Lesson Plan
Supplement
Accommodation of
Religious Practices – Nonreligious Service Members
Table of Contents
Administrative Data
The Chaplain and Nonreligious Service Members
Nonreligious Perspective
Serving Nonreligious Service Members
Nonreligious Organizations
Insensitive Practices
Administrative Data
Audience: Chaplains
Purpose: To increase the ability of chaplains to provide for the free exercise of nonreligious service members and to more effectively advise the chain of command on matters of religious practice within the command.
Method: Provide information, resources, and anecdotes relating to the community, practices, and perspectives of nonreligious service members.
Assumptions: Chaplains are instructed in other areas on the policies and regulations that require chaplains to support all service members.
Reference: Jason Torpy, Military Association of Atheists and Freethinkers, www.maaf.info, 2006
Version: 20060524
The Chaplain and
Nonreligious Service Members
The chaplain must support all service members. Although traditional language focuses on “religious freedom,” it is important that chaplains support nonreligious soldiers as well. Just as chaplains take action to understand faith traditions different than their own; they must take action to understand nonreligious belief systems. Just as chaplains throughout history have had difficulty accepting Catholics, then Jews, then Muslims, and other minority belief systems, we all must now take action to recognize and account for nonreligious belief systems. We must do this for the same reason we accepted others – in order to support the Army of One concept and, in a broader sense, stay true to our oath to Constitution, which guarantees the same rights to all Americans, regardless of race, religion, or creed. Any division within the team weakens the team.
As advisors to the command, chaplains serve as the experts in religious accommodation. As commanders rotate in and out of their command positions, they may not have been in a situation that required them to make the difficult mental adjustment to accept other belief systems. It is incumbent upon the chaplains to pass these lessons on to the command for the benefit of all service members.
The Nonreligious
Perspective
Whether the answers come from a religious perspective or not, people seek to answer similar questions. However, the source and nature of the conclusions reached are different. Traditionally, the question of religion focuses on scriptural bases, methods of worship, and church governance in addition to ethics and how to live. The fundamental difference is that a religious perspective has dimensions involving punishment and rewards from church hierarchy, an active deity, and/or the afterlife. Nonreligious service members do not seek to reject these influences; they merely see the supernatural as nonexistent.
It is important to understand that this isn’t an effort to reject religion; it is a belief in itself. In addition, it is not uncommon that the nonreligious were presented with a religion. Many have explored and rejected a variety of religions while developing their own beliefs.
Although some think that this lack of belief is due to anger or ignorance, it is important to respect the beliefs of nonreligious soldiers without question, just as you respect the beliefs of Jews, Muslims, and others. Every person that believes in a certain god disbelieve in many others. Nonreligious service members have simply rejected one more god than monotheists.
There is a myth that ethics can not arise from the nonreligious perspective. This is an absolute falsehood. Nonreligious people often seek the same things as their religious counterparts: to live a good life and impact others positively. They might simply have other motivations, reasons, and methods to reach these goals. Without the belief in some higher power and the supporting hierarchy of clergy, nonreligious service members have the challenging opportunity to develop their own way of life. In addition, there is no tradition or authority to provide dogma and terms to which nonreligious service members can default. Conversely, nonreligious service members draw from the entire history of philosophy and religion. The entire history of human thought is viewed with equal skepticism[1] and rules of logic. It is logic and skeptical inquiry that direct the development of a nonreligious individual’s logic. Lessons from history, figures of authority, and intuition are accepted, but they are all subject to an equal level of skepticism. Whether or not individual chaplains internalize the validity of the nonreligious viewpoint, chaplains can only be effective if they offer all service members, religious and nonreligious, the same unconditional support.
Serving Nonreligious
Service Members
Nonreligious service members need the same assistance with respect to morale, family, community, stress, all soldiers need. However, faith and prayer are not useful tools for helping these service members. It is important to understand that prayer is not significant to nonreligious service members, and offering prayer might be seen as disrespectful, not helpful. Referencing faith is likely to alienate the chaplain from the service member.
