For many years, there has been controversy over the funding of military chaplains and the preferences given certain faiths. The problem is that as much 23 percent of our military list no religious association or preference. While many simply have no religious association with a particular faith, some are agnostics, some are atheists, and some are generally humanists. It would seem logical to have some chaplains who can relate to those groups. However, members of Congress are irate and insist that chaplains must believe in a deity to be funded. They warm that humanist or secularist chaplains would be traumatizing dying soldiers about being “worm food” and dying without hope.
The firestorm was triggered by an amendment introduced by Rep. Rob Andrews (D-NJ) to the 2014 National Defense Authorization Act:
The Secretary of Defense shall provide for the appointment, as officers in the Chaplain Corps of the Armed Forces, of persons who are certified or ordained by non-theistic organizations and institutions, such as humanist, ethical culturalist, or atheist.
Presumably, the military could order such appointments on its own authority but members are moving to bar any funding for such appointments.
For many years, the military and Congress has insisted that these chaplains serve a critical function for even those who are not of their faith as counselors for military personnel. It is hard to see why a humanist or atheist chaplain would not be able to serve the same function. Moreover, chaplains are there for spiritual and emotional support. A common misconception of agnostics and humanists is that they are not “spiritual.” These sailors and soldiers and airmen and Marines simply believe in a different source for spiritual strength that may come from being human or nature or other sources. They are moral human beings who have the same conflicts and concerns that other personnel have in combat or serving abroad. Countries like the Netherlands and Belgium supply humanist chaplains for this reason. Moreover, many “faiths” are dramatically different with some rejecting any deity while others embracing multiple deities. If the military is going to fund ministries in the military, it is hard to see how it can ignore the beliefs of such a sizable portion of the military ranks.
Rep. John Fleming, R-La insists that “the idea of an atheist chaplain . . . is an oxymoron — it’s self-contradictory — what you’re really doing is now saying that we’re going to replace true chaplains with non-chaplain chaplains.” However, it is not a nonchaplain chaplain if you view their job as assisting in spiritual and moral concerns for the military personnel. Otherwise, you are telling many in that quarter of non-affiliated personnel that they need to see a priest or a rabbi discuss such questions.
Rep. Doug Collins, R-Ga., who is also an Air Force chaplain, admits that he has had to counsel atheists and that “so many times people in our world today just need someone to listen.” The question is why a humanist chaplain cannot perform that same function. Many personnel are reluctant to see a psychologist and psychiatrist because of the stigma. Moreover, they are not having any more of a psychological problem as religious members are in seeking counseling from priests or rabbis. They merely want to speak with some about their moral issues who is not trained to ultimately refer to the commandments or direction of a deity.
We have discussed the international attacks on atheists and agnostics in recent years (here and here and here). That intolerance was evident in the comments of some members seeking to bar humanists from the chaplaincy. Consider the comments of GOP Rep. Mike Conaway. Conaway express disbelief that the prospect and added:
“They don’t believe in anything. I can’t imagine an atheist accompanying a notification team as they go into some family’s home to let them have the worst news of their life and this guy says, ‘You know, that’s it — your son’s just worms, I mean, worm food.'”
Obviously, agnostics, atheists, secularists and humanists believe in something, just not what Conaway believes in. As for a notification team, the only reason a humanist chaplain would be on the team would be if the dead soldier was a humanist. As a general rule, the military would not send an Islamic cleric to a Jewish home or a Catholic priest to a Muslim home for the same reason. If there were no other available chaplains, all of these chaplains are trained to offer care and support without proselytizing in such circumstances.
Yet, the scene of a heartless humanist taunting dying soldiers was repeatedly raised by members:
Rep. John Fleming (R-La.). “The last thing in the world we would want to see was a young soldier who may be dying and they’re at a field hospital and the chaplain is standing over that person saying to them, ‘If you die here, there is no hope for you in the future.’”
