GOP hate speech continues ban on atheist chaplains in military

[sarge]

I'm not so sure.

I am. It is ana absolute. A Chaplain (in the Army, at least) must be ordained by an eclastic organization, and from one of a handful of theist churches. A belief in God is an absolute requirement - and absent this belief, a Chaplain could not perform several vital functions required of Chaplains. It requires a significant re-design of the Chaplains Corps to allow atheist Chaplains.

It wasn't a requirement in the list of requirements you provided. It's entirely possible for someone who is an atheist to satisfy all the requirements and perform all the functions you listed.

The list was lifted from the Army's Chaplains public web page. For a more detailed list of actual requirements, you'll have to read regulations and course curicula from the Chaplains Basic Course. Atheists are prohibited the Chaplaincy, and Atheists could not perform the full range of duties of Chaplains - indeed, they could not perform the primary duty of a Chaplain.

Change the requirements so that a belief in God is not required, and I can think of no duties an Atheist could not perform.

However, the point is a proposal that would specifically consider a person certified or ordained by a non-religious institution to be a military chaplain. While I admit few religious people are atheists, the term "religious" is not a synonym for "theist".

That did not seem to be your point before. You seemed to hold the view that no changes to the current requirements were necessary in order for an Atheist to qualify as a Chaplain. Currently, ordained by an approved religious ecumenical organization is the most basic requirement - followed by a career practicing as a theist preacher.

That's more question begging. Who says the "very nature of chaplaincy" is to "provide theism-based religious advice"?

It is decidedly not question begging. The Army says that the very nature of the Chaplaincy is to provide for the theism-based religious needs of Soldiers. There exists a requirement that a Chaplain be ordained by a church from an approved list of theist organizations, and that a Chaplain conduct organized theist church services. All the other stuff - marriage counseling, suicide prevention, morale welfare activities - are secondary to the preaching and God-based religious counseling.

It isn't a coincidence that there are no Buddhist Chaplains, even though there is a branch insignia for Buddhist Chaplains (each faith has its own emblem to wear on the uniform), nor that the one commissioned Hindu Chaplain is from the sole denomination that professes theism.

The Chaplaincy muct change before Atheist Chaplains are commissioned.

I've done no such thing. Please cite where you think I have done so.

As recently as the post I am quoting. Exactly, actually.

That a Chaplain is required to provide religious counseling for a Soldier of a different religion is not the same as an atheist providing religious counseling for a Soldier that has a belief in God - and you are saying that they are equal.

I've pointed out repeatedly that it doesn't make sense to ban atheists from being military chaplains based on the fact that they don't share the same beliefs as all the soldiers they would serve. The exact same thing is true of chaplains who are theists.

Case in point.

There is a vast difference between counseling someone that does not share your exact views about God-stuff and counseling someone about god-stuff when you do not believe in God. It makes complete sense to ban atheists from the Chaplaincy so long as a belief in God is a requirement for the Chaplaincy.

[ETA: In other words, I have equated differences in beliefs with differences in beliefs. You have been seriously glossing over the serious differences in beliefs among theists, treating them as if they all believe the same thing. My point is, if one-size can fit all, and no soldier is guaranteed a chaplain that shares any of his beliefs, then there's no reason to ban atheists from serving as chaplains.]

I haven't glossed over anything. I freely admit that Chaplains are required to accapt pluralism (but not a unitarian view) while practicing as Chaplains. Chaplains must also conduct religious services - but only in accordance with their church's tenants (except that Protestants do conduct non-denominational protestant services). What it makes no sense to demand is for ahteists to conduct theist services.

You've asserted that a few times. I repeat, what are those roles that a theist military chaplain could perform than atheist one couldn't?

I have described them

You listed the duties earlier, and none of them are duties that only a theist chaplain could perform.

I listed roles. Roles and duties are not synonymous. Chaplains must be ordained by a theist ecumenical organization, must have a belief in God, and must perform theist church services. Atheists can not do this.

 

[ponderingturtle]

I hate to say it, but I'm not sure that some of you guys are talking about the U.S. military.

Nobody is getting RIF'd or bounced because they sought counseling. PTSD itself is not grounds for discharge.

Having it effect your performance while you wait a few months to be seen certainly is.

Also military mental health professionals have a split duty, to the service as well as their patient.

http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=6576505

 

[ponderingturtle]

To chaplains, of course. There is no issue with atheists going to a chaplain for help - it happens all the time. And unlike the reverse (a theist going to an atheist for religious support), there is no need that atheist Soldiers have that a theist chaplain can't fill.

