So what would be a solution that would appease you?
Would all Chaplain’s being trained coreman suffice? To keep their non-combatant role
Can they conduct services in let us a say a library? Loaded question, on my ship the USS Ranger, the Chaplain’s ran the ships library.
In the end would this just be a legal fiction to square things away with the Establishment Clause?
Jim
*I’ve said it already several times, they are free to **eat candy ** as much as they want, they are free to make their own candy, they are free to seek out volunteers to teach them how to eat candy, **candymakers ** are free to join the military in a role other than **official candymakers ** and conduct candymaking classes. My objection is solely to the suckling of *candymaking ** on the public teat.
I don’t understand this position. If lots of the soldiers want candy, it’d be more efficient for military purposes to give it to them as part of their package.
I don’t understand your position either, Otto.
Religious students would be made happy by having prayers broadcast over their school’s PA system but we don’t allow it, because making religious people happy is not a legitimate secular purpose. But those same religious students can have Bible clubs after school (or Torah clubs, or Baghavad Gita clubs or Koran clubs or whatever), they can gather at the flagpole before school to pray with each other, they can pray at lunch or recess, etc. Just like religious soldiers caould organize themselves into study groups and prayer sessions and clergy can enlist to volunteer to lead services without specifically being paid for it. There is no need for the State to be involved, especially in light of the First Amendment.
Religion is advanced through the dissemination of its message. The message of a religion is disseminated through its rituals.
This is probably the weakest of the three violations but even if it’s not a violation of the third prong the act only has to violate one of the three to be unconstitutional.
If lots of soldiers want cocaine and hookers I imagine that the military could supply them very efficiently. Efficiency isn’t an argument for doing something if it’s illegal.
I don’t know how to explain it any more clearly.
That is a boneheaded, nearly fascist reason for denying it to the soldiers who need it.
You’re completely missing the point. Soldiers get lots of stuff provided to them out of tax dollars that you would not normally be happy for most people to be given out of tax dollars, because their employment means they are kept on isolated world-unto-themselves bases, ships, remote postings etc. Food, accommodation, dentistry, whatever. All of these things are provided for a legitimate secular purpose.
Your religious students can go where they like after school. Soldiers can’t.
Soldiers could do DIY religion. They could also cook their own desserts. Someone decided, for a legitimate secular reason, it would be better to let the soldiers do the soldiering and employ professional cooks.
Until you can explain to me why you complain about soldiers being given religious services but don’t complain about them being given dessert after dinner, your position is untenable.
All sorts of things given to soldiers may have all sorts of effects. This arm of the Lemon test however talks of “primary effect”. Unless you can show that soldiers mostly become religious through the chaplains rather than the chaplains just catering for an existing need, you don’t get anywhere with this arm of the Lemon test.
You’re attempting to do a bootstrap. The point about my candy analogy is that it shows how this is not about religion, it’s about providing soldiers with what they want. If that’s what it’s about, it’s not illegal.
And you think someone employed by the military is going to say anything other than “You’ll go to heaven, now kill the soulless foreigners !” ? Sure, they’ll likely use more subtle language, but they’ll hardly answer “Thou shalt not kill, turn the other cheek, and you’ll go to hell if you go off to war .”
Telling a bunch of people you intend to put at risk that they shouldn’t worrry about death qualifies as “treatment” to you ? To me, it’s ruthless manipulation.
Agreed. Encouraging suicidal, ruthless and bloodthirsty behavior has always been one of the primary functions of religion.
Besides, IMHO chaplains do violate the seperation of church and state.
Why don’t we just let Martin Hyde and Der Trihs argue amongst themselves? Not that it’d get anywhere, mind…
I personally would have no problem with paying tax to employ chaplains. That’s not a legal view - I really have no idea whether or not it’s illegal under your Constitution or not, though I would say it doesn’t have any “legitimate secular purpose” - but personally i’m for it. Also, Martin Hyde does seem rather bigoted himself, what with his refusal to look at any other viewpoints other than “I hate religion! No chaplains!” (let’s call it the, hmm, Der Trihs view).
I too have no objection to txpayers funding chaplains, so long as I am that chaplain. However it seems that the only church to which I belong, the ULC of Modesto California cannot endorse any chaplains. Freedom of religion, humbug.
I simply view you as someone who is right in this instance while being wrong in many others.
Not a difficult thing.
