Ramdas Lamb
Ex-Hindu monk, professor

Ramdas Lamb

Hindu monk in India from 1969-1978. Professor, University of Hawai’i, world religions and contemporary American religion.

 ALL POSTS

Goodness and justice over religious affiliation

Q: What is the proper role of religion -- and personal religious belief -- in the U.S. armed forces? Should a particular religious affiliation disqualify someone from active military service? How far should the military go to accommodate personal religious beliefs and practices?

The fact that someone has personal religious beliefs should not, in itself, be a reason for disqualification from active military service. There are more than 3,800 chaplains currently serving in the U.S. military, and this suggests that those religions and denominations represented see serving in the military as a legitimate and important occupation and even career. Having such individuals in the military helps make it more of a cross section of the population and values that are held.

All U.S. military personnel must take the Uniformed Services Oath of Office, either the Oath of Enlistment or the Oath for Commissioned Officers. If the necessary oath runs counter to one's deeply held religion beliefs, then there is definite potential for problems to arise. Loyalty and commitment to one's duties in any organization to which one belongs are important. Those who cannot fulfill assigned military duties and commitments because of deeply held religious or moral beliefs, irrespective of religious affiliation, should not be in the military, or should be limited in roles within it. If an individual is already in the military when a situation arises that runs directly counter to deeply held beliefs based and moral convictions, then that individual should apply for conscientious objector status and, if necessary, seek to leave military service. It must be remembered that there is no draft in the U.S. No one is forced to enter the military. If one enlists, it is out of choice, and the ramifications and responsibilities of that choice should be clear and must be accepted.

Members of every religious tradition have, at one point or another in history, found themselves in countries with values and/or political ideologies that are in fundamental disagreement with their own. Those living in a dictatorship who cannot leave have to search within and decide to what extent their religious beliefs are important enough to lead them to action, knowing the consequences that may result. Those in countries with a more democratic style government can, alone or in groups, try to change the government through elections, organized protests, etc. Further, if those who find their morals and values in deep conflict, are in a country to which they have immigrated and are residing out of choice, and see no way of peacefully affecting change, then that choice should be rethought and they should consider finding find a country that is more compatible with their beliefs.

Connected with the issue of Muslims serving in the U.S. military, there has been recent discussion about the Muslim prohibition against killing other Muslims. Yet, throughout history, most Muslims in battle have been killed by other Muslims, and it is likely that most Christians in battles have been killed by other Christians, as was the case in World Wars I and II. For many people, religious affiliation is an important aspect of one's being, yet one's concept of morality and goodness generally trumps this, as it should. Just because someone happens to claim the same religious affiliation as another does not mean that they share the same sense of decency and what is right. People in all religions have found reason to justify killing other members in battle, presumably because they saw those they killed as being bad, immoral, or supporting a bad government. How is today any different? Religious affiliation or affinity should not inoculate people from having to endure the consequences of their actions.

Today as in the past, many Americans find themselves at odds with what they perceive as the moral direction of the country. Some understand this as an inevitable result of living in a democracy that allows people of various belief systems to be citizens, and they accept the situation. Others attempt to seek peaceful change through any of a great variety of means. A few opt for leaving. There is no law to prevent someone from doing any of these. As for those who are in the military, there is no draft in the U.S., so they are in because they chose to participate. Once such a choice is made, then the ramifications and responsibilities of that choice should be clear and should be accepted.

There are thousands of Muslims serving honorably in the U.S. military fighting against other Muslims. They see justification in fighting Taliban and other Muslim terrorists who kill innocent Muslims and non-Muslims in the name of Allah. Peace loving Iraqi and Afghani Muslims, as well as Muslims in the U.S. military stationed in those countries, see themselves fighting to save their country and families or fighting against terrorism. This has gone on in their countries since before the U.S. intervened, and it will likely continue long after we leave. Unfortunately, using violence to settle differences has long been a reality in much of the world.

Finally, for members of any religious tradition who choose to be in the military but have personal religious beliefs and practices for which certain accommodations are requested, the military should definitely do what it can to provide these as long as they do not run counter to the needs and abilities of the military. Examples of the kinds of accommodations might involve chaplaincy services, dietary restrictions, religious headware or symbols, time for observance of ritual holy days, etc. Religious belief and military service are part and parcel of the societies of most countries. Generally, they have been able to find compatibility. There have been times of antagonism and difficulty in the U.S. in this regards, but for the most part, members of the American military services have found ways to live the religious values they hold while serving, and we have all benefited as a result.

By Ramdas Lamb  |  November 12, 2009; 11:56 AM ET
Share This: Technorati talk bubble Technorati | Del.icio.us | Digg | Facebook
Previous: Body and soul care | Next: Faith in love

Comments

Please report offensive comments below.



I do not think that religious affiliation should be considered as grounds for exemption from armed services. I think that would be a blatant violation of the rights we as Americans hold. Currently, there is no draft, so our armed service officers are acting out of their willingness to serve their country. I think it would be entirely unpatriotic for us to make any decisions about a person’s eligibility to be in the military based on religious affiliation. Every officer does have to agree to an oath that essentially makes them pledge allegiance to the country above all, if a person could not agree to that oath than he or she should not be in the military--but not because of a certain religious affiliation. Additionally, I think it would be ridiculous of us to not grant requests for special treatments in regard to religion. After all, the men and women serving in the military are doing so on behalf of the country; they should at least be granted exceptions in order to follow their beliefs.

Posted by: esty1 | November 19, 2009 2:22 AM
Report Offensive Comment

Post a Comment


 
RSS Feed
Subscribe to The Post

© 2009 The Washington Post Company