Of course you then to determine how their doctrine deals with your sinful evil ways. To do otherwise would be religious persecution.

 

[ponderingturtle]

I am. It is ana absolute. A Chaplain (in the Army, at least) must be ordained by an eclastic organization, and from one of a handful of theist churches. A belief in God is an absolute requirement - and absent this belief, a Chaplain could not perform several vital functions required of Chaplains. It requires a significant re-design of the Chaplains Corps to allow atheist Chaplains.

How is a Rabbi more qualified do those things for a catholic than an atheist? As far as the catholic church is concerned they are the same.

 

[JoeTheJuggler]

A Chaplain (in the Army, at least) must be ordained by an eclastic organization, and from one of a handful of theist churches.

Where is this list of theist churches? I don't think that's true at all. I think it only currently says candidates must be ordained or recognized by their denomination or faith group. I don't think there is anything anywhere that makes an exclusive list of such groups. I also don't believe there is anything anywhere that says it's limited to faith groups with any particular beliefs (such as theism).

A belief in God is an absolute requirement

I think you're wrong.

- and absent this belief, a Chaplain could not perform several vital functions required of Chaplains.

Again, what functions that chaplains do could not be performed by an atheist chaplain? It's not enough for you to keep making this assertion.

It is decidedly not question begging. The Army says that the very nature of the Chaplaincy is to provide for the theism-based religious needs of Soldiers.

Where does the Army say that? And, FWIW, we're not talking only about the Army, are we?

There exists a requirement that a Chaplain be ordained by a church from an approved list of theist organizations, and that a Chaplain conduct organized theist church services.

Those aren't the same thing. Does the Army (or any of the other branches of the U.S. military) say anywhere that the very nature of the chaplaincy is to provide theism based advice? I don't think they do. If so, please show me where.

Here's actually the part of the statute that states the purpose of Association of Military Chaplains, and it says nothing about theism:

http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/36/140302

The Army's recruitment page for chaplains doesn't mention anything about a requirement that your faith group or denomination be theistic, or suggest as you do that there is a list of qualifying ordaining entities.

And yes, the question at hand is whether to open up the requirements to allow people who are certified or ordained by non-religious entities.

However, I'm still not so sure the current requirements say anything about theism. I don't think they define the institutions that must have certified or ordained a cleric as "theist" as you have. I doubt, for example, an ordained Buddhist priest would currently not be allowed by law to serve as a military chaplain. (To do so would be a straightforward violation of the establishment clause. Also, if the justification for the chaplain program is that it's necessary for soldiers to exercise their First Amendment right to the free practice of religion, excluding chaplains certified or ordained by any religion would be unconstitutional.) Also, there have been atheist rabbis, and I doubt they would be barred by law (assuming they have all the other qualifications).

At any rate, even if the current requirements don't specifically exclude atheists, they exclude those certified or ordained by non-religious entities.

FWIW, there is already a movement among non-theistic military personnel to reach out to chaplains to help them improve their understanding of the needs of atheists. They're also already making application to be a "lay leader" or "humanist chaplain" (if something like the proposal in question is passed by Congress). http://militarhttp://www.secularhum...ion=fi&page=torpy_31_6yatheists.org/chaplain/

Here's a pretty good essay arguing for the need to see chaplaincy as "a secular institution that happens to have special religious functions" rather than merely a "Christian privilege". http://www.secularhumanism.org/index.php?section=fi&page=torpy_31_6

That a Chaplain is required to provide religious counseling for a Soldier of a different religion is not the same as an atheist providing religious counseling for a Soldier that has a belief in God - and you are saying that they are equal.

But nowhere did I say that not believing in any god is the same thing as believing in only one particular god. I've merely been pointing out repeatedly that the objection to atheist chaplains is that they don't share the beliefs of all the soldiers they serve, and if that's a problem, it's one that already exists since there is no current requirement that soldiers have a chaplain that shares their beliefs.

You keep asserting without evidence that the purpose of the chaplaincy is to offer theistic advice, and that only theistic religions are recognized, but you can't show me anything to support this claim. Even under current laws, I don't think that's true.

