I.  PREFACE                                            
       
        Chaplain  (LTC) James L.  McDonald,  Equal Opportunity Manager of
        the  41st Infantry Brigade,  Oregon Army Reserve/National  Guard,
        participated in the Research Intern Program at the Defense  Equal
        Opportunity   Management  Institute  from January 14  -  February
        12,  1987.  During his tenure he researched extensively the issue
        of  religion and the military and wrote a prototype  report  upon
        which this report is based.
       



        II. INTRODUCTION
       
        America was founded on the principle of religious liberty, partly
        as  a result of immigrant experiences of religious persecution in
        Europe.   There was such a wide diversity of religious groups  in
        Colonial  America that the Founding Fathers resisted favoring any
        particular religion.  They insured  in the First Amendment to the
        U.S.  Constitution that "Congress shall make no law respecting an
        establishment  of  religion,  or  prohibiting the  free  exercise
        thereof."
       
        However   unambiguous   these  words,   implementing  the   First
        Amendment  has not been easy.   The conflict  between  individual
        rights  to  religious  freedom and the legitimate claims  of  the
        state continues to the present.
       
        Even  though  the military has had a  longstanding  tradition  of
        religious  support,  dating back to the American Revolution,  the
        struggle  between individual rights of religious  expression  and
        the  legitimate  concerns  of the organization  is  perhaps  more
        intense in the military than elsewhere in society.   What happens
        to  esprit-de-corps,  combat readiness,  unit  cohesiveness,  and
        mission   accomplishment  when  individual  service  members  are
        permitted free exercise of their religion?
       
        These  questions  have  been  considered  by  the  Department  of
        Defense, the U.S. Congress, and the Courts, including the Supreme
        Court.  There are no hard and fast answers.
       
        This paper explores religious pluralism in a world view;  America
        and religious liberty;  religion in the military,  including  the
        tradition  of  support of religion in the Armed  Forces;  Federal
        Courts, religion, and the military; and the Department of Defense
        and religious accommodation.
       


        III. BACKGROUND
       
             A. Religious Pluralism in a World View
       
        Some  of the earliest archaeological digs reveal human  artifacts
        used  as religious symbols or in rituals.   Some of the  earliest
        known  art works,  the caves of Lascaux in France,  include  wall
        paintings  clearly  intended  to  convey  religious  symbols  and
        imagery.   These  paintings  were located in the  remote,  almost
        inaccessible, parts of the caves, set aside from common areas, to
        convey their sacred function.
       
        Religion  is a near universal experience of human  life.   It  is
        part and parcel of the culture of mankind,  and one key aspect of
        what makes up a people and a culture.   Religion can be the major
        factor  which gives a people,  a culture,  a nation,  or a social
        movement,  its distinct character.   Pakistan,  for example,  was
        founded independently from India so that the rights and interests
        of  the Islamic   people could be protected from those of  Hindus
        in  India.   Perhaps Israel is a clearer example of   ethnic  and
        religious characteristics formulating a national identity.
       
        The  importance  of attending to religious issues as  a  part  of
        current  affairs  of strategic interest to the military  is  well
        demonstrated  in the role Shiite Muslim religious tradition plays
        in  the civic and political life of Iran or the leadership  roles
        Roman Catholic priests play in Nicaraguan national affairs.
       
        Historians and scholars of religion commonly recognize five major
        faith groups:   Hindu,  Buddhist,  Jewish,  Islam, and Christian. 
        These  groups are the largest populated and  most  geographically
        diverse  among currently practiced religions.   Even within them,
        there  is  enormous  diversity.   The Buddhists  have  two  major
        subdivisions:   Mahayana and Hinayana.  For the Jewish traditions
        in  America,  there  are three  major  subgroups:   Conservative,
        Orthodox,  and Reformed.   Within Christianity,  there are  three
        major  faith  groups:   Roman  Catholic,  Eastern  Orthodox,  and
        Protestant.    As  for  Protestantism,  there  are  at  least  87
        different  bodies  in America with membership of at least  50,000
        people.  (31:49)  The United Council of Churches in America lists
        over 219 religious organizations.  (22:413)
       
        There are hundreds,  if not thousands,  of other religions  which
        have  been a part of the history of mankind.   Some religions are
        limited   to  specific  geographic  areas   or   nations,   e.g.,
        Confucianism and Taoism in China, and Shintoism in Japan.
       
