Posted on 03/20/2018 8:49:10 AM PDT by SeekAndFind
If there aren't atheists in foxholes, why should we put them in the Chaplain Corps? Senator Roger Wicker (R-Miss.) can't imagine. Like most leaders, he's astounded that the Navy is even considering letting someone who doesn't believe in God join the chaplaincy. Three years ago, the idea was so absurd that even Obama's military attorneys went to court to stop it. Now, with Secretary Jim Mattis at the helm, no one can quite understand why the topic is even up for discussion.
The bizarre storyline started in 2015 when Jason Heap tried to sue his way into the chaplaincy. Not surprisingly, the Navy rejected him because he planned to associate with two humanist groups instead of an actual religious denomination. Ultimately, the military ended up in court defending the notion that religious leaders should serve a religious purpose. They won. But this year, Heap is trying again — and, according to Senator Wicker— the Chaplain Appointment and Retention Eligibility Advisory Group is actually recommending the Navy accept him.
Wicker, an Air Force veteran and member of the Senate Armed Services Committee, is doing everything he can to keep the application from moving forward. And he's enlisted 22 other senators and 40-plus House members to help. In two separate letters to Navy Secretary Richard Spencer, both chambers explain how radically this would alter the Chaplain Corps. Obviously, the dozens of leaders explain, no one is saying that atheists don't belong in the military. But allowing them to serve and allowing them in the pulpit are two different things.
"The Navy has sufficient authority to create programs for humanist or atheist service members," the senators write. "The Chaplain Corps is not the appropriate place. The Chaplain Corps serves religious needs, not philosophical preferences. Approving a secular-humanist chaplain would open the door to other applicants representing other philosophical worldviews. Over time, this situation would erode the distinct religious function of the Chaplain Corps."
The idea is even more ridiculous when you consider that barely three percent of our service members even identify as atheist or humanist. To fling open the chaplaincy to any ideology or philosophy would fundamentally change an institution that's older than the country itself! Not to mention, the House letter reminds the Navy, that "The Department of Defense's own guidelines also reinforce the uniquely religious purpose of the chaplain corps, defining 'religious organization' as 'an entity that is organized and functions primarily to perform religious ministries to a non-military lay constituency' and defining a religious ministry professional as 'an individual endorsed to represent a religious organization and to conduct its religious observances or ceremonies.'"
Throughout the years, the Supreme Court has been clear, the House members go on, that "non-religious beliefs may not rely on the Religion Clauses for protection." Groups like the American Humanist Association, who helped hatched this crazy idea, argue that nonbelievers suffer the same fear and pain that affects every service member. But isn't that why the military has psychologists? And, as Rep. Doug Collins (R-Ga.), a reserve Air Force chaplain, pointed out, nothing is stopping atheists from visiting the chaplains who are already available.
"No one is arguing that atheists do not have the same First Amendment rights of free expression as their neighbors of Christian, Jewish, Muslim or other faiths," Wicker explains in a new op-ed on Fox News. "This is not the subject of scrutiny. The central question here is how an atheist chaplain can be expected to fulfill a role that, by its very nature, is supposed to serve the religious needs of our service members." By definition, a chaplain's duties are to offer prayer, spiritual counseling, and religious instruction. If that doesn't disqualify a non-believer, I'm not sure what would!
The Trump administration inherited plenty of messes from the Obama military — but this isn't one of them. It's time for Secretary Mattis to step in and protect the integrity of chaplaincy.
Someone should torpedo that idea.
Don’t they already have pastafarian chaplains?
Bureaucratic inertia.
Is it wrong to frag your atheist Chaplin? Lets ask him!
This doesn’t bother me too much. If there are atheists in the military, they should have someone to go to talk about their issues. I wouldn’t call that person a “chaplain” but they should have someone to help them work through their crises.
Atheist chaplains? A moron came up with an oxymoron.
Isn't that a contradiction in terms?
If I were an atheist chaplain, this would be my sermon.
“Life sucks then ya die, now get the ____ out of here!”
Chaplain’s of WHAT????
Coming up next, Navy to study buoyancy of dry water.
“Navy Floats Idea of Atheist Chaplains”
Seriously? Why even bother having them then?? What moronic BS.
RE: Isn’t that a contradiction in terms?
Well, Chaplains are expected to serve the spiritual and emotional needs of others.
since atheists don’t believe there are spirits, I guess, that leaves them with emotions.
In this case, we can still have atheistic chaplains...
Indeed it’s a kin to a gay homophobe.
Also: “libertarian socialist”
Athiests require no chaplains.
Atheist Chaplin: Well, you're really just a product of time plus chance plus chemistry so your life really doesn't have any meaning so don't worry about it. Just be happy.
Atheist chaplains? A moron came up with an oxymoron.
What do you get when you cross a JW with an agnostic? Someone who goes around knocking on doors, but doesn’t know why.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.