Here is the proposed amendment:

1 SEC. 502. INCLUSION IN THE CHAPLAIN CORPS OF PER
2 SONS AVAILABLE TO PROVIDE GUIDANCE
3 AND COUNSEL TO MEMBERS OF THE ARMED
4 FORCES WHO ARE ATHEIST, AGNOSTIC, OR
5 BELONG TO NO ORGANIZED FAITH GROUP.
6 The Secretary of Defense shall provide for the ap
7 pointment, as officers in the Chaplain Corps of the Armed
8 Forces, of persons who are certified or ordained by non
9 theistic organizations and institutions, such as humanist,
10 ethical culturalist, or atheist.

By the way, there is already language in the National Defense Authorization bill that protects rights of conscience for military personnel including chaplains. I've bolded one that might be of particular interest to you. It shows an issue that currently exists (even without there being any atheistic chaplains). Chaplains are in fact not required to perform all religious rites for all soldiers regardless of their own beliefs.

SEC. 533. PROTECTION OF RIGHTS OF CONSCIENCE OF MEMBERS OF THE ARMED FORCES AND CHAPLAINS OF SUCH MEMBERS.

(a) Protection of Rights of Conscience-

(1) ACCOMMODATION- The Armed Forces shall accommodate the beliefs of a member of the armed forces reflecting the conscience, moral principles, or religious beliefs of the member and, in so far as practicable, may not use such beliefs as the basis of any adverse personnel action, discrimination, or denial of promotion, schooling, training, or assignment.

(2) DISCIPLINARY OR ADMINISTRATIVE ACTION- Nothing in paragraph (1) precludes disciplinary or administrative action for conduct that is proscribed by chapter 47 of title 10, United States Code (the Uniform Code of Military Justice), including actions and speech that threaten good order and discipline.

(b) Protection of Chaplain Decisions Relating to Conscience, Moral Principles, or Religious Beliefs- No member of the Armed Forces may--

(1) require a chaplain to perform any rite, ritual, or ceremony that is contrary to the conscience, moral principles, or religious beliefs of the chaplain; or

(2) discriminate or take any adverse personnel action against a chaplain, including denial of promotion, schooling, training, or assignment, on the basis of the refusal by the chaplain to comply with a requirement prohibited by paragraph (1).

(c) Regulations- The Secretary of Defense shall issue regulations implementing the protections afforded by this section.

http://www.govtrack.us/congress/bills/112/hr4310/text

 

[sarge]

Where is this list of theist churches? I don't think that's true at all. I think it only currently says candidates must be ordained or recognized by their denomination or faith group. I don't think there is anything anywhere that makes an exclusive list of such groups. I also don't believe there is anything anywhere that says it's limited to faith groups with any particular beliefs (such as theism).


I think you're wrong.


Again, what functions that chaplains do could not be performed by an atheist chaplain? It's not enough for you to keep making this assertion.



Where does the Army say that? And, FWIW, we're not talking only about the Army, are we?



Those aren't the same thing. Does the Army (or any of the other branches of the U.S. military) say anywhere that the very nature of the chaplaincy is to provide theism based advice? I don't think they do. If so, please show me where.

Here's actually the part of the statute that states the purpose of Association of Military Chaplains, and it says nothing about theism:

http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/36/140302

The Army's recruitment page for chaplains doesn't mention anything about a requirement that your faith group or denomination be theistic, or suggest as you do that there is a list of qualifying ordaining entities.

And yes, the question at hand is whether to open up the requirements to allow people who are certified or ordained by non-religious entities.

However, I'm still not so sure the current requirements say anything about theism. I don't think they define the institutions that must have certified or ordained a cleric as "theist" as you have. I doubt, for example, an ordained Buddhist priest would currently not be allowed by law to serve as a military chaplain. (To do so would be a straightforward violation of the establishment clause. Also, if the justification for the chaplain program is that it's necessary for soldiers to exercise their First Amendment right to the free practice of religion, excluding chaplains certified or ordained by any religion would be unconstitutional.) Also, there have been atheist rabbis, and I doubt they would be barred by law (assuming they have all the other qualifications).

At any rate, even if the current requirements don't specifically exclude atheists, they exclude those certified or ordained by non-religious entities.

FWIW, there is already a movement among non-theistic military personnel to reach out to chaplains to help them improve their understanding of the needs of atheists. They're also already making application to be a "lay leader" or "humanist chaplain" (if something like the proposal in question is passed by Congress). http://militarhttp://www.secularhum...ion=fi&page=torpy_31_6yatheists.org/chaplain/

Here's a pretty good essay arguing for the need to see chaplaincy as "a secular institution that happens to have special religious functions" rather than merely a "Christian privilege". http://www.secularhumanism.org/index.php?section=fi&page=torpy_31_6


But nowhere did I say that not believing in any god is the same thing as believing in only one particular god. I've merely been pointing out repeatedly that the objection to atheist chaplains is that they don't share the beliefs of all the soldiers they serve, and if that's a problem, it's one that already exists since there is no current requirement that soldiers have a chaplain that shares their beliefs.