Of course, a minister or priest could tell someone from another faith that they are going to Hell for not embracing the true God. I doubt that would ever happen because such a person would be a monster. Yet, these members believe that a humanist or atheist is capable of such abuse. Conversely, if the dying soldier is an atheist, Fleming would guarantee that his last moments is spent with someone who rejects his very philosophy or beliefs. It does not appear to be viewed as equally traumatic to have someone using those final moments to assure an atheist that he will be soon in paradise in heaven with an almighty being.
Moreover, many soldiers and sailors do not have to be told that they will go to a heavenly paradise if they die for their country. They believe that they are doing the moral thing for their country. Conaway obviously does not like such views but he seems unwilling to allow brave men and women access to a ministry that speaks to their beliefs. They need to go to someone who believes that they will ascent to heaven or assume an angelic state after death.
Notably, Pat Tillman, the NFL player who famously quit his lucrative position to serve in the Army after 9/11 was an atheist. Members of Congress fell over each other to proclaim his heroism and sacrifice. However, they would deny him access to a spiritual counselor in dealing with the extreme moral questions that present themselves in combat. His family did not view him as “worm food” simply because he does not believe in angels or almighty beings. He was a hero who led a moral life based on his own beliefs.
In the end, the question is whether we are willing to support our troops regardless of their beliefs and to give them the support that they deserve in the field. Soldiers like Tillman are dying as Americans, not as Christians, Jews or Muslims. They are moral beings who are prepared to give the final sacrifice for what this country represents. That patriotism is not grounded in the narrow mean-spirited views of these members but a pluralistic society of tolerance and free exercise and free speech. For these brave men and women, the message could be seen as either adopt a faith or die in silence. When a Tillman is dying in a hospital, I would like to think that we can honor his service by supplying a chaplain who shares his general beliefs. My guess is that those final moments will not be discussing “worm food” but a life lived well and a sacrifice that honors and inspires us all.
I suggest one read the following before swallowing the TeaGOP BS “This country is founded on “christian” foundation”:
http://avalon.law.yale.edu/18th_century/bar1796t.asp#art11
Specifically Article 11
It should be 100%
http://firstread.nbcnews.com/_news/2013/07/23/19644154-nbcwsj-poll-faith-in-dc-hits-a-low-83-percent-disapprove-of-congress
NBC/WSJ poll: Faith in DC hits a low; 83 percent disapprove of Congress
“They warm that humanist or secularist chaplains would be traumatizing dying soldiers about being “worm food” and dying without hope.”
Naturally I believe that this is another tempest in a teapot dreamed up by someone who believes that their version of a Deity and Its’ powers should be enshrined in our national activity. The quote above resonates with me because I am of a religion that generally does not believe in life after death. We believe in making the best of this life we have. Would a Jewish Chaplain then be inappropriate in this Congressman’s minds since such a Chaplain could not assure a dying soldier of life everlasting. The mindset that fears this life and fears death itself so much seems sad and pathetic to me, but whatever floats ones boat is fine, just keep it in your own vessel.
To digress slightly: Over the House rostrum it should read “In Representatives We Trust” and not “In Myth We Trust”.
Not only would it be more accurate (bearing in mind the arbitrariness that we trust our elected officials, because that’s how the system works), but it would also be constitutional, unlike the former.
For those of you wanting to demonize my point about avoiding redefining accepted and common terms, as well as national military traditions, it appears that you are also changing the meaning of the Establishment Clause.
Stomp on the ground, insult me, accuse me of being whatever you feel I need to be to avoid this truth, but the signers of the Constitution who overwhelming believed in a Creator did not mean, “Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof …” to be a country that did not recognize that there is a Creator.
Just because you want it to read a different way, doesn’t mean that the original intent can be rewritten. Advocate your point. It is your beautiful right. But don’t distort history, and be responsible enough not to accuse me of insensitivity when you want to read into something I right when such sentiment and reality is not there.