I suppose YOU would then be willing to pay the frieght of every soldiers particular “religious cousellor” be it Christian, Jewish, Muslim, Flying Spaghetti Monster, Church of Scientology, Satanism, plus ensure that Scientology “e-meters” were on hand? Oh and what about Voodoo dolls? Hey we could be using our defence budget to make those of the enemy and save a lot of time! You know, come to think of it, I have a bunch of “natural defence spirit bombs” that happen to grow out of positronic aura juice in my yard. They are invisible, but they will prevent souls from going to hell if worn while fighting…I could sell them to the government!
Like I said, I will pay for whatever is necessary for our men and women on the field to have what they need to do their jobs, but I wont pay to support ANY religion. Ever.
As I said I don’t want to give too much credence to the bigots by responding to their arguments, but this raises an interesting side-point. The one about the submarines highlights the fact that in many places military members are going to be deployed in an area where a civilian simply would not be allowed, no matter what exceptions people might want to make.
I’m sorry that I refuse to accept bigotry as an acceptable debate position. I’m sure MLK Jr. refused to accept the bigoted arguments in favor of segregation. I guess that made him pitworthy too, because we all know that if we refuse to accept the stupidest, most hateful of arguments carte blanche we’re going against the spirit that has made this forum the bastion of anti-religious bigotry and intolerence it is today.
I don’t mind arguing the legal aspects of this point. I won’t argue the moral or theoretical stance on whether or not the government should be hiring chaplains.
Legally, this is neither illegal or unconstitutional. There is no statute prohibiting it nor is there any SCOTUS decision which denotes this as unconstitutional. Therefor there is no legitimate claim that this is not a legal practice.
Could it become unconstitutional? Theoretically in that the SCOTUS can rule however they want on whatever they want, but it would never happen from a practical standpoint.
What a load of crap. By having chaplains that cater for about 3 or 4 religions the military can cover about, what, 99% of its soldiers? Probably more like 99.9% I suspect. So is your argument that it shouldn’t cater to the wants of any soldier because there are some guys who wouldn’t get catered for?
I suppose you think that the government shouldn’t pay for desserts for any soldier because it’s unreasonable for the government to have to pay for gorgonzola and pear pizza for this one private who regards that as the only dessert worth eating?
What the fuck is this shit? No one’s suggesting that merely because the military supplies its soldiers with their religious needs it believes in that religion. In fact, it couldn’t, given that it provides chaplains for more than one religion.
What you need to get to grips with is the inherent contradiction in this sentence.
99%, 99.999%, 99.99999999999999999999999999999999%
I dont care, I will not, as an athiest, endorse or financially support ANY religion.
In my opinion, Desserts exist. God does not. Apples and oranges.
I was suggesting that if you are going to force taxpayers to endorse one form of divination on behalf of an imaginary friend…you should endorse all the forms of divination, not because the soldiers may or may not hold those beliefs, rather because the PEOPLE PAYING FOR IT DO. Christians believe strongly that God provides strength to those in need. I believe strongly that God does not exist, and it is false comfort to teach otherwise. I believe my agent would be better for the soldiers mental health than someone telling them a big imaginary bunny will come and save them from their troubles.
Basically, you cant have it both ways.
There is only an “inherent contradiction” if one assumes your opinion is correct. I do not make that assumption, clearly and strongly.
And you think that’s a complete list of chaplains’ faiths for what reason?
Actually, the faith groups themselves provide the chaplains. The military provides a means for that. It might be a distinction without a difference; however, it is a distinction.
See, that is a huge distinction. I am fine with that, as long as no one is forced or even coerced into going to their “preach sessions” and that they are only allowed to speak to people that specifically request them, not prey on soldiers in varying states of conciousness with their propeganda etc. AND any world view of any sort is allowed to send in their own “agents of Og” provided they foot the bill, then no problems here. Might be a good way to get a bit of extra cash for the military.
What about the following statement:
“Many soldiers believe that access to religous services is as vital as access to food and shelter.”
Whether or not you or I believe that access is truly vital is rather besides the point, isn’t it? The “opinion” here isn’t whether or not it is true, but whther or not people think it is true.
Evidently you didn’t peruse the links I provided.
At any rate, nobody’s forced to go to any religious services. Also, any faith group may have a military lay leader. The lay leaders do not get paid. The chaplains, on the other hand, do get paid; however, they are required to do a whole lot more than preach. Come to think of it, the chaplains really aren’t required to preach. They may conduct services that don’t violate their own faith’s strictures.