You keep asserting without evidence that the purpose of the chaplaincy is to offer theistic advice, and that only theistic religions are recognized, but you can't show me anything to support this claim. Even under current laws, I don't think that's true.

Here is the proposed amendment:



By the way, there is already language in the National Defense Authorization bill that protects rights of conscience for military personnel including chaplains. I've bolded one that might be of particular interest to you. It shows an issue that currently exists (even without there being any atheistic chaplains). Chaplains are in fact not required to perform all religious rites for all soldiers regardless of their own beliefs.



http://www.govtrack.us/congress/bills/112/hr4310/text

My appologies for not addressing each point individually - but I have already done so.

It remains an absolute that a military Chaplain must be ordained by an ecumenical religious order that is recognized by the military, and that the military only recognizes theist organizations. This is simple fact - and is evidenced by practice and published procedure.

As this is absolute, it remains true that in order to commission atheist chaplains, the nature of the chaplaincy must be changed. I don't oppose changing the chaplaincy. I simply understand the current fact that a belief in a God is a current requirment for commissioning as a military chaplain.

As a seperate issue, of course one must be theist in order to counsel a Soldier about theological matters - while one does not need to be an ahteist to counsel an atheist about spiritual matters. In other words, there is no problem that needs fixing with the military chaplaincy, except that there should be no military chaplaincy to start with, so long as membership in the chaplaincy depends on membership in and sanctioning by a religious order.

 

[JoeTheJuggler]

My appologies for not addressing each point individually - but I have already done so.

That's false.

You have claimed there's an exclusive list of theist churches that chaplains must be ordained by. That's not true. I challenge you to produce this list.

You've repeatedly asserted that the primary function of a military chaplain is to dispense theist advice. That's not true. I challenge you to show me any regulation that says that.

It remains an absolute that a military Chaplain must be ordained by an ecumenical religious order that is recognized by the military, and that the military only recognizes theist organizations.

Again, what is the evidence of this claim?

Are you willing to claim that the military refuses to recognizes Buddhist organizations that are not theist for purposes of the chaplain program? (In fact, the first Buddhist military chaplain was commissioned in 2004. I don't know whether that person was atheist or not, but that question isn't one that is used to screen out candidates, anymore than are candidates screened out for being transubstantiationists, or trinitarians or any other particular question of creed.)

I note too that this is a slightly different claim that your previous one that the military has a list of theist entities and won't consider a candidate ordained or certified by a religious organization not on that list.

This is simple fact - and is evidenced by practice and published procedure.

No. It's a false assertion.

 

[mijopaalmc]

If atheists can be chaplains, why can't Christians be atheists?

 

[JoeTheJuggler]

FWIW, on some theological points, I've known of atheist Buddhists who have very similar spiritual practice to Trappist monks (Catholics). In fact, it was a Buddhist who once quoted to me something said by a Trappist. He--the Trappist monk--believed it was important to completely abandon any god-concept you developed every couple of years. I'm not sure, but that might even have been something Thomas Merton said. I could see a Humanist or atheist chaplain having much in common with anyone from a mainstream religion interested in contemplative/meditative approach to their spirituality. Most mainstream religions have some branch with that emphasis, and from what I've seen, they share more in common with contemplatives from other religions (including those that are atheists) than they do with many members of their own religion.

 

[theprestige]

It remains an absolute that a military Chaplain must be ordained by an ecumenical religious order that is recognized by the military, and that the military only recognizes theist organizations. This is simple fact - and is evidenced by practice and published procedure.

Can you cite the published procedure?

 

[JoeTheJuggler]

If atheists can be chaplains, why can't Christians be atheists?

Some actually are, and some--see my previous post--are virtually indistinguishable from atheists.


Jefferson, notably, thought it was possible to strive to follow the moral and ethical teachings of Jesus while rejecting any supernatural/or divine claims about him.

The question of the nature of the person of Christ is a subset of Christology.

 

[JoeTheJuggler]

Can you cite the published procedure?

Indeed. I'm highly skeptical of the claim. The statues and regulations I've looked at don't say anything like what Sarge has asserted.

I think some of this confusion comes from confusing the term religion with the term theism. They are not synonyms any more than religion is a synonym for transubstantiationist or trinitarian.

