is it legal to open a GOVERNMENT meeting with a prayer?

Factual Questions
21

Is it silent? :smiley:

Feh, looks like Walloon got there first. Oh well…

(IANAL) Yeah, but that’s a different story. Schools’ function is to teach children, and something like a mandatory secular section that opens with a prayer could easily be interpreted by child minds as instructing them that nothing can be properly started without prayer, which would be unconstitutional. The police meetings are, I would think, a different environment by nature; assuming that it’s perfectly clear to everyone that nobody’s required to participate, nobody gets benefits for participating, and no one gets docked for not participating, I would think this might not be legally objectionable. I really wouldn’t know, but that’s my assumption.

I’m not talking about tickets issued to them as part of a military outreach deal, I’m talking about baseball tickets and wraparound sunglasses that come from the servicemember’s personal funds, which come from his/her salary, which is paid by–guess who? You!

That’s assuming that all national churches–remember, we’re trying to provide full and equal opportunity here (I am, at least)–have (a) the money/manpower and (b) the desire to enter themselves into free work for the military. Domestic bases in high-population areas can just drive their servicemembers out to churches in the area, but a lot of military operations are too secretive or secluded for anything like that to work, or to draw civilian religious organizers in. I bet it’d take as much taxpayer money to coordinate it as it does now to build churches on base and hire chaplains.

Whether you dismiss my arguments out of hand or not is your choice, but what I’m trying to tell you is that the ability to worship for free is vital to troop morale and cohesion, much more so than you would think if you haven’t experienced it yourself. Again, I’m an agnostic, and I can tell you from personal experience that even without ever having an assignment other than basic training, I’ve seen a good number of military personnel who IMO (IANAC) really wouldn’t have survived (I’m talking about suicide, BTW) without free access to religious service. Personally, if you ask me, that’s a heavier reliance on a popular book than I’m willing to invest myself, but to a lot of servicemembers it’s an absolutely vital and lifesaving thing.

Hopefully you’ll see from earlier in this post that I never intended to argue that the military spends its money on the things I mentioned in my first post.

I didn’t know that David Simmons was a veteran; I guess I would’ve written my post in a different light, and well, in that case I can’t argue that he doesn’t know about the effect of religious services on military personnel. I withdraw that argument, but stand by my position that the best way to achieve what I see as the military’s goal in this area–maintain high morale by satisfying all servicemembers’ spiritual needs–is the way it’s done now, which is to build churches and pay people to staff them.

22

We Do pay. It’s called “taxes”. If it makes you feel better to think that my taxes go for that purpose and yours go for the more secular stuff, please, feel free.

I think the chaplain corps is an important part of the military.

23

I’m not suggesting that servicemembers shouldn’t be allowed to worship. What I am saying is that if it’s so vital then there should be no problem in finding clergy to volunteer to lead worship services without being paid out of government funds. The government shouldn’t be in the business of paying clergy to conduct religious services.

24

That’s assuming that there are any clergy in the area. I’ve been on bases that were only reachable by long flights on military aircraft. Chaplains also do much more than conduct services. Service life is difficult as it is, without making it worse just to satisfy those who have an extreme interpretation of the Constitution.

25

If it’s that important then they’ll find a way. Or, if one simply can’t live without engaging in religious services, one is free not to join the military or otherwise remove themselves from easy access to those services.

And I have no problem with their secular functions.

That a situation is unpleasant is not an excuse for doing something illegal to ease it.

26

I think it reads more that (the US) Congress can’t, it does not prohibit states (and local gov’t) from establishing a religion.

27

No one can fault you for expressing your own opinion. But it’s not precedent that keeps the practice going. How many of your fellow citizens do you think share your views? I suspect a very small percentage.

Providing religious services to military personnel is one of the least things I’m worried about my tax money to be spent on. If we’re going to send folks to risk their lives for the country, it would seem unbelievably mean spirited not to provide spiritual support for them. Even though I’m an atheist myself, I recognize how important religioius faith is to many, if not most people.

28

Sure, John. It’s a trifling resentment and expressing it on a message board forum is a trifling protest.

In view of the many mean-sprited things that the federal government does (the actual administration of welfare reform and the prescription drug program come to mind), this wouldn’t really be the tops in that department. Two wrongs don’t make a right, of course, but I don’t think not going to church would have been first and foremost of most of my outfits concerns had it been known in advance of their going into the army that that would be the situtation. And, as I said, some other means could have been, and doubtless would have been, formulated had that been the mode of operation from the beginning. Officially recognized non-combatants near the combat zone are not at all uncommon and adding one more in the form of privately financed clergy wouldn’t have been all that difficult.

However, the current method is now set in stone and reinforced concrete and any suggestion for a change is greeted with disdain, as this thread shows clearly.

29

Yes it does. The Supreme Court, through the doctrine of incorporation, has ruled that the 14th Amendment means that (most, but not yet all of) the Bill of Rights applies to state and local governments. States are just as berred from establishing religion as the federal government is.

30

Sorry, Airman Doors that doesn’t help. You and I both pay a fixed amount in federal taxes. If I imagine that none of mine goes for chaplains then I have to imagine that some of yours pays for what I don’t pay. That means I have to imagine you paying less for the other federal government functions, like national defense. And that means that I have to imagine myself paying more for those other functions because I am forced to imagine you paying less of their cost.

And in addition the individual in the military who doesn’t feel the need for the chaplain is also paying.

In the end we still both pay a certain amount in taxes, some of which pays for chaplains.

And who said otherwise?

31

Good on you for realizing that they need the services. Now read the rest of my post, please. Or mks57’s.

