Oh, let's have a juicy one.

Hey - I actually have something to share of an actual military nature on this one. You see my Dad is a retired Minister and we lived near CFB Greenwood when I was a kid. As a result we knew who all the local ministers and priests were including the chaplains - and that is my point My only point). There was more than one on the base. I think there were three - Catholic and Anglican and United. While all are Christian, each had a very different form of service. We Uniteds are not great "namers of Jesus" being Scots Presbies who lean heavily to equivalence and interconnection of the Old and New Testaments - so we talk with God and the Creator a lot. But we would also not name Mary, say, ever unlike the natural flow of a Catholic service. I would understand that when I heard the tradition of each being spoken. If we were over at Fort Drum or maybe at an Albertan CFB, I would expect the evagelical Baptist tradition to be more present and I would hear more direct invocation of Jesus. My question, then, is this - do US bases or units only get one homogenized chaplain to govern all the faiths or are there separate rabbis, imams, priests and pastors all with their different traditions. If there were, hearing a Southern style reference to Jesus in the mix from time to time would not sound weird to me at all. It would be that one pastor's way. But if there is there has been pre-emptive chaplaincy standardization of an one-stop eccumenical nature well that might be different...and pretty difficult to pull off without ticking someone off.

If 84 -90% of Americans self identify as Christian, why would any mention of Jesus be offensive? As a 30 veteran, and a devout agnostic, I listened to evening prayer every evening at 2158 every day while at sea. Most Chaplains do, in fact, keep to the generic "God" or "Father" when conducting services with service members in ranks. Should a Chaplain mention "Jesus" during the prayer, I take no offense. The problem starts when a prohibition is enacted. If Chaplain X is doing a field service in Mosul and the members of the group self indentify as Christian, is the Chaplain not allowed to pray to "Jesus" in an effort to meet their needs? Somehow, Americans have fought many conflicts, in many arenas for many years without this being an issue. To my mind any effort to establish this kind of prohibition has more to do with the secular left's agenda than any sensitivity to Jews, Muslims or any other religion.

Chaplains are called on to do two primary tasks: perform the religious rites of their faith group and provide for the free exercise of other's religion. Chaplains must be endorsed by their respective denominations as fulfilling the requirements for ordination in their churches, etc. Why would we expect a chaplain to forsake his God when one of the chaplain's primary duties is to help provide for freedom of religion? Does everyone get to worship freely except the chaplain? I am a Christian. I can pray in no other name than that of the Lord. That doesn't mean I use his name in every prayer but it does mean that, if I choose to do so, I shouldn't be barred from doing so. As long as a chaplain is fulfilling his military obligation (perform and provide), he should be allowed to represent his faith, both publically and privately. If he is not allowed to be a chaplain of his distinctive faith group, why have him in the military at all? It seems strange to me that many of those who want to stifle the name of Jesus from public conversation (such as the ACLU) want every other word--including the vulgar and obscene--to be allowed in public. Pro Deo et Patria!

Airdale makes a good point about the prohibition, but we're past that now, it would appear. And I, too, am not a terribly religious, and certainly not a church-going person, but have never minded sitting quietly while others did their thing, either. Alan - the US military has Chaplains down to brigade level, so any large troop installation is going to have a fair number. There are also chaplains to cover non-tactical units - we have several here at Fort Leavenworth, for example - some of whom work in doctrine development. There has been some concern of late with the distribution-by-sect of the Chaplains, in that there is a perceived imbalance of what some consider 'fundamentalist' vice 'mainstream' Christian sects, and the other religions are far more sparsely represented. Given the largely liberal leanings of the old mainline protestant faiths, there are relatively fewer of their clergy seeking a military vocation. We did have one Quaker chaplain for a while, back in the 80's. I honestly don't know if we have any Wiccan, Pagan, or Satanist Chaplains. One reason for that is the law requires that Chaplains have some form of "licensing" (my term, perhaps not correct, sanction might be better) from a recognized organization to be accepted into the Chaplaincy. I have *no idea* how all that is handled.

I like your "three voices" theory, John. By all means, when the Chaplain is involved in a religious ceremony, full traditions should be followed. If speaking in general terms, like the prayers offered up at the Presidential Inaugurations, using the most ecumenical prayer possible is a great way of handling it. EVERY religion has a "God", but not every religion has a "Jesus" or an "Allah" or a "Mary". It's no different than working for HP and officially promoting your own products while representing your company, but when you're just a normal person and not speaking as an employee of HP, you can speak your mind and say that you think HP is a great product, but Toshiba and Dell also have their advantages. In the same way, Chaplains should stick to more "generic" terms when addressing large groups of mixes beliefs.

