Atheist soldier sues Army for 'unconstitutional' discrimination

[shemp]

Atheist soldier sues Army for 'unconstitutional' discrimination (http://www.cnn.com/2008/US/07/08/atheist.soldier/index.html)

KANSAS CITY, Kansas (CNN) -- Army Spc. Jeremy Hall was raised Baptist.

...

Hall said he met some atheists who suggested he read the Bible again. After doing so, he said he had so many unanswered questions that he decided to become an atheist.

His sudden lack of faith, he said, cost him his military career and put his life at risk. Hall said his life was threatened by other troops and the military assigned a full-time bodyguard to protect him out of fear for his safety.

In March, Hall filed a federal lawsuit against the U.S. Department of Defense and Secretary of Defense Robert Gates, among others. In the suit, Hall claims his rights to religious freedom under the First Amendment were violated and suggests that the United States military has become a Christian organization.

I don't know both sides of the story, but it sounds pretty disturbing. Our military leaders have no business pushing a particluar religious agenda, but they might be doing so. In any case, it's pretty sad when people who are sworn to protect our country forget what it really means to be free, and harass non-Christians.

[Bikewer]

The recent scandals about blatant prosyletizing at the Air Force academy (along with an unusually high incidence of rape, apparently!) add to the disturbing trend.

When I was in the army back in the 60s, there was plenty of religion available if you wanted it, but no one was pushy about it. The Catholic chaplain didn't come around and harangue you about not being in church or anything.

Of course, way back then, I never really "came out" as an atheist; didn't form up my position until I got out. Perhaps my experience would have been different if I had.
Perhaps it's OK to be "non-practicing" as long as they think you still believe......

[JoeEllison]

I had one or two "run-ins" over religion when I was in the Marines. There is absolutely an unfair, probably unconstitutional advancement of Christianity in the Marines, although it usually fell under what most people would consider "mostly harmless." I have a problem when a Christian prayer is given by an officer in a situation where you are not allowed to not participate. There's a bigger problem when you are actually ordered to bow your head and pray, as we were ordered to do on a regular basis. I'm not particularly surprised to hear that problem combined with the general tendency of officers and more senior NCOs to abuse their authority when they think they can get away with it.

[Puppycow]

I had one or two "run-ins" over religion when I was in the Marines. There is absolutely an unfair, probably unconstitutional advancement of Christianity in the Marines, although it usually fell under what most people would consider "mostly harmless." I have a problem when a Christian prayer is given by an officer in a situation where you are not allowed to not participate. There's a bigger problem when you are actually ordered to bow your head and pray, as we were ordered to do on a regular basis. I'm not particularly surprised to hear that problem combined with the general tendency of officers and more senior NCOs to abuse their authority when they think they can get away with it.

In Navy Boot Bamp if you didn't go to chapel on Sunday mornings you had to clean the barracks while those at chapel were gone. After boot camp I didn't have any major problems.

[Jackalgirl]

In Navy Boot Camp, there's a room in the Chapel that's set aside for people to have quiet reflective time - in short, there's no set service going on in there. That's where I went on Sunday mornings. It was annoying, as the other people there were using the room as a socializing center (except, of course, when this proctor or that stuck his/her head in the door and ordered everyone to shut up), but it was a nice break. There was no requirement as to what you have to be contemplative about; you were just supposed to be silent (and awake, though I don't recall anyone actually doing any eyeball-open checks).

After that, I have had to bow my head when part of specific rituals (like burials at sea). Participating in the burial at sea detail is good for your evaluations, though not participating in them is not a career killer -- there are all kinds of things you can get involved in that are good for your career. I've never run into any in-your-face evangelical Christian stuff, nor have I ever seen anyone reprimanded for not praying (or not appearing to pray).

I do note that there is a fair amount of focus on spiritual health. Praying /does/ go on, at official events, even. There are ads on the TV here in Misawa about military chaplains and what they do. Occassionally (here; more frequently on ships) there are chaplain's calls (though you're not required to go). For a while, there were prayers right before lights-out on the ship, given by whoever asked. I don't recall ever hearing that someone was denied saying prayers (or even not-prayers), but then again, I'm not a smoker, and so was sort of out of the loop. ; )

I don't get a sense, though, that there is a great deal of pressure to be evangelical Christian. The general sense of things I get is that the Navy considers religion to be a good coping strategy, and encourages participation. There is also a great deal of focus on other coping strategies, such as physical fitness (in fact, there is much MUCH more focus on physical fitness than there is on religion).

Mind you, however, that I am not an officer. Although, as a Lead Petty Officer, I am in a leadership position, it's at the very lowest levels of management. Things might change should I become an officer (or possibly should I ever make Chief Petty Officer). If there is some kind of grassroots movement among evangelicals regarding officers or senior leaders, I'm probably way (way) under their radar at this particular point in time.

Edited to add: I should hasten to add that I am a theist, so I do pray. No problems with people not praying, naturally. A person's relationship with the universe (and whether that does or does not include the notion of a deity) is not my business unless it has an actual and marked impact on "the meat world".

[JoeTheJuggler]

I think as long as our tax dollars are paying for chaplains, there's a serious constitutional issue.

[Jackalgirl]

I think as long as our tax dollars are paying for chaplains, there's a serious constitutional issue.

Don't forget that there is also a rate (job) in the Navy for Enlisted persons specifically involving religious programs -- RP (Religious Programs Specialist).

But is it a problem if there are different kinds of chaplains? That is, it would be a Constitutional problem if there were only /Christian/ chaplains, since that would be the endorsement of only one religion.

I'm not an expert on the Constitution, so I don't know whether the Establishment Clause prevents any mention or involvement of any or all religions /at all/, or whether it simply says, "you can't pick one over others."

[JoeTheJuggler]

Don't forget that there is also a rate (job) in the Navy for Enlisted persons specifically involving religious programs -- RP (Religious Programs Specialist).

But is it a problem if there are different kinds of chaplains? That is, it would be a Constitutional problem if there were only /Christian/ chaplains, since that would be the endorsement of only one religion.

I'm not an expert on the Constitution, so I don't know whether the Establishment Clause prevents any mention or involvement of any or all religions /at all/, or whether it simply says, "you can't pick one over others."
The courts have ruled the freedom to have no religion as equally protected by the First Amendment, so any tax money spent on a religion is problematic. Also, the fact that these peoples' credentials are evaluated entangles the government with religion.

I'd also challenge the assumption that they don't favor some religions--at least as a de facto matter.

To me, the idea that tax money pays a salary for a person to be a religious minister is absurdly unconstitutional. I've heard it defended that the benefit to the military (or prisons) is a purely secular one--morale, mental health counseling, etc. My answer to that is why not hire professionals with the appropriate mental health credentials and not call them "chaplains"? (Presumably this is already being done, which means that role of the chaplain is already covered.)

I would have a lot less trouble if the military were simply accommodating religious people paid for by those religions to come and minister to the needs of members of the military. Rather than recognizing a chaplain as an officer, just give military personnel the freedom to have their religious needs tended to. If the various churches are unable or unwilling to finance this (especially overseas), then so be it.

The fact is, my tax dollars shouldn't be used to finance ANY religious activity.

[Skeptic Ginger]

I wouldn't say the trend encompassed all branches and locations but a number of incidents have occurred where the Evangelicals were very active within the service.

[UnrepentantSinner]

One of the most important jobs for military leaders is maintaining discipline, morale and esprit de corps amongst all personnal assigned under them. Cases like Spc. Hall's, the AFA, etc. are examples of NCOs and officers crapping out on that duty.

