They have a goodly number of Rabbis in the Chaplain service also. I attending services twice in Boot Camp just for the experience.
Jim
See, that sounds discriminatory. To me. Also somehow makes my church-state alarm tinkle a little bit. I don’t think religious establishments should have any access to or control over any aspect of the army. I think the government should employ the chaplains, as individuals. Allowing the religious establishments to provide chaplains is to collaborationy, to me, and not so employerish. Which I’m more comfortable with.
It is an essential servive because religion is a core part of life for many military member, especially if you aren’t sure you will live through the day. The majority of people in fact consider it a primary value. Military people often don’t have the freedom to go out and take care of their own needs. They probably aren’t stationed in the middle of NYC for OG’s sake. They could be effectively captive in Okinawa, Japan or on a submarine under the Arctic ice. If the military doesn’t provide something, they probably can’t have it for months or years at a time.
I think that some of you fundamentally misunderstand the miltary. Bases have to function as their own little universes. So do subs. So do aircraft carriers. Why wouldn’t you provide something that the majority of people want and need and they cannot physically get elsewhere?
Some of you are saying that you want to deprive people risking their lives for the country of something that they may desperately need? The military has to have something like it anyway because you have to announce deaths and preside over funerals as well as other procedural and ceremonial functions.
BTW, there are chaplains for other faiths besides Christianity if that is what is bothering you.
To deny the necessity of the chaplaincy is to deny human reality. These are real people in extreme situations. To deny spiritual succor to those who require it extremely shortsighted.
But to deny the validity of any debate on the subject is, is, like, Martin Hydean in its stupidity.
I don’t think this is a valid reason. I have strong doubts that anyone really, down deep, thinks they won’t live through the day. Even when casualties are expected to be high, with damned few exceptions everyone thinks it will be somebody else.
I wouldnt deny their right to it, but I would also not be willing to pay for it. You believe it is something that can be “required”, I believe it is intellectual poison, no different than supplying heroine or cocaine to the troops.
I think we have fundmental issue of ignornace about a lot of things here. Military Chaplains are military officers first and religious counsel second. They are fully qualified in the officer ranks. They aren’t just people the military found to say prayers.
This is imprtant because they are allowed to be around military information and speak somewhat freely around other military members. There is no way that say an outside Muslim cleric could speak to military personell freely on base.
Chaplains are not all Christian either and all of them serve everybody.. There are Islamic, Jewish, and Hindu chaplains as well.
I am with Martin here. It is absolutley fucking idiotic to say they shouldn’t be there.
You obviously have about as many clues (zero) as the pittee does on this issue. Those trained in theology are trained in a bit more than just their particular faith’s mythology. Additionally, the military chaplaincy has a bit more stringent guidelines on qualification than you seem to think they do.
Some info from my church on what a military chaplain is.
My church’s blurb about Department of Defense educational requirements for the chaplaincy.
Links to the various military chaplain departments.
You will notice that there’s a bit more required to be a military chaplain than to be a bartender. You will also notice that the military chaplain is required to serve all members of his unit, regardless of the members’ particular faith.
The pittee’s assertion regarding the validity of debate on the issue also is clueless. Of course one can disagree with the necessity or even the current setup of the chaplain corps. That does not mean one is anti-religious, intolerant, or even ignorant.
I’m not opposed to servicemembers praying or finding comfort in religion. I have no objection to volunteer clergy leading services or to the secular functions of the chaplaincy. My objection is on First Amendment grounds. I believe that paying people with government money to perform religious rituals violates the Establishment Clause. I believe it about military chaplains, I believe it about chaplains in federal, state and local incarceration facilities, I believe it about having clergy on the payroll of the House and Senate. That military service is a hardship or that soldiers may miss church or be homesick is not IMHO justification for violating the Constitution. Now, I could very well be wrong and if someone can cite me case law either here or in the GQ thread* to the contrary, I’d be happy to look at it.
The idea that one can only hold these positions if one is a bigot or a moron is ridiculous. That Martin continues to hold to the position in the face of a number of rational people explaining how wrong it is, is completely bizarre.
*IIRC someone did post some case law about opening a legislative session with a prayer; I understand the reasoning but I don’t agree with it.
You know better than that or at least I hope you do for your own sake. The Establishment Clause isn’t being violated because the military isn’t “establishing” a religion. It is providing services to everyone, regardless of faith. Beyond that, Chaplains come from all four major religions.
You already know that I think Martin’s argument was dumb. So I’ll move on to yours which is well reasoned but not one I agree with.
Establishment Clause: I would love to hear from a knowledgeable lawyer on this one. I am not sure it applies to the military. When I was in the Navy I lost many of my rights provided for in the constitution. Best examples are the right to trial by a jury of my peers and the right of free speech. So it might not legally apply to the armed services that adhere to the Uniform Code Of Military Justice. Also the Military does not promote one religion over another.
The Navy has had Chaplains since it inception. I don’t know about the army. It is an ancient tradition and the training was pretty rigorous. The RCC has its own Diocese for the Military if I remember correctly but the Chaplains must obey all military rules before church rules. So they are effectively an Officer Billet. The military has a higher proportion of religious people than the country as a whole. If you are on a 6 month WestPac are you suggesting that the religious should go without services for 6 months or that a Civilian should ship out on a warship?
