RufusAtticus

Joshua,

What kind of disciplinary actions could be taken against military chaplains that prosetytize?

oriecat

I'm always curious about this chaplain stuff. Can you request certain denominations or do most places just have one guy? What if someone is Jewish and wants a rabbi, can they request it? Could they sue if one isn't provided, because then its discriminatory and the government is favoring one religion? Obviously I don't know anything about this stuff, but I have always wondered how the government could get away with having these chaplains without appearing to favor religion. Same thing with the Senate Chaplain.

Seth K

I believe you can. I recall that there was a big bruhaha over the Army providing a Wiccan chaplain (who I believe was requested by some servicemen/women) at a base in Texas. The Christian Right went ballistic, claiming that the Army was promoting Satanism among the ranks, etc. Rep. DeLay denounced the Army's decision and and pressured them to reverse it.

RufusAtticus

And I remember the Army's response was on the line of "Fuck You."

ex-preacher

Then why not just have professional counselors or psychologists? Even if the chaplains never proselytize, the fact that they are supported by tax dollars is a clear violation of the First Amendment.

<strong> Good for them. Does this mean that religious professionals must be supported by my tax dollars?

Here's my proposal. Detemine the exact amount of money spent by the military on chaplains, chapels, other religious expenses. Divide tha money by the number of servicemen and women and give it to them as a pay raise. They can individually use that money to hire a religious professional if they so desire.

Rich Brown

First of all, thanks to everyone for the replies!

Rev. Joshua, I agree that the chaplain was out of line. Believe it or not, this guy is mild compared to his predecessor. This type of behavior is far too common among chaplains here in Europe. I also understand the the process for becoming a chaplain is difficult and that it is intended to screen out those who would not follow the code of ethics to which you refer. That, unfortunately, is not the point. Were the process of screening infailable and no chaplain anywhere violated the code of ethics, we would still have the impermissible violation of the government directly supporting and funding religious viewpionts. There should be no chaplains employed by any government entity.

Rufus, you asked:
The answer is, not much. I have been through this situation before with a chaplain preaching a full-blown "Jesus is the reason for the season" sermon. The best you can hope for is a verbal counseling to not repeat the behavior, but no real adverse action. The "out" for the chaplain is found in Air Force Instruction 52-101.
FI 52-101
From section 2.1 we have:
If those tenets include anything like converting the unbeliever, then a duty (or code of ethics) requiring them to violate that tenet need not be followed. A full reading of the instruction makes it clear that the chaplain's first loyalty lies with their denomination, and not with the military.

oriecat,
There are usually several religions represented by chaplains at any given base. If a service member request a chaplian from a faith group not represented, the chaplains may appoint a "lay leader" from the base population to serve that purpose.

GaryP, you said:
The answer is yes. Veterans can join the MAAF. I found that group several years ago and joined on the spot. It is mainly an e-mail discussion group, but great reading.

ex-preacher,

Careful! You might just find yourself as a write-in canidate for president with a proposal like that! (P.S., DoD funding for chaplain services approaches 1 billion per year...I'd like small un-marked bills...)

Rich

Rev. Joshua

Well, when you apply for a commission as a Chaplain you sign a document saying that you are comfortable working in a pluralistic environment and that you won't proselytize. They could, and should, kick you out for it.

The problem is that the military is way understrength for chaplains, so you'll have to do something pretty egregious to get kicked out. Personally, if I go back in I think it will be in my prior specialty of intelligence. Believe it or not, the quality of life (hours, promotions, time deployed) was actually better in my old Airborne Intelligence unit than it is for Chaplains. No wonder they're having trouble recruiting. (The Col. who told me that, to make major, I would have to spend a year unaccompanied in Korea probably cost the Army a very good Chaplain.)

Regarding the government supporting the funding of religious viewpoints, its not quite as black and white as all that. First of all, it should be pointed out that the government is supporting the funding of an unconstitutional medieval caste system in the military, and most people don't even raise an eyebrow. Likewise the fact that the UCMJ replaces a servicemembers consitutional rights. Tradition counts for more than logic or the Constitution in the U.S. military.

