Upholding the First Amendment in the Military

A few weeks ago the New York Times ran an article titled “Questions Raised Anew About Religion in the Military.” The article raises the question of where the line is between free practice of religion and state-sponsored Christianity in the US military. The debate centers on a law suit recently brought against the military that accuses them of ignoring laws and policies banning mandatory religious practice. While the author does not give his opinion one way or another, he gives a voice to each side of the argument through interviews with representatives from the Army’s Chief of Chaplains Office and individual soldiers involved in the law suit.

The most recent incident against the military is the use of an interview with Terry Bradshaw in an official military production dealing with depression, suicide, and the importance of faith. Bradshaw is quoted as depending on Christianity to get him through his depression. The film then leaves the Bradshaw interview and discusses the importance of faith in dealing with depression. The military claims that Bradshaw’s testimony is simply representative of an individual’s reliance of faith; it does not say that all soldiers must rely on faith. Representatives of the Military Religious Freedom Foundation argue that Bradshaw’s testimony does just that; it forces soldiers to believe that religion is the key factor to coping with depression. While I am a strong supporter of separation of church and state, in this case I tend to side with the military. Isn’t it their job in a pluralistic society to present soldiers with many different paths to recovery? To really show that Bradshaw’s interview is merely his personal opinion, however, they should include interviews with other men who have dealt with depression without relying on faith.

The article then points to several other instances where the military has blurred the line between church and state; on all of these issues I tend to disagree with the military. For example, one of the plaintiffs in the lawsuit, who is an atheist, was forced to participate in a homecoming ceremony that began and concluded with a Christian prayer. Another plaintiff received a “negative evaluation” (which resulted in the loss of his pilot’s license) just four days after writing an article in his local newspaper complaining about the use of prayers in “Jesus’ name” in other homecoming ceremonies. A memo distributed at the Air Force last month specifically pointed out that cadets should not “be made to feel that they would get better jobs by going to optional Bible study sessions.”

All of the incidents above are blatant violations of the first amendment. Every soldier in the military is risking their life to defend this nation and the ideology we were founded upon; this includes the separation of church and state. I understand that in war faith can be very important to a soldier’s mental and physical health. But we live in a pluralistic society; to give preference to one soldier over another is not right. What about the non-Christians that risk their safety every bit as much as Christian soldiers who depend on Christianity to survive? Should we sacrifice their needs? Every soldier should feel that they have the option to practice their religion, but the military should not endorse religion. It is not their place to say one soldier’s lifestyle is better than another. Isn’t the whole point of having soldiers wear uniforms and have the same haircut to unite them as one? Forcing religion of any kind upon all soldiers is divisive.