Shabaz said the VA's programs do integrate religion and spirituality but they are legal because they are voluntary and serve valid secular purposes such as giving patients spirituality services.
"The choice to receive spiritual or pastoral care, the choice to complete a spiritual assessment, and the choice to participate in a religious or spiritually based treatment program always remain the private choice of the veteran," he wrote. "Accordingly, there is no evidence of governmental indoctrination of religion."
Source: North County Times
It's of course good that the spiritual assessment tests are voluntary, but direct coercion isn't always necessary for the government to be violating the Establishment Clause:
Annie Laurie Gaylor, co-president of the foundation, which is based in Madison, said it will appeal the case.
"We think we would have a strong appeal because coercion is not necessary to show a violation of the Establishment Clause and that is what Judge Shabaz rests his ruling on," she said.
Her foundation was contacted by a veteran who sought a referral for an eye doctor at an outpatient VA center and was informed that he first had to get a physical and spiritual assessment.
"When he objected, they dropped it," she said of the religious assessment. "That's an imposition. He's an outpatient."
Source: Beliefnet
Why was the government recommending a spiritual assessment test in the first place and all for a referral to an eye doctor? Why was a veteran at first told that he had to get such a test? The fact that he was able to say "no" doesn't change the fact that people in a position of authority acted like it was a requirement. Most people, and especially those in the military, will be inclined to do as they are told especially when it might mean the difference between suffering and getting needed medical treatment.
The Freedom From Religion Foundation gives more details on what these "spiritual assessment" tests are like:
"The integration of religion and spirituality into the medical services provided by the VA is intended to promote religion and belief, rather than to accommodate free exercise rights of veterans who are otherwise limited by their hospitalization from freely exercising religious choices," the Foundation's legal complaint notes.
A "spiritual/faith assessment" is made of each patient admitted into the VA medical system, and VA chaplains determine whether there is "spiritual injury or sickness." These assessments routinely record in painstaking detail patient belief in God or a higher power, prayer, churchgoing, etc.
For instance, the Sheridan WY VA Medical Center initial "spiritual assessment" asks how often they attend religious services, pray, read scriptural or spiritual literature and listen to such programs on radio or TV, how often they study the bible, and "experience the presence of the Divine." The assessment scores patients on "spiritual injury." The Big Spring VA Medical Center's assessment includes this leading question: "How often do you worry about your doubts or disbelief in God?"
The complaint observes that the VA now "provides pastoral services not as an accommodation to veteran's free exercise rights" but because it "deems pastoral services for all patients, including veterans receiving outpatient medical services, to be a necessary part of medical treatment." The VA encourages all patients "to tap into their alleged spiritual resources of faith," with VA chaplains involved as "part of the treatment team for all patients."
"The VA's holistic health care protocol is premised on the belief that good health care is incomplete without substantively addressing the spiritual dimension of each patient," the complaint notes, so faith and spirituality are integrated in treatment from beginning to end.
The underlying question is whether and why the government has the authority to make any sort of authoritative assessment of a person's spiritual needs, condition, situation, injury, etc. When the government tries, they will inevitably prefer some religion and religious beliefs over others and we can see that happening right here. Do you really think that a person who expresses strong doubts or disbelief in God will not be treated as suffering from "spiritual injury" by the military chaplains? Does this not clearly pave the way for treating atheists as inferior to theists?
Now, if a veteran requests spiritual or religious help in overcoming physical, emotional, and psychological injuries incurred during their service, then it's appropriate for the chaplains to provide it. That's a reasonable accommodation for religious beliefs but only because it's requested by someone who wants it. It's also reasonable for the VA to make it known that such services are available. No one can complain about being given a brochure or form explaining that religious and spiritual counseling is available on request.
The problem here is that the VA is pushing such counseling as a necessary aspect of treatment. It's wrong for the government to single out particular religious beliefs and doctrines (like the idea that some particular kind of god exists and that humans have some relationship with it) for integration into medical and health care. It's wrong for the government to assume the authority or competency to assess the spiritual state or condition of every veteran seeking assistance from the VA.
Who’s paying for all this?
Oh, I forgot…we are.
As a veteran, I can say I never minded these questions. Is this a battle worth fighting at this time? It’s just some seltzer in our pants.
John, this is not “just some seltzer in our pants.” This is the government getting involved in religion, which is unconstitutional. Even the fact that taxpayers are paying the salaries of “chaplains” is unconstitutional.