It’s not that simple. The facts of military life are such that civilians with jobs that important–remember that chaplains don’t just conduct services, they’re also de facto therapists for the squadron, and any servicemember of any rank or responsibility needs to know that they can tell that person anything, and the only way to reach that goal is to have the chaplains be military personnel. It’s easy to wipe away a problem on the theoretical level with the back of your hand, but it’s not that easy to actually do it on a practical level, because what the chaplain does on the other six days of the week would be impossible.

What’s illegal? The chaplain system neither establishes any religion, nor requires that any servicemember use it, nor provides vocational benefits or penalties for using or not using it towards any religion (specific or general). The military works a lot harder than you think to avoid crossing those lines. Most people in a position of command understand this; and there are a lot of easy ways to report those that don’t, without punishment or retribution of any kind. The lawbreaking you envision is a product of your imagination, and you seem to have no way to contrast it to reality.

32

I’ve read all posts to this thread in their entirety, thanks. And I don’t concede for a second that religious services are needed by soldiers or anyone else. What I said was that if they are so vital, then clergy should be lined up around the proverbial block to join the military with a secular MOS (MOS is the right acronym, right?) and volunteer to conduct services, without taking government funding for performing religious services (or in the alternative perform them from outside the military as missionaries), and those people who can’t make it through a week without going to church should refrain from joining our volunteer armed forces.

The military couldn’t have secular counselors? The military doesn’t have secular counselors? I don’t believe it.

If it is in fact an establishment of religion for the military to have chaplains, then having military chaplains would be unconstitutional, thus illegal. I don’t know for a fact one way or the other about military chaplains, since I don’t know of any case law that’s directly on point. With the wide variety of state actions that do violate the Establishment Clause, it does not seem beyond the realm of possibility that military chaplains violate the First Amendment. If that were the case, as I said, your statements about the hardships faced by military personnel are irrelevant to the Constitutional violation.

33

And you’ve got a valid point except that there might not be enough civilian clergy in some religions to go around. Some religions tend (wide-brush mode) to dislike the current foreign policy of the US, and might decide that they will refuse their services to servicemembers

There are secular counselors (I can’t say I know much about them, having never used their services, but the First Sergeant and the Inspector General are a couple that come to mind, although the latter has a more specific purpose). But there’s no religious element at all to meeting privately with a chaplain, except any that the counseled voluntarily brings up. Each unit generally is assigned one chaplain–be he some Christian denomination, Jewish, Muslim, Baha’i, Buddhist, Wiccan, etc.–who is required to have open doors and a secular environment to offer to all servicemembers in that unit who need it, regardless of religious orientation or lack thereof. The AF squadron I spent most of my time in had a Jewish chaplain at the time, and a Muslim chaplain immediately before. As one of maybe five Jews in the squadron (three of whom didn’t self-identify as Jewish until I offered to take them to the Jewish service with me and they saw it a few times), I can tell you that our Jewish chaplain had open doors for everyone and never brought up the topic of religion in private sessions except when asked to by the counseled. I heard all of the same things about the Islamic chaplain before him, who AFAIK didn’t have a single Muslim in the squadron.

The Air Force also has BAS, which conducts psychological evaluations, but IME it’s geared less towards helping you solve your problems and more towards helping you get kicked out of the military. Which may be one’s goal, but for the goal of counseling it’s less than ideal. You won’t find an argument here if you tell me that’s a broken system. But the suggestion that it should be fixed by eliminating the current military chaplain service misses the target, if you ask me.

I’m pretty sure it is in the Army and the Marines. The Air Force uses AFSC; in the AF, MOS refers to a living space inspection in boot camp.

Again, it’s easy to wipe this population away with the back of your hand on a theoretical level, but a lot of people who did just fine without going to religious services before find that with the added stresses of military life they need religious support. Read: Me. I heartily agree with you that I should have refrained from joining our volunteer armed forces–mostly for other reasons–but once you’re in and you find out that it’s now a necessity, you can sure as hell bet they’re not going to let you out for making that discovery, as well they shouldn’t.

You don’t know if it’s illegal? OK, that’s fine. I was responding to this quote which said to me that you think the current practice breaks the First Amendment:

Apparently I misinterpreted that. My apologies. Either way, you certainly don’t seem convinced that it is a legal practice; I’m trying to present to you the reasons why, as I see it, it jibes perfectly with the First Amendment. Remember that no particular religion (or religion in general) is being either fluffed or repressed by the ideal system, and where the system is not applied ideally there are effective checks and balances in place to change it.

34

Troop morale is irrelvant?

Glad you have never been responsible for formulating military policy.

35

Isn’t illegal, thus your entire argument is a non sequitur.

36

It’s met with disdain because it’s nothing more than a cruel and uncalled for assault on the daily lives of soldiers. Designed to make their lives more difficult not because of any legitimate reading of the constitution that is accepted by any legal body, but rather a mean-spirited and in fact bigoted hatred of religion.

37

Woah, buddy, cool your jets! Nobody here is a mean-spirited religion-hating bigot. You can’t pigeonhole people like that based on a political view. In fact, despite being one of the more vocal supporters of the chaplain system in this thread, I self-identify as agnostic, and in fact hold a fair bit of dislike towards organized religion.

The difference is that I feel that I see a need for the chaplain service in a modern American military, and its detractors don’t.

38

No logical person could oppose the chaplain system. Thus, the only way opposition to the chaplain system can exist is because of anti-religious bigotry.

39

Welp, I smell smoke. I’m going to leave this one alone and unsubscribe to this thread. Good luck, guys!

40

Martin, you are cordially invited.