Jesus in Uniform
"Religous conservatives in Congress want to cancel new Air Force and Navy guidelines that limit chaplains from invoking the name of Jesus... at public events."
Milwaukee Journal Sentinel, September 24, 2006
The guidelines targeted by the proposed legislation do not apply to denominational prayer sessions, but only "public events" such as speeches and military ceremonies. According to bill sponsor Todd Akin, a Missouri Republican, " it is un-American to censor them (military chaplains)."
At the opposite extreme are those who would argue that the Federal Government employing chaplains is itself a violation of the First Amendment ban on establishment of religion. However, the justification for employing chaplains is that they provide needed spiritual counseling to soldiers at a time when they are separated from their families and the churches or synagogues (nowadays, even mosques) that they would otherwise attend. Moreover, their exposure to danger, perhaps even mortal danger, makes this type of solace even more important than it would be under more normal circumstances. The United States military services employ chaplains of every faith represented by a substantial number of personnel, so the chaplaincy program does not favor one religion over another.
The dispute over the new guidelines raises the sensitive question:
" For whom does the chaplain speak?"
Since every chaplain is an officer of one of the US armed services, one might respond that he is speaking at a public event as a representative of the US Government, in which case delivering a sectarian religious message is clearly violative of the First Amendment establishment clause.
On the other hand, if the chaplain is speaking for his church, he should be free to speak and pray in accordance with his own conscience, free of censorship and from the control of his superior officers or other Government officials. But then, why is the representative of a church invited to speak or lead prayers at a Government-sanctioned event?
It seems that Rep. Akin and his colleagues who are backing his bill want it both ways: the military should give the chaplain a forum, which is often a largely captive audience (1) , and the chaplain should then be able to use this forum to preach a sectarian Christian message and/or lead those present in reciting a Christian prayer. This view parallels the case for prayer in the public schools, which was ruled unconstitutional by the US Supreme Court in Murray vs Maryland in 1962. The military, like the public school, is a highly coercive environment controlled by government, in which people are not free to openly question messages delivered at the behest of those in command.
Accordingly, the most fair and reasonable policy is to abolish all prayers, invocations, and religious messages from all military ceremonies at which attendance is mandatory or obligatory. Those who wish to pray for the success of a mission should have the opportunity to do so at a chapel service, led by a chaplain of their faith, or informally in the baracks or private offices. Military life is by nature beset by many difficulties, but being subjected to religious indoctrination should not be among them.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
(1) The guidelines pertain to some events at which attendance by military personnel is required by the commanding officer. However, even if attendance is optional, there is often considerable peer pressure to attend, especially for officers, whose careers may depend upon making a favorable impression on superiors. In this sense, those subject to the sermons and prayers are a "captive audience."
Milwaukee Journal Sentinel, September 24, 2006
The guidelines targeted by the proposed legislation do not apply to denominational prayer sessions, but only "public events" such as speeches and military ceremonies. According to bill sponsor Todd Akin, a Missouri Republican, " it is un-American to censor them (military chaplains)."
At the opposite extreme are those who would argue that the Federal Government employing chaplains is itself a violation of the First Amendment ban on establishment of religion. However, the justification for employing chaplains is that they provide needed spiritual counseling to soldiers at a time when they are separated from their families and the churches or synagogues (nowadays, even mosques) that they would otherwise attend. Moreover, their exposure to danger, perhaps even mortal danger, makes this type of solace even more important than it would be under more normal circumstances. The United States military services employ chaplains of every faith represented by a substantial number of personnel, so the chaplaincy program does not favor one religion over another.
The dispute over the new guidelines raises the sensitive question:
" For whom does the chaplain speak?"
Since every chaplain is an officer of one of the US armed services, one might respond that he is speaking at a public event as a representative of the US Government, in which case delivering a sectarian religious message is clearly violative of the First Amendment establishment clause.
On the other hand, if the chaplain is speaking for his church, he should be free to speak and pray in accordance with his own conscience, free of censorship and from the control of his superior officers or other Government officials. But then, why is the representative of a church invited to speak or lead prayers at a Government-sanctioned event?
It seems that Rep. Akin and his colleagues who are backing his bill want it both ways: the military should give the chaplain a forum, which is often a largely captive audience (1) , and the chaplain should then be able to use this forum to preach a sectarian Christian message and/or lead those present in reciting a Christian prayer. This view parallels the case for prayer in the public schools, which was ruled unconstitutional by the US Supreme Court in Murray vs Maryland in 1962. The military, like the public school, is a highly coercive environment controlled by government, in which people are not free to openly question messages delivered at the behest of those in command.
Accordingly, the most fair and reasonable policy is to abolish all prayers, invocations, and religious messages from all military ceremonies at which attendance is mandatory or obligatory. Those who wish to pray for the success of a mission should have the opportunity to do so at a chapel service, led by a chaplain of their faith, or informally in the baracks or private offices. Military life is by nature beset by many difficulties, but being subjected to religious indoctrination should not be among them.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
(1) The guidelines pertain to some events at which attendance by military personnel is required by the commanding officer. However, even if attendance is optional, there is often considerable peer pressure to attend, especially for officers, whose careers may depend upon making a favorable impression on superiors. In this sense, those subject to the sermons and prayers are a "captive audience."
posted by Gerald S Glazer at 12:20 PM
1 Comments:
Your conclusions are wrong due to faulty premises and logic.
You claim that the rules governing military chaplains should be analagous to prayer in the school but it isn't. There are no chaplains at any public school but there are chaplains in the armed forces. There are no similarities between the two situations. Chaplains are in the armed forces because people die in the armed forces, this is not an expected outcome of public school. In addition, people in the armed forces are grown adults who are not easily swayed, while students in school are growing impressionable children.
You claim that Rep Akin wants it both ways by having chaplains and allowing them to preach what they were taught to preach; but what is the point of a chaplain if he cannot do his job? What is the point of having a cake if one cannot eat it?
Your suggestion is the most illogical one. You want to emnploy chaplains in the army and then have them not perform their functions.
The logical solutions are either 1) do not have chaplains at all or 2) have chaplains and let them do their jobs.
It is always possible and it is the best and most equal policy in the armed forces to have chaplains that respresent the audience being addressed. If there are Jews and Christians then have a Jewish and Christian chaplain; but if there are only Christians present then have only a Christian chaplain.
This is the only truly equal and logical solution.
Post a Comment
<< Home