[Mister Agenda]

I do note that there is a fair amount of focus on spiritual health. Praying /does/ go on, at official events, even. There are ads on the TV here in Misawa about military chaplains and what they do. Occassionally (here; more frequently on ships) there are chaplain's calls (though you're not required to go). For a while, there were prayers right before lights-out on the ship, given by whoever asked. I don't recall ever hearing that someone was denied saying prayers (or even not-prayers), but then again, I'm not a smoker, and so was sort of out of the loop. ; )


Hey, I was stationed in Misawa, 80-82. Good times, especially if you like slush.

[triadboy]

In Navy Boot Bamp if you didn't go to chapel on Sunday mornings you had to clean the barracks while those at chapel were gone. After boot camp I didn't have any major problems.

At Navy boot in San Diego ('75) If you didn't go to church you HAD to write a letter home. That wasn't bad.

[JoeEllison]

At Navy boot in San Diego ('75) If you didn't go to church you HAD to write a letter home. That wasn't bad.

At Parris Island you had free-time, with the restriction that you couldn't go back to bed or get too loud. Of course, since we didn't have any form of electronic entertainment or even reading material of any sort, writing letters home was one of the few things you could do. That, or polishing boots and shoes. Or, you could go to church, where there would be girls!

[Beerina]

I think as long as our tax dollars are paying for chaplains, there's a serious constitutional issue.

Well, sort of. In a real war where people are bundled up and shipped off to fight by the millions, they can't very well take all aspects of their life with them, so the army helps on some of the more important* ones.


"Here, go off and fight for two years and maybe die. By the way, no access to your religion. Thxbie!"




* As some define it.

[Pope130]

I got out in '97, so my direct experience is about ten years old, but I have a number of friends who are still in, and a niece and a nephew-in-law who are currently serving.

After basic training (Lackland '73) I never had an instance of official proselytizing. In fact officials went out of their way to avoid asking what my beliefs were (the one exception being the dog tags and emergency notification card). I did have the same experience as some others here of Sunday mornings in basic, I was given the options of attending services or picking up cigarette butts. I didn't like that, but I understand that has changed. The services I did attend were so bland and non-denominational that they weren't objectionable on content. It was a chance to sit and relax in air-conditioning.

After basic about the only time I saw Chaplains was when I needed someone to help with personal problems of one of my troops, when they were passing out Gatorade (Nellis during a chem warfare exercise) or coffee and doughnuts on the flight line. I did have one odd experience at Dharan Saudi Arabia. Non-flying (Duty Crew) day I helped the Provisional Wing Chaplain (Catholic) set up the chapel for the Passover services. The Navy sent us a Rabi, but since he was doing multiple services that day everything had to be set up in advance. A Padre and an agnostic building a (temporary) Synagogue in Arabia, it all seemed to make some sort of sense at the time. Bottom line though, in my experience, if it wasn't for the collar insignia I wouldn't even know that the Chaplains were god-botherers.

I did experience some proselytizing from individuals while I was in, but not as much as I have on the outside.

Robert Klaus, MSgt USAF Ret.

[UnrepentantSinner]

I honestly cannot remember what my Sunday experiences were during basic training, IIRC one of them was the start of a visitors weekend and, umm, I think I waited for my parents to make the 50 minute drive up to see me - my basic experience is probably as foreign because of various factors to our Army enlisted folks as it would be to our AF/Navy-Marine folks.

R.O.T.C. Advanced camp was different though because I do recall having a conversation with the Chaplain trainee on a Sunday about something theological before he went off to give his sermon to my fellow cadets while I found a place of my own and smoked or did something else. Again, IIRC, the chaplain candidate was a cool guy, but he did have his chaplains perogative and while we buddied up a few times during the training cycle, when it came time for Sunday services I was nowhere to be found.

[Wildy]

The bloke mentioned in the CNN article. He's the same guy that had that organisation broken up by that Major right?

[Jimbo07]

I have a problem when a Christian prayer is given by an officer in a situation where you are not allowed to not participate.

For example... on parade...

[Dunstan]

One of the most important jobs for military leaders is maintaining discipline, morale and esprit de corps amongst all personnal assigned under them. Cases like Spc. Hall's, the AFA, etc. are examples of NCOs and officers crapping out on that duty.

More specifically, it seems to be a case of misinterpreting that duty, based on an assumption that unit cohesion requires one to be (or pretend to be) a Christian:

"I was told because I can't put my personal beliefs aside and pray with troops I wouldn't make a good leader," Hall said.

Obviously this is just Hall's side of the story.

[rocketdodger]

I never served anywhere near combat, but even in a kushy Air Force base here at home I could definitely see a Christian undercurrent.

I would not be surprised at all if the tension of being overseas and in a combat zone sort of brought that undercurrent to the forefront. The peer pressure problems in the military are already bad enough because of the mentality they try to promote -- I can't imagine how out of hand it would get in a place like Iraq or Afghanistan.

[Nogbad]

I do think it is mean that they don't allow atheists into the fox holes

Discrimination shirley?

[godless dave]

I think as long as our tax dollars are paying for chaplains, there's a serious constitutional issue.

I don't, so long as those chaplains minister to all servicemembers who want it (and not to those who don't), regardless of their religion.

People in the military don't have the freedom we civilians do to drive to the religious service of our choice on Friday, Saturday, or Sunday. As long as they're in the service, certain accomadations should be made for them.

[godless dave]

Regarding the thread poll, I didn't have enough facts to answer. I would like to say, though, that trend is not a *********** verb. Thank you.

[Skeptic Ginger]

While this may or may not be widespread, it is not a contrived problem by one malcontent. He is not the first person to bring serious charges of evangelizing by officers. West Point and another military academy have been sued and the Pentagon's funding and special place for a certain religious department have been questioned in the past.

[Skeptic Ginger]

Regarding the thread poll, I didn't have enough facts to answer. I would like to say, though, that trend is not a *********** verb. Thank you.According to the freedictionary.com (http://www.thefreedictionary.com/trend) it is.

[Marquis de Carabas]

I would like to say, though, that trend is not a *********** verb. Thank you.
If you would like to say that, you must like to be wrong. Trend most certainly is a verb, having been first recorded in that sense in 1863. The associated noun isn't recorded until 1884.

Source (http://www.etymonline.com/index.php?term=trend)

[Darth Rotor]

The presence of Evangelicals in the service is not new.

I'll see if I can find the post, but I related my experience with some of them, called the Navigators, in the 1970's at the Naval Academy.

The core issue here is command influence, and the attempt to use command position, or authority position, to recruit and proseltyze within a given sect, of which there are hundreds. What was going on at USAFA, from what I have read of it, was against the rules at the command level. Not much to argue about there.

Those who oppose the existence of the chaplain corps are invited to get their heads out of their arses. In the main, (though I helped get one fired) they do fine work for those service members who need their services. Most service members are among the faithful, of one sort or another, and one degree or another, and another group are agnostic.

ETA. It was in the archives:
Raised agnostic, read bits of the Bible as a kid out of curiosity, was only in church for weddings.

As a Plebe, my curiosity was re awakened when a friend was going to a Bible study one Sunday morning (not church) and asked me if I was interested. The term "study" is a curious noun for the process, but whatever.

We began each Sunday with something from the primary gospels, and some of Paul's letters, and as time went on, were being asked to do a lot of memorization of scriptural passages as sound bytes (like John 3:16). As a plebe it was easy to do, we had to memorize a lot of crap as plebes and got very good at it, but also a bit of a pain: FFS, more of this memorization to show how good I am, recited to an upperclassman? Who needs this crap, on top of rigorous academics?

Also, when I asked about study of OT stuff, versus this narrow NT stuff, I got a cold shoulder. (Gee, no surprise, as I later learned.)

