Why Congress Cannot Bar an Atheist Military Chaplain

[rug]

Posted: 07/31/2013 6:48 pm
Rita Nakashima Brock, Ph.D.

Jason Heap, 38, an atheist with a seminary degree, has applied to become a U.S. Navy chaplain, just in time to step into the hornet's nest called Congress. (Full disclosure: Heap graduated from the seminary that employs me and is well regarded by his former professors.) In applying openly as an atheist, he has raised questions about the Constitution, Congress, and the role of military chaplaincy.

Some lawmakers are trying to bar atheists from joining the chaplain corps -- the House approved an amendment to the defense authorization bill last week that was designed to keep the Pentagon from accepting atheist chaplains.

"The notion of an atheist chaplain is nonsensical; it's an oxymoron," said Rep. John Fleming, R-La., sponsor of the amendment. "It is absurd to argue that someone with no spiritual inclination should fill that role, especially when it could well mean that such an individual would take the place of a true chaplain who has been endorsed by a religious organization."

The military and Congress are sworn to protect the Constitution, which guarantees the free practice of religion. They are not supposed to impose state-mandated beliefs or prohibit people from practicing what they believe in order to serve their country. Insisting on belief in God (as if it were self-evident what the word "God" means) is a violation of the religious freedom of those in military service, including chaplains.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/rita-nakashima-brock-ph-d/atheist-military-chaplain_b_3679755.html

[southernyankeebelle]

1. Well I never heard of such a crazy thing. You aren't a chaplain period. I wouldn't know

how that would work. My husband was a chaplain's assistant for 21 years. He had to know how to set for the different services and different religions. Why do they need a church if they don't believe in god? I do agree they should have a right not to have religion imposed on them. But when my husband was in we didn't have this fundies pushing their religion on others.

[eShirl]

2. By that logic you couldn't have a chaplain of one religion serve anyone of other religions.

I don't see what difference it makes what the chaplain personally believes. That's what the hospital chaplain told us, they're there to serve what the patient believes, not what the chaplain believes.

[unblock]

3. surely you can imagine someone starting off as a believer, then losing faith while still

enjoying the actual work of being a chaplain?

[rug]

5. This poster has been PPRed.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=profile&uid=230521

[hrmjustin]

7. I knew that was coming. She went overboard last night.

She let her bigotry show.

[hrmjustin]

6. FYI this poster is not here anymore.

[cbayer]

4. And this is the crux of the matter, isn't it.

Should atheism be treated like other religious groups and granted the same rights and protections?

There are certainly both negatives and positives about that, but I think the answer will eventually be yes.

[eomer]

8. What would be the negatives of granting the same rights and protections to atheists?

I can't think of any.

[cbayer]

9. It has been said by some who frequent this group that being identified as

something akin to a religious group would be a bad thing. I don't see a particular down side, but others do. It may have to do with not wanting to be associated in any way with institutions and organizations that they have serious issues with.

It's not about rights and protections for atheists, it's about the rights and protections for atheist groups. A good example is getting this atheist chaplain. He's been turned down because he does not have the backing of a religious group. So the military would need to change the definition so that he fit the criteria or the society that represents him would have to make a claim that they fit the definition of a religious group.

[eomer]

10. See what you mean, but I'm not sure the group would be "atheism".

This would-be chaplain is a member of the Humanist Society. I would think the question is more whether humanism is a religion or not. So what are the essential features that make something a religion?

As the article points out, a Buddhist chaplain has been accepted so apparently theism isn't a requirement for something to be a religion. Unitarian Universalism also seems to be accepted as a religion, so there is another example where theism isn't a requirement.

Just like there isn't a religion called "theism", I don't think there would be or needs to be one called "atheism".

[cbayer]

11. There have been other situations where the group in question has clearly been

identified as atheist. This has happened on some college campuses, IIRC, when the atheist group wants to participate in an activity that is generally reserved for religious groups.

So, I agree, its a definitional problem. Perhaps a category of "belief systems", but that becomes problematic in that atheism is a lack of belief.

I don't have the answer, but I think we are moving towards having atheists and atheism being regarded more as another belief group.

And again, I think there are both advantages and disadvantages to that.