        Religious observers have noted that when there is a proliferation
        of new religious movements,  many of these new groups do not last
        long.   They quickly die out within a generation of the founder's
        death.
       

        Statistical  figures,  however,  for the world's religious groups
        reach  only  rough approximations.  Although  Christianity  keeps 
        detailed statistical records,   the method of counting membership
        varies  widely.  Some  religious organizations count only  adults
        while  others include infants and children.   To further  confuse
        matters,  individuals may practice more than one religion,  as in
        China (Confucianism,  Taoism,  Buddhism) or in Japan,  where most
        are Buddhist and Shinto.
        
             B.  America and Religious Liberty
       
        America  is a country with a rich heritage of religious faith and
        practice.   From  the  founding  of the first  colonies   to  the
        writing of the Constitution, religion played an important part in
        American  life  and  thought.    Religious  liberty,  freedom  of
        conscience,  tolerance of dissenting faith and practice,  and the
        reluctance   to  endorse  any  one  single  church   organization
        characterized  the  unique  direction  America  was  to  take  on
        religious  matters.   We may often take this for granted,  as Dr.
        James Mosely observed:
       
                  Legalized  in the Constitution and institution-
                  alized in the denominational system,  religious
                  pluralism has been called America's distinctive
                  contribution to the history of religion.
                  (26:157)
       
        There  were three major factors  influencing the outcome  of  the
        Constitution  and  civil  practice which provided  for  religious
        liberty.   First, some early immigrants came to America primarily
        to  escape religious persecution in Europe.   Second,  there  was
        such  a  variety of church bodies that it made  little  sense  to
        single  out one denomination as being the only one sponsored  and
        supported by the state.   Besides, many in Europe had experienced
        some  of  the  abuse and conflicts arising  from  state-sponsored
        religion.  Third, "Enlightenment Thought" held reason, education,
        tolerance,  and  compromise  in high regard and  influenced  such
        leaders  as Thomas Paine,  Thomas Jefferson,  James Madison,  and
        Benjamin Franklin.  Dissenting opinions and freedom of conscience
        were widely respected.   Along with "Enlightenment Thought"  came
        the  principle of religious tolerance and moderation of religious
        practice and conviction.   Some of the early leaders were Deists,
        who  believed in a Supreme Being,  but were not bound  by  church
        teaching or dogma.   Some writers who influenced Jefferson,  like
        Thomas  Paine and John Milton,  were also critical of the  church
        and clergy.
       
        Several of the colonies,  e.g.,  Pennsylvania,  Rhode Island, and
        Maryland,  included  in  their charters provisions for  religious
        tolerance   and   privileges.     Although   some   articles   of
        confederation,  such  as those of the Massachusetts  Bay  Colony,
        were  somewhat restrictive due to their Puritan  influence,  they
        too addressed religious issues of faith and practice.
       
        The  Constitution of North Carolina maintained that "all  persons
        shall  be  at  liberty to exercise their own  mode  of  worship."
        (2:219)  William Penn widely advertised the attractiveness of his
        colony of Pennsylvania, which was founded on religious tolerance.
        His  "Frame of Government," written in 1682, guaranteed religious
        freedom  to all "who confess and acknowledge the one almighty and
        eternal God...." (3:34)
       
        In  spite of these foundations,  there were serious incidents  of
        religious persecution in Colonial America. There was considerable
        conflict  between the Quakers of Pennsylvania and the Puritans of
        other colonies.   Quakers were beaten,  imprisoned, and expelled.
        As  immigration increased,  other European  religious  traditions
        were  introduced.   Many  dissenting  religious  groups  who  had
        objected  to  established,   state-sponsored  churches,  came  to
        America.
       