I was gently pressured, via persuasion, to predominantly spend my scarce free time on the weekends (plebes were basically shut ins at the Naval Academy, allowed no further than 7 miles from the Chapel Dome, which is a significant landmark used to measure distance for liberty limits) on Saturday afternoonss, or on Sundays if going to a church "in town" or on Sunday afternoons before evening meal.

There was a cloying, grasping element to this "mark yourself as one of us" attitude that grated on me. Since I had little free time, I sometimes played with their group, sometimes with some of my friends at the gym, and sometimes, I was marching off extra duty and demerits, with a rifle, in formation, for my various sins and transgressions against the Holy Writ of Midshipman Regulations. :p

This demand on my time bit (an "are you a true believer" appeal, as I later realized) came to a head over Easter Break, when I was intending to stay with the rest of the Crew team, to do the two a days in prep for the racing season, while most mids took off for parts elsewhere. I was trying to improve my position, my boat, my seat, and my tecnhique. My Navigator 'mentor' told me he'd prayed about it, and that he divined that I was best serving myself, and God, (and this Mid's quota, no doubt) by attending the Navigator's Easter hullaballoo in Washington DC, some three day conference.

I thanked him, and even after some peer pressure from a few of my plebe friends, told him quite plainly NO, I have been sweating bullets on the crew team since September, and that the crew team was my team, where my loyalty lay.

I got challenged by a few upper classmen on this, about whether or not I was being self centered, being of The World rather than of God, and so on. Their appeals found me increasingly stubborn, damned near hostile, and barely polite in my plebe to upper class replies.

Easter break found a few sports teams in The Yard (the USNA grounds), sweating it out, to include the oarsmen. Day four I got my answer, from God perhaps, or from elsewhere, on the back end of a 14 mile workout on the Severn River as the sun was going down: our second two a day.

We had just done a power 10, then the cox dropped the stroke rate down to about 24 per minute from up around 30. I had what was an out of body experience, or maybe a few minutes of what Tony Gwinn describes as being "in the zone."

The boat set up was suddenly perfect. The sun got larger. ( I was #3, a starboard oar.) The noise of our efforts was suddenly gone. The eight oarsmen were completely on, even though we were third boat, and often rocky. I was in complete balance. Each stroke was effortless, but the puddles were larger, and deeper. The boat leapt down the river with each stroke.

This went on for quite some time, based on when this experience ended: near the high bridge, over a mile from where its onset occurred. I came out of it as we ended another power ten, which I had not even heard called by the cox.

If I needed any answer to confirm the rightness of my choice, that was it. I had chosen to give to my team, we all had, and our team, our boat, benefitted from our collective sacrifice of time, liberty, toil, and sweat.

I stayed in friendly relations with the folks I had been doing Bible study with, since I had learned quite a bit about something I knew little about. I also let them know that my choice was right, and that I'd not be continuing with them the following year, when we had more free time, now that they had shown to me their true colors.

The Beaters went their way, I went mine, and it all worked out, well, perhaps according to some divine plan. ;)

Who knows?
DR

[godless dave]

Well what do you know, I'm wrong. Trend comes from the Old English verb trendan, to roll.

[Nogbad]

I cannot recall ever having seen the word trend used as a verb before.

That said, I think a great many nouns turned into verbs look cumbersome and inelegant and ignore the fact that perfectly sound alternatives already exist.

[Marquis de Carabas]

That said, I think a great many nouns turned into verbs look cumbersome and inelegant and ignore the fact that perfectly sound alternatives already exist.
Be that as it may, trend is not such a case. It is actually a verb turned into a noun.

[Nogbad]

Be that as it may, trend is not such a case. It is actually a verb turned into a noun.

True but not one that requires the ing suffix. "Trends" would have been sufficient - or indeed the simple "the trend is in that direction"

[Darth Rotor]

Be that as it may, trend is not such a case. It is actually a verb turned into a noun.
Is that anything like drink? :cool:

DR

[Pope130]

I can add to this, that while in I never received any official, and very little unofficial, criticism for being a non-believer. This, despite being assigned to the buckle of the Bible belt. On the other hand I did get a good deal of unfavorable attention for being a non-drinker.

[JoeTheJuggler]

Well, sort of. In a real war where people are bundled up and shipped off to fight by the millions, they can't very well take all aspects of their life with them, so the army helps on some of the more important* ones.


"Here, go off and fight for two years and maybe die. By the way, no access to your religion. Thxbie!"

Yes, if the U.S. actively denied them access to their religion, that would be a violation of the First Amendment. That's not what I'm talking about.

Besides, no one's being drafted these days. If they want to choose this job, it should be up to the churches to provide for their religious needs. If a Catholic priest is what's needed, there are few places in the world where it would be difficult to find one and not have to put him on the U.S. payroll.

E.T.A. If the only justification for spending taxpayer dollars on chaplains is to allow access to religion while stationed overseas, why are there chaplains on domestic military bases?

[Skeptic Ginger]

The presence of Evangelicals in the service is not new.

I'll see if I can find the post, but I related my experience with some of them, called the Navigators, in the 1970's at the Naval Academy.

The core issue here is command influence, and the attempt to use command position, or authority position, to recruit and proseltyze within a given sect, of which there are hundreds. What was going on at USAFA, from what I have read of it, was against the rules at the command level. Not much to argue about there.

Those who oppose the existence of the chaplain corps are invited to get their heads out of their arses. In the main, (though I helped get one fired) they do fine work for those service members who need their services. Most service members are among the faithful, of one sort or another, and one degree or another, and another group are agnostic.

ETA. It was in the archives:

DRWasn't that in a thread with many related posts on this topic? How about a link saving us some search engine time which eats up band width? If I recall the thread was on a closely related subject.

[Bob Klase]

E.T.A. If the only justification for spending taxpayer dollars on chaplains is to allow access to religion while stationed overseas, why are there chaplains on domestic military bases?

Same reason there's lawyers, doctors, dentists and all kinds of other support people on domestic military bases. Because their main function is to be there when needed for a combat zone.

[Marquis de Carabas]

Is that anything like drink? :cool:

DR
Now that's a verb I can get behind. Or a noun. Hell, find a way to make that an ****** conjunction, and I'm all for it.

[JoeTheJuggler]

Same reason there's lawyers, doctors, dentists and all kinds of other support people on domestic military bases. Because their main function is to be there when needed for a combat zone.
But there is no establishment clause to consider when contracting dentists and such.

It's bad enough that churches are tax exempt, but our tax dollars should not go to pay for their work.

[arthwollipot]

The Reasonable Doubts Podcast (http://feeds.feedburner.com/~r/reasonabledoubts/Msxh/~3/316212859/rd17_the_lords_army.mp3) covered this subject recently as well.

[westprog]

But there is no establishment clause to consider when contracting dentists and such.

It's bad enough that churches are tax exempt, but our tax dollars should not go to pay for their work.


I suggest that before abolishing military chaplains, the atheists who served with them in combat be consulted.

Note that the abuses described above didn't involve the chaplains.

[arthwollipot]

I suggest that before abolishing military chaplains, the atheists who served with them in combat be consulted.

Note that the abuses described above didn't involve the chaplains.So what were the chaplains doing about the abuses?

[Bob Klase]

But there is no establishment clause to consider when contracting dentists and such.

The other side of that coin is the right of military people to practice their religion. Chaplains are there to provide services to those who want it. In 25 years I never had one try to force religion on me. Several times when I was in the hospital, chaplains would stop and talk to me. When they found out I was atheist they still chat and be friendly, but that was it.

So what were the chaplains doing about the abuses?