BTW, as I keep mentioning radically different creeds, I keep thinking of the war witnessed by Gulliver between the Big-Endians and Little-Endians. . .

 

[mijopaalmc]

Some actually are, and some--see my previous post--are virtually indistinguishable from atheists.


Jefferson, notably, thought it was possible to strive to follow the moral and ethical teachings of Jesus while rejecting any supernatural/or divine claims about him.

The question of the nature of the person of Christ is a subset of Christology.

Yeah, but the belief in the existence of God isn't just a Christological belief. There are, of course (as you seem to know), Christian denominations that deny the divinity of Jesus. However, these same denomination, at least to my knowledge, do not simultaneously deny the existence of God.

Can you point to a Christian denomination--not a person who self-identifies as Christian--that denies the existence of God?

 

[JoeTheJuggler]

Here's a blog article about requirements for a Buddhist to become a U.S. military chaplain:
http://buddhistmilitarysangha.blogspot.com/2008/08/requirements-to-become-buddhist.html

From that article:

• Endorsement from the Buddhist Churches of America
The Buddhist Churches of America is the ONLY recognized endorser for Buddhist U.S. military chaplains. An official form known as a DD2088 - Statement of Ecclesiastical Endorsement - is signed by our abbot. Without this signed endorsement, you cannot become a military chaplain. Receiving a signed DD2088 is dependent on whether you can demonstrate completion of a Master’s Degree program and provide proof of ordination from an authentic Buddhist tradition. A personal interview will also be required.

You'd be really hard pressed to characterize the Buddhist Churches of America as a "theist church".

Here's a direct link to a DD 2088 form in PDF format: https://www.google.com/url?sa=t&rct...=3tB6vnf0Rr9h4kyDtCX3NQ&bvm=bv.47810305,d.cGE

Nowhere do the words theist, theism or god appear on that form.

 

[JoeTheJuggler]

Can you point to a Christian denomination--not a person who self-identifies as Christian--that denies the existence of God?

So the belief only exists if there's a denomination? That's a far cry from your previous question.


FWIW, I know of Zen Buddhists who consider themselves Christians that don't believe in any god. Many members of the Universal Unitarians fall in that category too. A great many Deists revere the ethical teachings of Jesus. And members of the Merton Society (Catholics) are virtually indistinguishable, IMO, from weak atheists.

I was reading a history of the papacy not so long ago, and there was at least one "out" agnostic pope (IIRC during the Age of Enlightenment).

There's also the Society of Humanistic Mormons.

 

[AlBell]

What would an atheistic spiritual crisis look like?
...

This seems to me to be apopos to that question.

http://townhall.com/columnists/bill...-century-morality-writ-frighteningly-n1617162

The 29-year-old computer technician who spilled U.S. surveillance secrets all over the floor last week explained himself in an interview with the Guardian newspaper in England. Note, please, the boldfaced type that ensues.
" I don't want to live in a society that does these sorts of things (conduct wide surveillance to prevent terror attacks). I do not want to live in a world where everything I do and say is recorded. That is not something I am willing to support or live under."

See how simple it is? I don't like the look, the smell, of the thing. My mind is made up. Don't agree? That's your problem, according to the worldview of Edward Joseph Snowden, a very 21st-century moralist -- the jerk.

Snowden surfs along on a crest of moral rethinking -- dominant for half a century -- that prizes individual judgment, individual insight above all else and puts in the hands of people like himself the authority to decide great questions for the good of us all. Julian Assange, who in 2010 leaked U.S. military and diplomatic documents to the media, is another such sage, as is Pfc. Bradley Manning, soon to be tried for leaking to Assange.

Where do we get these jackasses? This is nothing like civil disobedience of the sort made famous by the likes of Gandhi and Dr. King. Civil disobedience, whatever one may think of the motive, has an inner morality far beyond the grasp, apparently, of Edward Joseph Snowden.

The civilly disobedient acknowledge the unlawfulness of -- say -- disobeying an order to sit in the "colored" section of the bus, or in Gandhi's case, to pay the British salt tax. Unlike the babblers of secrets, Snowden and Assange, the civilly disobedient take the consequences of their actions entirely on themselves. That's to say, apart from personal inconvenience or indignation, no member of the public suffers on account of their conduct. Additionally, they don't go running off to Hong Kong to avoid capture. They offer their wrists for the handcuffs.

Too much of the US is currently suffering an atheistic spiritual crisis.

