I don’t know but if it comes down to a question of deciding between unconstitutionally depriving military personnel of clergy or unconstitutionally having the government support the clergy (not saying it is unconstitutional, just a hypothetical) there is precedent for denying certain constitutional rights to the military.
When I was in U.S.A.F. basic training, those who agreed to go to church on Sunday morning were excused from the Sunday cleanup detail, and those who sang in the choir were fed first every morning.
To understand their role, I looked first at therequirements to be a chaplain:
Based on the requirements, I can’t help but think that the line between exercising freedom to practice one’s beliefs and government support of beliefs can get quite blurry. The problem is what can go from allowing one to believe to actually using tax payer money for things like Fort Bragg’s Rock the Fort supported by the Evangelical Graham foundation. Is that a necessary thing for personal worship or is that a proselytizing event? (IMO, it’s definitely the latter.)
To me, the questions that need to be answered are:
- Are there any religions that unequivocally necessitate a 2nd person to administer rituals that couldn’t be fulfilled by the adherents?
- Are there any needs that couldn’t be met by a military psychologist instead?
- Are chaplains able to service the needs of all personnel, atheist and humanists included?
- Can chaplains be an agent on the government and not cross the boundary to promoting religion?
My guess would be no to all four thus being unnecessary and/or unconstitutional.
Getting the clergy out of the military makes perfect sense until you realize that without them it creates a substantial burden on the free exercise of religion for soldiers.
In Ft. Riley about a decade ago, there was a real problem with preferential treatment to soldiers who attended the same church as the higher NCOs and officers, and quite a bit of our formations included Christian prayers. This is completely unacceptable and should be forbidden.
On the other hand, chaplains provide a valuable service, and people should be able to share their religious beliefs so long as verbal disagreement is also allowed.
Forcing religion is bad, but allowing it is not. I know sometimes the line is blurry, but I think chaplains and religious speech fall squarely in the latter category.
That would be wrong. But is it what is being discussed here? There should be no discrimination based on a particular religion or lack of it, but the existence of chaplains doesn’t have to cause that problem.
In what way? If they are posted stateside or overseas on a base they have the option of attending a civilian church service. If they are in a combat zone then, according to Polycarp at least for Catholics (and I assume most religions would have the same exception), they are excused by their religious tenets from attending services as they are physically unable to do so. I see no violation of their religious freedom here.
Wow, I don’t know where that came from but it’s sure not from my OP, implicit or otherwise.
To quote Wikipedia:
I can see why he might be exercised about this particular issue, although I’m not convinced he’s taken the most constructive approach. And I don’t know how aggressively the chaplains proselytize versus what the other soldiers etc may do.
But consider also the Marines credo of “God, Country, Corps” (or, depending on the Marine you ask, “God, Corps, Country”). I guess there are no atheists allowed in the Marines…
No one is proposing that chaplains be kicked out of the military. The brietbart.com page that you linked to is lying. Mikey Weinstein met with some government officials and basically said this:
He’s just saying that chaplains are not allowed to push their religion on anyone, not that they’re not allowed to say religious things to those servicemen who ask for it.
Not from your OP, but from the tone I perceived (possibly unfairly) in the article it linked to.
Well, a few days ago Obama was talking about how the stresses of the job have aged him, and said “I’m not the strapping young Muslim socialist I used to be.”
I’m sure breitbart.com will be all over that, saying that it shows they were right all along.
Can’t answer all your questions but I do know that some of the guys I was stationed with had serious moral questions about working with nukes. They didn’t want to talk with a shrink because they were afraid that, even though it was supposed to be confidential, it would somehow get back to the CO and they could lose their security clearance. This would wreck any future they had in the military. These guys crossed all areas: I know a Catholic, a Jew, a couple Baptists and an extremely militant atheist who all talked to the Lutheran chaplain. He didn’t preach or try to convert them. He helped them to verbalize what they were feeling and to come to terms with how it effected them personally and professionally. There was no pressure, no “God and flag” speeches. He was their sounding board. Most were able to return to duty. A couple decided they couldn’t do it any more and asked to be transferred to duties that were not associated with the missiles.
I spoke with our base chaplain a couple times when I found out my uncle was dying from AIDS. He was Catholic but didn’t give any of the anti-gay rhetoric you would sometimes hear. He spoke of love and compassion, of caring for this man that I had known my whole life. Not once did he say a disparaging word about homosexuals.