How many chaplains were aware of the abuses? It's been 13 years since I retired, but I never saw any of those abuses. Maybe it's a bigger problem now than it was then. Maybe not- everybody in the military is not aware of everything happening everywhere in the military.

[arthwollipot]

How many chaplains were aware of the abuses? It's been 13 years since I retired, but I never saw any of those abuses. Maybe it's a bigger problem now than it was then. Maybe not- everybody in the military is not aware of everything happening everywhere in the military.Is this not the sort of thing that chaplains should have been aware of? Sure, there is - shall we say, "fog of war" - between different branches of the military, but from what I understand, chaplains are pretty common in the US military. When you were enlisted, did you have a chaplain in your unit? Surely some of them were local to the abuses. Were they aware of them? I would find it hard to believe that they weren't. Did they take any action? Did they even consider the actions to be wrong?

I'm sure that there are plenty of good, honest chaplains in the military. And I'm sure that they provide a great deal of comfort to people who risk their lives every day of the year. But would they have viewed these actions as abusive? Or would they have considered these actions appropriate and correct? I don't know. I don't want to have a bad opinion of people, but the circumstances as reported are pretty damning as they are, and it's hard to avoid extrapolating a worst-case scenario.

[triadboy]

At Parris Island you had free-time, with the restriction that you couldn't go back to bed or get too loud. Of course, since we didn't have any form of electronic entertainment or even reading material of any sort, writing letters home was one of the few things you could do. That, or polishing boots and shoes. Or, you could go to church, where there would be girls!

GIRLS!?! Parris Island sounds lovely.

[rocketdodger]

GIRLS!?! Parris Island sounds lovely.

Well... remember that line from "Aliens?"

"Hey Vasquez, you ever been mistaken for a man?"

[godless dave]

True but not one that requires the ing suffix. "Trends" would have been sufficient - or indeed the simple "the trend is in that direction"

Those would be nouns, not verbs.

I only recall seeing it used as a verb recently, and only by grammar-impaired business executives, but after being corrected by the friendly posters here I looked it up and "trending" is indeed proper English.

[godless dave]

I suggest that before abolishing military chaplains, the atheists who served with them in combat be consulted.

Note that the abuses described above didn't involve the chaplains.

That's irrelevant to Joe's point, which is about the legality of taxpayer funding of military chaplains, not about the conduct of chaplains or how people in the military feel about chaplains. I disagree with Joe's point, but you missed it altogether.

[JoeEllison]

GIRLS!?! Parris Island sounds lovely.

It wasn't nearly the thrill you'd think it would be. You have to balance the fact that you would only see females once a week for less than an hour with the fact that even the best looking chick in the world doesn't look so great in baggy wrinkled cammies and no makeup with her hair pulled back in a bun. :boggled:

[Bob Klase]

Is this not the sort of thing that chaplains should have been aware of?

That would depend on exactly where (and when, and how, and how wide-spread) that sort of thing was happening. It certainly wasn't wide-spread when I was in. My daughter has been in the army for 12 years and might have seen it more than me, but I don't know.

Sure, there is - shall we say, "fog of war" - between different branches of the military, but from what I understand, chaplains are pretty common in the US military.

I doubt that it's any kind of "fog of war" type thing. Chaplains could be said to "pretty common" in the military much like butchers and bakers are "pretty common" in most cities and towns. If you don't go looking for one then you can go months or years without seeing one. They're not involved in everything going on. Since I didn't go to church it was pretty rare that I'd even see a chaplain.

When you were enlisted, did you have a chaplain in your unit?

Define "unit". A platoon (or section) can be a unit as small as 4 people. A division is a unit of 10,000 to 12,000 people or more. A corp is 2 (or more) divisions. Generally I might be in a platoon that was part of a company that was part of a battalion that was part of division that was part of a corp. So yes, there would be a chaplain in a 'unit' that I was part of.

Surely some of them were local to the abuses.

I have no reason to assume that. You seem to think the chaplains are roaming around aware of everything that's happening.

Were they aware of them? I would find it hard to believe that they weren't.

I don't know. I would find it easy to believe that many things (including that) could be happening without chaplains being aware of it.

Did they take any action? Did they even consider the actions to be wrong?

Don't know if they took any action. Don't know if they'd consider the actions to be wrong.

I'm sure that there are plenty of good, honest chaplains in the military. And I'm sure that they provide a great deal of comfort to people who risk their lives every day of the year. But would they have viewed these actions as abusive?

You'd have to do a better job of defining "they". There are thousands of chaplains. I'd guess that some might not see them as being a problem while others would consider them abusive. I'm sure that you wouldn't be able to find one that could speak for all of them.

I don't want to have a bad opinion of people, but the circumstances as reported are pretty damning as they are, and it's hard to avoid extrapolating a worst-case scenario.

Extrapolating a worst-case scenario doesn't even have to involve chaplains. It might start with Bush and his administration. That doesn't mean you can extrapolate the worst case to involve the majority, or even a significant number of chaplains.

[Pope130]

From the Air Force perspective I can back up everything Bob Klase just said. As a Senior NCO I would be in contact with the Base Chaplains Office every few weeks working on personal problems for my troops or arranging funeral services for combat veterans. But I wouldn't actually see a Chaplain more than once every six months. In twenty four years I can recall only three occasions when a Chaplain visited the Squadron. They just don't have the personnel to know whats going on out in the units, if a problem doesn't come to them they won't be aware of it.

[JoeTheJuggler]

The other side of that coin is the right of military people to practice their religion. Chaplains are there to provide services to those who want it.
Having the right to practice their religion does not mean that tax dollars should pay for it. More than financing a religious professional, we're also giving them authority as officers.

What if you had a similar set up to how it is now except that 1)chaplains were considered civilians and not officers, and 2)their salaries were paid by their own churches? The military would still be required to allow military personnel free time and access to religious services.

In 25 years I never had one try to force religion on me. Several times when I was in the hospital, chaplains would stop and talk to me. When they found out I was atheist they still chat and be friendly, but that was it.
I realize this is in response to the main topic of the thread, but I'm talking about the fact that I as a taxpayer am paying for a clergyman to do religious activities.

[JoeTheJuggler]

If I take a civilian job overseas, isn't meeting my religious needs my own business?

Speaking of civilians, how is this handled for our unprecedented numbers of DoD private contractors overseas? Do they get access to military chaplains, or do they have to fend for themselves religiously?

Back to the entanglement issue, who hires or promotes chaplains? Is there not someone with official military standing who makes decisions about their religious credentials and performance? How can this possibly not be a First Amendment problem?

[Darth Rotor]

Wasn't that in a thread with many related posts on this topic? How about a link saving us some search engine time which eats up band width? If I recall the thread was on a closely related subject.

Here ya go. The answer is yes, mostly, to your questions.

http://forums.randi.org/archive/index.php/t-82367.html

[Darth Rotor]

Is this not the sort of thing that chaplains should have been aware of? Sure, there is - shall we say, "fog of war" - between different branches of the military, but from what I understand, chaplains are pretty common in the US military.
Art, I don't even know where to begin with your questions. Bob gave you a decent response.

The American military is all over the world, an organization that includes millions of people.

I'm not sure what you expect here.

[arthwollipot]

Well... remember that line from "Aliens?"

"Hey Vasquez, you ever been mistaken for a man?""No. Have you?" :D

Bob, Darth, thanks for your responses. I have no direct experience with the US military, and so all of my information is second-hand. Mostly, in fact, from the Reasonable Doubts podcast episode that I'd linked to earlier (which, it has to be said, isn't exactly an unbiased perspective). I am pleased to find out that the "problem" isn't as widespread as I had been led to believe.