Humanists want a military chaplain to call their own
Kimberly Winston
Jul 22, 2013
http://www.religionnews.com/2013/07/22/humanists-want-a-military-chaplain-to-call-their-own/
Excerpt:
“The military includes atheists, humanists and people with nontheistic perspectives and the military currently has no way to service them,” said Jason Torpy, president of the Military Association of Atheists and Freethinkers, a group supporting Heap.
Asked why there are no nonbelievers in the chaplaincy, Lt. Cmdr. Nate Christensen, a Department of Defense spokesman, responded by email: “The department does not endorse religion or any one religion or religious organization, and provides to the maximum extent possible for the free exercise of religion by all members of the military services who choose to do so.”
According to current government figures, the U.S. military has 1.4 million active duty servicemen and women in the Army, Navy, Air Force and Marines. About 2,800 active duty chaplains serve them; the vast majority of them Christian.
There are an estimated 13,000 active duty servicemen and women that identify as atheists or agnostics — more than the number of Muslims, Buddhists and Hindus combined — all of which have their own chaplains. Add to that a significant number — more than 276,000 — who say they have “no religious preference.”
The ranks of the nonreligious are likely to grow. Last year’s study by the Pew Forum on Religion and Public Life found one-third of Americans under 30 — those most likely to enter the military — have no religious affiliation.
Heap and his supporters say the push for a military Humanist chaplain goes beyond the desire for recognition. They note that when soldiers seek mental health counseling it is noted in their record and reported up the chain of command. But consultations with chaplains are confidential, making them a safe place to discuss the problems soldiers routinely face — loneliness, fear, anxiety and other personal issues.
Heap is not the only candidate for the first Humanist chaplain in the military. There are three more, two of whom are already serving as military chaplains with endorsements from Christian groups. They asked to remain anonymous for fear of losing their endorsements, and therefore their jobs. That fear is real. An Army chaplain who sought to change his endorsement from Pentecostal to Wiccan — another unapproved group — in 2007 lost his position.
Having ‘walked’ on both sides of the street I find this whole brouhaha both sad and disgusting. Trust me, when a hurting non believing person is in need of comfort, hearing nonsense that everything happens for a reason is sadistic.
The mere notion that a person in pain and in desperate need of comfort can only receive it from a religious propagandist is both barbaric and counter productive.
As usual the protesters are coming from ignorance, fear and always needing to find evil and an enemy. When in reality, most non-believers I know, only take issue with religion when it ‘s proponents get in their face and/or want to pass laws etc. based on their prejudices.
So whatever happened to that “Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof …” language in the First Amendment?
I’d rather be associated with a known atheist than a self professed Christian…..
The numbers are growing:
http://religion.blogs.cnn.com/2013/07/15/the-six-types-of-atheists/comment-page-36/
Joseph Piazza,
Thank you for renewing my gratitude that we have a Constitution, which prohibits the theist majority from enforcing the erroneous belief that, “…the political foundation of this country, and this human experience of several thousand years, is overwhelmingly based on theistic belief…”
Christians tell us that the political foundation of this country is overwhelmingly based on Christian belief.
Please read the First Amendment, and then search the Constitution for the word, “God.”
We need to enforce that aspect of the Constitution because righteous folks keep insisting that this country is based on a belief in Sky Daddy, and that he rules. Meaning that they rule, since they made him up.
Just having a Constitution isn’t sufficient.
A Chaplin without faith is like a well without water. He’s merely a counselor. Not everything is equal, nor equally valid.
Non-chaplain chaplains is a term that I won’t forget too soon! All we are talking about is labels. If the non-chaplain chaplain can give aid or comfort to any soldier or marine or airmen, how in heck does it hurt anyone??
What James Madison said. Words that stand the test of time.
James Madison:
“Look thro’ the armies & navies of the world, and say whether in the appointment of their ministers of religion, the spiritual interest of the flocks or the temporal interest of the Shepherds, be most in view: whether here, as elsewhere the political care of religion is not a nominal more than a real aid.”
