have anything useful to contribute to the debate they are going to have to provide a minimally coherent account of non-religious spirituality (that is an account of its rationally not its mere existence as a worldview). In the absence of that I’m going to conclude that they are simply an atheist who has yet to throw off the shackles of inherently religiuous patterns of thought.
In the present instance, it’s up to you to show (1) that “spiritual not religious” actually makes sense and (2) that the US militiary is, in fact, “spiritual not religious”. The existence of a single Dutch “humanist chaplain” makes neither case.
Look, you’ve been around here long enough to know how things work. We discuss matters based on the evidence to hand and our understanding of the issues. No one here is dogmatic and we don’t accept dogma from anyone else. That applies as much to US militiary documents as it does to papal pronouncements. If you want to believe the Pope or Major Major, fine. Just don’t try to pretend that that’s the default rational position.
Ophelia and Francis,
I know spirituality is often synonymous with religiosity and it is often used just as an evasive substitute word. But it also has a meaning on its own in which case it is about how people experince meaning in life, about the feeling that they matter, that they somehow make a difference. This experience and feelings is something we all have, religious and irreligious people alike. For some extra information you might read “Meanings of life” from Roy Baumeister.
Here in Belgium we have a notion of total care, which means that in order to care for someone you look at his fysical health, his sociological health, psychological health and spiritual health. If all is well you experience a meaningful life with a healthy mind in a healthy body and have healthy relationships. I am a volunteer “spiritual caregiver” or “moral counselor”(wouldn’t know the correct translation) myself. I go to homes for the elderly and hospitals and visit those who would like me to, where I try to give some kind of moral/spiritual support.
So when I read this article with the quotes Ophelia provided it gives, at face value, the impression of the U.S. military trying to introduce something like total care. Does that mean I automaticaly believe in the good will of the U.S. military? No! It does mean that the article leaves the possibility of that good will open. So when you critisize what the U.S. military is doing here without making somehow clear you are assuming/suspecting the U.S. Military of bad will and not providing extra information, you give, at least to me, the impression you would protest against this even in the unlikely event the U.S. military had good intentions and just are trying to introduce some total care.
I’m not argueing the U.S. military is acting under good will here. I’m just pointing out that the quotes provided here in themselves don’t make bad will obvious. So if you protest this under the assumption of bad will from the U.S. military without making that clear, you give the impression you are protesting something different than you intend (at least to me).