Secondly, the military isn't really being illogical by providing Chaplains. With the exception of the evangelical knotheads; they are skilled professionals who provide a number of desired services for the vast majority of servicemembers. As long as the studies keep showing that servicemembers with access to chaplains or healthier emotionally, more productive, etc. there will continue to be chaplains.

Joshua

Ron Garrett

The clergy has always assisted the rulers in convincing otherwise sane men to throw their lives away with abandon and kill others with a hymn on their lips. After all, if you gain immortality through mere asent to a religion, then death is less fearful. If you gain great levels of eternal reward for dying while slaughtering your fellow man, then you slaughter with great zeal.

The chaplain's original job was to assure the soldier that death isn't final so he would face it without fleeing, and that murder for the sake of the cause not only would not be punished, but would in fact be gloriously rewarded. I think pimping deserves more moral approbation than the cynical use or religion for political and economic gain.

Forbears of mine served as chaplains in both the Union and Confederate armies. Hundreds of my relations died on both sides of the battle, assured by the chaplains that marched with them that they were doing God's work and destined for glory. Sickening.

I'm well aware that the army uses it chaplains for all manner of social work today, but I still view the function as morally reprehensible. I can't help but wonder how many wars would have been avoided without the clerics there assuring the troops of their immortality and the approval of some god.

Alonzo Fyfe

I actually have no trouble with the military providing chaplains.

Morale is the most significant variable effecting success or failure on the battlefield. In recognition of this, military planners go to great pains to provide soldiers with entertainment, letters and packages from home, good meals, opportunities for sports and other pleasant diversions, time away from the front lines.

Given the fact that most military service personnel are religious, and that religous practices are probably more important to their morale than entertainment, letters, and the like, I have no problem with the military providing these services.

In light of the 1st amendment, one relevant test is whether the act in question serves a legitimate government purpose other than the advancement of religion. Providing military chaplains does so, and should be allowed.

Buffman

Ron Garrett offers a very accurate insight into the "why" of Clergy in any military force.

Rev. Joshua offers a very accurate insight into the "practical application" of the Chaplain in the U.S.Military.

However, IMHO, the real issue is much more basic. "Are humans aggressive by Nature or Nurture...or a blend of both?" Unless we can first determine what mechanism makes humans kill(aggressive), the utilization of a spiritual/theistic/political motivator(Soviet Commissars) in a military force is merely one more component in the overall strategy/tactic of the military commander in fielding the "winning" force.

If humans are merely evolved omnivorous predators, then it is in our Nature to kill (be aggressive). If humans are the creation of some Master Architect, as theist believe we are, then it is in our Nurture that we learn to kill (be aggressive.) Personally, I believe that the truly accurate position is somewhere in between due to the one significant advantage that we hold over all other living, or created, things....our ability to apply a critical thinking process(reasoning capability) to our physical actions. By Nature, we are no more than evolved predators. But by reason, which theists tend to label "free will" to support their own dogmas, our Nuture can be utilized to reign-in or exascerbate (control) our predatory natures. Unfortunately, far too many theists have been unwilling to accept the reality of their own Nature and have used Nurture to feed religious aggression, wars and killing.

So, when discussing military Chaplains in terms of American church-state separation, the American military commander must ask himself which position strengthens or weakens his/her ability to prevail in any potential conflict in which his/her forces may be engaged on behalf of the country he/she represents. I suspect that is why so few successful (winning) military organizations have never been democratic and almost always conservative. ( A few successful rather democratic military forces, if they can be called that, about which Americans have some passing acquaintance, are those of the French Revolution which were launched by the American success against the monarchy and clerics in control of the masses. The revolution in Iran could be viewed as another, as could the Bolshevik revolution in Russia. In each of these, the masses rose up against their masters primarily inspired by philosophies created by Nurture, but using the means evolved by Nature. (I leave it to the sociologists to discuss why/how nation states are evolved/created.)