the l.a. times comes through again

i really like the l.a. times. there is always interesting articles to read if you fish through the right sections.

it isn't a regular section, but they have a 'religion' section that has pretty cool articles. i check every once in a while to see what they are saying. sometimes they are wack, but a lot of times, the articles are gems.

like today's article about public redemption (in context of msgr. urell, who was a huge part of the catholic church coverup of sexual abuse). should he be allowed to be in a public office?

but that's not the article i am here to write about.

2 weeks ago, the times published an article about chaplains in the u.s. military. there is lots of conflict for the chaplains, who are being asked to lead religious services but also are being censored in their invocations of their god. for example, let's say you are leading a prayer at a ceremony. are you allowed to pray in the name of jesus? or allah or marvin the martian for that matter? this is the conflict.

many say that since we have freedom of religion in this country and our military is comprised of many faiths, can we really ask them to pray with someone of another faith? while on the other hand, let's say you do it. what is it that you are really doing? are you actually praying to their god or are you just bowing your head as a show of solidarity but accomplishing nothing in the spiritual sense? in that case, what's the use?

it is an interesting debate. as a christian, i would never pray to another god. i believe there is only one god. so what would i do if the military asked me to lead a prayer but not talk to my god?

i know the answer to that by the way.... :)