Chaplains

[galen]

How has the question of government paid chaplains(clergy) in the military been resolved by the courts vis a vis the first ammendment?

[Padeye]

If you mean a case against the goverment providing or paying chaplains I think reality may be just the opposite. There have been cases made that the military must provide for the spiritual needs of diverse religious groups because they are often isolated. IIRC the marine corps had to provide “clergy” for someome who wanted to practice satanism.

[Little_Nemo]

I think galen’s question is, is whether there has ever been any legal protest, based on “Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion”, against the government using tax dollars to hire people to work as clergymen. My answer is “dunno”.

[MEBuckner]

Legislative chaplains have probably been more controversial, in terms of being a violation of the Establishment Clause, than military chaplains. In MARSH v. CHAMBERS, 463 U.S. 783 (1983) the Supreme Court upheld chaplains in state legislatures:

(a) The practice of opening sessions of Congress with prayer has continued without interruption for almost 200 years ever since the First Congress drafted the First Amendment, and a similar practice has been followed for more than a century in Nebraska and many other states. While historical patterns, standing alone, cannot justify contemporary violations of constitutional guarantees, historical evidence in the context of this case sheds light not only on what the drafters of the First Amendment intended the Establishment Clause to mean but also on how they thought that Clause applied to the chaplaincy practice authorized by the First Congress. In applying the First Amendment to the states through the Fourteent Amendment, it would be incongruous to interpret the Clause as imposing more stringent First Amendment limits on the states than the draftsmen imposed on the Federal Government. In light of the history, there can be no doubt that the practice of opening legislative sessions with prayer has become part of the fabric of our society. To invoke divine guidance on a public body entrusted with making the laws is not, in these circumstances, a violation of the Establishment Clause; it is simply a tolerable acknowledgment of beliefs widely held among the people of this country. Pp. 786-792.

(b) Weighed against the historical background, the facts that a clergyman of only one denomination has
been selected by the Nebraska Legislature [463 U.S. 783, 784] for 16 years, that the chaplain is paid at
public expense, and that the prayers are in the Judeo-Christian tradition do not serve to invalidate Nebraska’s practice.

In light of the court’s reasoning (concerning the practices of the framers of the Constitution, and their understanding of the Establishment Clause with respect to chaplains), this quote by James Madison is interesting:

Is the appointment of Chaplains to the two Houses of Congress consistent with the Constitution, and with the pure principle of religious freedom?

In strictness the answer on both points must be in the negative. The Constitution of the U. S. forbids everything like an establishment of a national religion. The law appointing Chaplains establishes a religious worship for the national representatives, to be performed by Ministers of religion, elected by a majority of them; and these are to be paid out of the national taxes. Does not this involve the principle of a national establishment, applicable to a provision for a religious worship for the Constituent as well as of the representative Body, approved by the majority, and conducted by Ministers of religion paid by the entire nation.

The establishment of the chaplainship to Congs is a palpable violation of equal rights, as well as of Constitutional principles: The tenets of the chaplains elected [by the majority] shut the door of worship agst the members whose creeds & consciences forbid a participation in that of the majority. To say nothing of other sects, this is the case with that of Roman Catholics & Quakers who have always had members in one or both of the Legislative branches. Could a Catholic clergyman ever hope to be appointed a Chaplain? To say that his religious principles are obnoxious or that his sect is small, is to lift the evil at once and exhibit in its naked deformity the doctrine that religious truth is to be tested by numbers. or that the major sects have a right to govern the minor.

If Religion consist in voluntary acts of individuals, singly, or voluntarily associated, and it be proper that public functionaries, as well as their Constituents shd discharge their religious duties, let them like their Constituents, do so at their own expence. How small a contribution from each member of Congs wd suffice for the purpose? How just wd it be in its principle? How noble in its exemplary sacrifice to the genius of the Constitution; and the divine right of conscience? Why should the expence of a religious worship be allowed for the Legislature, be paid by the public, more than that for the Ex. or Judiciary branch of the Govt

Were the establishment to be tried by its fruits, are not the daily devotions conducted by these legal Ecclesiastics, already degenerating into a scanty attendance, and a tiresome formality?

Rather than let this step beyond the landmarks of power have the effect of a legitimate precedent, it will be better to apply to it the legal aphorism de minimis non curat lex[sup]1[/sup]: or to class it cum “maculis quas aut incuria fudit, aut humana parum cavit natura.”[sup]2[/sup] – James Madison, “Detached Memoranda” ca. 1817W. & M. Q., 3d ser., 3:554–60 1946

[sup]1[/sup] - “the law does not concern itself about trifles” – MEB
[sup]2[/sup] - “with faults which human nature either has scattered around through negligence or has guarded against too little” – MEB

[peace]

I understand why constripts drafted against the will may demand chaplain’s services (if it is impossible to practice religion on your own). But nowadays the soldiers volunteer and are paid. Is it considered a free perk, similar to a tax-free PX?

[MEBuckner]

If you follow that “Detached Memoranda” link, Madison also has some comments about military chaplains.

[sewalk]

*Originally posted by peace *
**I understand why constripts drafted against the will may demand chaplain’s services (if it is impossible to practice religion on your own). But nowadays the soldiers volunteer and are paid. Is it considered a free perk, similar to a tax-free PX? **

What do you mean by free perk? Just how much do you pay for the ministerial services of your local clergyperson or to attend services?

Clergy are not provided for the benefit of the servicemembers. They are provided for the benefit of the service. Poor morale is not conducive to an effective fighting force.

Also, there is a HUGE difference between military chaplains and legislative chaplains. Legislative chaplians perform services that legislators are required to endure. Chaplains’ services in the U.S. military are not compulsory. They are also serving their country just like the men and women they guide spiritually.

Finally, the rights guaranteed by the constitution do not always apply to members of the military. Congress has exclusive authority to set any rules and regulations as it sees fit (remember what happened when Bill Clinton tried to end homosexual discrimination in the military in 1993?)

[toadspittle]

Plus, don’t forget the essential difference:

legislators work 5 days a week, Sundays off, and can go to church anytime they please during their off hours.

soldiers are in thrall to their duties round the clock (yes, they get time off, but not anywhere near like civilians). And in times of war/field practice, they may not have the opportunity to get out of the foxhole and go to church. And they may feel a much greater need of spiritual reassurance during such times–certainly more than someone who just has to sit in committee for 8 hours.

[Curate]

I was a military chaplain for a number of years. In my case, my responsibility was to provide worship services and religious direction to persons of my own denomination AND to see that the religious needs of persons of other faith groups were met as fully as possible. I’m no expert on the legal details of the arrangement, but it’s my impression that the fact that we were there to assist in the worship of any and all probably made the arrangement legally defensible.

It’s important to remember that military chaplains are spread pretty thin, and their services tend to be sought out by those who want them rather than thrust upon those who do not.

[peace]

First of all, I do not mind my tax dollar to be spend on the military clergy. I think that they are very needed. Second, I did not ask about about legislative chaplains. But since Sewalk brought it up, the legislators are not required to serve, let alone to indure anything.
Special set of rules make military chaplains legitimate in the military. Since elsewhere the church and state are separated, they are illegitimate in the legislature. Isn’t it hypocritical to prey in their chamber, on taxpayers’money but to forbid kids to pray in school?
Clinton failure with homosexual discrimination in the military is not a proper example, because our Constitution does not discriminate agains fucking habits in civilian life either.