Are federal chaplains & their offices in violation of 1st amendment?

[paineinthearse]

"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...."

1. Are the many CFR statutes creating offices of chaplain corps in the military, Congress, federal prisons, etc in violation of the first amendment?

2. Why should US taxpayers fund chaplains? If there is a need, let organized religious groups provide funding.

=========
http://chaplain.house.gov/

The Reverend Daniel P. Coughlin

To serve as Chaplain for the U.S. House of Representatives is truly an honor and a privilege. At one and the same time to be a minister of the Lord and an officer serving the United States government responds to a two-fold call to serve others and offer prayer which unites heaven and earth.

more......

===================
http://chaplain.house.gov/histInfo.html

Article I, Section 2 of the Constitution states: "The House of Representatives shall chuse their Speaker and other Officers."

The election of the Rev. William Lynn as Chaplain of the House on May 1, 1789, continued the tradition established by the Continental Congresses of each day's proceedings opening with a prayer by a chaplain. The early Chaplains alternated duties with their Senate counterparts on a weekly basis. The two conducted Sunday services for the Washington community in the House Chamber every other week.

In addition to opening proceedings with prayer, the Chaplain provides pastoral counseling to the House community, coordinates the scheduling of guest chaplains, and arranges memorial services for the House and its staff. In the past, Chaplains have performed marriage and funeral ceremonies for House members.

* From 1855 to 1861 the local clergy in the District of Columbia conducted the opening prayer. Thereafter, the House has elected a Chaplain at the beginning of each Congress.

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


http://www.chapnet.army.mil/DRE/Default.HTM
"Religious Education for the Army: a life-transforming process--
people called to meet God, know God and live for God!"



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


http://www.dla.mil/hqchaplain/
==================
http://www.af.mil/bios/bio.asp?bioID=7806

[liberal N proud]

1. Their message is supposed to be non-denominational!

The key words are "supposed to be"

[mdhunter]

3. Even then...

The state, and constitutional scholars can correct me, cannot give even the appearance of sanctioning religion as opposed to non-religion.

I think they're running afoul of the constitution ever prior to that question, however, by invoking what seems clearly to be a Christian, or at least Western, God. Doing so certainly is indicating preference.

And, finally, strict textualists, like Black, read "make no law" a categorical. No law, none, no matter what good it's supposed to bring or harm it is suppose to forestall. So, legislation providing for an amendment to the code establishing an government office of Chaplain - yeah, to me, that seems wrong.

[BR_Parkway]

2. If any of our soldiers wanted comfort from a chaplain, it's a damn cheap

price to pay. Providing for them when the soldiers are away from their homes is similar to paying for their food and housing. Those who don't want to eat at the mess hall aren't forced to if they don't want. It's not the same thing as if they passed laws saying that everyone in service had to go to the chaplain or attend services.

On full disclosure, my uncle is a retired Air Force chaplain and I'm a Veteran. No gov't funds were used to pay for my opinion unlike certain columnists.

[mdhunter]

4. I think the original poster's objection was not that there are chaplains -

but that they're paid for out of the common pool of funds.

I, for one, am glad that there are institutionalized religious figures in the armed services. I think they play an important role in the spiritual, and perhaps, physical health of those that partake of them. At the very least, they are a reminder - in times of pain and when men are asked to do (what I think are sometimes) ungodly things - of the human and better natures that exist.

Whether or not the state should be providing this service, however, is a different question. I would think, though I don't know if this it true, that the established churches would be more than happy to provide, at their expense, ministers to those in the armed services. That seems, to me, to be part of the calling and mission of churches and I'd like to see them execute it.

[BR_Parkway]

5. As chaplains, they are under the same military justice system -

they can be ordered into battlefield situations, volunteers privately supported by the churches back home would not.

Typically a Mormon, Protestant, Jewish or Muslim chaplain will work along with the local churches in the areas the troops are stationed at. And as trained Military members, they are always considered as infantry or ground troops along with their regular jobs.

[mdhunter]

7. Ah, I did not know that.

[DustMolecule]

6. The Constitution offers "Freedom of Religion"

not Freedom from religion.

And yes, atheists have a right to "not believe" too. The trouble always comes in when people start shoving their beliefs (and non-beliefs) in everyone else's face! Instead of a quiet, humble, personal belief system, that is evidenced through one's life.

I find nothing wrong with a military chaplain service being available for those who want to use it (and being paid for with tax dollars). The chaplains/chaplain service is supposed to be non-denominational. As for atheists in the military, you can't offer any type of 'services/program' for people who don't believe in a supreme-being anything, right? :shrug:

DM

P.S. I was musing that after the Chaplain gave his prayer thingy at the inaugural luncheon the other day (which actually I thought was a bit 'too much')...you could have an atheist get up there and say, "Good bread, good meat, I sure am hungry...so let's eat!" ;-)

[mutus_frutex]

8. Personally, I think they are unconstitutional.

This is something I've thought about, but not too much. So, my position is not very well formed. I could probably use a little bit of exchange with other people.

If the army was made of draftees, then I would understand the government providing for their religious needs. After all, the guys didn't ask to be there and are entitled to their beliefs.

On the other hand, in a voluntary army people shouldn't expect the government to provide for them. Churches should provide the chaplains for free. After all, its' their people they are taking care of.

This is all mixed with the fact that I think it should be illegal for the government to draft you. I really don't have very clear how the "conscientious objector" status really works..

Anyway, I'm open to any ideas..

[mutus_frutex]

9. I would like to add one more thing:

The chaplain in Congress is definitely unconstitutional. And the opening prayer is a total disgrace.

[Charon]

10. Constitutionality

I believe the Supreme Court has found the practice of the Armed Services providing Chaplains is constitutional. In the decision, the Court said that in fact it would be unconstitutional for the armed forces to not provide some form of religious support for their personnel. Unfortunately I do not recall the Court case that the judgement was based on.

[Pettson]

11. I believe

that we shall trouble no one for their religion. Just as we have a right to believe whatever we want, so does everyone else. I dont mind if my tax dollars goes to funding a chaplain or a rabbi or an iman. Just as long as we treat everyone equal.