Government-sponsored Christianity!
Recently there has been a flurry of Church vs. State activism regarding the use of religious symbols and functions within the American government. It's over the "establishment of religion", which finds flower in the CHAPLAIN.
The military chaplain is expected to be a spiritual advisor and friend to all within military ranks and circles. He or she is supposed to take the lead in family group counseling sessions, open and close military functions with a prayer, and be an all around religious symbol to the troops.
America's military chaplaincy predates the American Revolution. The First Continental Congress established the chaplaincy, and it was challenged in the mid-18th century as being a government tool to the establishment of religion. Michael Gaynor explains: "In Katcoff v. Marsh, 755 F.2d 223 (1985), the Second Circuit Court of Appeals correctly concluded that the government's practice of hiring military chaplains did not violate the First Amendment's ban on religious establishments, based on the need to support military personnel in the free exercise of their religion, and opined that the military's religious program should be 'neutral,' should limit competition among religious groups, and should leave the practice of religion solely to the individual soldier, 'who is free to worship or not as he chooses, without fear of any discipline or stigma.'"
The Senate Judiciary Committee later opined on the First Amendment and its applicability to the question of chaplains,
The clause speaks of "an establishment of religion." What is meant by that expression? It referred, without doubt, to the establishment which existed in the mother country, its meaning is to be ascertained by ascertaining what that establishment was. It was the connection with the state of a particular religious society, by its endowment, at public expense, in exclusion of, or in preference to, any other, by giving to its members exclusive political rights, and by compelling the attendance of those who rejected its communion upon its worship, or religious observances. These three particulars constituted that union of church and state of which our ancestors were so justly jealous, and against which they so wisely and carefully provided....
The Senate report went on to say that the Founders were "utterly opposed to any constraint upon the rights of conscience" and thus the Founding Fathers opposed the state's establishment of a religion as the church of England was established. But, the Founders' vision "had no fear or jealousy of religion itself, nor did they wish to see us an irreligious people....They did not intend to spread over all the public authorities and the whole public action of the nation the dead and revolting spectacle of 'atheistic apathy.' Not so had the battles of the revolution been fought, and the deliberations of the revolutionary Congress conducted."
On December 21, 2005, The Washington Times' Julia Duin reported not only that military chaplains are being told to shy from Jesus, but that one of them is engaged in a hunger strike outside the White House:
To pray -- or not to pray -- in Jesus' name is the question plaguing an increasing number of U.S. military chaplains, one of whom began a multiday hunger strike outside the White House yesterday.
"I am a Navy chaplain being fired because I pray in Jesus' name," said Navy Lt. Gordon Klingenschmitt, who will be holding 6 p.m. prayer vigils daily in Lafayette Park.
The hunger strike is intended to persuade President Bush to issue an executive order allowing military chaplains to pray according to their individual faith traditions. The American Center for Law and Justice has gathered 173,000 signatures on a petition seeking an executive order.
Seventy-three members of Congress have joined the request, saying in an Oct. 25 letter to the president, "In all branches of the military, it is becoming increasingly difficult for Christian chaplains to use the name of Jesus when praying."
About 80 percent of U.S. troops are Christian, the legislators wrote, adding that military "censorship" of chaplains' prayers disenfranchises "hundreds of thousands of Christian soldiers in the military who look to their chaplains for comfort, inspiration and support."
The Rev. Billy Baugham, executive director of the Greenville, S.C.-based International Conference of Evangelical Chaplain Endorsers, said that recently "he had 'just got a call from an Army chaplain in Iraq who says he'd be hammered if he used Jesus' name. Chaplains are scared to death. They must clear their prayers with their commanders, they can mention Jesus' name at chapel services, but not outside that context.'"
Other religions are not discouraged to pray in their own ways. The Jewish, Muslim, and Catholic chaplains have never been discouraged in this or any other manner to keep their sectarian ways to themselves. Even the Presidential Christmas message has a direct, unabashedly Christian message! So why should a Christian chaplain, whose faith is also his paycheck, be reprimanded or discouraged into overlooking the spiritual needs of those who come to him/her for spiritual solace?
Come to think of it, it's either allow Christianity without reservation or dismantle the whole chaplain program completely. I mean, if it's that egregious for Christian chaplains to state the name of Jesus Christ, then why have the chaplaincy in the first place? The whole purpose of the chaplain program is for ministering to the spiritual needs of the parishioners, who in this case are troops. Because if a Christian minister is not able to invoke the name of his Savior in public, he can't do his job.