        Virginia  provided  an early role model for religious  tolerance. 
        In the Declaration of Rights,  which was adopted by the  Virginia
        Legislature   three weeks before the Declaration of Independence,
        the effort to accommodate religious pluralism was  apparent.   It
        observed  that "all men are equally entitled to the free exercise
        of religion according to the dictate of conscience." (24:319)  As
        early as 1779,  Virginia stopped payment for clergy of the Church
        of England.   Perhaps the greatest example of religious tolerance
        and one which served as a role model for the Founding Fathers  of
        the Constitution,  was the Virginia Statute of Religious Liberty. 
        Written  by  Thomas  Jefferson,   and  enacted  by  the  Virginia
        Legislature  in January 1786,  its preamble asserted that God had
        "created the mind free" and that attempts to coerce it "tend only
        to  beget habits of hypocrisy and meanness,  and are a  departure
        from  the  plan of the Holy author of our religion." (24:320)  It
        went  on to proclaim that "no man shall be compelled to  frequent
        or support any religious worship,  place or ministry  whatsoever,
        nor shall be enforced,  restricted,  molested, or burthened (sic)
        in  his  body or goods,  nor otherwise suffer on account  of  his
        religious opinions or beliefs." (24:320)
       
        In  1818,  Connecticut,  and  in  1833,  Massachusetts,  repealed
        compulsory  tax support of churches.   For the Founding  Fathers,
        separation of church and state did not imply indifference  toward
        religion;  rather,  it  reflected a determination to protect  the
        diversity  of  religions  within  the  colonies.    "Perhaps  the
        overriding  factor  in deciding the general issue in  the  United
        States, however, was the practical consideration that the extreme
        multiplicity  of sects in the country meant that in the long  run
        the establishment of any one of them,  or even a combination, was
        not  politically feasible."  (24:319)  Pluralism was  already  an
        operating factor which was to influence political compromise.  It
        was  a  governmental attempt to accommodate the wide  variety  of
        religious  practices already in place in  Colonial America.   The
        effort    avoided  placing any one religious  organization  in  a
        favored position (sponsorship).  As a result,  this prevented the
        abuse,  taxation,  discrimination,  corruption, and  persecution, 
        often associated with state religion.
       
        This  backdrop  of religious plurality and tolerance  has  served
        America  well into the 20th Century.   Should recent sociological
        trends hold, and if predictions are to be believed, there will be
        an ever growing increase in religious diversity in America.   The 
        recent  influx of Asians from Vietnam,  Cambodia,  and Korea  has
        strengthened Buddhist,  Taoist and Confucianist practice, as well
        as  introduced  folk  religions  new  to  America.   Due  to  the
        migration  of Cuban exiles into Florida in the last two  decades,
        unfamiliar  religious practices,  such as Santeria,  have  gained
        more  media attention.   From the Moonies to the Rajneeshi,  from
        the Church of Scientology to Rastafarians,  there have been newly
        formed  religions of great diversity.   According to one  source,
        between 1965 and 1970 over 120 new religious groups were  founded
        in America alone. (25:12)  In 1983, membership in "miscellaneous"
        religious  groups in America,  i.e.,  not Christian,  Jewish,  or
        Buddhist, stood at over 188,000. (31:50)
       
       
        IV.  RELIGION IN THE MILITARY
       
             A.  The Tradition of Support of Religion in the Armed Forces
       
        Famous   military  leaders,   including  Napoleon  and   military
        tactician Von Clausewitz,  have spoken of the importance of troop
        morale  in  winning  the  battle.   Religion may  indeed  be  one
        critical  factor that determines the outcome of  combat.   Troops
        that are convinced of the ultimate justice of their cause may  be
        more likely to fight with commitment and determination.
       
        The  American  military has always been supportive  of  religion. 
        General George Washington provided for his troops to be served by
        clergy  during  the Revolutionary War.  The Army  Chaplain  Corps
        predates  the Declaration of Independence.   As early as 1775 the
        Second Article of Navy Regulations stated that "the Commanders of
        ships  in  the  thirteen United Colonies are to  take  care  that
        Divine services be performed."  (19:4)
       
        Not only did the military allow the free exercise of religion, it
        actually  encouraged religious worship.   Many of the leaders  of
        the  Revolution were devout men who were convinced that faith  in
        God would vindicate their cause.
       
        The  All-Volunteer  Force  is another  factor  driving  religious
        accommodation.   In  order  to make military life  attractive  to
        recruits,   some  of  their  civilian  habits,   such  as  church
        attendance, are  allowed to continue in the military environment. 
        Military  service  may  appear  more  acceptable  to  parents  if 
        opportunities  for  worship,  religious education,  and  pastoral
        counseling  are  available to their children,  should  they  need
        them.