Here is my point John. If we are worried about offending people of different religions, then it would only make sense that we would also include athiests in this mix. Praying to the generic term "god", or "father" might offend those who do not believe in a god, or believe in a goddess instead. So it all boils down to, we either tip toe around people's feelings, or we provide whatever service to the majority who wish to voluntary participate. If we feel that mentioning the name Jesus is promoting one religion over the other, then we probably shouldn't have any religion at all at that particular ceremony. The fact that someone chooses to involve a chaplain in the ceremony at all, says they have crossed the line, endorsing that spirituality should be involved in that ceremony. So...my conclusion is to either leave religion out of the ceremony alltogether, or let the person pray to whom they want to. Many of these Chaplains pray this way in force of habit. What kind of disciplinary action would we suggest if one let the word "Jesus" slip during his heartfelt prayer? Lets either leave it out altogether, or let them pray freely. Otherwise it is nothing more than censorship of their free speech.

I kind of agree with everyone here (and congrats on keeping the level of discussion appropriately elevated, as opposed to the subject link - ugh). I consider myself a fairly religious Christian, and yet I've always had a bit of a twitch when a chaplain gets outside the box on a general evening prayer for example. When he's talking on the 1MC, he's supposed to be talking to and for the entire crew, and most do a pretty good job of that, with the occasional exception of Christmas and Easter at sea. But it's also hard to see that any real harm is done when a chaplain blurts out the name of the guy who is not only Lord and Savior to Christians, but a significant prophet in both Jewish and Islamic faiths, at least the way I understand it. I just don't understand why the ACLU, having won all the really important battles long ago, can't leave well enough alone in some of these areas. Why pick this particular fight, and generate this inevitable and divisive response? I think they just enjoy the feeling of goading people.

I agree that there are levels of appropriate 'voice' for the Chaplains, just as we need to make our speech appropriate every day depending on the group to which we speak. Similar to the argument that a boss must avoid making advances to a subordinate (because of the power of their position), a Chaplain must not appear to be 'enforcing' a religious belief in a large group / non Worship-service environment. I assume that the actual services celebrated (Mass, Sunday worship, whatever) are labeled appropriately to set the worshippers expectations. But in the environment on a public address made to a heterogenous group, generic is the best way to go.

Jay - let's not build a strawman here. If it slips in, it slips in. If I'm the commander, and I asked the Chaplain to forgo the Jesus reference, yes, I'll say something to him after the fact, and probably remind him before the next. And if he can't get it right, I'll just quit using them for that purpose and either find one who can, or yes, skip it altogether. What I won't do is be insincere and lead the prayer myself, as a commander. But that's just me.

Some Christian religions require that prayers be given "in the name of Jesus Christ." Some Muslims must use the name of Allah for God as that is the name of their God. If there must be a "non-sectarian" prayer for military chaplains, it should be specified by the military. I suggest, to ensure a minimum of offense: "We pray that any gods recognized by those here assembled protect, support, and enrich all of us, where each of our beliefs allow such blessings, so help us whomever or whatever, if appropriate." Perhaps we could have the ACLU craft the "non-sectarian" prayer as I am afraid that my suggestion may be offensive to some.

