Abstract
The First Amendment’s religion clauses prohibit the establishment of a religion and guarantee the free exercise of religion. While the clauses are often compatible, as both prohibit government-compelled religion, an inherent tension frequently exists between the two. Perhaps nowhere is this friction more obvious than in the armed forces’ chaplaincy. Congress appropriates money to support a military chaplaincy—expenditures seemingly at odds with the prohibition against establishing a religion. On the other hand, absent a military chaplaincy, servicemembers would be unable to exercise their religions freely, given their assignments to isolated, often hostile, locations where access to civilian clergy is impossible. Thus, the armed services justify their chaplaincies as promoting the free exercise of religion. This tension is also evident in military chaplains themselves: they must walk a fine line between their personal beliefs and their responsibility to serve a religiously diverse military.
In her recent book Military Chaplains & Religious Diversity, Professor Kim Hansen examines these divergent and sometimes conflicting responsibilities from the perspective of military chaplains themselves. Using interviews of thirty-four active duty chaplains representing the major denominations represented in the military, Professor Hansen ably describes the challenges military chaplains in an increasingly pluralistic religious environment and provides an illuminating depiction of religion in today’s armed forces.
Especially on remote installations or during deployments, the military cannot possibly furnish chaplains representing every religious denomination. Thus, military chaplains provide more than religious support to members of their own faith group: they minister to servicemembers of other faiths or at least facilitate the exercise of their religious beliefs. While the mission of supporting multiple religious denominations was not particularly problematic when virtually all servicemembers adhered to “traditional” American religions, i.e., variations of Christianity and Judaism, the proliferation of religious denominations represented in the military has made the mission’s accomplishment more difficult. Professor Hansen deals with two: Islam and Wicca.
While not without accommodation issues (e.g., daily prayers), military chaplains have adapted well to meet the needs of Muslim servicemembers—not surprising given Islam’s status as one of the world’s great religions. On the other hand, chaplains’ feelings about Wicca are not nearly as benign, some questioning whether it is truly a religion at all. “Wicca provokes confusion, suspicion, condescension, fear, exasperation, and contempt.” To some, Wiccans are relegated to “the category of irritating ‘whackos’ who are malevolent or silly” (p. 113).
Nevertheless, some chaplains try to facilitate the religious practices of Wiccan servicemembers such as turning to lay leaders for support; however, facilitating Wiccan services is often difficult. Part of the problem is Wicca itself: it is not a unified religious denomination with core beliefs but is instead “radically individualistic.” “Wiccans have no sacred book … [they] have a tradition of keeping secrets and worshipping in seclusion, [and] are more likely to approach the sacred with a mind to manipulate it with magic rather than submit to its revealed commands … ” (p. 77). Ultimately, however, chaplains must accommodate the religious practices of all servicemembers, which is the price the nation pays for creating a military chaplaincy.
Professor Hansen’s book also deals with a number of other controversial issues affecting the military chaplaincy. One is the question of ecumenism and inclusiveness—recognizing and accepting the religious beliefs of all servicemembers. In their role as ministers for their particular faith groups, given the danger of excessive entanglement with religion, the military’s interest in regulating the conduct of chaplains is negligible as long as the religious services do not threaten good order and discipline. In this regard, Professor Hansen discusses the difficulties inherent in chaplains of different Christian denominations serving as copastors at their duty station.
More challenging is the question of a military chaplains’ expression of religious beliefs outside of worship services. One sensitive area is the military’s demand for nonsectarian prayers at official ceremonies, which, for example, forbid prayers “in the name of Jesus Christ.” While most chaplains interviewed by Professor Hansen did not have a problem with offering nonsectarian prayers, some theologically conservative Christian chaplains did object to the policy.
Professor Hansen recognizes that the First Amendment’s Establishment Clause is implicated when the military requires—under penalty of administrative or judicial punishment—a servicemember’s attendance at an official ceremony where sectarian prayers are given. For example, federal courts of appeals have enjoined compulsory chapel services at America’s military academies (Anderson v. Laird, 466 F.2d 283 (D.C. Cir. 1972)) and prohibited mandatory prayer at the Virginia Military Institute (Mellen v. Bunting, 327 F.3d 355 (4th Cir. 2003)). Where the courts have sustained government references to God at such ceremonies, they have done so because the references serve wholly secular purposes such as solemnizing the public event.
I disagree, however, with Professor Hansen’s conclusion that limiting the contents of a chaplain’s prayer violates the chaplain’s rights to free speech and free exercise of religion. When chaplains speak at command functions, they are performing official military duties; they do not speak as private citizens or as leaders of their faith group (e.g., Garcetti v. Ceballos, 547 U.S. 410 (2006)). As such, government restrictions on the content of their prayers do not violate their rights. The better policy appears to be the one taken by the services: permit a chaplain whose conscience is compromised by nonsectarian prayers to opt out of participating in public prayers.
Another issue generating considerable disagreement is proselytizing or evangelizing by military chaplains. Professor Hansen details the urge among some evangelical chaplains to convert others as “an inherent and unavoidable part of their own free exercise of religion, whether it offends others or not” (p. 189). The government does not, however, recruit and fund military chaplains to be missionaries for their religious denominations; to do so would unquestionably violate the First Amendment’s Establishment Clause.
More insidious is proselytizing by senior officers and commanders, an issue Professor Hansen illustrates in her discussion of the scandal at the Air Force Academy earlier this century when some evangelical members of the Academy’s staff and faculty actively sought to convert cadets. While chaplains are military officers due the deference and respect of other officers, they may not command and they fulfill functions thoroughly different than other officers. In this respect, it is easier for a servicemember to “blow off” a chaplain than his or her commander. Even unofficial discussions with commanders have an element of compulsion, and the age-old maxim that “there is no such thing as a casual conversation with a general officer” is especially apropos. Importantly, the Defense Department prohibits personnel from endorsing in their official capacities nonfederal entities (which seemingly includes religious groups), a potential court-martial offense. In its recently issued Instruction 1-1, the Air Force is even more direct, ordering its leaders at all levels to “avoid the actual or apparent use of their position to promote their personal religious beliefs to their subordinates or to extend preferential treatment for any religion.”
In sum, for those interested in the evolving state of religion in America’s armed forces and how the military’s chaplains have dealt with the changes, Military Chaplains & Religious Diversity is a must read. Professor Hansen offers an enlightening, easy-to-follow, and engaging account of military chaplains’ perceptions of the major challenges confronting the armed forces’ chaplaincy in our increasingly pluralistic military.