So is violating the seperation of church and state okay in certain circumstances?

Question

I asked a question about military chaplains and most people seemed to think they were okay, even necessary. While I have nothing against the chaplain system, it seems to be a violation of the separation of church and state, something people usually really get worked up about. So is that okay in certain circumstances, such as this?


Or is this not a violation?

The US employs spiritual leaders. Whether they're denomonational or cater to specific religions or not, it seems to me to be a violation. Maybe I'm wrong. I don't know a lot about the issue, that's why I'm asking questions about it. :)

Answer 1

It probably technically comes close to violating the establishment clause, but as long as there is no coercion and an attempt is made to accommodate minority religions, I don't think anyone is going to complain. In any case, military chaplains are a long-standing tradition and it would be bad for morale to eliminate them.

The system certainly has its abuses, though. The US Air Force Academy has an ongoing problem with harassment and coercion by evangelical Christians.

Answer 2

There are a lot of things a chaplain can't do. They are a sect all their own in the military.

Soldiers, sailors, airmen and Marines, have the right to practice whatever religion they choose. That said, some religions require things like confession, last rites, sacrament, whatever. You can't ask a civilian to go to the battlefield and do those things. The chaplains are there on an "as needed" basis.

Like I said earlier, they can't command ships and such. An officer that is not a chaplain of the same rank has more authority, no matter what. Remember in middle school when the GT kids didn't take social studies? They had other responsibilities. Bad example, but it's the best i could come up with.

EDIT:
Separation of Church and State has nothing to do with hiring practices. There are councils in the government in charge of religious affairs. this is so there is a dialogue between religion and government, It's there to protect religious rights. Separation of church and state was intended to keep the government from meddling in religion. The government cannot force anyone to have religion, nor can they establish a state religion.

Basically, the government can't tell you what religion to be, but they can facilitate the right of the people to practice it. that's where stuff like tax breaks and hate crime legislation come from.

Answer 3

I am not sure how the chaplains are commissioned, but it seems to me that if they are considered military personnel, and wear uniforms and are fed and housed and transported at government expense, that is a violation of the First Amendment. The reason is that this privilege will only be extended to the "major" religions, and yet the taxpayers pay for their costs.

On the other hand, if the chaplains are considered civilians, and if ANY religious group may send a chaplain along with the armed forces, then I would have less serious objections. But I really mean ANY; include at least one humanist non-theist in that, and a priest of Wicca, and a Muslim Imam -- it will never happen.

So I have two objections: (1) all taxpayers pay for it, regardless of their own beliefs, and (2) there is almost inevitable discrimination, with some religions represented and some not.

Answer 4

It is a violation, without question, which is why I'm divided on the issue. But our miliary is separate culture all to itself. They don't have the same rights that the civillians they protect take for granted. Our country is composed of a 90% religious population, and our military is reflective of that. Asking religious people to place their lives on the line without religious guidance and counsel is setting your mission up to fail. People have to be in a mindset to do certain things, and they have to make those things okay within their own subconscience. They have to think what they are doing is right, or they'll hesitate in doing them. A second of hesitation is the difference between killing or being killed.

In short, yes, it is a clear violation, but in the case of our military, until we progress as a society to the point where personal faith is all that's needed, there is and will be a need for chaplain services. In this case, it's not only okay, it's prefered.

Edit: When I say prefered, I mean for those that need those services, and I definitely don't mean that they should be uniform for everyone in uniform. I like it the way it is, well, other than the fact that sometimes other Soldiers can't wrap their mind around the fact that not everyone worships the same god, or even worships a god at all. As long as it's a personal thing, not a unit thing, it's fine just the way it is.

Answer 5

I think it is OK to have military & prison chaplains, since members of the military and prisoners do not have normal means to practice their religion.

To NOT provide these services would be denying them the freedom to practice their religion.

We don't need chaplains in public school, congress, etc. because the people there have ample opportunity to practice their faith.

I am only against prison and military chaplains when ONLY a certain religion is allowed, or prisoners or military members are FORCED to participate etc.

If Christians are allowed to have Christians chaplains, then Wiccans in the military should at the very least, be able to practice their religion and have thier faith symbol on their graves.

The Bush administration, and rep Bobb Barr have actively sought to deny Wiccans in the military the freedom to practice their religion.

The fact that certain groups weren't allowed to practice their faith bothers me more than the exsistence of chaplains.

Answer 6

Some service members are religious and it's the chaplain's job to make sure their needs are met. If someone is stuck on a military base, hiring a chaplain accommodates them.

He is not supposed to only attend to members of his own religion, however.

Answer 7

I don't believe you understand what "separation of Church and State" means. There is no such "statement" in the constitution, which only states that government shall not establish a "state church" (like in Iraq or even England) . The military chaplain system is in place for those who choose to use it - people who don't want to, don't have to. It has absolutely NOTHING to do with Separation of Church and State.

Answer 8

Chaplins are merely military ministers/priests. They are there to provide a service for military members. While they may hold a little clout, they in no way show a church/state affiliation.

Look at it this way: a military installation is a little city. They have gas stations, they have stores, they have gyms, they have hospitals, they have shrinks, they have church services. Using any of those is a voluntary "perk" of being stationed on the installation. Since it isn't mandatory, it is still seperate.

Answer 9

This is not a violation. The chaplain's corps doesn't merely perform religious services, they take care of morale and welfare needs of a ships crew. The allowance for there being clergy is for many a morale booster, and I for one see no harm in having that available to those that wish it. Chaplains do NOT proselytize, that is beyond their charter, they are there IF AND WHEN NEEDED, and then only at the individuals request. There are chaplains of all denominations, Christian of all sorts, Jewish, Muslim, and other faiths as well, not just one single denomination, and that by itself clears it of being any form of violation of separation of church and state. U.S.N. (Ret.) and agnostic.

Answer 10

The problem is that there are two rights butting up against each other. As a tax-payer, I have the right to not have my money go to religion. But if I enlist as a soldier, I have a Free Exercise right too.

I agree it probably is a violation, but I think it could be easily reformed to be not a violation. Chaplain salaries could be paid for through donations.

We "embed" reporters from pretty much every news outlet without showing favoritism (well, mostly). Certainly we could "embed" clergy from every religion without showing favoritism too.