Ricochet is the best place on the internet to discuss the issues of the day, either through commenting on posts or writing your own for our active and dynamic community in a fully moderated environment. In addition, the Ricochet Audio Network offers over 50 original podcasts with new episodes released every day.
Protecting Inmates From Dangerous Ideas
Christianity is no longer permitted in Kentucky’s juvenile detention centers.
Chaplain David Wells was told he could either sign a state-mandated document promising to never tell inmates that homosexuality is “sinful” or else the Kentucky Department of Juvenile Justice would revoke his credentials … The Kentucky regulation clearly states that volunteers working with juveniles “shall not refer to juveniles by using derogatory language in a manner that conveys bias towards or hatred of the LGBTQI community. DJJ staff, volunteers, interns and contractors shall not imply or tell LGBTQI juveniles that they are abnormal, deviant, sinful or that they can or should change their sexual orientation or gender identity.”
One incident doesn’t constitute a trend, but this was predictable, and it’s reasonable to expect similar rule changes following the Supreme Court ruling.
Will this litmus test be applied to military chaplains before or after it is applied to prisons across the country?
Published in Culture, Law, Religion & Philosophy
Seems to me it’s the state that wants to be in the business of preaching Jesus, so long as it’s the state’s particular understanding of Jesus that gets preached.
I do believe that the main complaint is government overreach. The state is putting restrictions on this chaplain that make it so that he cannot, in good conscience, do his job. And I agree with Kate, It think it is a much better to have chaplain’s counseling these kids rather than shrinks.
I know. At the moment (knock wood) the LEO community in Maine is pretty lucky on this score. It wouldn’t take much to rock (or scuttle) the boat.
One of the dangers is that a chaplain who really shouldn’t be a chaplain mistakes his mission and tries some aggressive sin-correction or evangelization on a vulnerable (or just litigious) person.
I’ve known some chaplains who had to undo the damage done by a predecessor evidently afflicted with a messiah complex. I am grateful that the first chaplain to the Maine Warden Service (another Baptist!) wasn’t one of these.
Of course, in this case it’s not the hiring of a poorly-chosen chaplain that started causing problems. It’s the introduction of a poorly-chosen policy that started causing problems.
So sin-correction and evangelization should be out of bounds for chaplains?
“When you go to work, does your employer allow you to go around telling all the customers who do not share your denomination that they are going to hell? You may believe that; I’m guessing that you do. And you are entitled to that belief. But it doesn’t give you license to talk about it whenever you want. If you are speaking on behalf of someone else, you follow their rules.”
My job is not preaching the word of God. A chaplain’s job is. If I chose to preach to my customers, I would be shirking my actual job. The job of a chaplain is to preach, and the state is preventing him from doing so
That’s the delicate part of chaplaincy, Basil—as I tried to point out in another thread long ago, getting the state involved in the provision of religious services is really tricky. There’s no such thing as “content-free” religious speech or behavior.
When the state tries for maximum inclusivity (J.S. Mill-style, greatest good for greatest number) this will, as Amy Schley has been arguing on another thread, risk (or perhaps guarantee) insipidity. Should the state get specific, either by choosing one religious tradition and understanding of Jesus or by creating its own list of limiting and thus defining Thou Shalt Nots for clergy, it becomes totalitarian.
This is why the church-state separation was and is endorsed by such a wide variety of devout people. The trouble is that the state (or organizations partially funded by the state, such as hospitals) often has dominion over moments in life that are rich in spiritual and moral content—warfare, imprisonment, suffering, crime and punishment, birth, illness and death. The chaplain is an implicit, embodied recognition of the profound human significance of these moments, as well as a person who will do his or her best to meet the needs that arise.
Actually, the job of a chaplain isn’t to preach. (At least, not unless it’s one of those voluntary religious services offered in a prison setting, in which case a sermon might be called for).
A hospital chaplain doesn’t preach to the dying, a fire chaplain doesn’t preach to the burned child, his relatives, or the firefighter who extracted him from the flames, and a warden service chaplain doesn’t preach to the wife of the man who has just been killed in a hunting accident.
“Preach the Gospel at all times,” St. Francis of Assisi says. “If necessary, use words.” Chaplaincy is mostly preaching without words.
It’s just that it’s tricky. As I say, most of the chaplains I know do a good job of walking the line. The Southern Baptist chaplain I referred to above has, in fact, made a few converts—there are officers who now belong to his church. But he isn’t a chaplain in order to get officers (or accident victims, or whomever) to come to his church. He is a chaplain because he feels called to be with people in their suffering, walk with them and offer them his own and God’s love in whatever ways these people can receive it.
I have to go rehearse a wedding! More later, dear Basil…
It’s very similar to the loyalty oaths that some schools required of teachers in the 1960s – until they were struck down by the Supreme Court. I can’t imagine this going to court without those cases from the 1960s being cited.
It’s not similar at all. A loyalty oath commits you to believe something in your heart. This is a work rule, committing you to behave a certain way when you are on the job. You really don’t understand the difference?
This is not true.
Here is a loyalty oath that was struck down by the Supremes: “I have not and will not lend my aid, support, advice, counsel or influence to the Communist party”.
It says nothing about what you believe in your heart. It’s more of a work rule, because it was intended to apply to teachers on the job.