[Bob Klase]

Having the right to practice their religion does not mean that tax dollars should pay for it. More than financing a religious professional, we're also giving them authority as officers.

Chaplains have very little authority as officers. Their rank is primarily for respect and pay- much like doctors. When they've served long enough and have enough rank that they do have any real authority they're more likely to be using that authority over the rest of the chaplains they command.

What if you had a similar set up to how it is now except that 1)chaplains were considered civilians and not officers

If that's the only thing you changed then they'd still get paid with tax dollars (there are thousands of civilians that work directly for the military and get paid directly by the government. My son is a civilian engineer working for the army.

Civilians can't be ordered to a war zone to serve the soldiers there. And when civilians do go to a war zone it cost a lot more of your tax dollars than it would if they were an officer in the military.

2)their salaries were paid by their own churches?

Which would just create another set of problems. Not the least of which would be that the religious services would be denied to the military that want them- a violation of the first amendment.

I realize this is in response to the main topic of the thread, but I'm talking about the fact that I as a taxpayer am paying for a clergyman to do religious activities.

You're free to complain about anything your tax dollars pay for. But iyour complaint is that paying for military chaplains violates the establishment clause. It doesn't. If someone wanted to do the research I think they could probably find court cases saying that.

When religion is pushed on military people (as in the lawsuit that started this thread) then there's a problem. If chaplains are involved in that problem (and I doubt that many, if any at all, are), then there's a problem with the chaplains.

[Tsukasa Buddha]

I recall a similar case a few years ago about the Air Force, IIRC, and they concluded that the people in charge acted inappropriately and new guidelines were instituted.

This (http://www.militaryreligiousfreedom.org/newsletters/2008-06/index.html) organization keeps tabs on first amendment violations in the military.

Oh, and to those who were talking about getting rid of chaplains, I don't think that is a good idea. Chaplains are the only people that you can talk to and have your conversation be completely private.

For instance, gay soldiers can only talk to chaplains about being gay, etc.

I think that gay discrimination is a bigger issue, because it is a de jure discrimination, unlike the allegations of religious discrimination, which are mostly isolated events.

Of course, I've never been in the military so I can't say whether these events point to a pattern of indoctrination or not.

[JoeTheJuggler]

Which would just create another set of problems. Not the least of which would be that the religious services would be denied to the military that want them- a violation of the first amendment.

Denied? By whom? I'm opposed to anyone denying anyone's freedom to practice their religion.

I'm not asking for the military to order priests or whatever to go to certain places. That's up to them.

Why not carry your argument into civilian life. There are doubtless places in the U.S. that have no Catholic priests. Should the U.S. government pay them to relocate to those areas?

By the way, who keeps out ministers of the Church of Scientology or clerics of other less conventional religions? I don't know the details, but it sure seems that someone is making a judgment on who is a qualified clergyman and who isn't.


When religion is pushed on military people (as in the lawsuit that started this thread) then there's a problem. If chaplains are involved in that problem (and I doubt that many, if any at all, are), then there's a problem with the chaplains.
I agree that that's a problem, but I think there's also a problem with tax dollars paying clergymen to perform religious activities.

I've yet to hear any argument (other than "it isn't so") to justify it.

Again, the freedom to practice any religion you want isn't the same thing as the taxpayers footing the bill for you to practice your religion.

By the way, I feel the same about the chaplain program in prisons. Why should the taxpayer finance religious activity? We can simply allow any church to send their ministers in to conduct services. Let the churches pay for it.

[JoeTheJuggler]

Oh, and to those who were talking about getting rid of chaplains, I don't think that is a good idea. Chaplains are the only people that you can talk to and have your conversation be completely private.

For instance, gay soldiers can only talk to chaplains about being gay, etc.

I don't buy that. If that's the case, then you're talking about a mental health professional or a counselor. Last I heard, the ONLY time something said in that context wasn't private was if the person was talking about suicide or homicide.

If the role of the chaplain is to give military personnel someone to talk to, then why not do away with the chaplain program and hire qualified mental health professionals? I'd be OK with my tax dollars going to that purpose.

[Tsukasa Buddha]

I don't buy that. If that's the case, then you're talking about a mental health professional or a counselor. Last I heard, the ONLY time something said in that context wasn't private was if the person was talking about suicide or homicide.

If the role of the chaplain is to give military personnel someone to talk to, then why not do away with the chaplain program and hire qualified mental health professionals? I'd be OK with my tax dollars going to that purpose.

Nope, we had a military chaplain come to our school and talk about it.

Can you trust a military chaplain to keep your secrets?

You should be able to, and here's why: Keeping a problem to yourself can undermine military readiness. Take the case of the corporal who abused and threatened his men until one young member of that squad felt so hopeless he told his buddies he was going to end it all.

In our military world, even the things you say on a psychiatrist's couch can be reported to a commanding officer. So some people bottle things up because they're afraid if they admit what's really on their minds they'll get in trouble or ruin their careers. That can be dangerous.

Chaplains are the safety valve. A chaplain is the one person in the military that regulations say you can talk to about anything without fear that it will go any farther.

Linky. (http://www.military.com/opinion/0,15202,161958,00.html)

In the normal situation complete confidentiality with a mental health professional is the rule, but not in the military.

[JoeTheJuggler]

Just out of curiosity, I was thinking of what countries might lack, as one example, Catholic priests. Iraq and Afghanistan come to mind.

Here's a listing of the bishops in Iraq:
http://www.catholic-hierarchy.org/country/biq.html
Baghdad is an archdiocese.
There's only 1 bishop in Afghanistan:
http://www.catholic-hierarchy.org/country/baf.html

Anyway, I don't accept the argument that if we don't recognized chaplains as officers and pay their salaries military personnel would have no possible way of practicing their religion.

[arthwollipot]

Aha. I thought I'd read about this somewhere else.

PZ has mentioned this subject (http://scienceblogs.com/pharyngula/2008/07/keep_that_sword_out_of_the_han.php) as well.

[UnrepentantSinner]

Why not carry your argument into civilian life. There are doubtless places in the U.S. that have no Catholic priests. Should the U.S. government pay them to relocate to those areas?

Specious. The military also provides three meals a day, clothing and housing for troops (or a per diem/allowance for those things), but the government does not provide that for all citizens. Also, the only true form of socialized medicine in the U.S. is... the military.

By the way, who keeps out ministers of the Church of Scientology or clerics of other less conventional religions? I don't know the details, but it sure seems that someone is making a judgment on who is a qualified clergyman and who isn't.

Probably because there aren't enough military Scientologists (etc.) who have requested one.

[westprog]

Don't know if they took any action. Don't know if they'd consider the actions to be wrong.


So there might or might not have been chaplains aware of what was happening, and they might or might not have approved or disapproved, and taken or not taken certain actions. Bastards.

[westprog]

Specious. The military also provides three meals a day, clothing and housing for troops (or a per diem/allowance for those things), but the government does not provide that for all citizens. Also, the only true form of socialized medicine in the U.S. is... the military.



There seem to be two conflicting principles here. On the one hand, there's the worry about the state supporting religion. On the other hand, there's what a soldier who's just had a leg blown off serving his country should be entitled to.

IMO this should only be an issue if a substantial number of serving soldiers decide that chaplains aren't something they want. Otherwise, it should be left alone.

[Bob Klase]

Why not carry your argument into civilian life. There are doubtless places in the U.S. that have no Catholic priests. Should the U.S. government pay them to relocate to those areas?

If the US government requires large numbers of Catholic people to move to those places and the Catholic people can't refuse to go even by quitting their job (and could even go to jail for trying to quit their job), then yes.

