Chaplains stripped of crosses
Offline I read this article today and the comments that followed. One of the comments mentioned military chaplains wearing symbols of their own faith and yet they minister to all military personnel of all faiths. I would love to hear some thoughts on this....should the military chaplains be forced to wear no symbols of their personal faith in order to project an image of not favoring on religion over another? Does this infringe on their first amendment rights? Is it even that big of a deal? Here is the full article:
Wednesday December 5, 2007
Wash. Chaplain Badges Lose Crosses
Associated Press - December 5, 2007
SPOKANE, Wash. - The city's Police Department will remove crosses from its chaplain badges to settle a lawsuit filed by a Lutheran pastor-turned-atheist.
"It's a milestone," said Ray Ideus, 75, who volunteers eight hours a week for the department, and filed the lawsuit in 2006.
"It's very important that they'll have to take that cross off. It's not a Christian police department. The chaplains have to minister to all faiths and non-faiths."
Ideus was a Lutheran pastor for 30 years before he became an atheist. His volunteer duties do not including work as a chaplain.
Chaplains' badges up to now have included the city seal and a Christian-Latin cross. Chaplains may still wear lapel pins with crosses or other insignia showing personal religious preferences, said Police Chief Anne E. Kirkpatrick. She announced the settlement to the City Council Monday night.
According to Ideus' lawsuit, putting the cross on police chaplain badges is an "impermissible incorporation of a particular religious symbol in a government insignia."
He was countersued by Assistant City Attorney Rocco N. "Rocky" Treppiedi, who claimed the lawsuit was "false, and unfounded, malicious and without probable cause." The countersuit also is being dismissed under the settlement.
- Login to post comments
I don't see any reason why a military chaplain shouldn't be allowed to wear a symbol of his own faith. I don't think it should be a part of the uniform, however. What I mean is, I don't see anything wrong with a person wearing a cross or star as long as it's not a necessary part of the uniform.
I also think that, regardless of the chaplain's faith, if he ministers to people of many faiths (or none at all) they should taught to respect that and not to preach their own beliefs instead.
If god takes life he's an indian giver
I don't like that government dollars pay for chaplains at all, so I guess whether or not they wear a cross doesn't really matter to me.
I think if it is the chaplain's job to minister to all faiths his particular religion should not be displayed.
I don't see it as a free speech issue. It is a job they are hired to perform, every day businesses tell their employees how they should represent the company. This is merely another instance where the chaplains could be told, "while you are performing your job duties we ask that you not display symbols of your christianity, on your free time you may do as you wish, but while at work we ask that you remain neutral."
I dont think any government institution should be paying the salary of any chaplin, cleric, rabbi ect ect. I do see the need for overseas combat situations, but even then if military people want religious people on site, then private organizations should pay for generic uniforms non-military and fund their salaries.
As far as military bases local and overseas, why? Those personal can travel off base to their local churches.
Religious and private institutions make enough money without goverment. If people bitch about coorperate bailouts, why should religion be funded by goverment either?
I am not against military disiring to practice their religion. But if a civilian can find a private church and fund a private church, I dont see why military personal cant find private property and private funds to support a chaplin if they want one.
I am not against it, I just dont want goverment funding it. This is the richest country in the world, our goverment has no bisness funding something the private sector is more than capable of doing.
"We are a nation of Christians and Muslims, Jews and Hindus -- and nonbelievers."Obama
Check out my poetry here on Rational Responders Like my poetry thread on Facebook under Brian James Rational Poet, @Brianrrs37 on Twitter and my blog at www.brianjamesrationalpoet.blog
I really don't think that the paying of chaplains is draining government funding substantially. I would assume that most of them aren't being paid much more than food, shelter, and clothing. If it was any more, then I would strongly oppose it.
Many soldiers really want chaplains. It is the least we can do, as citizens being (assumedly) protected by them to provide that service if they want it.
On the issue of wearing crosses and freedom of speech, it isn't one. When you enter the millitary you sign a form that basically waves you of many of your constitutional rights (soldiers, for instance, do not have the right to freedom of speech, or habeus corpus, or any of those things. They can be held by the discression of their superiors. They can be silenced, etc.). A Chaplain in the millitary has to do what his superiors tell him.
I think Brian's issue was the fact that our government was paying them in the first place - technically our government should not be paying any religious figure. It is a violation of church and state separation.
I also agree that chaplains provide a comfort to the soldiers and imagine that in certain areas it would be quite difficult for a soldier to obtain any 'spiritual counsel', for lack of a better phrase.
However, I do not think any religious item should be part of a uniform. If they have permission to wear a charm, bracelet, etc., I have no problem with that. I also think that the chaplain's faith cannot interfere with job he is to do, which is to comfort or counsel or perform last rites, etc. I feel that anyone in this particular position should be very familiar with different religions and also be able to cater to those who are not religious at all.
Ideally of course that would be nice. Whether or not that could actually happen is a different story.
If god takes life he's an indian giver
The problem here was that the police badge itself sported the cross in the city seal. That is a promotion by government of a particular religion and a violation of church/state sparation. The department I worked for years ago had a police chaplain. His badge said "police chaplain" but bore no indication of a particular faith. He was a rabbi and a riot, did not try to convert anyone or talk about his faith unless asked. Even as an atheist I had no problem with him being on the department, but he was not paid, he was a reserve. I didn't see any problem with church/state issues in this case.
As to the military, I have mixed feellings about that one. Jefferson and others were against chaplains not just for the congress but for the military as well. So we know what their intent was. The chaplaincy in the military is a definite violation of that issue. However, I'd be hard pressed to deny a soldier in Iraq or Afghanistan access to a chaplain.
Today's chaplain corps is overrun with proselytizing fundies and it's affecting the military in a negative way. So, unless a handle can be gotten on this problem I would like to see chaplains out of the military. They can't be marginalized because there are too many fundies in other areas of the military and they're not playing by the rules either.
Removing insignia from uniforms is not a violation of the chaplain's First Amendment rights as the separation clause precludes that. Removing them from their employment by the government also does not violate their First Amendment rights as they were never intended to be in the military to begin with, or in Congress either.
For more on the military problem with fundies check out the Military Religious Freedom Foundation at www.militaryreligiousfreedom.org.
"Erecting the 'wall of separation between church and state,' therefore, is absolutely essential in a free society." Thomas Jefferson
www.myspace.com/kenhill5150
I dont care. He shouldn't be paid by the government either rabbi or not. If some police officer or civilian wants religious consolation I am sure that the police station can call a local church or synogauge and have someone show up where they are wanted.
Him being a nice guy is not the issue either. Many Christians, and rightfully so, would obect to a goverment employee being paid to be a rabbi.
Police are not paid to be spiritual advisors, they are paid to protect the public.
"We are a nation of Christians and Muslims, Jews and Hindus -- and nonbelievers."Obama
Check out my poetry here on Rational Responders Like my poetry thread on Facebook under Brian James Rational Poet, @Brianrrs37 on Twitter and my blog at www.brianjamesrationalpoet.blog