Separation: Chaplains in Government

Myths About the Separation of Church and State

• Church / State Separation • Church / State Myths • Ten Commandments • Sabbath Laws • Jehovah's Witnesses • Separation of Church & State

• Site Resources • Main Site Index • What is Atheism? • Religion & Theism • Skepticism & Logic • Arguments for / against Gods • Evolution vs. Creationism • Religious Timelines • Hate Mail • Glossary • Book Reviews

• Chat Room Join others in the Agnosticism/Atheism chat!

• Discussion Forum Do you have an opinion about this page? Make it known on the Discussion Forum!

Myth:
Chaplains in the military and Congress prove that there is no separation of church and state.

Response:
It is true that public money pays for chaplains in the Congress and in our military. However, does this demonstrate that the principle of church / state separation is invalid, or does it instead prove that this principle has not yet been achieved? Opponents to separation act as if the former implication is obviously correct, but they do not make a good case for it and normally fail to even attempt to show that the latter implication is false.

The rationale for these chaplains is not without merit. In both cases, we are dealing with people who have been called away from home by their government in order to render services to their nation. As a result, they would be away from their home churches and away from the religious community to which they are accustomed - a possible infringement on their right to free exercise of their religion. Doesn't it make sense, then, for the government to try and make up for that by providing some means of religious support while they are away?

This is one of those issues where balancing people's right to the free exercise of religion and the principle of separating church and state becomes very difficult. Because of this, there may not be any one, easy answer. Nevertheless, we do need to face these issues and accept that, whatever the conclusion, some will be dissatisfied.

How have Congressional Chaplains been a problem?
When most people think of government chaplains, they think of the congressional chaplains who offer prayer and spiritual guidance to members of state and federal legislative bodies. Do these positions cause any problems?

How have Military Chaplains been a problem?
The American military pays chaplains of various religions to provide spiritual and religious services for those serving their country. Although it makes sense to do this for people who have been taken away from home, there are still problems which result.

Baths for Baptisms: Bribing Soldiers
An Army chaplain in Iraq has used a supply of clean water to bribe soldiers into being baptized. Soldiers interested in a bath must attend an hour-and-a-half sermons and receive a baptism which involves an hour of quoting from the Bible. Is this moral? Is it constitutional? Does it reflect Christian charity and ethics?

Other Chaplains
The government also pays for chaplains in other areas, like prisons and for police departments. Although these positions have a much lower profile, they nonetheless manage to cause conflict and controversy.

What about the Framers' intentions?
Government-paid chaplains have existed since the very earliest days of this country - doesn't this mean that the Framers of the Constitution intended that document to be compatible with the existence of government-sponsored religious services?

Conclusion

The above discussions about Military, Congressional and other Chaplains should make it clear why government funded chaplains are wrong. First, their appointment and support easily leads to charges of religious discrimination and religious divisiveness. As soon as the government becomes involved with recognizing certain religions or religious beliefs in an "official" capacity, there will be demands that certain other religions or beliefs be "officially" excluded.

This, however, in unacceptable and inexcusable. The government has no place showing official or financial preference to any particular religious beliefs. Because it is not possible to show the same active preference for all beliefs, the only other option is to simply not get involved in the first place.

Second, the appointment of official government religious leaders can be used as a means of furthering politics rather than pastoral counseling. This is simply an example of the "golden rule" - whoever has the gold, makes the rules. When the government is paying the bills for religious leaders, then the government can and will decide what those religious leaders are allowed to do and to say.

This was demonstrated most obviously in the discussion about military chaplains - it is sadly ironic that while a good case for military chaplains exists, our experience with them makes it most evident why they should not exist. Nevertheless, the same dangers exist with chaplains in other areas of government as well.

These are, of course, the sorts of reasons why the separation of church and state exists in the first place - and these are the reasons which were first articulated in the statements by James Madison. Government should not interfere with religion or religious faith (i.e., by telling priests what they may and may not preach) and churches should not interfere with government (i.e., by creating a preference for certain religious views and restricting or discriminating against others).