Federal chaplains, churches & the First Amendment

[paineinthearse]

The "fundies in the Air Force Academy" post got me thinking......

http://www.archives.gov/national_archives_experience/charters/bill_of_rights_transcript.html

Amendment I

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.

=================================================================

Are Federal laws that establish and fund the postion of federal chaplain (Congressional, military, prison, whatever) and/or the use of Federal funds to build and maintain churches and chapels on Federal property in violation of the establishment provision?

[BOSSHOG]

1. Interesting Question

Addressing only the military chaplain aspect of your statement, they were there if a Sailor needed them for whatever reason. We didn't have to go to services. I believe Chaplains serve an invaluable role for the peace of mind and solace for servicemembers often placed in harms way. I know this doesn't answer your question, because I don't know what the answer is. I strongly believe that the existence of Chaplains for military personnel is money well spent. And all the Chaplains I ever knew were professional to the core, who adhered to the adage, Mission First, Sailors Always.

The Air Force case involves religious zealots and I truly doubt there is any involvement by Chaplains to force religious views on the students, however, I'm not familiar with Air Force Chaplains. Anchors Aweigh anyday.

On a humorous side note, I stated that we didn't have to attend services. Well, that wasn't exactly true. On Sundays in bootcamp we had to attend a service of our choice but that was just crowd control. The powers that be wanted to know where we were at all times and couldn't have us spread all over base so we were herded to church services.

[politicat]

4. DH did not have to go, since his faith was not available.

Instead he got to stay in the barracks and clean his boots and write letters and such.

At the time, he was a Druid (reformed. He worshipped bushes.) It drove his Fundy babtist CO nucking futz.

The chaplain made sure that DH had the right to his religion. That made the CO even more furious.

Chaplains are good joes and janes usually.

[CBGLuthier]

2. The military does not operate under the constitution

The military does not operate under the same rules. As an example, if someone tells their boss off, the worst thing can happen is they get fired. If a private tells his boss off, he can go to jail.

Besides, I would never deny service men the comfort that a chaplain can bring to them.

[paineinthearse]

7. Oh?

I was under the impression that Article. II. Section. 1.
Clause 1: established the executive: "The executive Power shall be vested in a President of the United States of America. He shall hold his Office during the Term of four Years...", and that Section. 2.
Clause 1: established him as "...Commander in Chief of the Army and Navy of the United States, and of the Militia of the several States, when called into the actual Service of the United States...

Do we have a disconnect here?

[CBGLuthier]

9. To clarify

The members of the armed forces do not have the same constitutional rights as non-military citizens. They "voluntarily" give up some of those rights when they join the military.

Now, that alone may not explain what seems like a violation of the first amendment by the installation of chaplains and places of worship.

But only someone with not one drop of compassion in their bodies would try to deny those servicemen and women who seek the comfort of a chaplain and religous services.

In other words, even though I consider myself to be a strict constitutionalist, this issue is a complete non-starter. Leave the military chaplains alone.

[politicat]

3. Re: Prison and Military chaplains

These are necessary positions because the "audience" is captive, and is not able to seek out religious counsel outside of the institution (prisons all the time, and military when they're not stateside). Being at Diego Garcia and needing confession would be really, really bad if the DoD did not provide chaplains. We need to pay for chaplains for those who are in a captive situation. (I debate whether we should pay for stateside chaplains, but even chaplains have the right to a stateside posting occasionally.)

That said, the DoD needs to do far more to recruit non-christian chaplains. The requirements to be a chaplain are not terribly stringent - a 4 year bachelor's in religion, theology, comparative religions, etc, and preferably a minor in psychology or similar - but they don't go out and look for pagans, atheists and Buddhists with this type of background. They need to. They also need to train their existing chaplains to be more tolerant and secure in their own faiths so that they don't go all proselytizing on their captive audiences. They also need to make sure that all chapels and churches on federal property are equally accessible to anyone who wishes to use them - one cannot get married in the AFA chapel (the really beautiful one) unless one is protestant. All others are relegated to the "function rooms" in the basement. That's not okay. That's pure discrimination.

