By General Counsel K. Hollyn Hollman
Despite suggestions from some members of Congress of religious freedom strains in the military, a recent congressional hearing failed to reveal significant problems. Instead, reports from the chiefs of chaplains and other witnesses provided an affirmation of how properly trained military chaplains reflect the best of our country’s religious freedom tradition and serve that interest in a uniquely challenging environment. The hearings also demonstrated a nagging political instinct by some to misconstrue the nature of religious freedom and exaggerate conflict.
The hearing, held by the Armed Service Committee of the House of Representatives, Subcommittee on Military Personnel, was organized “to examine religious accommodations in the armed services” and follows debate about whether current law and policy are sufficient. Much of the debate has focused on the rights of chaplains from religious traditions that oppose allowing gays to serve openly in the military.
Chaplains occupy a special place in the military, serving as representatives of particular religious traditions who are required to provide for the religious needs of all service members. Subcommittee Chairman Joe Wilson, R-S.C., noted the longstanding tradition of supporting religious freedom in the military and the vital role of chaplains. Rep. Susan Davis, D-Calif., noted the importance of chaplains supporting all those in uniform and their families regardless of their specific beliefs. Rep. Brad Wenstrup, R-Ohio, recalled his personal experience in Iraq that his chaplain “was able to provide compassion and comfort for anyone who was in need, even if they were non-believers of any type.”
The Rev. James B. Magness, a former Navy command chaplain and current Bishop for the Armed Forces and Federal Ministries for the Episcopal Church, where he works with all Episcopal chaplains in the Armed Forces, explained the role of professional chaplains. He noted that in his own tradition, baptismal vows include a commitment to respect the dignity of every human being, which he said parallels the role of military chaplains. “This is a matter of education and training,” Magness said. “We train chaplains … to be able to understand, and learn, and read situations, to know the distinctions between a religious service and a command function; and to know that in certain settings, certain things are appropriate, and [in] other settings, they’re not.”
Witnesses acknowledged that religious liberty could be harmed by improper censorship or religious coercion in command settings but disclaimed a problem with either. While witnesses gave clear testimony demonstrating the high regard for religious liberty and professionalism required for effective chaplaincy, some members of Congress seemed intent on undercutting them. Some lawmakers alleged an increase in problems focusing on random acts of noncompliance — which all of the witnesses rejected as outside the bounds of appropriate protocol, and some of which had already been resolved. Other members of Congress focused on the rights of chaplains to pray according to their beliefs as a major concern.
As the witnesses’ testimony uniformly reflected, though, most chaplains do not view their military service through this lens, recognizing that they function differently than do their civilian counterparts and sometimes must put the spiritual needs of service members — including those of different or no faiths — ahead of their own. Magness said that while no policy should prohibit chaplains from praying in any particular way, chaplains have a duty to remain “mindful that they have an effect, as a command leader, upon the dignity of everyone who’s there with them.”
Magness also shared a “meaningful lesson” from his first active duty assignment as a chaplain. In a retirement ceremony for a Navy captain, Magness closed a prayer with the words, “Through Jesus Christ our Lord.” Afterward, the retiring officer approached Magness to thank him for participating but also to respectfully inform Magness that the officer and his family were practicing Jews. “It didn’t take me long to realize that I had just excluded and offended the honoree and all the members of his family by offering an inappropriate prayer. I learned that when in uniform, my responsibility is to care for all of those who are present, not just those of my own faith tradition, for all people, Christian, Jew, Muslim, non-theist, straight, gay or lesbian, all people.”
Such testimony reflects the delicate balance that military chaplains face: while they serve as endorsed representatives of a particular faith tradition, they also have spiritual responsibilities that extend far beyond a single congregation or creed. Fortunately, there is a long and strong history of protecting religious freedom in the military, and specifically of providing chaplains as a means to taking care of the spiritual needs of those who serve. The military deserves our continuing support for those efforts and our vigilance against those who would undermine it.
From the February 2014 Report from the Capital. Click here for the next article.