It is a basic perk in an all volunteer service.
Again I don’t believe in established religions but I begrudgingly think those that do should have Chaplains available for services, counseling and solace.
Jim
It’s one thing to consider that military chaplains provide a valuable service and that the status quo is perfectly fine. (As it happens, I’m in that corner, too.) It’s another thing altogether to agree with Mr. Hyde’s outrageous assertion.
Look, the word “logic” has been introduced. Let’s apply a little of it:
[ul][li]There is a multiplicity of opinions regarding the proper relationship between religion and government.[/li]
[li]There are people in this world who are religious and yet strongly believe in an absolute separation between church and state.[/li]
[li]These people would argue that no funds for religious services should come from the public purse.[/ul]If you are “with” Martin Hyde, then you must necessarily accept that some religious people are biased against religion to the point of bigotry. This is an absurdity.[/li]
There are many reasons that someone might place a high value on the strict separation of church and state – even if they themselves are religious. One such concern is that a direct and dependent relationship with a political government may have a corrupting influence on the faith.
Accusing people of bigotry over this difference of opinion is hysterical and offensive.
Really well said Larry.
I don’t think you understand what the Establishment Clause means. It doesn’t just forbid creating The First Church of the United States. SCOTUS has created what is known as the Lemon test to determine whether a government action violates the Establishment Clause. To be constitutional:
If the action violates any of those three prongs, it is unconstitutional. IMHO, the government’s paying for religious rituals violates all three prongs. Religious rituals have no legitimate secular purpose, they have the primary effect of advancing religion and they excessively entangle government in religion. Note that other functions of military chaplains, such as counseling, don’t IMHO violate the Establishment Clause and once again I have no objection to them.
Excuse me, the Lemon test comes from Lemon v Kurtzman, not “Kurtz.”
I think Otto is actually talking about the taxpayers’ right not to pay a clergyman’s salary. I’d never actually thought about that before, and I also think it would make a great GD thread. I do know that Henry David Thoreau’s first trip to jail was for refusing to pay a tax that Massachusetts levied to support a (the Anglican?) church. We generally don’t allow government money to pay for religious services any more. On the other hand, there are chaplains in prisons (a lot of them are Wiccan, interestingly enough) and for each house of congress (not so many Wiccans). I also know how important the Chaplain Service is in the military.
Anyway, it’s just dumb to say there’s no rational way to oppose it. I’d like to see what the arguments are.
Not sure about the Establishment Clause but SCOTUS has definitely ruled that the Free Exercise Clause applies to military action but that military action is due greater deference because of the unique role of the military. Generally as I understand the Court’s stance on the Constitution and the military, servicemembers don’t sign away their rights upon joining the military but the realities of military service allow for greater restrictions on those rights than a civilian setting would permit. The military still has to act in accordance with the Constitution.
As for promoting one religion over another, that’s irrelevant. The question is not whether State action promotes one religion over another but whether it promotes religion at all.
Well it sound to me like you might have a case for the Supreme Court, I would still disagree with it. But you might have a legit case.
Getting over the Legal/intellectual issueand as we are in the pit and not GD, do you actually want to deny these volunteers there opiate?
I would let them keep their God solace, their coffee and their access to beer and liquor. They get few enough perks as it is.
I can attest to the fact they definitely cannot make you attend services even when a few idiots try and force you. I got an ignorant Lt Jg chewed out royally for a situation like that. One of the highlights of my Navy career. He went from the Legal officer to the XO in one day. They even took away his method of revenge by ensuring my evals would not go through him. They transfered him from E-Div to Boatswain within a month.
Jim
Absolutely not. I’ve said it already several times, they are free to pray as much as they want, they are free to conduct their own religious rituals, they are free to seek out volunteers to lead them, clergy are free to join the military in a role other than chaplain and conduct ministries. My objection is solely to the suckling of religion on the public teat.
Otto, before I join on on the other side of the debate on the greater issue, let me say that I support you as against Martin Hyde’s usual mindless black-and-white idiocy.
Having said that, I think you’re wrong about the issue overall.
You say that you don’t agree with your taxes paying for religious services. I sympathise with that as a general sentiment.
However, I’m sure you also would generally have no problem with the government providing general domestic and personal services to its employees who work in remote or isolated areas.
A very large proportion of soliders are religious and religion would form part of their normal person life.
I’m not a US constitutional lawyer, heck I’m not even an Australian constitutional lawyer, but this sounds like crap to me.
*The government’s action must have a legitimate secular purpose;
The government’s action must not have the primary effect of either advancing or inhibiting religion; and
The government’s action must not result in an “excessive entanglement” of the government and religion*
Th legitimate secular purpose is to keep religious soldiers happy
The primary effect is to keep religious soldiers happy. It’s doubtful that “advancing or inhibiting religion” is even a secondary effect, since I think that military chaplains are not particularly proselytising.
I don’t see how military chaplains “excessively entangle”. They’re just there to keep the soldiers happy, not to advance an agenda.