There are many good reasons for having atheist “chaplains”. These are but two among many good ones:
(1) When soldiers get “counseling” from psychiatrists, it gets noted on their record, but NOT if the “counseling” was by a chaplain. Why should only the religious be allowed to dodge a black mark on their records? Are only the religious be allowed to talk with someone without it affecting their career, able to avoid it being used against them?
(2) When the religious attend “church”, they are exempt from physical labour and other forms of work while doing so. But ahteists and others who do not partake in religious time wasting are punished with forced labour – they must continue working, while others are lazing around. And many times, this is not “work”, it is harassment and punishment for not joining a cult.
Why is there a double standard? Why are certain privileges granted only to the religious? Either nobody gets these privileges, or everyone does.
But that’s what this is about, isn’t it? The religious WANT double standards, they WANT “superior” officers to be able to punish with impunity and discriminate against those who don’t belong to popular cults.
Professor, I find you to be one of the most balanced intellects that I read or hear. On this issue, however, I believe that possibly for subjective reasons you are trying to fit a square peg into a round hole.
I am not an Athiest, so I admittedly don’t see the “attack” on athiests that is so often cited on this blog. I recognize that it does exist, but I don’t believe it is even a strong minority that give that much thought to athiests that they have the will to criticize them. I think there is more eye rolling than criticizing, which you will agree is a right of theists and the same response often by athiests to people with active Spiritual lives. Considering that the political foundation of this country, and this human experience of several thousand years, is overwhelmingly based on theistic belief, I find it more than a bit curious for athiests to be critical of the vast majority of people living their belief and tradition. Trying to make this country a god-free zone is futile and obstructive to the will and belief of, once again, the overwhelming majority.
To the point of this article and this response, I think that the solution to this is most analogous to your previous position of letting churches keep the word Marriage, as we create a Civil Union tool to allow for the legal rights of people who want to share their legal writes.
Chaplains are people who care for and administer Chapels, which are places of worship. Humanists wouldn’t say that they worship humans. Certainly athiests are not trying to worship the unseen and unproven. So, if what you describe in your post are Counselors, not Chaplains, then advocate for funding for Counselors. It seems odd, unless it is personally motivated, that you seek to distort something that is a foundational part of our human history and national history because there are minority of military personnel who would rather not speak to someone with an admitted Spiritual purpose.
Dying soldier is dying.
Atheist chaplain arrives.
AC: Hi. How was your day?
DS: Oh I have sinned so much in my life, G*d will never forgive me. I’ll be dammed to hellfire for all eternity.
AC: Nah! There is no G*d or H*ll. Don’t worry.
DS: Yaaaa! Now I can die happy
.
Dying soldier is dying.
Theist chaplain arrives.
TC: Your time is running out. Do you renounce the D*vil and all of his works?
DS: I don’t think this is a good time to be making additional enemies.
TC: Confess your sins! Cleanse your soul before you meet your maker!
DS: I have sinned so much! I don’t have time to list them all. I’m sinking fast.
TC: You’re sc**wed then.
There is an unstated position here. It has to do with being moral. A vast number of theists subscribe to the theory that it takes god-belief to be moral. Atheists cannot be moral. Understanding that this is in the back of their mind during these descriptions of strawman atheist chaplains explains a lot.
There are those among them who would pursue wealth with no regard for morality without their god-belief. (Many often do even with professed god-belief. (This is explained by saying they were hypocrites and thus not True Christians(TM).) They project this attitude on the strawmen they build.
Tillman is a great counterexample.
You have to hand it to the tactics of the Democrats; they certainly know how to draw out and expose the fundy-loonies.
The desperately sad problem with the US political system however is the rabid obcessive-compulsive base of fellow fundamentalists is more organised and more mobilised to keep control. Look at the organised action to make voting harder, gun “rights”, anti-abortion law-making and district and state gerrymander.
The founding fathers thought everyone would be motivated to vote, but that’s not true. The energetic minority of loonies has the floor.
Your “democratic” system is a failure. Time for a massive rethink before the local Christian Taliban take over.