whose water?

[cellio]

There's not much water available in the Iraqi desert, of course, so most soldiers haven't bathed in a long time. According to this article, there's an army chaplain in Iraq who has a large pool of water for use by the soldiers, but there's a catch: they have to get baptised first.

Unless that chaplain personally collected the water without using any army resources (including protection), I hope they kick him out of there. Because in any other case, it's not his water; it's the army's water. And yes, my reaction would be exactly the same if it were a rabbi who required everyone to pray the daily service first, or a Republican who required you to change your voter registration to his party first, or anyone collecting a fee.

I'm all for having folks along with the army who aren't part of the effort but who do provide support services valued by some members of the unit. But when support staff become parasites, it's time for them to go.

Comments

[tangerinpenguin.livejournal.com]

See, I find this whole thing insulting because it appears to trivialize the entire concept of baptism. You figure, especially once bullets start flying, a certain number of guys who have been sorta religious but never officially so are going to be interested in being baptised for real, and here (it sounds like) they're likely surrounded by a bunch of giggling smart aleks who've decided that they've scammed a bath. Not only is it grossly unfair to those who aren't willing to be baptised, it undercuts any meaning the ritual has for those who are.

That being said, it's not clear to me exactly what use the GIs are getting - baptism itself would involve getting immersed in water (I'm assuming - it varies by denomination and sometimes specific pastor, but it sounds like this guy is from the immersion tradition), so the baptism itself could be the extent of it. I could also see them getting bumped to the front of the shower line to slow down fouling the baptism water (like having to take a shower before using the pool - I'm not sure whether it would be more water-efficient in the long run to shower first or just replace the baptism pool more often.) Also, a baptism is a once-per-lifetime ritual, so while it leaves less physical evidence than, say, circumcision, it's also not something you can run back and do every day like someone sitting through the sermon at the soup kitchen in order to get a hot meal.

[cellio]

Good point. This wrongs the sincere people in a big way. Just as easy conversion for the sake of marriage wrongs true converts. It's not so much that the ritual loses meaning for the sincere, I'd say, but rather that everyone will assume they aren't really serious, which will make it harder for them to get whatever other support they'll need due to this change later.

[tangerinpenguin.livejournal.com]

Good point about how other people would view participants, but I also think it hurts the earnest participant as well. Sort of like someone for whom a formal church wedding is a big part of their concept of marriage being married at a drive-through chapel in Las Vegas, surrounded by drunks who are there so they can say they were "married" by an Elvis impersonator.

[greenegirl.livejournal.com]

I'm not actually a christian, but I entirely agree with you, both about trivialising what he's supposed to be there for, and because its just Corrupt
x