Jews in army

        The religious composition of the U.  S. Armed Forces, depicted in
        the   Joint  Survey  Study  of  Religious   Matters,   is   truly
        pluralistic. Table 1 on the following page illustrates this. 
       


        TABLE 1     ARMED FORCES RELIGIOUS DEMOGRAPHICS
       
        FAITH GROUP/                             AIR         MARINE    
        SERVICE            ARMY       NAVY       FORCE       CORPS       DoD    
        -------------------------------------------------------------------------
        PROTESTANT
        Specified
         Protestant       351,721    174,540    260,294      82,657      869,212
        Protestant,
         No Pref.          42,893     30,301     46,742      12,569      132,505
        Protestant,
         Other             27,473     14,517      9,058       2,602       53,650
        Christian,
         No Pref.          20,491      5,630     21,507       6,109       53,737  
        Christian
         Scientist          3,252        932        668         391        5,243
        Jehovah's
         Witness              395        216        263         102          976
        Latter-day
         Saints             8,150      4,312      9,040       2,198       23,700
        Seventh-day
         Adventist          2,176      1,106      1,416         406        5,104
        TOTALS            456,551    231,554    348,988     107,034    1,144,127
        % OF SERVICE        58.85      46.27      58.94       52.89        55.25
        -------------------------------------------------------------------------
        ROMAN
        CATHOLIC          181,506    135,530    156,128      68,729      536,883
        % of Service        23.39      27.08      26.36       31.49        25.92
        -------------------------------------------------------------------------
        EAS. ORTHODOX         730        386        905         187        2,208       
        % of Service          .09        .07        .15         .09          .10
        -------------------------------------------------------------------------
        JEWISH              2,728      1,669      2,825         548        7,770
        % of Service          .35        .33        .47         .27          .37
        -------------------------------------------------------------------------
        OTHER
         Buddhist           1,042        257      1,030         181        2,510
         Hindu                 87         36        136          37          296
         Muslim             1,330        361        591         207        2,489
        TOTALS              2,459        654      1,757         425        5,295
        % of Service          .31        .13        .29         .21          .25
        -------------------------------------------------------------------------
        UNDETERMINED
         Other Religions   4,758       2,462      2,882       1,079        1,181
         No Religious
          Preference      84,966      76,172     70,940      19,110      251,188
         Atheist-No
          Pref.Recorded      163         150      1,065         120        1,498
         Unknown-No
          Pref.Recorded   41,815      52,154      6,862      10,112      110,993
        -------------------------------------------------------------------------
        TOTALS           131,702     130,638     81,749      30,421      374,880
        % of Service       16.97       26.10      13.80       15.03        18.10
        -------------------------------------------------------------------------
        GRAND TOTAL      775,676     500,431    592,089     202,344    2,070,880  


       
        As  Table 1 indicates,  over 250,000 members of the Armed  Forces
        have no religious preference.  When combined with a sizable group
        of "unknowns" and atheists,  they represent some 18% of the total
        force.  
       
        The  other observation to be made about these statistics is  that
        representation in "other" religious groups,  i.e.,  not Christian
        or Jewish,  is very low (0.25% of the total force).   Since it is
        these  other religious groups that are most often of concern when
        accommodation  is considered,  the potential for conflict may  be
        very minor.
       
             B.  Federal Courts, Religion, and the Military
       
        The  Federal courts have consistently maintained that  commanders
        and  military regulations have greater authority than  individual
        rights and conscience.  In Parker v.  Levy [417 U.S.  733 (1974)]
        the  court ruled that  although "members of the military are  not
        exempted from the protection granted by the First Amendment,  the
        different character of the military community and of the military
        mission  requires a different application of these  protections."   
        Even where civil rights or constitutional factors are considered,
        the  courts  have  accepted  the Armed  Forces'  right  to  limit
        religious practice due to reasons of military necessity,  mission
        requirements, command authority, discipline, obedience, etc.  The
        Court,  in  Schlesinger  v.  Councilman [420  U.S.  738  (1975)],
        decided  that  in order to perform its vital role  "the  military
        must  insist  upon  respect  for  duty  and  discipline   without
        counterpart in civilian life."
       