Chaplains are instructed in a wide variety of counseling techniques. Divinity school often involves non-scriptural philosophy from which the chaplain can draw lessons. Chaplains school offers counseling training. Most chaplains are likely to have training in both philosophy and counseling in addition to their religious training. Nonreligious service members will react positively if the chaplain has the ability to explain why a certain behavior is beneficial without resorting to religious basis. Even if the conclusion is the same, the justification must be other than personal revelation, personal religious tradition, or scripture. While these sources are not invalid, presenting them, especially at first, sends a message that the chaplain is unable to counsel from a secular perspective. As chaplains steward religious freedom and unit morale, they can and must make the adjustment to reach out to all service members – including the nonreligious.
Nonreligious
Organizations[2]
Chaplains can find philosophical insight and counseling support from nonreligious organizations. These organizations have different perspectives on the best philosophy. None claim divine backing. The directors of each organization present their philosophy as the best rationally-based way of life available given a naturalistic world view. Whether or not individuals associate themselves with an organization, the focus is generally on personal development rather than organizational success. The websites of these organizations have philosophical insights, representatives, activities, and a community.
Nonreligious service members often feel that they have no support and that they are different from others. Religious service members may feel justified in discriminating against their teammates if they feel their teammates have no support. Directing them to these organizations can not only provide service members social support, but can also provide them with lessons and direction in their personal development.
Center for Inquiry and Council for Secular Humanism – centerforinquiry.net
American Humanist Association and International Humanist and Ethical Union – americanhumanist.org
American Ethical
Positive Atheist – positiveatheism.org
Military Association of Atheists and Freethinkers – maaf.info
Insensitive Practices
There are many practices that may be authorized, but that show a lack of respect for nonreligious service members. Chaplains, if not inclined to change policy, should understand and advertise the damaging effects these practices can have on the military team. While chaplains may have been a party to many of these practices in the past and had no objection, the lack of objection was likely a result of fear of retribution rather than a true lack of objection. Some are presented as personal stories, while others are presented as a more general case.
Each insensitive practice is matched with a more accommodating approach. These more accommodating approaches are presented as an effort to appeal to the interests of all involved rather than resorting to litigation or command policy restrictions.
· “There are no atheists at the end of static lines”
Army Parachutist
training, otherwise known as “
On the eve of the first jump, the company commander, in the presence of the command chaplain, addressed the trainees. Included in his speech was the statement, “there are no atheists at the end of static lines.” As previously stated, this is an untrue and discriminatory statement that offended at least one atheist in the audience. In order to make his objections known and possibly change opinions, the atheist would have had to approach the commander and make it known that there are atheists at the end of static lines and in his audience.
This would have made the trainee subject to additional scrutiny, if not outright hazing. This particular commander may or may not have reacted favorably, but considering the statements made, the command created the perception of bias. The chaplain, by his presence and the actions of his command, also appeared biased.
To avoid this situation, chaplains should avoid discriminatory statements. In addition, chaplains should be sure to advise their commanders in advance to prevent these situations and take action to advise their commanders if commanders make statements that divide their command. This logic applies to all variations, including foxholes, cockpits, boats, or whatever one might come up with.
· Chaplain’s Time at West Point Cadet Basic Training
There is a
commonly-known story where new entrants are given the option to go to church or
clean the barracks on Sunday morning. At
It is clear in this situation, with the several religious options and the optional prayer service that at least some care was given to avoid a discriminatory environment. In addition, the cookies and drinks were donated by religious groups, and so this avoided and financial concern with the source of the events. An additional consideration was that at least one event was held in a neutral location rather than the worship location. Senior cadets were also admonished not to bother freshmen during this time for any reason. The mission-oriented justification for the event was that it allowed for a release from the stress of training.
Concerns did arise with the cadet in question. In an extremely stressful environment where every aspect of life was controlled, the cadet found himself in a formation with others. The command ordered all Protestants into the formation for chaplain’s time, then all Catholics, then all Jews, then all Mormons, and everyone else, left to stand in formation as everyone else marched to enjoy the benefits allowed to their particular faith group, went back to no benefits in the barracks.
