United States military chaplains

Jewish Worship Pennant, flying over the National Ensign (American flag) on a U.S. Navy ship.[18]

Two Harvard law students brought a suit in 1979 arguing that military chaplains should be replaced with non-combat volunteers or contractors. In Katcoff v. Marsh (1985),[19] the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit determined that the plaintiffs lacked standing to bring the suit and upheld the right of the military to employ chaplains. According to one analysis of the case, the court analysis described the First Amendment's free exercise clause and establishment clause as separate issues. It noted that only the wealthiest religious sects could provide chaplains for their adherents, effectively denying to other military personnel the "free exercise" of their religion.[20] The court also established guidelines for the military's chaplaincy programs, emphasizing the constitutional boundaries governing the program's administration and operations, including accommodating the rights and beliefs of each service member, and the avoidance of evangelizing and involuntary participation in religious observances.[21] A contrary view holds that the military chaplaincy violates two requirements of the establishment clause, neutrality and non-entanglement, by promoting ecumenism, conflating military and religious functions, and controlling expenditures.[22] It cited the difficulties faced by the Wisconsin Evangelical Lutheran Synod since World War II in attempting to service its adherents in the military outside of the chaplaincy program rather than submit to military authority.[23]

A September 14, 2006, court-martial resulted in a reprimand and fine for U.S. Navy Chaplain Lieutenant Gordon Klingenschmitt, a Protestant, who participated in uniform at a March 2006 protest in front of the White House, though he had been given a direct order not to wear his uniform. The protest was in support of his and other chaplains' complaint that the military restricted the free exercise of their religion by allowing only non-sectarian prayers at public ceremonies.[24]

In August 2002, the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia granted class action status to a lawsuit on the part of 17 evangelical Protestant chaplains who challenged the Navy's chaplain-selection criteria.[25] They argued that the Navy adhered to a promotion formula that underrepresented "non-liturgical" Protestant chaplains by allotting positions in three equal parts—liturgical Protestant denominations such as Methodists, Lutherans, Episcopalians, and Presbyterians; Catholics; and non-liturgical Protestant denominations such as Baptists, evangelicals, Bible churches, Pentecostals, charismatics, and other faiths—although non-liturgical Protestants constitute far more than one-third of the Navy's service members.[26]

In April 2007, the court held that the Navy had abandoned the thirds policy and that its current criteria were constitutional because the Navy has broad discretion to determine how to accommodate the religious needs of its service members. This decision was affirmed in 2008 by the United States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit.

Numerous complaints have been made against chaplains for mandatory prayers, coercion, and using government money to promote Evangelical Christianity.[27][28][29][30][31] Atheists, whose religious position would not be represented by references to a generic God or in the "spiritual fitness" initiatives of the Army, have created groups to ensure the separation of church and state in the military.[27][29] Groups representing atheists have advocated the appointment of a non-believer to the chaplaincy.[32]

During the 1992 presidential campaign, the possibility of allowing gays and lesbians to serve openly in the U.S. military became a political issue. During the summer, Captain Larry H. Ellis, a Navy chaplain, sent senior military officers and senior chaplains his analysis that said: "In the unique, intensely close environment of the military, homosexual conduct can threaten the lives, including the physical (e.g. AIDS) and psychological well-being of others". He called the presence of homosexuals in the military a "physical and psychological" threat. Advocates of the policy objected that the Department of Defense might exploit Ellis' role as a chaplain in opposing the policy: "It's as if the religious attribution somehow gives their argument more credibility."[33]

Chaplain groups and religious organizations took various positions on "Don't ask, don't tell" (DADT). Some felt that the policy needed to be withdrawn to make the military more inclusive. The Southern Baptist Convention battled the repeal of DADT, warning that their endorsements for chaplains might be withdrawn if the repeal took place.[34][35] They took the position that allowing gay men and women to serve in the military without restriction would have a negative impact on the ability of chaplains who think homosexuality is a sin to speak freely regarding their religious beliefs. The Roman Catholic Church called for the retention of the policy, but had no plans to withdraw its priests from serving as military chaplains.[36] Sixty-five retired chaplains signed a letter opposing repeal, stating that repeal would make it impossible for chaplains whose faith teaches that same-sex behavior is immoral to minister to military servicemembers.[37] Other religious organizations and agencies called the repeal of the policy a "non-event" or "non-issue" for chaplains, claiming that chaplains have always supported military service personnel, whether or not they agree with all their actions or beliefs.[38][39][40]

In May 2011, revelations that an April Navy memo relating to its DADT training guidelines contemplated allowing same-sex weddings in base chapels and allowing chaplains to officiate if they so chose resulted in a letter of protest from 63 Republican congressman, citing the Defense of Marriage Act (DOMA) as controlling the use of federal property.[41] A Pentagon spokesperson replied that DOMA "does not limit the type of religious ceremonies a chaplain may perform in a chapel on a military installation", and a Navy spokesperson said that "A chaplain can conduct a same-sex ceremony if it is in the tenets of his faith".[42] A few days later the Navy rescinded its earlier instructions "pending additional legal and policy review and interdepartmental coordination."[43]

On September 30, 2011, Under Secretary of Defense Clifford Stanley announced the DOD's policy that military chaplains are allowed to perform same-sex marriages "on or off a military installation" where local law permits them. His memo noted that "a chaplain is not required to participate in or officiate a private ceremony if doing so would be in variance with the tenets of his or her religion" and "a military chaplain's participation in a private ceremony does not constitute an endorsement of the ceremony by DoD".[44] Some religious groups announced that their chaplains would not participate in such weddings, including an organization of evangelical Protestants, the Chaplain Alliance for Religious Liberty[45] and Roman Catholics led by Archbishop Timothy Broglio of the Archdiocese for the Military Services, USA.[46]

A January 5, 1991, letter to the Abilene Reporter-News from Lieutenant Colonel Garland Robertson, a Southern Baptist U.S. Air Force chaplain who had served as a reconnaissance pilot during the Vietnam War, questioned the use of U.S. military force against Iraq. He wrote that "The need to use military force in this circumstance ... is an open issue." When reprimanded, he wrote a lengthy rebuttal that he shared with the press. Air Force officials noted that he identified himself by rank to the newspaper, when he could have written as a private citizen. Robertson's orders to relocate to Germany were canceled. He submitted to three psychological examinations, and was relieved of his pastoral duties. He was honorably discharged without benefits in September 1993 based on a record of "poor leadership". He told the New York Times: "If you're consistent with the teachings of your church, there will always be tensions between being a minister and being an officer".[47] He initiated a lawsuit and lost in both the District Court and the Tenth Circuit Court of Appeals, which found his free speech rights had not been violated, noted that "a chaplain is a member of both military and religious denomination institutions", and reaffirmed the lower court's finding "that the conflict between the Air Force and [Robertson] as an Air Force chaplain does not establish a constitutional violation of the religion clauses."[48]