Oh boy, oh boy, oh boy... Wait for me, let me in, move over!! Hot Damn. A real debate! 1st, and most important: What Lex said: "I kind of agree with everyone here and VERY MUCH congrats on keeping the level of discussion appropriately elevated" 2nd As a Jew among you non-chosen ones, I will tell you this: In ALL the years I was in and around the Army, or the military in general for that matter--basically from 1973 till now, minus a year or two--I never once, NOT ONCE, ever had a problem with anything any chaplain ever said, with any prayer that was ever made by a chaplain, or any activity any chaplain engaged in. And for the record, in all this time, I've only ever met 2 Jewish Chaplains--one at Ft. Hood and the other in Germany. I've only met 1 Moslem Chaplain, and that was a year ago or so. Even as a young soldier, it was clear to me that it was simply not possible to have a chaplain for every faith; and that if one felt strongly about a particular faith/sub-faith, you were going to have to look around to find a chaplain in your area. It was also clear that I could go to any chaplain wearing any decoration and he would do his utmost best to help me with my problems, no matter if they were secular or religious. If the chaplain was not my "flavor" of minister, then it was understood that that chaplain would do his best to find a person who could best serve my interests, given the mission, locations, etc. And always it was clear that Chaplains were military officers. That was part of the appeal to many of us enlisted guys--that we knew at worst case we always had someone to talk to who didn't have to kow-tow to the officers. Not trying to stir the pot here, just dredging up old memo-ries. I visited chaplains 7 or 8 times in decade-plus I was in; I did not always get the answers I wanted, and once I got my butt chewed for wasting his time and the Army's time, and I was told to get back to work and do the job I was expected to do. For all that, I never once felt I was treated badly or that anything but Right was the motivation for what I was told. And in all of that lies the key to this discussion. In my mind, though certainly not in other people's minds, the religion of the chaplain is secondary to his other role as a disinterested keeper of the moral and motivational keys to the kingdom, a professional bellwether of sorts whose job is to sense the right and wrong of things, and to act as advocate or motivator as needed. The best analogy I can come up with is that the chaplain, for me at least, was a judge without portfolio, a Solomon's advisor if you will, who not only was guaranteed to look out for my welfare, but who would so in the context of the service and the situation. All parties were able to depend pretty much on the Chaplain to say what was right and to have only the wellbeing of the unit and the individual in mind. I never met a chaplain who didn't fit this description, as lame as it might be as I rush to get this written. The religion of a person or the beliefs, simply do not matter in this case. The fact is that everyone I ever met or have talked to about this had faith in the disinterested-interested observer status of the chaplains. I/we always knew that no matter what the chaplain said, he was most likely right. As for religious functions, well, I/we saw that as just one of the chap-lain's extra duties, kind of like being the unit voting assistance officer. I know this sounds all disjointed, but it comes down to this: The chaplain's religious affiliation is exactly the reason I felt comfortable about talking to him, or asking him for help. Regardless of his religion, I knew that a "Man of Faith" would do the right thing by me. And why? Because it was understood that Chaplains were "good" people, who put their personal, petty, ca-reer-driven selves in service to others. That these people were there to mitigate the harshness of the environment--and to minister to people who needed their brand of sol-ace. Only once while in the Army did I have a conflict over religion. I've written about that elsewhere, but suffice to say, the problem was with my Commander and XO, not with the chaplain, and once I called the chaplain (forced do so as a last resort by the intractability of the two Officers), he came from his office to the unit orderly room and solved the problem within 30 minutes! And THAT, right there is where the rubber meets the road. I KNEW he would come, I KNEW he would do the right thing, and I KNEW he would find a way to re-solve the issue so that everyone got what they needed out of things. That's what a Chaplain is supposed to do! The bottom line for me is this: There is no question that a Chaplain's non-religious functions are critical to the smooth functioning of the Service. But it stands equally without question that it is his faith which allows him (or her, now too) to perform those functions. It is only the outward and sincere profession of faith that shields a chaplain from suspicion--more than any other badge of office ever could. Who else would you trust automatically? Who else do you KNOW sincerely cares about you, and who sees you as a person as much as a cog in the machine. Who else's perception and expectations of you automatically in-cludes a spiritual dimension as well as the physical. A chaplain does not have to share my beliefs to care about me. In fact, rarely was I ever asked what my faith was when the issue didn't involve religious questions. Just as we were all different shades of green, we were all different flavors of believers. On a last note: When I joined the Army, I was asked my religion. Having been raised in the shadow of the holocaust, I told the questioner 'No Choice' just in case it would be used against me later. Yes, I really WAS afraid of that. Later, in basic, a Chaplain called out to the entire brigade formation asking who was Jewish. You cannot imagine the upwelling of fear that caused in my 17 year old mind. You just cannot. Turned out, however, that they wanted to let us Jews go home for Yom Kippur and Rush Hashanah--imagine, being re-leased from Basic training for that! Hell, even the schools never gave us those days off! That chaplain had a cross on his collar. A while later, after a few more of those kinds of surprises, I changed my official record to show Jew, and had it put on my dog tags. A small thing to some of you maybe, but I was raised Jewish among people who had real reason to fear the world. I learned a lot while in the Army, though, not the least of which was that chap-lains are among the most important people on the planet, bar none. To me, anyone who is working to get them removed or constrained is both misguided and unknowing, and can only be looking in from the outside. Every soldier who has ever needed a kind word or solace in times of anguish knows this. And the religion is the reason! V/R ~SangerM