“To compel a man to furnish contributions of money for the propagation of opinions which he disbelieves and abhors is sinful and tyrannical.” – Thomas Jefferson
Every instance of unconditional “church/state” entanglement emboldens the “dominionists” to demand more. If the U.S. is to remain a secular nation, as it was founded, the Constitutional separation of church and state must prevail.
We are material beings who live in a material world. Our needs are material: food, clothing, shelter, medical care. The socalled ‘spiritual’ is but the intellectual powers of the brain which is likewise material only, and when used well and for constructive purposes, it is all the socalled ‘spiritual’ power we need. The VA is clearly not using its ‘spiritual’ powers very well.
Jim’s point (Comment No. 4 above) illustrates exactly why this program is probably legitimate. We have “God Isn’t” (Comment No. 3) quoting Thomas Jefferson thus: To compel a man to furnish contributions of money for the propagation of opinions which he disbelieves and abhors is sinful and tyrannical. I get the impression that for many subscribers to this newsletter, nothing more need be said. Except things aren’t that simple. In theory, you can be atheist and still believe that human beings have a spiritual dimension that transcends the ordinary understanding of the material world. I think Mr. Atheism himself would go that far. But in practice, I dare say, most atheists don’t believe that. They believe exactly what Jim believes–that the human being is nothing but matter in a motion, and that matter in motion is all there is. Well, the majority of people, reject and deplore that viewpoint. They tend to believe that people ought to be treated and respected as special spiritual beings, even if these same people are hardly in agreement on religious questions. To deny the majority a program which reflects such a sensibility is in effect to uphold an ideology, materialism, that many find repugnant. Under the terms of the very quote of Jefferson (who was neither a Christian, nor an atheist, but a deist) cited above, the people should not have to have their own dollars used to support an ideology the majority of whom find repugnant. It’s one thing to keep the government aloof from sectarian concerns. That it should do. But that does not mean it must disenfranchise spiritual concerns.
Yes, we know that most people are bigoted against atheists.
Please define “spiritual beings” and what it means to be “treated and respected as special spiritual beings” such that no particular religions, religious beliefs, or religious traditions are privileged.
Who said anything about denying people such a program? The problem is with the government trying to promote it to everyone, as opposed to simply making it available to whomever asks. Do you recognize a difference between the two?
Jefferson’s quote says nothing about the “majority.” You are trying to twist his words to permit a majority to force minorities to pay money to support religious programs they dislike, but prevent minorities from doing the same. This is a form of tyranny which you ensorse.
Demonstrate how you would achieve the latter without also doing the former.
Key word left out distorts reality:
The Freedom From Religion Foundation asserts:
“Do you really think that a person who expresses strong doubts or disbelief in God will not be treated as suffering from “spiritual injury” by the military chaplains? Does this not clearly pave the way for treating atheists as inferior to theists?”
They cleverly left out a key word: “worry,” which changes the significance entirely – “The Big Spring VA Medical Center’s assessment includes this leading question: ‘How often do you worry about your doubts or disbelief in God?’”
As a professional chaplain who does spiritual assessments, I have high respect for all persons and their perspective on spirituality, and I do not equate spirituality with religion. That includes respect for atheists and agnostics. The key word here is “worry.” If someone (atheist or theist) “worries” about something, it indicates an unresolved issue, an injury that is not completely healed. That deserves attention. So an atheist might be offered the opportunity to resolve their worry, even if it would resolve in more solid unbelief. I would respect that.
The disbelief is not the injury, the worry is the injury. In my work listening to the stories of many atheists over 30+ years, nearly every one reports a specific injury caused by an extremely disturbing (often abusive) encounter with someone with religious authority, or another disillusionment experience in which religion played a part. If unresolved, this often results in chronic worry, which saps energy needed for healing.
My training puts the patient’s well-being at the top of my priority list; I am not there to make someone else’s view of spirituality more like mine. I’m there to help the patient remove obstacles to their well-being.
1. The full quote is right there in the text on their page. Accusing them of leaving something out which they in fact included is to make a false accusation. You lied.
2. If the key word were only “worry,” then it wouldn’t just be asked of disbelievers — it would be asked of both believers and disbelievers. By focusing only on atheists, they are being singled out.
3. The context of “worry” is noticeably absent. What if the “worry” involves how others will react to atheism, how the atheist will be perceived, etc. This means atheists are being singled out precisely because they are already discriminated against.