By the way, who keeps out ministers of the Church of Scientology or clerics of other less conventional religions?

I don't know. I'm not sure anyone is keeping them out. Got any details?

I don't know the details, but it sure seems that someone is making a judgment on who is a qualified clergyman and who isn't.

There may be someone(s) making judgments about who will be a chaplain, but that is not a judgment about who is a qualified clergyman.

I've yet to hear any argument (other than "it isn't so") to justify it.

In light of your arguments that "I don't like it", that seems to be reasonable.

Again, the freedom to practice any religion you want isn't the same thing as the taxpayers footing the bill for you to practice your religion.

Again- it can be when the taxpayers are the ones that have as much control of your life as they do in the military.

You're treating this as though the issue is whether or not the churches have a right to bring representatives of their religion to the soldiers. It's not- if it was you'd have a good argument. It's only about the first amendment rights of the military people.

[JoeTheJuggler]

In the normal situation complete confidentiality with a mental health professional is the rule, but not in the military.

I can think of two ways of resolving that that would make the whole religious involvement unnecessary: 1) use civilian mental health professionals not bound by military rules or 2) change the rule to grant military mental health professionals the same rules of confidentiality now given to chaplains.

If the chaplain is merely a mental health professional, let's get rid of all the religious credentials and hire counselors based on those credentials rather than theological training.

[JoeTheJuggler]

Specious. The military also provides three meals a day, clothing and housing for troops (or a per diem/allowance for those things), but the government does not provide that for all citizens. Also, the only true form of socialized medicine in the U.S. is... the military.


And again, none of those things comes into conflict with the Establishment Clause as does paying someone to perform religious activities out of the public coffers.

[Darth Rotor]

I can think of two ways of resolving that that would make the whole religious involvement unnecessary: 1) use civilian mental health professionals not bound by military rules or 2) change the rule to grant military mental health professionals the same rules of confidentiality now given to chaplains.
You are mixing apples and oranges. The counselling roles are not identical, nor should they be. As an officer, I provided some counselling to my sailors and junior officers, and in trouble cases, often referred people to mental health professionals, or chaplains, as the situation warranted depending on the problems being encountered.
If the chaplain is merely a mental health professional,
Nope. That is a false assumption.

DR

[JoeTheJuggler]

If the US government requires large numbers of Catholic people to move to those places and the Catholic people can't refuse to go even by quitting their job (and could even go to jail for trying to quit their job), then yes.
I've already shown that there really are no places where Catholic priests aren't already available (really--almost anywhere in the world). I lived in Ecuador, a country that is almost entirely Catholic, yet the U.S. military bases there still had paid chaplains. The availability of clergymen who could provide religious services was not an issue.


There may be someone(s) making judgments about who will be a chaplain, but that is not a judgment about who is a qualified clergyman.
If the job of chaplain isn't a religious job, then why not do away with the title? If it's a morale officer or counselor or other mental professional, then why not secularize it? I think it is essentially a religious post and the qualifications are religious.


You're treating this as though the issue is whether or not the churches have a right to bring representatives of their religion to the soldiers. It's not- if it was you'd have a good argument. It's only about the first amendment rights of the military people.
But it's not. As I've shown, most US military bases have no shortage of civilian religious clerics near enough to give military personnel access to their religious practices (at least to as great an extent as the chaplain corps does--meaning a Catholic chaplain might have to tend to Jewish soldier).

If there are bases where there really are no available clerics, they are in the extreme minority. At the very least, this argument would point to a vastly diminished chaplain corps that only fills that need in these extreme cases.

[Bob Klase]

I've already shown that there really are no places where Catholic priests aren't already available (really--almost anywhere in the world).

Lucky for us that US troops are 100% Catholic.

I lived in Ecuador, a country that is almost entirely Catholic, yet the U.S. military bases there still had paid chaplains. The availability of clergymen who could provide religious services was not an issue.

We're not talking about Catholic priests, we're talking about chaplains. How many non-Catholic servicemen are assigned to the military bases in Ecuador?

How much training and preparation does a Catholic priest have in providing any type of service to non-Catholics? And how much time is the typical Catholic priest willing to take away from his Catholic priest duties to serve non-Catholics?

How much training and preparation do Catholic chaplains have in providing services to non-Catholics?

If the job of chaplain isn't a religious job, then why not do away with the title?

It's certainly not a Catholic job. Did someone here claim it wasn't a religious job?

If it's a morale officer or counselor or other mental professional, then why not secularize it? I think it is essentially a religious post and the qualifications are religious.

It's essentially a religious job. The qualifications and duties are more than just religious. If you want to ignore everything that's been written in this thread, feel free. If you really feel that it's a violation of the establishment clause then get a lawyer and try to put a stop to it.

But it's not. As I've shown, most US military bases have no shortage of civilian religious clerics near enough to give military personnel access to their religious practices

Of course most US military bases have no requirement for armed troops to be stationed there. What the heck are those troops doing there anyway other than training and preparation so they're ready when needed elsewhere (and that is pretty much their only purpose there in most cases)?

If there are bases where there really are no available clerics, they are in the extreme minority.

Whatever you say. You're obviously much more knowledgeable about the purpose, functions and duties of military chaplains than anyone else here that's tried to address your complaints. Personally I just don't care what you think about it. See a lawyer and get your lawsuit started.

At the very least, this argument would point to a vastly diminished chaplain corps that only fills that need in these extreme cases.

Now you're not being consistent. Violations of the establishment clause would be unacceptable whether there are hundreds (or thousands) or just one in an extreme case. If chaplains are a violation of the establishment clause then they are a violation. If they are not a violation then you've wasted a lot of time arguing that they are.

Since you apparently don't really believe they're a violation, do you have another argument other than you just don't like it?

[JoeTheJuggler]

You are mixing apples and oranges. The counselling roles are not identical, nor should they be. As an officer, I provided some counselling to my sailors and junior officers, and in trouble cases, often referred people to mental health professionals, or chaplains, as the situation warranted depending on the problems being encountered.

Nope. That is a false assumption.

DR
I was responding to Tsukasa Buddha's defense of the chaplain program. He said the reason we need chaplains is that they are the only ones a serviceperson can turn to in complete confidence.

My response was that if that's the only reason we need them, it would be an easy enough problem to resolve in a completely secular program.

[JoeTheJuggler]

We're not talking about Catholic priests, we're talking about chaplains. How many non-Catholic servicemen are assigned to the military bases in Ecuador?
I was using that as one example of the ubiquity of clergymen in the world. In fact, the chaplain program doesn't guarantee that there is a cleric from the religion of an individual's choice available to each individual in the military anyway.





It's essentially a religious job. The qualifications and duties are more than just religious. If you want to ignore everything that's been written in this thread, feel free.
My point is that religious needs could be provided by the churches concerned at their own expense. The non-religious duties could be covered by non-religious personnel.

I most certainly have not been ignoring everything that's been written in this thread. I've been conversing back and forth with several people responding to points raised.

Personally I just don't care what you think about it.
Then why are you addressing me in your posts?



Now you're not being consistent. Violations of the establishment clause would be unacceptable whether there are hundreds (or thousands) or just one in an extreme case. If chaplains are a violation of the establishment clause then they are a violation. If they are not a violation then you've wasted a lot of time arguing that they are.
I agree. In my opinion, the entire program is in violation of the Establishment Clause and should be done away with.

The only decent argument I've heard in defense of the program is the one you (and others) have made that if the government didn't provide chaplains some military personnel would not be free to practice their religion as guaranteed by the First Amendment. I don't agree with the argument (because I think as long as the government doesn't do something to prevent practice, like forbid clerics to enter the base, that they're not infringing on First Amendment rights), but even if your argument stands, at the very least it would justify only a vastly smaller chaplain corps for the few military personnel that are stationed somewhere that is bereft of religious ministers (maybe the Antarctic!).

