This is GD. The question is what should the US do. I’ve posited that the US should follow the Constitution, and I’ve cited the fact that the nonreligious are entitled to equal protection. (Specific legal citations available on request, I suppose, if you dispute that point.) There are two ways I can see for you to rebut that position: one is to claim that the US should NOT follow the Constitution, and the other is to argue that the constitutional protections I mentioned don’t actually apply to this issue. Citing the legal reasoning in a case in which an atheist lost a court case on this issue would help bolster that position.
Simply stating the fact that right now atheist don’t get the same services as religious people and that the courts haven’t ironed this out yet does absolutely nothing to further the conversation and might even qualify as threadshitting.
Also, my “nice” was in response to your saying, " I see nothing right in having someone who thinks religion is bullshit conducting religious services." That’s not reality. that’s your opinion. IMHO is down the hall.
The US has no business in meeting anyone’s religious needs, and the military already has chaplains performing services of religions that they consider to be bullshit.
Chaplains were put in the military to perform religious services. Atheists do not require religious services. It’s as simple as that. The government and military provides a bunch of services that a great number of people will never want and/or require. That doesn’t make them all Constitutional questions.
Atheists get the exact same service. They can make an appointment with the same rando dude who got to be base shaman just like the rest of his unit. He can ask that high holy person to officiate his wedding/Bar Mitzvah/whatever. The military requiring religiousness as part of the job description for chaplain is utterly reasonable. Look up the definition of “chaplain”.
Chaplains do much more than perform religious services, and if atheists want Humanist or Ethical Society or Sunday Service services, they have a constitutional right to receive them to the same extent that other groups do. Arguing that soldiers with atheist beliefs and theistic beliefs can both access theistic chaplains is like arguing that both gay and straight men have the right to marry a woman, and ignores the fact that there are already nontheistic chaplains who call themselves Buddhist. Not all religions and religious positions look alike, but they are all entitled to receive the same services from the government. Not the same as in, everyone can go to the Christian minister, but as in, the chaplaincy is open to people of every religious stance (including “opposed to religion”) or it shouldn’t exist.
This is the point that I’m not clear about. DOES the soldier really want a specifically religious perspective, or does he just want somebody to talk to who is more available than the shrink, less stigmatized than the shrink, and a whole lot less likely to blabber-mouth than some random guy in the unit?
The statistics quoted thus far are that there are around 7 times as many chaplains as psychiatrists, so they are indeed much more available. The Military Times, for one, reports that perceived stigma is still an incredible barrier to soldiers seeking psychiatric care, and I’ve seen other anecdotal evidence that even if the military itself doesn’t really stigmatize the way it used to, way too many soldiers are still afraid that the military will, so they won’t seek any treatment that might draw attention to themselves. Moreover, there are at least some signs that the military itself hasn’t erased all the stigma anyway–this cite claims that as of 2011, any sailor taking anti-depressants required flag officer (admiral) approval even to handle firearms, and soldiers who have recently switched anti-depressants are barred from deployments. (Quite aside from anything else, both policies mean that people who aren’t medical personnel will learn what drugs you take, as the paperwork is shuffled around through the chain of command.)
The military has an obligation to ensure its members are up for the job assigned, physically, mentally, and emotionally. If a given soldier’s mental and emotional readiness requires a religious component, how is it in the government’s best interest to ignore the soldier’s needs?
OK, can anyone explain why Marsh v Chambers is not relevant?
Is there some reason it is not also correct to say, “In light of the unambiguous and unbroken history of more than 200 years, there can be no doubt that the practice of providing religious chaplains to the armed services has become part of the fabric of our society. To invoke Divine guidance on a soldier entrusted with securing our nation’s liberty is not, in these circumstances, an ‘establishment’ of religion or a step toward establishment; it is simply a tolerable acknowledgment of beliefs widely held among the people of this country.”
Why the capital ‘D’ in divine? Does that mean that those making the decision think that something actually happens when this invocation occurs? What would that be and how is it measured? My point being that maybe if we got the right person doing it we’d have better outcomes from the process rather than just wasting everyone’s time.
Exactly so! The First Amendment shouldn’t be dismissed, solely because of “tradition.”
It’s not at all surprising that a court would rule that way, of course. Justice Scalia specialized in flouting the constitution in favor of own personal moral values.
Well, sure. I mean, first of all, I think that case was wrongly decided, but I also think it’s completely irrelevant. There are many obvious differences between a legislative prayer and a military chaplain. For one thing, a chaplain is a commissioned officer in a position of authority (though not typically command) relative to an enlisted servicemember. That impinges on the establishment clause a little more directly than a legislative prayer. Furthermore, a prayer, according to the Marsh ruling, is intended to acknowledge beliefs that are widely held among the people of this country. The role of a chaplain is not to represent the beliefs of the country as a whole, but to meet the religious needs of individual members of the military, who don’t simply possess “beliefs widely held” but specific individual beliefs that the government has chosen to respect and support in some instances but not others. No one is directly hurt by a sectarian prayer, but servicemember denied the benefits of the chaplains corps based on their doctrine or belief has suffered a real and substantial harm (at least according to those atheist servicemembers requesting atheist chaplains).
Note that I don’t think every servicemember is entitled to a specific chaplain of their denomination or belief system present at their particular deployment. The military tries its best to meet the spiritual and religious needs of its members as effectively as possible, but resources are limited. A Buddhist serving on a base with only Christian chaplains or a Protestant serving on a ship with only a Catholic priest can take comfort in the fact that the military’s problem with meeting their needs is logistical, not doctrinal. The member can (I imagine) contact the chaplain of their own faith by letter, email, telephone, etc. (when not contraindicated by security needs while deployed). So can the servicemember’s chaplain or commanding officer, if either needs to know about the specific requirements of that faith. The atheist or humanist has none of these benefits, and has been told that these benefits are denied to them based solely on the content of their religious beliefs.
