Baths for Baptisms: Bribing Soldiers in the Desert

There are serious legal problems involved when a military chaplain forces soldiers to listen to sermons and receive baptisms if they want to take a simple bath.

For one thing, if the water was provided by the military, and I can't imagine how Llano would have managed to get it out there on his own, then it effectively belongs to the military. That means that one member of the military is providing other members of the military with military provisions upon the condition of accepting his religion and participating in his religious ceremonies.

That is both horribly unethical and obviously a violation of the separation of church and state. Imagine a Muslim supply officer not allowing soldiers to receive spare ammunition unless they kneel down and pray while facing Mecca. Imagine a Jewish cook refusing to feed Marines unless they prove that they are circumcised - and recieve a circumcision if they haven't already.

Those situations are perhaps more obviously wrong because of the critical need for food and ammunition; water for bathing obviously isn't deemed as critical by the military so it might not seem quite as wrong at first. Nevertheless, it surely is also wrong when it comes to water simply because that water isn't private property - it isn't like a solider selling spare cigarettes to other soldiers. The government cannot allow one of its representatives condition receipt of government property upon profession of religious dogma and participation in religious ceremonies.

Another legal issue involves the fact that Army chaplain Josh Llano doesn't appear to be doing his job. He is there to provide spiritual and religious services for the soldiers in the area. Although there are arguments against the existence of military chaplains generally, the counter-arguments presume a more limited role like that just described. Essentially, chaplains are only there to aid soldiers because the government forces the soldiers to be there - to not provide for their religious needs would effectively violate the separation of church and state.

Such do not presume, however, that the military is paying the chaplains so that they can actively and aggressively proselytize. Imagine if that were to become common: we'd have Catholic, Protestant, Muslim, Jewish, and Wiccan chaplains all competing with each other over the souls and allegiance of American soldiers and sailors. Even those chaplains not normally inclined to make new converts would be under pressure to ensure that they wouldn't lose anyone to the underhanded evangelization efforts of the others.

Then other religions would exert even more pressure upon the government to pay for their own chaplains - again, either because they see good prospects with a captive military audience, because they don't want to lose members to the efforts of others, or a combination of both. The government, then, would be funding and even encouraging increased tension among religious groups and taxpayers would be footing the bill.