I find this story incredible. In the wake of a scandal at the Air Force Academy over recruits being pressured to convert to Christianity, the Air Force is reviewing a policy that set up a distinction between proselytizing believers and unbelievers (or at least those unaffiliated with a particular denomination). A Jewish graduate of the Academy has filed suit claiming that senior officers at the Air Force Academy have an active program of aggressive proselytization of recruits that crosses the line into coercion to become Christian.
Under the current Air Force Chaplain Service code of ethics, all chaplains agree to the following:
"I will not actively proselytize from other religious bodies. However, I retain the right to instruct and/or evangelize those who are not affiliated."
This follows on the heels of a statement from the deputy chief of chaplains for the Air Force, Brig. Gen. Cecil R. Richardson, saying, ""We will not proselytize, but we reserve the right to evangelize the unchurched." Notice the obvious double standard. It's a breach of ethics to proselytize, say, a Jew or a fellow Christian from another denomination, but it's not a breach of ethics to do the same thing to an atheist or a deist. Now some might say that it's a violation of free speech and free exercise to prevent them from doing so, but if that's true then it makes no sense to make a distinction between what may ethically be said to one group vs. another. If it's just a question of free speech for the chaplains, they should be free to proselytize members of other denominations or religions as well, but they're not. So what we have here is a sort of gentleman's agreement on the part of the clergy that they won't go after each other's flocks, but unaffiliated sheep are fair game for all of them.
But it seems to me that all of this completely misses the point of what chaplains are there to do. The military has chaplains because soldiers have higher morale if they have spiritual leaders to whom they can turn for advice and counsel and to minister to their needs (the fact that I don't have such needs myself is irrelevant, I do not doubt for a moment that having chaplains really does help keep the military running more smoothly and really does help many soldiers deal with the difficulties of military service). Certainly if a recruit from any religious viewpoint initiates a conversation with a chaplain about their own religious views, whether they're justified, how they compare to the chaplain's views, etc, the chaplain has a right, perhaps even a responsibility, to give a recruit his full and considered opinion on the matter.
But it seems to me that if a chaplain is taking the inititative in trying to convert people, he is acting in a manner that contradicts the purpose for which he is there. His job is to minister to the needs of the recruits, not to decide for himself that a recruit needs to be converted to his faith. If a non-Christian recruit is happy with his beliefs and is not seeking out another belief, a chaplain who seeks him out to evangelize him is no longer acting as a chaplain, he is acting as a missionary. And that act, because it will usually result in an adversarial situation that builds division within the military rather than helping things run more smoothly, is counter to the purpose for which we have chaplains in the first place.
- Log in to post comments
Maybe it's because I'm based in Europe, but I find it staggering that they don't immediately see how blinkered that policy is.
Just today, there was a letter to my local newspaper asserting that Americans have "freedom of religion, not freedom from religion." I wondered (as I always do), if there was a law that mandated some kind, any kind of religion, how would they enforce it??
Now I know.
As this "policy" applies to Chaplains, it still seems to leave open the potential for abuse of cadets by other AFA personnel, from mess hall staff to coaches, from senior cadets to classroom instructors. The AFA spokesperson said: "There is no existing Air Force policy endorsing 'proselytizing' or 'evangelizing' 'the unchurched,'" Does this also mean that there is no existing Air Force policy that bans or sanctions these same activities???
The situation is hopelessly absurd. The stupid comment about "freedom from religion" comes from someone who has not bothered to read the Constitution: "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof ..."
That "establishing" part seems pretty clear to me. Doesn't that mean I can be free from state-sponsored religion?
As to mandating the following of religious practices, the old Blue Laws were just such things. They made it illegal to open most stores on Sunday. Then the conservative protestants, who worship money as a primary deity and god as a real community booster, decided it would be good if stores could open when people were off from work. What better way to honor god than to make money on the day set aside for his worship?
There are two issues--at a minimum.
One, if a denomination of any religion wants to provide a chaplain affiliated unit, they should be required to pay for him or her themselves. That will reduce the potential "establishment clause" issue.
Two, promotions, etc, would need to be monitored to ensure that adherents to certain "establishments of religion" are not favored over others. That would further reduce the potential "establishment clause" issue.
Frankly, the first is easy to implement. The second is not.