Video
Twitter
RSS Feed
Military chaplains know: no religion can be excluded
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?
Military chaplains in the services are charged with the responsibility of helping commanders make sure every soldier can practice her or his faith. It is the constitutional right of everyone in the military services to do so.
I have taught many seminary students who have become military chaplains and I have stayed in touch with some of them. In attempting to answer this question, I called one of them, Lt. Col. (Chaplain) Lilton Marks, retired. Chaplain Marks is a graduate of Chicago Theological Seminary and the recipient of our Alumni Award in Ministry. Before his retirement, he was the senior military chaplain in Iraq.
Lt. Colonel Marks stressed to me that no particular religion can be excluded from the military; every person of faith should be able to practice their religion and follow its tenets. Chaplains are supposed to monitor the practices of faith; all worship services, for example, are public services and are understood to be contributing to the good of all.
There are some restrictions on the practice of faith--certain religious practices that might interrupt a mission, jeopardize life of the soldier or other soldiers, cannot be allowed. "If there's a firefight and a soldier wants to stop and pray," Chaplain Marks commented, "that can't be allowed not only because it would imperil the safety of that soldier, but also because it could endanger other soldiers and the mission."
It is up to the chaplains to cultivate a climate of respect for each religion in the services. The increasing religious diversity in the military makes this a crucial job. It is a challenging job for chaplains, but chaplains must agree to respect all religions--that's why they cannot evangelize or proselytize. There is an ever more demanding task of gaining greater knowledge and depth of understanding of the many religions represented in the unit.
Soldiers are also briefed on the cultures and the religions of the areas where they will be going so they do not insult or disrespect people where they are serving.
We both agreed that it was crucial in light of the shootings at Fort Hood not to make leaps without facts; is the religion of the shooter the most important factor, or is it the work of treating returning war veterans for the psychological strains of war and injury in war that take an enormous toll on the caregivers? Is it some combination?
The question of the mental problems of the shooter, however, has taken a back seat to the fears of Islamic terrorism. The story of the shootings is feeding that narrative.
This makes it all the harder to cultivate knowledge and respect for all religions in our military, and in our society.
If religious suspicion and harassment become even more widespread, we decrease our capacity to work together and that in turn makes us all less safe. On that, Lt. Col. (Chaplain) Lilton Marks and I are totally agreed.
By
Susan Brooks Thistlethwaite
|
November 9, 2009; 6:03 PM ET
Share This: 
Technorati
| Del.icio.us | Digg | Facebook
Previous: Secular nation, secular military |
Next: Fighting the right's religious test for military service
Posted by: DanielintheLionsDen | November 13, 2009 6:34 PM
Report Offensive Comment
I suggest that Lion's Den Daniel and Susan Thistlethwaite read OpEd Columnist, Charles Krauthammer's "Medicalizing Mass Murder" article in today's Post.
Furthermore, Daniel, did you take the time to go back and read Thistlethwaite's past columns as I pointed out? If you want to see intolerance, you should do just that.
Posted by: nikosd99 | November 13, 2009 4:18 PM
Report Offensive Comment
What a calm. clear, and level-headed essay.
And then, the very first comment from Nikosd009, provides a perfect example of small-minded intolerance that contrasts so sharply with Susan's essay.
And there follows, again in sharp contrast, Justillthennow's comment which beautifully highlights the problem of intolerance that Nikosd009 so clearly demonstrated for all to see.
Posted by: DanielintheLionsDen | November 13, 2009 1:17 PM
Report Offensive Comment
Thistlethwaite states, "The question of the mental problems of the shooter, however, has taken a back seat to the fears of Islamic terrorism. The story of the shootings is feeding that narrative. This makes it all the harder to cultivate knowledge and respect for all religions in our military, and in our society. If religious suspicion and harassment become even more widespread, we decrease our capacity to work together and that in turn makes us all less safe. On that, Lt. Col. (Chaplain) Lilton Marks and I are totally agreed."
Now, contrast that with her rantings in her previous columns, "The Killing of George Tiller: A 'Pro-life' Murder?" (May 31, 2009) and "Right-Wing Extremism on the Rise" (June 10, 2009)
Rather than going into detail of all that she stated, I'll leave it to the reader to go into Thistlethwaite's archives and read her diatribe on how all killings of abortionists are the fault of Pro-Lifers and all the hatred that's abounding in this country is because of Right Wing Extremists.
Apparently she agrees with fellow Chicagoan, Obama, that we are all tea-bagging, anti government extremists. Yes, if you don't bow down and follow the left wing agenda, you are anti America.
I would suggest that Thistlethwaite engage her brain and research the daily carnage being perpetrated around the world by Islam. If she still feels that it is a viable, peace loving religion, then I feel sorry for her. Perhaps she's the one that needs to see a psychiatrist for her mental problems.
Posted by: nikosd99 | November 13, 2009 11:57 AM
Report Offensive Comment
Although this essay makes good sense and it is easy to be in agreement with it's principles, from reports that I have read it is not the chaplains that act in disregard to these principles. It is a majority evangelical presence, and that religions tendency to 'evangelize' and proselytize, and it's view of being singularly true, that can cause unspoken acceptance of religious prejudice towards other faiths. This prejudice has been performed by enlisted personnel and is saturated int he officers levels.
If that is the case then it may be beyond the reach of the chaplains to control, and a wider fix needs to be addressed.
Posted by: justillthennow | November 11, 2009 1:34 PM
Report Offensive Comment
Poor dumb Nikosd99; you just don't get it, do you?