Military chaplaincy is unnecessary—time for a cultural tax?

Walter Bishop4 said:Look, the USA isn't just handing out cash to churches; they fund themselves through private donations. The Bush-esque administration passed a new law where the government provides funding, but strictly for non-religious services—like daycare centers, for instance. Building churches or buying up land? That comes exclusively out of the pockets of the believers.

mistytinker26 said:Sorry, but could you explain to those of us who don't get it: what does NATO standard have to do with who pays for the pilgrimage and the Chaplain Corps, how it's done, or why?

loneraven25 said:The Republic of America and Vatican City signed a Catholic pastoral care agreement in Washington, D.C. on December 19, 1996, covering
Catholic believers within the Armed forces and the Law enforcement agencies of the Republic of America.
Following that, via the "Qui Successimus" Vatican decree from the Assembly for the bishop on April 25, 1997, the Military chaplaincy in America was established.

An interview with the American Secretary of Defense, Ante Kotromanović, in the American soldier:

Christian Torres3 said:And what on earth does any of that have to do with NATO standards?

Sam Diaz2 said:It’s about basic culture and being a state governed by law. If you sign a Contract, you stick to it. Period. If you want to change the terms, someone at the head of The Government needs to sit down and negotiate those changes with the other party. You don't just unilaterally decide to flip the script; that’s just breaking the deal.

It's like if you sell me a condo for $100,000, we sign everything, and then suddenly I decide $10,000 was actually plenty and the rest is probably overkill.
As a citizen, you can go out, gather the required number of legal signatures, submit them, and then just wait around during some legally questionable timeframe for Parliament calling a referendum. 😉

Christian Torres3 said:That's all well and good, but it doesn't answer my question.

And by the way, Argentina used a presidential decree to scrap their concordat with Vatican City. Yeah, sure, that's a violation of an international treaty—everyone knows it is—but what happened? Absolutely nothing. Zilch. Nada.

Sam Diaz2 said:It’s about basic culture and being a state governed by law. If you sign a Contract, you stick to it. Period. If you want to change the terms, someone at the head of The Government needs to sit down and negotiate those changes with the other party. You don't just unilaterally decide to flip the script; that’s just breaking the deal.

It's like if you sell me a condo for $100,000, we sign everything, and then suddenly I decide $10,000 was actually plenty and the rest is probably overkill.
As a citizen, you can go out, gather the required number of legal signatures, submit them, and then just wait around during some legally questionable timeframe for Parliament calling a referendum. 😉

Sam Diaz2 said:Look, why don't you just reach out to the President while he's heading over to Vatican City and have him lobby the Government to do something about that contract? Since our guy doesn't really have that kind of authority, anyway.

Then there's Linić, claiming we'll be sending more money to the EU next year than we're getting back. Honestly, we might as well just pull out of the EU for a year, at least while we're feeling the pinch.

Serious countries actually stick to what they sign. But since we aren't exactly a "serious" nation and we've already tossed aside our signed agreements (like that whole judicial chapter stuff with the EU), I don't see any reason why we shouldn't just screw... well, the Vatican deal too, and join the club of African and South American nations.

Argentina nationalized some oil companies, so I don't see why we couldn't just screw... ExxonMobil and ini, too. 🤷

mistytinker26 said:The point was that "Anyway, nobody on the public forum is bringing up meeting NATO standards.
When it comes to international military pilgrimages, the Department of Defense participates just like they would in a mission in Afghanistan."

So I asked my question (and Christian Torres3 repeated it), and all I got were answers implying people have lost their minds.
It made me realize I'm not the only one who doesn't see the link between funding these pilgrimages, the Military chaplaincy, and NATO standards.

loneraven25 said:I have to agree with you on one thing: you're being incredibly contradictory within your own argument.
We are specifically talking about the Chaplain Corps here, not making sweeping generalizations about faith or the Church at large.

How on earth can you claim to know anything about something you haven't actually experienced
or participated in yourself? (I mean, did your grandma tell you that's how the world works?)
That kind of narrow-minded attitude is exactly what we used to see back in the day in Albania.

loneraven25 said:I have to agree with you on one thing: you're being incredibly contradictory within your own argument.
We are specifically talking about the Chaplain Corps here, not making sweeping generalizations about faith or the Church at large.