Likewise, an atheist or humanist celebrant, recognized by an association comprised for the purpose of meeting the social, communal, spiritual, moral, intellectual, and/or emotional needs specific to that group’s deeply held metaphysical and moral beliefs (a “church” in legal parlance, as I understand it, though not how many such organizations identify themselves) and otherwise qualified to serve as a chaplain, who is rejected from that position based solely on the content of their personal beliefs or the doctrine of their church (and not, for example, on a lack of need as measured by the number of servicemembers claiming those beliefs) is clearly suffering direct material harm purely as a result of religious discrimination.
Finally, even if Marsh were relevant, it would only support the *existence * of a chaplains corps, not of religious discrimination within it. I strongly suspect that if an atheist member of Congress requested an invocation from a humanist celebrant, and the request were denied solely and expressly on the basis of the idea that only a theist or religious leader can perform that function, that Marsh would not be controlling (though the courts may well decline to rule on other grounds entirely).
See the problem is you guys, including the OP are for some bizarre reason that I can’t fathom, are deciding that preachers are a useful stand in for a person trained in psychology. Could you break that out of the box a little? I mean sure, they talk to people and comfort them but wtf? My mom comforts me but I don’t think there should be atheist Moms in the army.
I agree, CarnalK. I think a preacher, even an atheist one, is a shitty substitute for a counselor. I also think homeopathy is a shitty substitute for medicine, but if the military is paying for Christian servicemembers to get homeopathic treatment and not atheist ones, or allowing Catholics to serve as base homeopaths but not Muslims, then they are violating people’s civil rights. Same if your mom is allowed to make comforting phone calls to any servicemember, but only if they have the right beliefs.
For better or for worse, that is how the profession of preaching has developed in the United States, at least in recent decades; most major seminaries spend a great deal of time and effort training budding ministers in counseling, psychology, and “pastoral care.” Ministers of the gospel, at least in the churches with which I am familiar, devote much of their time to counseling congregants: marital problems, financial issues, substance abuse, dealing with aging parents, grief and loss, etc., etc., etc. Take a look at the curriculum at practically any seminary for examples.
For that matter, look at what the military itself says are the duties of a chaplain. The Army, e.g., says a chaplain is tasked with:
Note especially that second bullet point: providing counseling sessions IS THEIR JOB.
Edited to add: Also take a look at the Air Force Chaplain Corps’ programs, which include MarriageCare, designed to revitalize strained military marriages through retreats.
Why? Clergy today are not the caricatures some people seem to think they are. They are trained in counseling. And, this might come as a shock to some, that counseling does not have to include a religious component.
This is just bizarre, and your snide (that’s the way it comes across to me) comparison obscures your point. The chaplain, regardless of the chaplain’s personal religious affiliation, provides counseling to all service members who come to him or her for counseling. What the chaplain is not required to do is conduct religious services that the chaplain does not agree with or is not qualified to conduct (such as Catholic mass if the chaplain is not Catholic).
I don’t ask a plumber to rewire my house even though he is qualified to hook up a water heater. At least the plumber knows that the knocking sound coming from the pipes is water hammer, not demons.
And you’re not addressing the actual issue: the chaplain is qualified to be a counselor. Just because you don’t like the individual’s religion does not negate his or her qualification. And, FTR, not all religious people believe in demons. See above about caricature.
When you say that “the chaplain is qualified to be a counselor”, what qualifications are you talking about?
Do you think that all military chaplains meet the requirements listed here? And what specialty do these chaplains meet? Are they mental health professionals? Marriage counselors? Family therapists? Rehabilitation counselors? Addiction counselors? Or are they, in your opinion, just General Counselors (is that a thing?)? Do they all have Master’s degrees? Doctorates? In what?
Or do they fall under this heading:
If so, how does that qualify them to help an atheist, since all their perspective and interpretations and suggestions will be filtered through their religious views?
I assume that a chaplain is spending large parts of their time learning and practicing things related to their religion vs a dedicated counselor who is likely focused in that area.
I’m sure that many religious people don’t believe in demons, but it is their nature to believe in many strange things outside the realm of the rational, which is why I said what I said. If your subject is the supernatural then I’d not be surprised that is what you’ll find rather than a ‘fragment of underdone potato’ which is the more likely the issue.
Look, I was stipulating a point. I’m aware that a religious minister may also be trained as a counselor, but AFAIK pastoral counseling isn’t a standard requirement for an MDiv (though it may be for military chaplaincy, I don’t know) and even those who specialize in pastoral counseling in seminary don’t get the equivalent of a masters in counseling or the training an LSW has, much less a psychologist. Of course, plenty of psychotherapists are shitty, regardless of their qualifications. OTOH, marital problems are one thing, but PTSD, traumatic brain injury, and the myriad psychological issues that combat can bring out in people are another. If you need mental health services, a chaplain is a shitty substitute, and most would probably tell you that themselves.
My point was not that pastoral counseling is as useless as homeopathy. It’s that even if it were, it wouldn’t affect the civil rights issue. If the military hires chaplains to do counseling, then it should hire them regardless of their doctrine or beliefs, and if atheists want to get their counseling from a chaplain from their own belief community, hey have as much (or as little) right to do so as any other soldier, sailor, airman or marine. Doesn’t matter if you think pastoral counseling is a load of horseshit or the direct voice of Yahweh himself.