I don’t believe for a second that it is unconstitutional for a school to set the curriculum of its teachers, including a prohibition on teaching students to join or support the Communist Party. But it is certainly unconstitutional for any government entity to require membership in an approved political party as a condition for employment. Except, apparently, for the Democratic machine in Chicago.
A prison chaplain is not an employee of the state. He is a volunteer who is allowed to offer spiritual guidance to prisoners who seek it.
It has a proven record of reducing criminal recidivism. And it was once unremarkable to claim that all people have spiritual needs.
By the way, if you are interested, the full oath was as set forth below, which goes far beyond workplace behavior and was not limited to teachers.
I, ………., a citizen of the State of Florida and of the United States of America, and being employed by or an officer of ………. and a recipient of public funds as such employee or officer, do hereby solemnly swear or affirm that I will support the Constitution of the United States and of the State of Florida; that I am not a member of the Communist Party; that I have not and will not lend my aid, support, advice, counsel or influence to the Communist Party; that I do not believe in the overthrow of the Government of the United States or of the State of Florida by force or violence; that I am not a member of any organization or party which believes in or teaches, directly or indirectly, the overthrow of the Government of the United States or of Florida by force or violence.
He is an agent of the state. While on the job, he speaks for the state. As I said before, if he wants to offer spiritual guidance on his own terms, he should do so in his own church, or in a public square – not in a state facility.
Isn’t this the essential nature of the problem?
A protected status based on outward behavior and not physical characteristics requires the state to endorse that behavior as worthy of protection. If Christians, or any other religious or philosophical position, deems that behavior as bad, than the state and religion will come into conflict. And what should win out? Equal protection or religious freedom
The problem here is that the Chaplain Wells isn’t a worker for the DJJ. He’s a volunteer. Specifically, a religiously affiliated volunteer that counsels adjudicated youth. His job is religious. Because of his religious conviction, which he believes are not a condemnation of homosexual youth but a breaking from sinful and damaging behavior for those youth’s immediate and eternal benefit, he must amend his message to them.
What the state is saying, through this rule, is that the behavior makes the identity of the the youth, and therefore to criticize or condemn that behavior is to be “hateful” or “derogatory” of the youth. This is, at its heart, anti-free speech.
Its an internal contradiction created in the public square, perhaps unintended, by the LBGT community and the religious community that has become zero-sum.
Um, until recently liberals thought that people had a right to free speech. Reining in teachers cuz they are agents of the state used to be an idea associated more with the authoritarian rightwing – an idea that liberals convinced me was mostly wrong.
Well, there used to be a lot of battles between left and right on this point. Some people have now switched sides.
Some people maybe. Not me. What you do at work is your employer’s business. What you do on your own time is your business. Don’t confuse a workplace rule against sexual harassment with a vow of celibacy in your personal life.
And don’t tell me that volunteering isn’t work. If you go down to volunteer at your local Salvation Army, they’re not going to let you talk about how great it is to get drunk on a Saturday night. That’s not their message, and they are entitled to set their own message.
America’s founders were careful with language. They understood that “establishment” of religion is not equivalent to “promotion” of religion. Even Thomas Jefferson, among the least traditional, as President devoted taxpayer money to Christian missionaries on the frontier and led prayers in government buildings.
The term “theocracy” is overused these days. Any government prefers some religions/worldviews over others, because assumptions about basic realities and morality underlie all law. A theocracy does not merely prefer one religion, but insists that all citizens profess that religion’s beliefs and act in accordance.
America used to be a Christian nation that allowed a broad, though not unlimited, variety of religious actions. Now it is becoming an atheist (secular) nation, and consequently seeks to push traditional Christianity from the public square (hat tip to Father Neuhaus of First Things).
Is not the government as employer held to a different First Amendment standard than private businesses or the Salvation Army?
This is government work. Government is different from the private sector. Government is not and should not be allowed to prohibit behaviors which would be just fine for private, contractual parties to prohibit.
Yes. At least on the basis of the information provided, I agree with you.
When one of my guys comes to me wishing to talk about marital issues, among the first questions I ask is “are any commandments being broken?”
This is not a question a therapist is likely to ask, but the wardens know exactly who and what I am. So they clearly want not just therapy, or a chance to talk things through (though this is part of it) they also want the implicit moral framework provided by a clergy person. They aren’t asking “is this good for me?” they’re asking “is this right?”
BTW, I’ve done three weddings so far this summer, and all three had a gay man and/or a transgendered person in the wedding party!
One of the big differences between me and David Wells is that I minister to adults (or, very rarely, to children at the request of their parents) and while they may be in a vulnerable situation, which it is my responsibility to bear in mind, they are not in custody.
The state is, rightly, more protective of persons whose liberty has been taken away, and whose ability to make free choices is more limited. This is especially true of children.
Here’s a test case for you; a devout evangelical Christian police officer takes a prisoner into custody. En route to the jail, the officer begins to proselytize about sin and salvation, and offers to pull over and pray with his prisoner. Is it okay to try to convert a guy when he’s in handcuffs?
Are you really incapable of distinguishing the role of police officer from that of chaplain?
“Everything within the state, nothing outside the state, nothing against the state.”
No, thank God. (If you need a police officer, you definitely will not be able to make do with me).
But it really happened, and I was called upon to help address it. So I figured I’d throw it at you to see what you thought.
What does that mean?