The past couple of years have not been kind to military chaplains and there’s no indication the problems are going away soon.
There was the fiasco surrounding Capt. James Yee, a Muslim Army chaplain stationed at Guantanamo Bay; a report that some Defense Department chaplain services have been directing military personnel to a Web site that promotes material from radical Muslim jihadists, including advisers to Osama bin Laden; and a controversy surrounding a Southern Baptist military chaplain serving in Iraq who was using a limited supply of clean water to coerce conversions. Perhaps the worst of the reports came two years ago when we learned that the Navy had punished dozens of military for offenses ranging from sexual abuse to fraud. The Navy found that the misconduct rate among these ministers is higher than it is for any other group of military officers.
Last week, there another chaplain-related controversy came to light.
The Navy is investigating a chaplain’s allegations he was punished for theological disagreements with superior officers, including his objections to requiring sailors to participate in services at a church that accepts homosexuality.
Lt. Gordon Klingenschmitt says he was transferred ashore and given a negative job recommendation because of the religious disagreements.
Other actions cited in Klingenschmitt’s personnel records include his advocacy for a Jewish sailor who wanted kosher meals and his preaching of sermons that some sailors viewed as proselytizing and intolerant.
“I’m shocked that senior chaplains would force their faith on sailors and on me,” said Klingenschmitt, who was chaplain on the cruiser USS Anzio, based in Norfolk, Va.
Here’s a crazy thought: why don’t we take this opportunity to re-evaluate the purpose of military chaplains?
I can appreciate that the military relies on chaplains to offer spiritual and moral counseling to men and women in uniform, but that’s easier said than done. Troops come from diverse religious backgrounds and there’s no such thing as a one-size-fits-all minister. If you’re on a ship or are stationed at a base, there’s no guarantee that the nearest chaplain shares your religious tradition.
It may sound radical to question the use of military chaplains, but there is some historical precedent here. After all, it was James Madison — you remember him, he wrote the Constitution — who strongly opposed the appointment of any chaplains to military service almost 200 years ago.
Writing in his “Detached Memoranda,” Madison noted the motive behind providing troops with a chaplain is “laudable,” but concluded that it was better to “disarm…the precedent of chaplainships for the army and navy, than erect them into a political authority in matters of religion.”
In light of all this, is it completely unreasonable to ask that the chaplaincy program at least be subject to a thorough review? Bush recently said, “I fully understand that sometimes it’s hard to eliminate a program that sounds good, but by getting people to focus on results — I was saying to members of Congress, show us the results as to whether or not this program is working.”
I couldn’t agree more.