As far as the Congressional chaplain goes, this is nothing but tradition. There's no reason for it; Congresscritters are not a captive audience, and we should not be paying for spiritual guidance for them (except in the form of a spiritual director wielding a big old clue bat....). If they want a prayer, they can do it on their own time, not on the taxpayer dime.

[eallen]

6. More importantly, the chaplains need to be trained to help all soldiers...

Short of organizing companies by religion, it would be impossible to provide each soldier a chaplain of their own religion. But there's no reason that one chaplain cannot try to help those from a broad variety of beliefs, in a compassionate, non-proselytizing manner.

[politicat]

8. Exactly. Tolerance is a big bit missing from the AFA, and other areas.

But that doesn't mean we should do away with chaplains entirely. They're too needed.

[eallen]

5. Funding prison & military chaplains seems legitimate to me, providing...

It has a secular purpose, i.e., to provide a needed service to the people involved, and it is done in a fashion that is biased toward a religion, i.e., the services are provided to people of all beliefs. Like a previous poster, I would not want to deny soldiers or inmates the comfort of a chaplain. In the latter case, it's not clear to me why the state needs to pay for this service, rather than allowing private groups to provide it. The military is a sort of special case, since the only way to provide that service is as part of the military structure.

[Sgent]

10. This has been addressed

by the Supreme Court -- at least as regards the military. They essentially said that if the chaplain corp's religion is proportionate to the enlisted and officers, then its ok.

That means that if the military is 50% protestant, 20% Catholic, etc then the chaplian corp should have the same percentages.

I have no idea if this is the case or not.

[eallen]

13. Still important to train chaplains to work with those of other belief.

Even if the chaplain corp have beliefs in exact proportion to the rest of the military, it still will be the case that a particular chaplain will have to work with a group of soldiers who vary in their belief. There's no controlling which soldiers in the field will have friends die, will be injured, will get separated. The chaplain needs to be able to offer comfort to everyone. That's a tough job. But it's also the job they signed up to do.

[ultraist]

11. At first glance...

It does appear that using tax dollars to fund religious chaplains is a violation. I understand that the chaplains and church services may bring comfort to the soldiers, but what about secular therapists and support groups? Wouldn't that be more in keeping with separation of church and state?

Obviously, Scalia wouldn't think so:

http://www.truthout.org/docs_04/112704X.shtml

Scalia Says Religion Infuses U.S. Government and History
By Vera Dobnik

New York - U.S. Supreme Court Justice Antonin Scalia said Monday that a religion-neutral government does not fit with an America that reflects belief in God in everything from its money to its military. "I suggest that our jurisprudence should comport with our actions," Scalia told an audience attending an interfaith conference on religious freedom at Manhattan's Shearith Israel synagogue.

An outspoken conservative, Scalia joined a gathering that included the chief judge of New York state, Judith Kaye, a member of this Orthodox synagogue where the late Supreme Court Justice Benjamin Cardozo had worshipped. The discussion in the century-old edifice was lively.

In the synagogue that is home to America's oldest Jewish congregation, he noted that in Europe, religion-neutral leaders almost never publicly use the word "God." But, the justice asked, "Did it turn out that, by reason of the separation of church and state, the Jews were safer in Europe than they were in the United States of America? I don't think so."

Scalia told them that while the church-and-state battle rages, the official examples of the presence of faith go back to America's Founding Fathers: the word "God" on U.S. currency; chaplains of various faiths in the military and the legislature; real estate tax-exemption for houses of worship - and the phrase "under God" in the Pledge of Allegiance.

[Nothing Without Hope]

12. Here is the "Fundies in the AF Academy" post referred to in the OP

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_topic&forum=132&topic_id=1762771#1764979
Thread title: WaPo: Air Force Academy religious bias probe – FUNDIE INFILTRATION?

Seems to me, there should be access to a nondenominational space that can be used by all faiths for meditation or prayer, and there can be nondenomiational counselors, but there should NOT be chaplains or chapels in specific faiths that are paid for by the US govt. There could be arrangements made, preferably on a volunteer basis, to see that cadets could attend services in the local private churches/synagogues/mosques of their choice if transportation was an issue.

The insistance on Christian prayers and bias against people of other faiths or atheists is clearly illegal in this government-funded institution.