[LordoftheLeftHand]

US Army in the 90's:

I experienced the same basic pressure to attend church in basic training or perform extra work. I don't actually think this was religious based though. Wherever we went we were accompanied by drill sergeants. If you did not go to church a drill sergeant would have to remain to supervise you. I don't think they wanted to do this so the Sergent responsible for supervising the non church goers would pressure you into going so he could do something else.

The only other experience I had was the inability to get my personal records to display the word "atheist" or to get my id tags (dog tags) to reflect this. They would always tell me that choice is not available. You could bypass this by having your id tags made off-base at a military surplus store, where they will write anything on them. But then your id tags wouldn't match your personal file, but no one would be likely to notice this.

LLH

[UnrepentantSinner]

And again, none of those things comes into conflict with the Establishment Clause as does paying someone to perform religious activities out of the public coffers.

You're claiming it conflicts with the Establishment clause but you haven't demonstrated it though. No church is being established. Chaplains are required to respond to the religious needs of all the troops even to the point of arranging transportation off base for those whose religious needs cannot be met on base. But if you want to get a pedantic about the first Amendment, I suppose you will support Navy chaplains on ships because to remove them would conflict with the Free Exercise clause.

[Tsukasa Buddha]

I can think of two ways of resolving that that would make the whole religious involvement unnecessary: 1) use civilian mental health professionals not bound by military rules or 2) change the rule to grant military mental health professionals the same rules of confidentiality now given to chaplains.

Er, civilian mental health professionals being borrowed by the military would still have to follow the rules.

Mental Health records are not completely confidential either.

Of course, I am sure there can be an argument made that they shouldn't have the same confidentiality as when treating civilians. The mental health of a soldier and his obedience to the rules and guidelines of the military are important to the overall strength of the military. If either is troubled then the officer in charge needs to know.

(The above paragraph is just my guess at why they have things the way they do)

If the chaplain is merely a mental health professional, let's get rid of all the religious credentials and hire counselors based on those credentials rather than theological training.

Well, don't misunderstand. They are not doing the same thing, but chaplains aren't there for religious indoctrination or conversions. Most of the time they don't even talk about specific religions that much. They are there to provide spiritual support, but because of the privacy rules they also get talked to about more things that soldiers wouldn't be able to talk about with anyone else otherwise.

I think it is really understandable that soldiers should have chaplains to help them, just as we have chaplains to help people in the psychiatric wards and in prisons.

[rocketdodger]

Err... how did this become about chaplains?

They are not the issue. The issue is with everyone else discriminating.

During the time I served, I didn't see the base chaplains a single time. Anywhere. They didn't even put fliers up for religious events. Anywhere.

What did happen was enlisted members, NCO's, and low grade CO's putting up such fliers, or soliciting people to attend religious events, etc.

Not that this is a bad thing. It never bothered me because my atheism never butted heads with the Christian undercurrent that was present. But such an undercurrent is there -- it just isn't created, or even propagated, by the chaplains.

[arthwollipot]

By the way, who keeps out ministers of the Church of Scientology or clerics of other less conventional religions? I don't know the details, but it sure seems that someone is making a judgment on who is a qualified clergyman and who isn't.That's a good point. I keep on hearing rhetoric (designed to stave off the idea that the US is engaging in a crusade against Islam) that Moslems serve in the military. Are there any Islamic chaplain-equivalents? What about Hindu or Buddhists? Is there anyone officially recognised to serve the... ok, I'll use the term "spiritual needs" of non-Christians in the military? If not, then I would say that the US military is a Christian organisation - or at least heavily influenced by Christianity.

Err... how did this become about chaplains?

They are not the issue. The issue is with everyone else discriminating.And that's a VERY good point. Thanks for bringing that up.

[UnrepentantSinner]

Err... how did this become about chaplains?

They are not the issue. The issue is with everyone else discriminating.

Joe The Juggler brought it up and while I agree it's a point worth considering I disagree with his position based on my experiences. Bringing the thread back to pervasive attitudes/leadership actions is a great point though.

That's a good point. I keep on hearing rhetoric (designed to stave off the idea that the US is engaging in a crusade against Islam) that Moslems serve in the military. Are there any Islamic chaplain-equivalents? What about Hindu or Buddhists? Is there anyone officially recognised to serve the... ok, I'll use the term "spiritual needs" of non-Christians in the military? If not, then I would say that the US military is a Christian organisation - or at least heavily influenced by Christianity.

When I was a dependent from a period I recollect interactions with U.S. military chaplains (say, 1978-1984) there were only two choices for on-base services - Catholic and Protestant. The Catholic Chaplain was an ordained priest and could come from any tradition. Similarly you might have a Protestant who was a Lutheran, Baptist or whatever... and most of the ones I remember were Baptist. I don't recall encountering any Jewish Chaplains which have been in the Army IIRC since WW I or earlier.

As I noted above, Chaplains, regardless of religion or creed are required to minister to the needs of all the troops in their area. This could mean a Rabbi hearing Confession or a Presbyterian facilitating a Seder. There are a few Muslim Chaplains in the U.S. military, as I noted above, part of the jobs of Chaplains is to facilitate transportation to off-base or locations for layman led religious services for "non-traditional" services and I recently listened to a BBC World radio broadcast about the first Muslim, Hindu and Buddhist Chaplains in the British Army.

The U.S. military chaplaincy isn't just heavily influenced by Christianity, it's dominated by it, but troops who feel their spiritual or morale needs aren't being met by their Chaplain do have recourse as do non-religious troopers who feel they are being discriminated against.

[arthwollipot]

The U.S. military chaplaincy isn't just heavily influenced by Christianity, it's dominated by it, but troops who feel their spiritual or morale needs aren't being met by their Chaplain do have recourse as do non-religious troopers who feel they are being discriminated against.Are there psychologists available for non-"spiritual" counselling? That seems to me an option for the non-religious.

[JoeTheJuggler]

Er, civilian mental health professionals being borrowed by the military would still have to follow the rules.
Says who? I'm a civilian, and if I have an interaction with a soldier, no officer has authority to order me to break confidence.

My point is if the military can grant confidentiality to chaplains, they can certainly grant that status to a mental health professional. Not to mention the fact that a non-military religious clergyman (paid for by the churches rather than the taxpayer) would enjoy confidentiality as well--probably less problematically than someone who is an officer and answerable to military authorities.

[JoeTheJuggler]

Err... how did this become about chaplains?

They are not the issue. The issue is with everyone else discriminating.

Yes, I raised the issue in response to the O.P. and poll question at the top of this thread.

I maintain that as long as taxpayer money is financing religious activity, there's a constitutional problem.

For what it's worth, I feel the same about Senate Chaplain who opens each session of the Senate with a morning prayer (http://www.senate.gov/reference/office/chaplain.htm). I don't think it's enough to accept that the United States is not a Christian nation, I think we should recognize that the United States is not a theist nation. Atheists are full citizens with full rights. Our government's statement that the Senate has "faith in God as Sovereign Lord of our Nation" is a denial of equal citizenship to atheists.

[UnrepentantSinner]

Are there psychologists available for non-"spiritual" counselling? That seems to me an option for the non-religious.

Yes, but they don't have the same confidentiality regulations that Chaplains do. They also are not tasked for things like, as I noted, performing religious ceremonies for troops of other faiths, assisting with off-base transportation for troops whose religious traditions are not observed on base or facilitating laymen in conducting on base/ship religious services. Military psychologists are there to deal with mental health issues, not ensuring that personnel have their spiritual needs attended to.