Well, yes, of course. So that then, afterwards, they can walk into a bar . . .
It would absolve the soldier of his responsibility to God. But that’s not the issue here. The issue is whether the government can deny a person’s access to religion by not allowing him to attend religious services. And the Constitution says no. It doesn’t matter if the government does it by conscripting you into the Army or locking you up in prison or padlocking your church - the First Amendment says the government cannot prohibit the free exercise of religion.
Yes, they totally are, in the same way that they at war with Christmas. That is, if you only listen to what Fox News and the Family Research Council have to say about it and want to ignore any semblance of reality, they most definitely are.
Your OP is also factually wrong on its face. The question you pose is
This is utter bullshit, nowhere in the linked article demonizing Mikey Weinstein does it say any such thing. For those not wanting to read the whole drivel of an article, the first two paragraphs attacking Weinstein:
Now, regardless of how much of a nutter Weinstein may or may not be (I’m certainly not going to take Breitbart New’s opinion of him at anything like face value unless backed by a credible source), where exactly is he accused of trying to kick chaplains, rabbis, etc out of the US armed forces? Oh, that’s right. He’s not.
As long as they keep in line, I heartily approve of chaplains in the military. No proselytizing. No preferential treatment for the flock. The chaplain must be willing and able to counsel those of other faiths and atheists. Slypork mentioned that soldiers he worked with were afraid that going to a certified psychotherapist would show up on their record, make people question their fitness from duty etc. A good chaplain is somebody you can talk to in confidence without fear of consequence (within reason).
It’s not just that, and in fact I think that seems a smaller issue. It’s officers proselytizing, ordering subordinates to participate in prayers, otherwise forcing subordinates to participate religious events, or punishing those that don’t participate “voluntarily”. That is explicitly not allowed yet seems to be rarely enforced.
Here is part of the actual Air Force policy.
I’m a vet, not particularly religious.
Removing chaplains from the military would be absolutely awful. Awful. In my 5 years on active duty, I never attended a service by a chaplain as part my duties. I went once on Easter to an on-base service in Germany, but it was a voluntary thing. However, here are some notes from my point of view.
-
Chaplains are, by and large, some of the nicest and friendliest people I’ve ever known. They tend to be pretty awesome (not there isn’t the occasional jerk.) Not really important to the debate, but worth noting. Also, I never had a chaplain once talk to me about religion (or another soldier), unless the soldier or I asked in that manner. They are there as counselors as well as to provide religious services for those WHO WANT THEM.
-
There is no forcing of Soldiers to attend services, no preaching to a captive audience when out on deployment or in the field on training exercises…nothing. I’m not saying there may not be a few who try and push their faith, but if the chain of command works well, that stuff gets quashed quickly. There are equal opportunity representatives for every unit (I served as one for a while), and a pushing of religion onto someone who was of a different faith, or was an athiest, would be handled swiftly, at least in my units.
-
There are chaplains of all faiths in the military. It’s not always possible for a chaplain of your faith to be present in your unit at all times, but they do a very good job of making arrangements for the Soldiers to provide faith based services of a type a specific soldier wants. If you are an athiest, you can go to your chaplain just to talk, and they will provide some counseling services without the religious aspect as well.
-
The soldiers, airmen, sailors and marines are put in the most stressful situations one can imagine - watching their friends die right next to them, while they are thousands of miles away from home and in a hostile nation. Removing the ability for these soldiers to have accessible religious services would be tantamount to inciting hysteria and rampant fear in a unit. I don’t say that the religion needs to be there for one to be able to deal with war, but that if you ARE religious, having that chaplain can be the difference between having someone who breaks down and one who handles things smoothly. I’d imagine without chaplains, you’d have higher rates of PTSD, and if you have a handful of guys who start freaking out without being able to go through their religious services/rites/counseling, then it can have serious impacts on unit morale. Fear is contagious in battle.
-
I must stress again: Chaplains are not there to make the military a religious institution or to force feed their beliefs on the group. They are there as counselors and as a a service for those who need them.
And yes, chaplains go through much training for non-religious counseling, so they know what they’re doing in that regard.
I have no idea, but don’t see why it should be my problem as a taxpayer. If attending to the various demands of a person’s religion are so important to that person, perhaps they should not have volunteered to join an organization who’s very purpose will make it difficult if not impossible to do so.