Secular Coalition for America responds to Rep. Jack Kingston's claim that military chaplains represent their own denominations

October 2, 2006

Dear Mr. Kingston:

Your blog entry of Wednesday, September 27, 2006, references the case of Katcoff v. Marsh as concluding that military chaplains represent their own denominations rather than our diverse military population. You further expressed to the Macon Telegraph that such chaplains are independent contractors who do not represent the military.

In fact, military chaplains are commissioned officers. Katcoff v. Marsh (755 F2nd 223, 1985) did not discuss the issue at hand, but rather considered whether it was constitutional to use tax dollars to pay for military chaplains. The case focused entirely on the need to accommodate the free exercise of religion for the military personnel, not whether we should pay to subsidize a chaplain's denomination. The Court held that "Promotion of a chaplain within the military ranks is based solely on his military performance and not on his effectiveness as a cleric... The primary function of the military chaplain is to engage in activities designed to meet the religious needs of a pluralistic military community." Further, in noting that the Army chaplains were there for military personnel "who wish to use them," they also noted that chaplains are not authorized "to proselytize soldiers or their families."

I can only surmise that your comment about independent contractor chaplains referred to a comment in the lower court case about the use of "civilian clergy" when need arises. According to a former military chaplain, such auxiliary assistance is used to supplement the commissioned military chaplains, not in place of them. Such contracted services may be supplied when, for example, insufficient Catholic priests are available to serve specific ritual needs of Catholic soldiers. These contractors are never, when functioning officially, accountable only to their denomination -- they are bound by their contract to perform specific functions for the military.

According to Katcoff, military chaplains "are appointed as commissioned officers with rank and uniform but without command. Before an applicant may be appointed to the position of chaplain, he must receive endorsement from an ecclesiastical endorsing agency recognized by the Armed Forces Chaplains Board. [T]he applicant must also meet minimum educational requirements established by the Department of Defense, which are more stringent than those of some religious denominations." Once such chaplain is appointed, he/she is subject to the same discipline and training as that given to other officers and soldiers [except that he/she is not required to bear arms]. Contract clergy and civilian volunteers do not have to meet these standards.

If some of our military chaplains do not understand that they are there to serve the soldiers, not to spread their religion to all soldiers, this raises substantial constitutional questions regarding government funding of these men and women. If the chaplain actively promotes his/her religion to soldiers of other faiths, or the chaplain sees his/her position as government paid evangelistic work, this would not meet the requirements of the Establishment Clause. While Katcoff held that chaplains who do not proselytize are a constitutional accommodation for soldiers, the same could not be said of chaplains who would use the military (government endorsement) to convert members of our armed forces to their specific religion.

For many years, numerous military chaplains have understood the distinction, and have been proud to counsel and serve a diverse population, without forcing their own religion on others or imposing it into required activities. It is disheartening to see a small group of chaplains placing the entire military chaplain program at risk by claiming that their personal religious expression takes precedence over the recognized purpose of the job -- serving soldiers and other military personnel.

A cleric whose faith tradition requires that he not serve in a religiously diverse setting should not apply for a job as a military chaplain. This is no more an imposition on his/her free exercise of religion than someone whose religion requires not working on a Sunday choosing not to apply for a job which specifically requires Sunday work. The Armed Forces Chaplains Board should not be endorsing chaplains who feel they must proselytize soldiers. If chaplains are being endorsed because they have assured the board that they would respect the parameters of the job, but then put their desire to evangelize over serving commanders and their troops, such chaplains should be released from duty. These clergy members have a right to freely exercise their religion, not a right to abuse the privilege of a governmental position by using it as a platform to impose their religious beliefs on others.

Sincerely,
Lori Lipman Brown
Director, Secular Coalition for America