I realize that's not a direct response to your question, but the non-religious don't only have clinically diagnosable mental health issues to deal with. Sometimes they have to deal with life in the military like marital or financial issues and they can't talk about them with peers or superiors.

[arthwollipot]

Yes, but they don't have the same confidentiality regulations that Chaplains do. They also are not tasked for things like, as I noted, performing religious ceremonies for troops of other faiths, assisting with off-base transportation for troops whose religious traditions are not observed on base or facilitating laymen in conducting on base/ship religious services. Military psychologists are there to deal with mental health issues, not ensuring that personnel have their spiritual needs attended to.

I realize that's not a direct response to your question, but the non-religious don't only have clinically diagnosable mental health issues to deal with. Sometimes they have to deal with life in the military like marital or financial issues and they can't talk about them with peers or superiors.Understood. They're there, but they don't provide the same kind of service.

[JoeTheJuggler]

Someone made a point earlier that I can't locate right away that I wanted to respond to (following a conversation with my Jesuit friend). The argument was that even though there might be clerics of some religion easily accessible to most (if not all) military personnel, those people wouldn't be trained in all other religions to conduct religious rituals as needed for soldiers of the various faiths.

I can only address this from a Catholic point of view, but I suspect other religions have similar rules. Someone who is NOT a Catholic cleric (like an imam or rabbi) cannot perform the Catholic sacraments. It doesn't matter how much training the military gives them.

So again, at best you've got a guy who can be an ecumenical interface and try his best to meet the needs of the soldiers. This is nothing that can't be done by a civilian cleric. Why not let that happen outside the aegis of the U.S. military or a least on the tax-exempt coin of the churches involved?

The only other argument I've heard to justify using my tax money to fund the practice of religion is the one Tsukasa Buddha has been making regarding the need for someone that a soldier can speak with in confidentiality. Again, I see no reason why this same privilege can't be given to a secular professional.

Besides, I'm pretty sure you're mistaken about the authority of the military to compromise the code of ethics of civilian health care professionals regarding confidentiality by adding disclosure requirements--beyond the ones they already have of breaking confidence only if the patient is likely to harm someone else or himself. In a similar way, I don't think the military can require a doctor to engage in fighting or do anything else he might see as a violation of his Hippocratic Oath. And I'm fairly certain that the "don't ask, don't tell" policy would preclude any officer from asking a mental health professional if one of his patients confided that he is gay. (That was the pressing need cited for a chaplain.)

[Jackalgirl]

The courts have ruled the freedom to have no religion as equally protected by the First Amendment, so any tax money spent on a religion is problematic. Also, the fact that these peoples' credentials are evaluated entangles the government with religion.

I agree, though I have to note that I'm thinking of two things here: a) persons who are (rightfully or not) government-qualified to bring religion into the picture (i.e., chaplains and RPs), and who are supposed to minister to people (not pressure people into being religious) who want to participate. As opposed to b) people who style themselves as providers of religion, who are not qualified to do so, and who impose their religion on others.


I'd also challenge the assumption that they don't favor some religions--at least as a de facto matter.

Sorry if that assumption came across; I didn't mean to make it. I never said that the military doesn't favor -- or trend towards -- one (or several) religions over others. I can pretty well say (though I don't have any sources to cite on this besides personal observation) that Protestant forms of Christianity get the majority of the attention and effort. Then again, most of the "consumers" are members of some form of Protestant Christianity. (By "consumers" I mean military folks who want to take advantage of religious services.)


To me, the idea that tax money pays a salary for a person to be a religious minister is absurdly unconstitutional. I've heard it defended that the benefit to the military (or prisons) is a purely secular one--morale, mental health counseling, etc. My answer to that is why not hire professionals with the appropriate mental health credentials and not call them "chaplains"? (Presumably this is already being done, which means that role of the chaplain is already covered.)

I would have a lot less trouble if the military were simply accommodating religious people paid for by those religions to come and minister to the needs of members of the military. Rather than recognizing a chaplain as an officer, just give military personnel the freedom to have their religious needs tended to. If the various churches are unable or unwilling to finance this (especially overseas), then so be it.

The fact is, my tax dollars shouldn't be used to finance ANY religious activity.

I'm of two minds. On the one hand, religion is a coping strategy, and an apparently pretty good one -- good enough that it is incorporated, for example, into the Code of Conduct, which is a major document meant to guide the behavior of prisoners of war.

On the other hand, I too am uneasy when government gets involved, because it seems like it's too easy to slip into a situation in which religion is mandated.

You are correct: the military /does/ have mental health professionals within the medical corps. On the other hand, though, there are a lot of people who feel that they have spiritual needs, and that those spiritual needs & activities are stress-relievers and means of coping with stress. So I do not think that doing away with the Chaplain's corps would be beneficial (at least, in the short term. No idea how it might effect things in the long run.)

[Jackalgirl]

I was using that as one example of the ubiquity of clergymen in the world. In fact, the chaplain program doesn't guarantee that there is a cleric from the religion of an individual's choice available to each individual in the military anyway.

Well, I'd like to point out that it doesn't need to. The purpose of a chaplain is to minister to the religious needs of military personnel. Any (legal) religious needs of any service member, to the best of his or her ability. Many chaplains come from specific religious backgrounds, and have specific skill sets or bases of knowledge, but they are all supposed to honor and do their best to minister to the people who want it.

I am Kemetic Orthodox. I am one of two -- count 'em, two -- members of my faith in the Navy. But I am fully confident that I could go to /any/ chaplain and get help, if even a referral to another chaplain who might be better qualified to help me out. And I am fully confident that that chaplain would not try to insist that I convert to his/her religion -- and if he or she did, I would report it, because it's not right.

A private church, funding private chaplains, would probably not have this all-encompassing view. In fact, I think that privately funding chaplains would make the problem (of Evangelical Christianity being pushed into all corners of the military) worse, not better.

[Bob Klase]

Someone made a point earlier that I can't locate right away that I wanted to respond to (following a conversation with my Jesuit friend). The argument was that even though there might be clerics of some religion easily accessible to most (if not all) military personnel, those people wouldn't be trained in all other religions to conduct religious rituals as needed for soldiers of the various faiths.

I can only address this from a Catholic point of view, but I suspect other religions have similar rules. Someone who is NOT a Catholic cleric (like an imam or rabbi) cannot perform the Catholic sacraments. It doesn't matter how much training the military gives them.

I'm fairly sure this is the post you can't locate. You might note that it said "services", not "religious rituals" or "sacraments" (Catholic or other)-

(click the 'view post' button to read what you're probably trying to locate)


Besides, I'm pretty sure you're mistaken about the authority of the military to compromise the code of ethics of civilian health care professionals regarding confidentiality by adding disclosure requirements--beyond the ones they already have of breaking confidence only if the patient is likely to harm someone else or himself.

I don't know how much the code of ethics can be compromised, but it's pretty much irrelevant if you have a job where the mere fact that you're seeing a mental health professional is enough to cause problems- like if you're one of the two guys (or gals) with a key to launch a nuclear weapon for example. And the fact that you are seeing a doctor is not confidential.

[arthwollipot]

I'm of two minds. On the one hand, religion is a coping strategy, and an apparently pretty good one -- good enough that it is incorporated, for example, into the Code of Conduct, which is a major document meant to guide the behavior of prisoners of war.

On the other hand, I too am uneasy when government gets involved, because it seems like it's too easy to slip into a situation in which religion is mandated.Are you serious? Religion is incorporated into the US Military's Code of Conduct? In what way?