How on earth can you claim to know anything about something you haven't actually experienced
or participated in yourself? (I mean, did your grandma tell you that's how the world works?)
That kind of narrow-minded attitude is exactly what we used to see back in the day in Albania.

mistyotter35 said:It is precisely as I previously stated. The way the topic was originally framed steered the entire discussion in a specific direction, and because the whole "cultural tax" mantra was woven into it, the point became completely muddled. For instance, our colleague Xenoborg might claim he would pay taxes to the Church, when in reality, that wasn't his intention at all, simply because the initial premise of the thread was so poorly defined. Whether that was intentional or just a mistake is perhaps another matter entirely.

Christian Torres3 said:I'll look into it, but I have my doubts. Based on public data, it looks like they might just be chipping in for part of the costs.

2010: The Department of Defense pays a million dollars for 155 pilgrims

According to this procurement plan, way more money goes toward the needs of the Chaplain Corps than toward training soldiers. Just for buying communion wine, they're spending $22533. At an average price of about $17 per liter, that means they're buying roughly 1,350 liters of communion wine.

And they're spending more on promotional materials for the pilgrimage to Lourdes than on teaching our soldiers how to handle sophisticated technology. For a promotional banner for Lourdes 2012, they'll drop $4267, and then there's $10667 for scarves for this pilgrimage and the one to Springfield. link

So, I highly doubt those payment slips cover everything for Lourdes.

Sam Diaz2 said:Look, why don't you just reach out to the President while he's heading over to Vatican City and have him lobby the Government to do something about that contract? Since our guy doesn't really have that kind of authority, anyway.

Then there's Linić, claiming we'll be sending more money to the EU next year than we're getting back. Honestly, we might as well just pull out of the EU for a year, at least while we're feeling the pinch.

Serious countries actually stick to what they sign. But since we aren't exactly a "serious" nation and we've already tossed aside our signed agreements (like that whole judicial chapter stuff with the EU), I don't see any reason why we shouldn't just screw... well, the Vatican deal too, and join the club of African and South American nations.

Argentina nationalized some oil companies, so I don't see why we couldn't just screw... ExxonMobil and ini, too. 🤷

mistycyclist8 said:Fine.

Look, I apologize if I was just being unclear when I put this poll together. I didn't have any ulterior motives or hidden agendas here, so mistyotter35, you can toss that idea of me being difficult right out the window.

Sam Diaz2 said:Funding a pilgrimage has absolutely nothing to do with NATO standards.
What matters for NATO is hitting those budget targets of 2-2.5% when we're sitting at 1.3%. What matters is interoperability between our units and NATO forces.

Technically, the Department of Defense shouldn't even be involved in things like firefighting or civilian medevac, yet that's where most of the Air Force budget goes. But hey, nobody asks about that...

mistyotter35 said:What I meant to convey was that if you wanted a discussion regarding cultural taxation, then you really ought to open a thread specifically for that. Similarly, if the goal is to talk about military expenditures, then opening a dedicated topic would make things perfectly clear. You were referencing one specific article where the conversation started on one subject but eventually veered off into another, and I guess that is simply how the thread drifted.

Anthony Perez9 said:That’s about as much wine as Jesus Christ turned into top-shelf stuff at a wedding where the guests were already wasted.

Man, those were the days. Nowadays, bishops just "launder" our hard-earned cash to fund their own little parties. 🙂

Call it a cultural tax, for sure.

Sure, I’m all for a local accordion club in Lower Poljina, just as long as it isn't being funded by some overpriced clergy.

There’s no such thing as a peace deal with Vatican City on this one. It's all just posturing... they're basically just waiting to pull the trigger while keeping their hands clean.

mistytinker26 said:Hmm. 🙂 I’d love to see Linić's face when Kotromanović walks in and demands double the current budget for the US Armed Forces.

Sam Diaz2 said:They sent over the contract via fax, then parked three Vatican aircraft carriers right off our coast in the Atlantic and gave us a 24-hour deadline to sign it.... OR 🙄