Aquartet of lawsuits allege the U.S. Navy has engaged in systematic
discrimination against evangelical chaplains, including Southern Baptists.
Five current or former chaplains endorsed by the Southern Baptist
Convention are among 17 plaintiffs in one class action suit. In all, 27 chaplains
are involved in the four suits filed in the past 14 months.
Aquartet of lawsuits allege the U.S. Navy has engaged in systematic
discrimination against evangelical chaplains, including Southern Baptists.
Five current or former chaplains endorsed by the Southern Baptist
Convention are among 17 plaintiffs in one class action suit. In all, 27 chaplains
are involved in the four suits filed in the past 14 months.
Simply put, the suits claim the Navy is violating the First
Amendment by failing to guarantee personnel free exercise of religion, asserted
Art Schulcz, who represents parties in three of the cases.
For example, 12 percent of Navy personnel are members of denominations
classified as “Protestant Liturgical,” a designation that encompasses
Episcopal, Lutheran, Methodist and Presbyterian churches.
However, those denominations hold 35 percent of Navy chaplaincies,
Schulcz said.
Statistics for last year show one chaplain for every 140 members
in the Navy’s “Protestant Liturgical” classification, he said.
At the same time, there is only one chaplain for every 494 members of the “Non-liturgical”
classification, which encompasses such groups as Southern Baptists, Pentecostals
and Church of the Nazarene.
“You’ll see twice as many Baptist Navy personnel
as liturgical (personnel), yet they don’t have twice as many chaplains,”
Schulcz said. “The ultimate victim in all this is the seaman or Marine
who doesn’t get the right to express his First Amendment rights.”
The government does not agree.
In a motion to dismiss the suits, the U.S. Justice Department
argued the suits lacked merit. It said meeting faith needs of Navy personnel
entails more than simply mirroring the breakdown of faiths in the service.
Determining the appropriate composition of faith categories
among chaplains requires professional judgment by officers involving a number
of factors, it said.
As for another stated complaint, the Justice Department said
attempts to promote a general Protestant service on some Navy bases is an effort
to maximize limited resources – such as availability of chaplains and worship
space.
The Justice Department said the plaintiffs are asking for court
action that would set denominational quotas for the Navy.
In turn, those involved in the suits recount instances in which
they say they were denied promotions, forced to retire early or subjected to
retaliation for filing complaints about anti-evangelical bias.
For instance, Robert Adair became a Navy chaplain in 1979.
Despite outstanding service, the Southern Baptist chaplain said a board selected
him for early retirement in 1995. The suit contends religious discrimination
and animosity toward Adair’s faith group were behind the board’s decision.
Southern Baptist chaplain David Wilder claimed he was passed
over for promotions twice and has experienced blatant prejudice on many occasions.
He said these include one instance when a superior told him to conduct a service
foreign to his religious tradition.
Wilder led a general Protestant service in Okinawa early in
the 1990s that averaged 250 to 275 in weekly attendance. An incoming Marine
chaplain suggested improving it, basically by converting it to an Episcopal
service, the filed lawsuit suit says.
Refusal resulted in Wilder’s dismissal as pastor of the
service, the filed suit says. After the other chaplain converted it to an Episcopal
mass, turnouts dwindled to 12. And when Wilder started Baptist worship in the
base theater, the other chaplain accused him of sabotage and tried to close
the service, the suit contends.
In addition to the individual claims, the unconstitutionality
of the Navy’s alleged religious quota system is part of the suit.
Until the mid- to late 1980s, the suit claims the Navy allocated
chaplains among various faith groups on objective criteria. However, because
of a large shift away from Protestant/liturgical denominations that began in
the 1960s, the Navy abandoned these criteria, it argues.
Instead, the Navy divided allocations into thirds – a
third Catholic, a third “Protestant Liturgical” and a third “Non-liturgical”
Christians and non-Christians.
The suit charges the policy allowed liturgicals to keep control
of the chaplain corps while excluding evangelicals. The policy also applied
to promotions, it says.
The lawsuit asks the court to declare this and other policies
unconstitutional, to prohibit the Navy from further discrimination against non-liturgical
chaplains and to eliminate religious quotas in promotions.
Early signs suggest it could happen.
Indeed, in one of the four cases, federal Judge Thomas Whelan
rejected a dismissal move – and indicated there is merit to the stated
concerns.
“The pleadings contain … allegations which suggest the
Navy may be irrationally favoring certain religious groups over others, causing
an unconstitutional religious preference or an infringement upon plaintiff’s
rights to religious freedom, …” Whelan noted in his statement.
“In a society of constant flux, the Establishment Clause
(of the First Amendment) means at least this: neither a state nor the federal
government can set up or support a church. No government can pass laws which
aid one religion, aid all religions or prefer one religion over another.”
An attorney on one of the cases agreed. “It’s a classic First Amendment,
constitutional case,” he said. (BP)