So says the (presumably atheist) Mikey Weinstein. In fact, failing this, he’d like them prosecuted for treason for ‘sharing their faith’ and that goes for anybody enlisted in the military.
Another frothy-mouthed fanatic? Certainly, but this guy and his organization are ‘in talks with the Pentagon’. Why the Pentagon should pay him any heed is beyond me. But I suppose the question should be addressed: are priests, of whatever creed, unconstitutional in a military role? Personally (and I’m a confirmed atheist although I’ve never been fanatical about it) I have no problem with them. And if soldiers want to tell their buddies they’re a Christian or Judaist or Muslim I have no problem with that either, provided of course they don’t shove it down their throats every two minutes.
So is the Pentagon (and presumably the Obama administration) getting a little carried away in their secular Puritanism or are they simply acting as guardians of the Constitution?
I’ve always thought that the clergy being members of the military was a bullshit thing. Get them out, IMO. No idea if they are unconstitutional, but I do get kind of cheesed that my tax dollars are paying for any part of the performance of any religious rites or procedures, etc.
I liked this quote from the linked article:
No, it would be much worse if we stopped giving our soldiers ammo. And guns. And radios. And GPS. In fact, I can think of lots of things we could deny our soldiers that would be worse than denying them the ability to be able to exercise their faith. Not sure why they couldn’t do that off-base in civvies, tho.
Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof;
Is it an establishment of religion to post clergy in the military? If it were limited to one specific religion then I’d call that a definite yes. With effort to represent various faiths, it’s murkier. Probably still a yes, but murkier.
However
It’s certainly an act of government to take a soldier from Kansas then ship him halfway around the world. If counsel with an clergyman is an important aspect to that soldier’s religion, then to deploy that soldier to circumstances that deprive him of a clergyman may be “prohibiting the free exercise thereof”. Also murky.
If there is a genuine conflict between “shall make no law” and “prohibiting the free exercise”, then how should that conflict be resolved?
I believe that your government already curtails the free speech rights of its military (I seem to recall Airman Doors, USAF refusing to give his opinion of GWB due to restrictions on what he was allowed to say regarding the CiC). Seems to me that there is precedent to restrict the constitutional rights of serving military.
I support the use of any magic or superstition which helps make members of our military more comfortable, be it religious or service traditions. I might draw the line on sacrifices to Odin before battle, but I am not hearing of anyone asking for that.
There is, IMO, nothing murky wharsoever in the question. Refusing to provide access to clergy eligible to lead worship according to the beliefs of the individual serviceman is depriving him of the free exercise of his religion. To take Catholicism as one example, if physically possible he is obliged to attend Mass every Sunday and holy day of obligation and to make confession and take communion at least once annually between Ash Wednesday and Penteccost inclusive, with communion as often as he may find himself attending Mass in a state of grace. An Orthodox Jew in the presence of nine other Jews on the Sabbath is obliged to participate in specific acts of worship. Many Protestants are obliged to participate in Sunday worship whenever possible. If Sandra Day O’Connor left one mark on the Court that will survive, it is this: there was a widespread 19th century understanding that the Establishment Clause did not prohibit any and all government support of religion, but rather mandative and/or preferential choice of a single belief over a neutrality in matters of religion. Where the government imposes some limitation on the individual, it is acceptable if not required for it to make provision for those individuals who choose to do so to engage in the free exercise of their faith, itself remaining neutral as between any and all such faiths (or presumably their absence).
This differs from the Establishment Clause violation entered into when government voluntarily expends tax money to support an action or structure supported by one or more sects, in that it is facilitating the free exercise of citizens who would otherwise be impeded from their constitutional right.
Quick question about this. Would not the fact that that the military is placing him in a position where it is not possible for him to attend Mass, take communion, etc, absolve him of the responsibility as it is, in that case, not physically possible for him to do so as his religion makes allowances for such situations?