        Also,  courts have been very reluctant to review military policy. 
        They  point  to  a lack of professional expertise upon  which  to
        judge command decisions.  Furthermore, the Congress is recognized
        by  the courts to have responsibility to exercise  oversight  and
        control  on  military  matters,  including  remedies  related  to
        military discipline.
       
        Although "there is no Constitutional right to religious exemption
        from   military   Service,"  (5:H1)  Congress  has  allowed   for
        conscientious objection.   In United States v. Seeger (1965) [380
        U.S. 163 (1965)], the U.S. Supreme Court allowed for the validity
        of a claim of conscientious objection by a person not a member of
        a traditional pacifist group, such as Quakers or Mennonites.  But
        on  the  issue  of  selective  conscientious   objection,   i.e.,
        opposition  to a particular war,  the Supreme Court denied such a
        claim, maintaining that the First Amendment did not require such.
       
        In  a  very important case for civil  rights  and  constitutional
        appeal for military members, Chappell v. Wallace [103 S. Ct. 2362
        (1983)],  the  U.S.  Supreme  Court held that "enlisted  military
        personnel  may  not  maintain a suit to recover  damages  from  a
        superior officer for alleged constitutional violations."  Due  to
        the unique structure of the military and its special status,  the
        U.S.  Supreme  Court "has long recognized two systems of justice,
        to some extent parallel:   one for civilians and one for military
        personnel."   Even  where alleged constitutional  violations  are
        involved,  the  courts will not consider efforts on the  part  of
        military personnel to recover damages from superiors.
       
        In  the past,  attendance at chapel in the Service academies  was
        mandatory  for  all cadets or midshipmen until it was  challenged
        and reversed in the 1972 case of Anderson v. Laird [446 F. 2d 283
        (DC Cir 1971), cert. denied, 409 U.S. 1076 (1972)].
       
        The  legitimacy  and authority of the Army's  religious  program,
        which  includes  chaplains,   chapels,   and  sizable   financial
        expenditure,  were  also  questioned as a violation of the  First
        Amendment  in  the  case of Katcoff v.  Marsh  [84-6184 (2d  Cir.
        22  January  1985)].   The  Federal Court  ruled  this  religious
        program did not violate the First Amendment.  It noted that there
        were  unique  military  interests and special  needs  to  support
        soldiers  in  the  free  exercise of  their  religion.   It  also
        indicated  that  the  religious  program  should  be   "neutral,"
        limiting   competition   between  religious  faith   groups   and
        denominations,   and  voluntary,  "by  leaving  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."
       
        One  of  the most outstanding examples of religious practice  and
        military  interest  coming  into  conflict  is  the  Goldman   v.
        Weinberger case [106 S.  Ct 1310 (1986)].   This case involved an
        Air Force officer, Captain S. Simcha Goldman, who was an ordained
        Jewish  rabbi.   His challenge to Air Force regulations was based
        on First Amendment principles.
       
        Captain  Goldman  was working as a psychologist at an  Air  Force
        hospital.  He had achieved a Ph.D. under an Air Force scholarship
        program.   For several years he had worn the Jewish skullcap, the
        yarmulke,  while in military uniform and on duty in the hospital. 
        This  religious  practice  was brought to the  attention  of  the
        command,  and  he  was  ordered to remove it  while  in  military
        uniform and on duty in the hospital.  The practice of wearing the
        yarmulke while in uniform was determined by his commander to be a
        violation  of Air Force Regulation 35-10,  which states  in  part
        that  "headgear will not be worn...while indoors except by  armed
        security  police  in the performance of their  duties."   (7.6.h) 
        The  commander  ordered  Goldman to comply with  the  regulation. 
        Goldman filed suit in Federal court,  claiming his constitutional
        rights under the First Amendment had been violated.
       
        The  Air  Force  argued  that  "the  traditional  outfitting   of
        personnel  in standardized uniforms encourages the  subordination
        of  personal  preferences and identities in favor of the  overall
        mission."  Goldman argued that his religion required him to  wear
        the yarmulke, it was widely practiced in society at large, no one
        had  objected  to the practice,  and the Constitution  guaranteed
        individual rights freely to pursue religious acts.
 

Onward, Christian Soldiers
American servicemen fight for their country--and most also answer to a higher Power.

BY BRENDAN MINITER
Monday, April 1, 2002 12:01 a.m. EST