Holly Mother of God! Today's Chaplains can't invoke the name of their deities without someone getting their shorts up in a bunch! How does that old saw goes? "Everyone wants to go to heaven, but no one wants to die". Unfortunately, for soldiers, death is a very real professional work hazzard. It is my understanding that the Chaplain Corps started primarily as a way to calm the nerves of those facing the real prospect of an early death in battle. Thus help the Army instil discipline, morale, and untit cohesion in the face of whithering opposing fire. Does anyone remember the Chaplain's benediction of The Fighting Irish before marching to their slaughter at Gettysburg? Today as it was back then, the best way to achieve spiritual serenity in battle, is IS to make the deity as upclose and personal to the troops as possible. And that, by deffinition, requires the Chaplain to invoke the deity in the First Person Singular, preferably in the familiar Vocative Voice. Oh and LEX - Me thinks that in pick-pick-piking fights like this, the ACLU is employing a bit of Nietzschean Dialectic. You know: Thesis - Anthisesis - Synthesis. Thesis: ACLU demands, "No God in Chaplains" Anthisesis Reasoned Mind responds, "But Chaplains ARE Godly people"? ACLU Retorts: "But doing so would exclude someone in the herd; are you exclusionary and discriminatory" Reasoned Mind: "OK I'll show you how reasoned I am, that I will exclude God from Military Chaplains Corps". Synthesis: Godless Chaplain Corps. It forces the ignorant masses to take up sides on this specious issue. It divides and conquers while the ACLU advances its agenda.

My first ship, the chaplain was a member of a Baptist sects (forget which one - there are lots of them), and the Captain was a strong Catholic. Never any conflict, ever. Somebody once asked the chaplain how he dealt with being a Baptist serving a Catholic CO, and he replied that he wasn't there to be only a minister, to but administer the command's religious program. It's worth remembering that the slogan of the US Navy Chaplain's School is "Cooperation without compromise." I would dispute your identification of the "third voice" as the Ecclesiatical one. Or rather, I'd break it into two, one being the voice of the comman program. And the latter is the nondenominational one - there's nothing to prohibit a chaplian from performing services in his own faith, in fact he's expected to do so. But he also has to be able to provide nondenominational support to the command, and if he is unable to atually perform a specific desired liturgy he has to find a means of making an accomodation. Navy ships without Catholic priests often have lay eucharistic ministers, for example, for whom the chaplain provides needed training and support. I suppose there may be some occasions where it might not be clear which of the two "religious voices" the chaplain ought to use. Obviously, a unit prayer should be nondenominational. And in the Navy at least, chaplains are usually saddled with various non religious collateral duties such as MWR, and he has to be able to make it plain when he's wearing the chaplain hat and when he's in another capacity. And when wearing the chaplain hat he has to be clear if it's the command one or the one for his own faith.

My question is why is it assumed that mention by an officer or chaplain that it must be prosyletization---that's the problem right, that the chaplain sayin', 'In Jesus' name we pray,' is prosyletization? That's the crux in my mind, as a question of legality(the Team Building/Trust thing is something wholly seperate, but just as important). In 2005 we still fear that sectarianism is going to create a glass ceiling for people? Like Sanger and someone else said: a little maturity on all fronts would go a long way.

Heee! And an Untit Cohesion too!