 

[mijopaalmc]

So the belief only exists if there's a denomination? That's a far cry from your previous question.


FWIW, I know of Zen Buddhists who consider themselves Christians that don't believe in any god. Many members of the Universal Unitarians fall in that category too. A great many Deists revere the ethical teachings of Jesus. And members of the Merton Society (Catholics) are virtually indistinguishable, IMO, from weak atheists.

I was reading a history of the papacy not so long ago, and there was at least one "out" agnostic pope (IIRC during the Age of Enlightenment).

There's also the Society of Humanistic Mormons.

Aaaaaaannnnnddd.....we're back to you dishonest equivocation about Humanis(m|ts) and atheis(m|ts). Humanism is a particularly belief system that place the human and the human experience at the center of its understanding of the universe; Humanism does not preclude a belief in the existence of supernatural entities. Therefore, the existence of a Humanist Chaplaincy does not challenge that idea that theistic beliefs and religious practices are central to the nature of the office of chaplaincy. One can simultaneously be a humanist and be religious.

The issue is that claiming that, since there are atheists who self-identify as <insert religion> because they identify with the ethical teachings and cultural milieux, the concept of a chaplaincy extends meaningfully to them and the interest of equal protection requires the military, as an arm of the government, to provide officials who self-indentify as atheist directly contradicts with the claims--often of the very same atheists--that atheism is not comparable with religion. After all the military, to my knowledge, does not provide bald soldiers with people who specialize in taking care of bald heads; balds soldiers are well-served by same barbers who cut the hair of blond(e), brun(nette), red-headed, etc soldiers.

 

[JoeTheJuggler]

Therefore, the existence of a Humanist Chaplaincy does not challenge that idea that theistic beliefs and religious practices are central to the nature of the office of chaplaincy.

You're claiming that theistic beliefs are central to Humanists?

One can simultaneously be a humanist and be religious.

Yes. And one can be religious and atheist too. Again, religious is no more a synonym for theist than it is for transubstantiationist or trinitarian.

There is no regulation or rule that specifies any particular creed requirement. And contrary to what Sarge has asserted there is no published policy or regulation that says theism is somehow central to the function of a chaplain.

The actual question is what is the justification for prohibiting atheists from becoming chaplains?

 

[mijopaalmc]

You're claiming that theistic beliefs are central to Humanists?

reed4compreehenshun, d00d.

Yes. And one can be religious and atheist too. Again, religious is no more a synonym for theist than it is for transubstantiationist or trinitarian.

Then why do so many atheists claim that "atheism is to religion as bald is to a hair color (or not collecting stamps is a hobby, etc)"?

There is no regulation or rule that specifies any particular creed requirement. And contrary to what Sarge has asserted there is no published policy or regulation that says theism is somehow central to the function of a chaplain.

I'm glad that you agree that atheism is a religion.

The actual question is what is the justification for prohibiting atheists from becoming chaplains?

Their own insistence that atheism is fundamentally different from religion.

 

[theprestige]

The actual question is what is the justification for prohibiting atheists from becoming chaplains?

The only one I can think of is the lack of a recognized atheistic organization that ordains atheist Chaplains in the same spirit (heh) as Christian, Jewish, Buddhist, etc. chaplains are ordained.

Perhaps the growing numbers of atheist soldiers, crying out for moral counselors who share their axioms and moral reasoning, will inspire the founding of such an organization. More likely, human nature being what it is, it will spur the founding of several such organizations, all schismatic with one another, and each insisting on its own representation in the ranks of the Chaplain Corps.

I expect in the long run, the military will adopt a policy of "non-denominational chaplaincy": A unit chaplain may be from any recognized faith or creed, every chaplain must subscribe to the same basic non-denominational moral framework, and all soldiers are entitled to the non-denominational counsel of their chaplain, whatever specific denomination they profess. By the same token, no soldier is entitled to demand counseling from a chaplain of their own denomination. Maybe soldiers are entitled to visit the chaplain from another unit, if they find that chaplain's denomination more to their liking, and he is suitably convenient to the soldier's posting.

After that, the next big chaplain controversy will probably be soldiers hailing from creeds that don't believe women can be ordained, but who nevertheless find themselves posted to a unit with a woman chaplain. Would they be able to argue that since they don't recognize the chaplaincy of women, there is effectively no chaplain for them, and that this violates their legal entitlement to a chaplain? The government, of course, would argue that most religions don't recognize the ordination of chaplains in other faiths anyway, so this novel twist shouldn't matter either.