One other thing to consider is that chaplains tend to play a sort of counselor role for a lot of soldiers, much like pastors or priests do in civilian life. In addition, they may be easier for troops to bring up sensitive subjects to, not being in their chain of command and all.
I’d imagine this would be a very useful role for the chaplains to fill, regardless of their particular religious leanings. I’m Protestant, but I wouldn’t have an issue discussing things with a Catholic priest, or even a Rabbi or Imam if they were the only guys around to discuss it with.
To answer the direct question of the OP - no, I don’t believe they should be kicked out of the military. For all of the reasons stated they are useful and necessary.
However, I admire M. Weinstein for taking this position, and the administration for dialoging on this subject. By taking this position he is putting a firm stake in the ground, a technique used quite effectively by others (e.g. NRA). What he ends up getting will certainly be far from his stated goal, but it will move the argument in his direction, if even slightly.
What he is trying to address, of course, is the aggressive Christianization of much of the military. Similar to gays living in the don’t ask/don’t tell era - non-christians and non-believers are not made to feel accepted or welcome. This has to be addressed.
While deployed where would they attend mass at Snowboarder? I’m an athiest but I always understood the value of Chaplains in the service even if it wasn’t of any value to me personnally.
Yeah, I’d say that’s a good way to describe Mr. Weinstein. He’s one of the ones who has convinced himself that the Constitution puts restrictions on government money paying for anything related to religion, which it does not actually do.
Full bore atheist here, and I’ve got no problem with them so long as they mind their own god-damned business. Once they start–ugh–“sharing the gospel of Jesus Christ” in any way at all, I think they’re crossing a line. (That goes for shudder “sharing the gospel of” YHWH, Buddha, Krishna, Odin, Athena, or anyone else you care to name as well.)
Regarding the counselor role–I think that’s quite valuable. But if I were in the military (and I would’ve been, but for GERD and an excess of honesty ;P), I’d sorely wish for there to be a “counselor” I could go to without him pushing His LORD and Saviour Jesus H. Christ on me. Atheist chaplains, anyone?
I assume this is because Obama is an atheist socialist Islamic Kenyan who’s trying to destroy America.
The linked article smacks of alarmism. I was unfamiliar with the website it appears on (breitbart.com), but looking it up on Wikipedia, it appears it’s somewhat to the right of Fox news and has been involved in a number of controversies, including some in which it has reported satire as fact.
Is there a need to restrict these rights? The complaint expressed in the OP sounds like those who oppose gay marriage because it somehow affects their existing straight marriages. As long as no one is required to participate in any religious activity I see no problem with having chaplains. They don’t make any atheists less atheistic. These are soldiers, not children, and they are free to participate or stay out of religious activity if they choose.
Spiritual councilors are a necessity for people who are risking their lives and dealing with morally ambiguous situations on a regular basis. As such, I think chaplains are a good thing as long as they’re not promoting a religion, and revoke any oaths of loyalty or obedience they may have given to a church or other religious hierarchy.
Promoting religion, even in their off-duty hours, is using government resources to further religious goals.Travel to their duty station was paid for by the military they serve. They are kept safe, sheltered and fed by that same military. Therefore, they would not have access to those potential converts without military support which is funded by American taxpayers who share a variety of religious beliefs (I’m counting atheism as a religion (it’s the ‘none of the above’ option)), including quite a few with the attitude of ‘keep your religion to yourself’.
It seems to me that he simply wants the military to follow already existing rules. Breitbart and others, no surprise, have printed some things that don’t seem to be accurate.
Same here. The ones I’ve met in the service (admittedly, the Canadian service, and everything Canadian is by default saner than the American equivalent) are a harmless and friendly bunch, eager to be helpful. Considering the personal hardships of military service and the personal risks involved, I don’t see a problem making an exception for military chaplains.
As a side note, the thread title implies chaplains and rabbis are distinct. Actually, “chaplain” is the generic term (despite the word’s origins) and a rabbi can indeed be a chaplain.