Discussions about the separation of church and state often occur in the context of government institutions like schools, but there is another state institution which is coming under increasing fire: the military. More and more, Christian Nationalists are trying to "transform" the military from an instrument of national policy into an instrument of religious ideology and evangelization.

Perhaps a better label for this process would be "subvert" or "undermine" rather than the more neutral "transform." The actions taken by Christian Nationalists may be consistent with their overall agenda for America, but they are not consistent with a military that is able to property serve its function. The military exists for all citizens equally and to defend national interests; it's not a tool for just evangelical Christianity or to defend Christian interests.

Reviewing The Holy Vote: The Politics of Faith in America, by Ray Suarez, Alan Wolfe writes:

The military exists to protect Americans against foreign threats, Suarez argues, while religion, which speaks to matters beyond time and place, should not be identified with the foreign policy of any one country. Suarez cannot understand how so many American Christians, including President Bush, can find divine inspiration for American foreign policy.

For much the same reason, Suarez also wonders how the president can appear so unconcerned about the many deaths that have followed in the wake of his decision to invade Iraq. Ever since St. Augustine, Christians have pondered when war is justified and when it is not. Yet "in this reputedly most Christian of all Western nations, this central concern of the historic church was pushed to the margins of the national debate over the Iraq War."

Source: The Washington Post

Note that Suarez isn't taking an uncompromising stand against war or saying that war is incompatible with Christianity. His point is more subtle and at the same time more significant: ever since Christianity's earliest days, Christians have debated whether war is ever justified but many Christian leaders in America seem to have dismissed the debate. They express no public concern with whether the invasion of Iraq was justified morally and no concern with all the Iraqi lives lost.

Even if the final conclusion is that the war was justified, there should at least be a debate that includes the moral costs, but that hasn't happened. What's so "Christian" about these people, then?

Neither a theologian nor a philosopher, Suarez explores the conflict between military requirements and faith's demands through a concrete example: the all but explicit endorsement by leaders of the Air Force Academy of efforts to recruit cadets for Jesus through prayer, public witnessing and unofficial hazing. ... The military protects all of us, not just the Christians among us, he points out. And God dispenses his blessings on the righteous, not just those who happen to live in one country rather than another.

It therefore undermines security and cheapens religion when the academy commandant sends an e-mail to all the cadets encouraging them to "ask the Lord to give us the wisdom to discover the right" or when mandatory academy events open with prayers in Jesus's name. Because Suarez acts as more than a stenographer -- because he places the whole controversy in context -- Weinstein comes across as a true patriot while Klingenschmitt appears not as the defender of free speech he claims to be but as the sectarian he really is.

Some in Congress even want to insert a provision allowing chaplains to "speak in the name of Jesus" at nonreligious military meetings:

[I]n Congress ... hard-right Republicans have held up passage of the defense bill in an attempt to license zealot chaplains to violate policies of religious tolerance at secular ceremonies... [d]espite the firm opposition of the Pentagon and ecumenical chaplain groups...

We expect the Senate, mindful of the nation’s multidenominational legions fighting in Iraq and Afghanistan, to reject the fine-print travesty. At its heart is religious intolerance — not respect of chaplains’ consciences — and a naked attempt to elevate evangelical beliefs to primacy in the ranks. These very abuses caused a scandal at the Air Force Academy two years ago after cadets complained that ranking officers tolerated evangelical chaplains’ proselytizing and discriminating on campus.

Source: The New York Times

Klingenschmitt hasn't given up on his court case, though — he's going to keep fighting and arguing that he has a right to promote his religion while in uniform:

The military court martial jury agreed with the Navy's argument that Klingenschmitt disobeyed an order from a superior officer, telling him that he could only appear in uniform at media appearances if conducting a bona fide worship service. According to an Associated Press story, however, the lieutenant believes he has been wrongly convicted.

"I am going to appeal this all the way to the United States Supreme Court," Klingenschmitt contends. "I have not yet begun to fight. I will continue to pray in Jesus' name; I will continue to do so in uniform," he says.

Source: WDC Media

Klingenschmitt is not alone and this is not an isolated case. It's part of a larger, organized effort to turn the chaplain corps away from serving the general religious needs of all service members and into an arm of the Christian Right.

Several dozen chaplains have joined in a civilian lawsuit in which they claim the Navy only promotes Christian ministers who advocate non-sectarian speech, while it drums those with evangelical beliefs out of the Navy. Chaplain Klingenschmitt says any government official who requires non-sectarian prayers is forcing his government religion on Christian ministers like himself, chaplains who want to worship their creator and pray in Jesus' name, in an effort to "censor, exclude and punish" them for their actions.

What Klingenschmitt and the others don't seem to realize is that when they are acting as military chaplains, they aren't acting as private citizens anymore. Private citizens have constitutionally protected rights of free speech and free exercise of religion; government employees have their rights restricted when they are performing their duties because in that context they are the voice of the state.

So, yes, chaplains who are told not to say and do certain things are being censored — but it's a form of censorship which is necessary and which courts have repeatedly upheld. Telling chaplains that they must use general language is justified for the same reason that it's justified to prohibit police officers from handing out Jack Chick comics with traffic tickets. Chaplains serve all people in the military, not just the ones who already agree with them, and chaplains cannot "play favorites" or abuse their position of authority by promoting their religion over all the other religions followed by people around them.

I'm sure that Klingenschmitt is sincere in his religious beliefs, but he's also sincerely wrong in thinking that his has a right to be paid by the government to evangelize to others serving into the military.

 

Separation of Church & State:

• Separation of Church and State 101
• Secularism 101
• What is the Separation of Church and State?
• Religion's Place in the Public Square
• Myths About Church/State Separation
• Government Chaplains