Ry: If mere mention of Jesus or Allah or something is pressure to join why is it so? Beeecaaaaauuussssse, people in this country are becoming less and less willing to accept responsibility for themselves. They are also more and more constrained from being able to live their lives as they see fit, without fear of harassment. It's really not just religion, it's everywhere. It's considered pressure to join if it comes from someone in authority (at a higher level of responsibility or "control") because it is assumed that we peons are too shallow or too stupid to be able to decide for ourselves what we believe or want. Supposedly, we need the government or some crummy org like the ACLU to protect us from the evil people in charge of us, to shield us from unreasonable or undue influence. Of course, in an attempt to make one size fit all, there is no room for commonsense. Think of it as the religious equivalent to a "no soliciting" sign, which are posted most often by people who can't say no, and use the sign (they think) to avoid having to say no (or being made to buy something they don't want). Problem is, some of us don't mind saying no, and we want to decide for ourselves what we are interested in. More important, we don't need or want someone else acting as our shield unless we ask for it, especially when our views are not represented properly. Unfortunately, as you know well, there really are folks who use their positions of power or class to take advantage of subordinates and people who are lower on the economic food chain. And therein lies the problem. I may find the ACLU repulsive, but for every 50 or so bad things it seems the ACLU is doing, there always seems to be at least 1 thing that is appropriate and necessary for them to be involved in. I accept that the ACLU goes overboard--I hate its extremely lopsided bias, I hate its assault on religion (other than Islam), and I hate it's never ending assault on commonsense as a value. Sadly, I also accept that the ACLU is like a rabid Chihuahua guard dog--not directly powerful, but really, really noisy; dangerous if it can bite you; and infinitely annoying. I am convinced the ACLU does good by just existing because they have forced people to be more careful about overt violations of constitutional rights. Yes, I know they have gone to the dark side, but there is some good in them still, I can feel it. :-) Anyway, to answer this: If mere mention of Jesus or Allah or something is pressure to join why is it so? It might not be (most likely isn't) but if it's coming from a person in power, to people who have no choice but to be there, it also just might be, and THAT might be is the reason people get all riled about it, and why we have to tolerate the interference of organizations like the ACLU, which take up our defense whether we need it or not. Does that make sense? It's early here...I'm not even done coffee #1.

No straw man! The point is that there shouldn't have to be a written law about this. Laws must be enforced and punishment must be given if they are broken. If a commander feels the name Jesus should not be invoked in a public prayer, then he should talk to the chaplain beforehand. Simple. I really don't think it is that huge of a problem, that activist groups need to be pushing it.

Uh, just a Thought here: Chaplains who are Christians (and there are Wiccan members of the military) do pray in the name of the Savior. Those who choose not to, don't. And there are Jewish chaplains who pray in the manner appropriate for their belief. I do not find that offensive in the least but rather good that chaplains pray for us all. That is a Good Thing. A couple of time the Engineer has requested of the battalion chaplain to ask for certain things in his prayer which the battalion chaplain obliged him in. The brigade chaplain was supportive of anyone who wanted to get to know the Almighty. To that end he invited soldiers to attend all the services of the various faiths until they found one they liked and then he worked with them to make sure they got the instruction they needed. However, they offer an ecumenical experience unless they are conducting services for their own faiths. Just speaking from what I have observed over the years...

AW1 Time, Excepting my earlier comments about the differences between civilians and the military... Isn't your forbidding them from invoking Jesus' name excluding them? You can pray, only so long as they play by your rules? Isn't it their galley too? See what I mean by a no win situation? If you allow it you exclude one group, if you forbid it you exclude another.

Heh. I have no problem being rude to people who think they have a *right* to my time for their own purposes when in fact, they have no such right. Just ask SWWBO.

"It's considered pressure to join if it comes from someone in authority (at a higher level of responsibility or "control") because it is assumed that we peons are too shallow or too stupid to be able to decide for ourselves what we believe or want."---The Big S(and yes, it made sense even if it was done sans required coffee). Which is why I said it is a philosophical def'n problem. The rest of Sanger's comment entry is why I think Jay of Stop the ACLU is in the right---it's a big move that borders on sever UnConstitutionality---even if this thin skinned Catholic finds the religiosity of the petition leaves me non-plussed as it seems to push too hard in the opposite direction of religious neutrality garaunteed by the US Constitution. I know that what The Big S says is the reason it's happening(a 'freedom from religion' thing coupled with a growing lack of tolerance on all sides and a shrinking level of maturity), I just hoped that someone would have a different answer as to why a mention of religion is considered pressure since it always comes down to the presumption of guilt instead of innocence in the matter and a real drive to redefine religious neutrality to mean neutered religion in the public square. I'll attempt another analogy: if at a mandatory formation a high ranking speaker cites Nietzche is the speaker advocating that those in attendance be atheists and believers in Der Ubermench? (Note: I HATE nietzchean works, and would be offended based off of that. But a pressure to believe in Nietzchean philosophy and atheism? No. A warning not to go agro on the subject where the speaker can hear me maybe, but pressure? Ich kenne nicht.). The rules shouldn't change. And when did you ever contol a thread, Heffe? It's friday and there's nobody in the Chandelier, nobody in the Jungle Room, no chocolate all over the place, no loud buzz from the 'Rita-matic, and not one flounce? We be slackin' round here.