In this case, there are accommodations made to allow for several groups while avoiding any active discrimination against cadets of minority faith groups. However, there still existed a strong incentive, in the form of recreation and food, to participate in the events. The command, if it did believe in the mission-oriented purpose of providing a release to freshmen, could have provided a non-sectarian event for all cadets. The event as it happened, caused the public segmentation of certain religious groups and those not of those preferred religious groups, and the provision of special treatment to those religious groups. While the events were not overtly exclusive, they were exclusive in spirit. Freshmen not of those religious groups would have been forced to accept gifts in opposition to their conscience.
Chaplains should ensure that general morale-building events are tied to no specific sectarian organization and are open to all service members. This will avoid any public identification of religious preference as well as any resulting active or passive discrimination.
· Basic Training Field Trip
At Fort Leonard
Wood,
The question in this situation involves the command structure, authorizations, funding, and lesson plans. This situation, involving an overt, mandatory evangelical event combined with an off-post trip for basic trainees, is an example of when many checks-and-balances fail to stop religious favoritism from occurring. The trainee, while surrounded by a religion he did not enlist to follow, had no recourse to question drill sergeants who clearly must have had the support of many other administration officials to make this event happen.
· USAREUR Chaplain messages
The USAREUR Chaplains Corps began showing chaplains delivering a 2-minute message. In most cases, these messages stated the chaplains view of the benefits of family, community, honor, service, and other essentially Army values. In other cases, the message promoted faith and/or church attendance in particular. It is in these cases where chaplains promote religion and exclude nonreligious soldiers. Placing religion above nonreligious values degrades nonreligious soldiers and alienates soldiers from the chaplain’s corps.
Chaplains should ensure their messages promote Army values, teamwork, family, and personal development. There will invariably be cases where a chaplain feels that faith is a fundamental requirement of personal, family, and team growth. The chaplain must be careful to use his or her position to deliver the message of the Army while delivering his or her own personal feelings only in personal situations.
· Prayer at meetings, invocations, and benedictions
This issue is commonly brought up as a problem. Military meetings are not religious in nature. Prayer is extraneous to the purpose of any meeting. In addition, the prayer involved is left to the choice of the commander. This creates an opportunity to use the power of command for the purpose of proselytism. This is an abuse of power. Members of the command serve the nation, not a specific religion. Whether or not they are religious, they are forced to perform duties outside the scope of their military duties.
The “vanilla prayer” is often provided as the answer to this problem. Chaplains have recently presented a significant amount of opposition to this practice because it regulates their own religious expression. Nonreligious service members have always objected to the practice for the reasons listed above. Nonreligious service members are sometimes allowed to opt out of the religious portion of ceremonies. This is a very public exclusion and creates more problems than it solves.
The only solution is to maintain a military purpose to military meetings and ceremonies. Prayers may still be conducted individually and during religious services.
· Religious flag folding ceremonies
There is a
religious flag folding ceremony often associated with an
· Identification Tag Religious Preference
ID tags on line 5 require service members to state their religious preference. The intention is to ensure proper burial rites. However, the effect is to put service members in a position to state their religious preferences publicly very early in their career. Some religious service members also have to change this entry when going to certain oversees assignments due to the danger of retribution after capture. Making this entry optional or eliminating it altogether would eliminate the problem. Religious demographics could still be collected without public display.
· Proselytism of the “unchurched”
Some organizations allow for proselytism of the “unchurched.” Proselytism is the subject of increasing debate, but in this case, the question is only of those who have no chosen belief. Nonreligious service members are not confused about their beliefs. They have chosen and chaplains must respect that choice, just as they respect those who chose other traditional religions. This allowance for proselytism of the “unchurched” is an inappropriate loophole common to chaplain policy and ecclesiastical endorsing agencies. Chaplains must, by their actions and future policy updates, ensure that all service members are protected from evangelism.
[1] Skepticism is sometimes thought to be a negative attitude or an unfair weighting towards the rejection of an idea. This is inaccurate. Skepticism is better described as the fair review of ideas without any unfair preference for traditional or favorable conclusions.
[2] Organizations listed together have connected leadership.
[3] Air Force Link, 18 August 05 http://www.af.mil/news/story.asp?storyID=123011364